Pass or 4D?

[spuit111]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sxhxxxdjt9xxxxxcx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

W     N         E     S

       1N*     (P)   2N**

(P)  3N*** (P)    ?

 

* 1N = 12-14

 

** 2N = transfer to D (can be weak or strong)

 

*** There re TWO system bids available to N:

 

      - 3C = not Hxx in D

      - 3D = liking D, usually Hxx

 

3N doesn't exist in system, so South is clear North has forgotten system, thought 2N was invitational to 3N.

 

South has UI that N has forgotten the system as 2N was not alerted.

 

Does the 3N bid give authorised info to South that his partner has forgotten system?

 

 

What are South's options?

 

Pass?

 

4D?

 

If 4D is he fielding partner's misbid?

 

If 4D and opps call TD.... What is TD view of 4D?

[helene_t]

The 3NT bid gives S authorized information that North forgot the system so S can do what he wants.

 

4♦ will probably wake up North so I think that would be the best choice.

[jdonn]

I agree a 12-14 notrump couldn't possibly bid 3NT over me showing diamonds with any strength, so the AI tells me partner forgot and I can do what I want. I'm not "fielding" anything, that applies to when I have no (legal) reason to believe partner misbid but pick it off anyway which is not the case here.

 

That said, I really believe you would be better off passing anyway, you accidentally made a great psych and got away with it! Down any amount (even 9) is likely to be a good save.

[Bbradley62]

At least it's a good save until West calls the director and says he would have bid if 2NT had been properly alerted.

 

Edit: removed

Edited July 17, 2010 by Bbradley62

[jdonn]

At least it's a good save until West calls the director and says he would have bid if 2NT had been properly alerted

That's true whether we pass or bid 4♦, it doesn't change what we should do now. It just means we may not be able to end up keeping our score :) but sometimes they just have 13 each or whatever and they have no case.

[peachy]

Does South have UI? Yes. North didn't alert an alertable bid.

Once South has UI, his actions are constrained by the UI laws.

 

Does the anti-system bid of 3NT - which is AI - void the UI? No. The UI does not disappear once it exists in an auction.

In this case the AI clarifies the nature of the UI: North *forgot system* instead of *forgot to alert*, but the most frequent reason for non-alert by far is *forgot system* already so that clarification was not really helpful.

 

What remains is to sort out the legal and illegal logical alternatives for South and rule accordingly. But I don't think any ruling that says South only has AI, or that the UI has disappeared, can be correct.

[MickyB]

Does South have UI? Yes. North didn't alert an alertable bid.

Once South has UI, his actions are constrained by the UI laws.

 

Does the anti-system bid of 3NT - which is AI - void the UI? No. The UI does not disappear once it exists in an auction.

In this case the AI clarifies the nature of the UI: North *forgot system* instead of *forgot to alert*, but the most frequent reason for non-alert by far is *forgot system* already so that clarification was not really helpful.

 

What remains is to sort out the legal and illegal logical alternatives for South and rule accordingly. But I don't think any ruling that says South only has AI, or that the UI has disappeared, can be correct.

This is wrong. You have AI that partner forgot the system, there is no further UI.

[campboy]

Disagree, although it is a technical point. You still have UI (partner didn't alert) as well as AI (partner bid 3NT), it is just that the UI no longer suggests anything because the same inferences are available from the AI.

[TimG]

Disagree, although it is a technical point. You still have UI (partner didn't alert) as well as AI (partner bid 3NT), it is just that the UI no longer suggests anything because the same inferences are available from the AI.

Well, technically the UI still suggests something, it's just that the AI also suggests something and the AI can be acted upon.

[bluejak]

Does South have UI?  Yes. North didn't alert an alertable bid.

Once South has UI, his actions are constrained by the UI laws.

 

Does the anti-system bid of 3NT - which is AI - void the UI?   No. The UI does not disappear once it exists in an auction.

In this case the AI clarifies the nature of the UI: North *forgot system* instead of *forgot to alert*, but the most frequent reason for non-alert by far is *forgot system* already so that clarification was not really helpful. 

 

What remains is to sort out the legal and illegal logical alternatives for South and rule accordingly.  But I don't think any ruling that says South only has AI, or that the UI has disappeared, can be correct.

This is wrong. You have AI that partner forgot the system, there is no further UI.

There is no mention of "further UI" in my copy of the Law book.

 

peachy is 100% right, and the moment you adopt a different approach you will rule wrong. If UI is given to partner then Law 16B applies, not "unless there is some AI that cancels it" or any other way you like to put it. The Law does not say that.

 

In this case the failure to alert gives UI and nothing cancels it because there is no such thing as cancelling UI.

 

When UI is received from partner a player follows Law 73C and the TD applies Law 16B. Any AI that is floating around affects LAs.

 

We might easily argue that passing 3NT is not an LA so we do not adjust if the player bids 4♦: that is legal. We do not rule that the UI is cancelled because it is not.

[RMB1]

I like to think of it differently; that is, differently from the posters before bluejak, whose post snuck in before mine. The AI constrains the logical alternatives, the UI determines what is suggested over what. The UI suggests 4♦ over Pass; were Pass a logical alternative then 4♦ would not be allowed. Edited July 17, 2010 by RMB1

[campboy]

Well, technically the UI still suggests something, it's just that the AI also suggests something and the AI can be acted upon.

That's definitely not right. If you have UI (and Mike's viewpoint that the amount of information you now have from the failure to alert is zero, and no I means no UI*, is reasonable), and there are LAs, and the UI suggests one over another, then Law 16B (which does not mention AI) says that you may not choose that alternative. AI merely affects what is logical and what is suggested by the UI.

 

*"There's no TV! Have you seen a TV, Mike? I haven't seen a TV. Do you know what it means when there's no TV? No MTV!" - The Lost Boys

[jdonn]

Peachy is right but her point is not relevant. The UI doesn't disappear, but when there is undeniably strong AI that gives the same information then the UI becomes meaningless.

 

Like what if, somehow, before the hand started I had UI that partner holds at least 5 hearts. Partner then opens 1♥ playing 5 card majors. I don't have to ignore what is plainly obvious just because I have UI that it's true, when I also have AI that proves it is true.

 

It's essentially another way of saying what campboy did. In this case it is illogical to assume partner remembered what 2NT meant and bid 3NT. So there are no logical alternatives that should be based on partner knowing 2NT is a transfer to diamonds and the UI is no longer relevant.

[nigel_k]

3N doesn't exist in system, so South is clear North has forgotten system ...

I'm always a bit skeptical about these kind of assertions. Aren't there plenty of people who will bid 3NT over 2NT with something like:

 

AQx

xxxx

Axxx

Ax

 

If partner does something non-systemic you need to start by considering whether they may have an unusual hand or their hand has been improved by the bidding in an unusual way.

[dburn]

The 3NT bid gives S authorized information that North forgot the system so S can do what he wants.

 

4♦ will probably wake up North so I think that would be the best choice.

Well, perhaps. But it is not completely clear to me that "the 3NT bid gives South authorized information that North forgot the system".

 

Suppose, as South should pretend has happened, North alerted 2NT, explained it as "diamonds, may be very weak", and then bid 3NT over it. What would South conclude now?

 

It is all very well for the original poster to say that "there are only two bids over 2NT in our system - 3♣ if we don't like diamonds and 3♦ if we do". Maybe the original poster would never bid 3NT over 2NT with such as

 

♠xxxx ♥Ax ♦Axxx ♣AQx

 

but I am pretty sure that I would - after all, it would be nice to steal a game facing six diamonds to the king and nothing. And if we didn't make a game, maybe the opponents would have come to life and bid their own game (4♥) after our side had passed itself out in three diamonds.

 

The important point, though, is this: it is almost never open to you to conclude from the auction alone that you have AI that partner has forgotten the system. You are expected to be completely oblivious to his alerts, non-alerts, responses to questions, and the like - you are expected to proceed as if he is bidding in accordance with your side's methods until the overwhelming preponderance of evidence from your own hand and the opponents' bidding tells you that he is not.

 

On the actual hand, I'd pass 3NT like a rocket. Maybe he'll have three diamonds to the ace, and we'll make it on our combined 13 count. But that is not really the issue. South does not have AI that his partner has forgotten the system, and he cannot proceed as though he does.

[campboy]

Suppose, as South should pretend has happened, North alerted 2NT, explained it as "diamonds, may be very weak", and then bid 3NT over it. What would South conclude now?

Why on earth should South pretend anything of the kind? It is what he might conclude with no UI to guide him that is relevant, not what he might conclude with different UI.

 

Now you or I might conclude (without UI) that partner bid 3NT because he hopes to make it opposite a hand which would pass 3♦; we must not bid 4♦ if partner did not alert 2NT, since that would be using UI. However, there is certainly a class of player who would always conclude (without UI) that partner had forgotten the system; such a player must not pass if partner correctly alerted and explained 2NT, since that would be using UI.

[dburn]

Suppose, as South should pretend has happened, North alerted 2NT, explained it as "diamonds, may be very weak", and then bid 3NT over it. What would South conclude now?

Why on earth should South pretend anything of the kind? It is what he might conclude with no UI to guide him that is relevant, not what he might conclude with different UI.

It is not so, and the Law expressly says that it is not so:

 

When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from [...] an unexpected [...] failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information.

Of course, the information that partner has remembered the system is in some sense UI to you, but it is reasonable to suppose that the "information" that partner has remembered the system is not in fact information at all - he is supposed to do that, and you are obliged to proceed as if he has in fact done that until you have evidence from legal calls and plays that he has not.

[campboy]

Law 16A is quite clear that the information of whether partner alerted or not is extraneous, and no play or call may be based on it, whether or not it is "unexpected". The fact that the full force of some other laws might not apply when the alert, or failure to alert, is expected does not change this. If I were to base a call on the extraneous information that partner hs remembered the system, when with no extraneous information I might conclude from the auction that he had forgotten it, then I would be breaking Law 16A, and the fact that I would not also be breaking law 73C (although that is at best debatable, since the wording of law 73C makes it quite clear that the list therein of possible ways in which one can have UI is not exhaustive) is neither here nor there.

 

Law 73C is quite clear that he should carefully avoid taking any advantage from the UI of partner's failure to alert. That does not mean deliberately giving himself a disadvantage in a situation where the UI cannot possibly advantage him since it tells him nothing he would not have assumed anyway. Now if it were not true that this player would have assumed a system forget without the UI then yes, there would be advantage from the UI. And it is up to the TD to decide whether that is the case. But this bizarre idea that you should consider what might have happened with different UI has no basis in law.

[jdonn]

Who are these people bidding 3NT opposite any hand with diamonds? I have (barely) seen it with a strong notrump, and even then it's something most people would never do. I will faint if anyone here has ever seen it happen by a weak notrump in their entire lives, and I will cry if we have to base our interpretation of the law on a minority action holding exactly 1 possible hand with the aces and spots rearranged.

 

This is where I believe so many go wrong when it's something like 1NT X 2♥ p 2♠, 2♥ was meant to play but announced as transfer. Who cares if your neighbor's second cousin from Wisconsin once psyched a notrump opening with spades and then forgot to pass partner's signoff? The 2♠ bid makes it clear to anyone not living in a fantasy land that partner took 2♥ as a transfer.

 

Bridge can't be played (or ruled!) this way. In my first example where I had UI partner has 5+ hearts and then he opens 1♥, what if one day 3 years ago I saw him open 1♥ on a doubleton? Since I have UI that he has 5+ hearts as well as the AI of the opening bid I have to assume his 1♥ opening was on a doubleton here? Where does it stop? What if he gave the wrong response to blackwood once? Opened 1NT out of range? Common sense is allowed!

[dburn]

Law 16A is quite clear that the information of whether partner alerted or not is extraneous, and no play or call may be based on it, whether or not it is "unexpected".

On the contrary, Law 16A says that:

 

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by [...] an unexpected alert* or failure to alert

*where "unexpected" is defined in a footnote as "unexpected in relation to the basis of his action".

 

Curiously enough, the same wording and the same footnote appear in Law 73, but one of these days the Lawmakers will do one of the following: eliminate words that appear once in the Laws and once in what used to be the Proprieties; or create another section in which the words appear again, on what is known as the "Bellman Principle".

 

Now, much debate has arisen since the publication of the 2007/8 Laws as to whether information from expected alerts is authorised. The prevailing view is that such information is authorised, because:

 

the 1997 Laws contained no reference to alerts at all;

 

so that when a reference to alerts was introduced in the 2007/8 Laws it used the word "unexpected" for a reason;

 

and by the principle of "exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis", it follows that information from expected alerts is authorised;

 

quod erat demonstrandum.

 

Of course, there are certain practical difficulties with this - for example, it will prove useful to employers of the Gerber convention in murky auctions. But what it means is what I have already said, which is this: you are entitled to assume that your partner knows what your bids mean, and you must proceed on the assumption that he knows what your bids mean and has (unbeknown to you) alerted them correctly and explained them correctly to the opponents, unless and until you have legally acquired evidence to the contrary.

 

That is: you may not (without screens) "guess" successfully that partner has forgotten the system; if you make a call predicated on the assumption that he has, you must show your working.

 

For the present, where you err is to say that "Law 16A is quite clear that the information of whether partner alerted or not is extraneous" - that is not so. The information of whether partner has unexpectedly alerted or not is extraneous, but if he behaves as you expect, you are presumed to have no information, extraneous or otherwise.

[dburn]

I will faint if anyone here has ever seen it happen by a weak notrump in their entire lives

Happened only the other day at TGRs. I had

 

♠xx ♥xx ♦Kx ♣Qxxxxxx

 

Partner opened a weak no trump, I bid 2♣, he bid 2♥, I bid 3♣ - a sign-off. He (who knew beyond any shadow of doubt that it was a sign-off) bid 3NT with ♠Jxxx ♥Qxxx ♦Ax ♣AKx and they led a diamond. Should we give them their money back?

[jdonn]

Not any money, probably just an alert that 3♣ is really invitational since partner will bid 3NT if he can see 7 or more tricks and has at least one outside suit stopped. But duly fainted.

 

So how would you rule here if the player bid 4♦ and later claimed he has never even considered nor heard of the possibility of someone bidding 3NT over a minor suit sign off?

[peachy]

Peachy is right but her point is not relevant. The UI doesn't disappear, but when there is undeniably strong AI that gives the same information then the UI becomes meaningless.

My point is relevant.

It is a UI case and the laws to be applied in ruling are the UI laws. I would allow 4D, but not because of some idea that "there was no UI" or that "the UI should be ignored" or "that the UI became meaningless".

[dburn]

A thought: if you allow 4♦, in what circumstances would you allow North to pass it?

[dburn]

Not any money, probably just an alert that 3♣ is really invitational since partner will bid 3NT if he can see 7 or more tricks and has at least one outside suit stopped. But duly fainted.

 

So how would you rule here if the player bid 4♦ and later claimed he has never even considered nor heard of the possibility of someone bidding 3NT over a minor suit sign off?

3♣ is not "really invitational". I assure you that anyone at TGRs would bid the same way with ♠xx ♥xx ♦xxx ♣xxxxxx (just as I am sure you would playing for money or even for matchpoints facing a weak no trump - important to start bidding before the opponents do, and lucky to have this sequence available because it is the most likely to stop LHO bidding for one round at least).

 

As to how I would rule in the actual case, I don't know, because I don't know what happened in the actual case. Whatever the actual North-South agreements, South on not hearing his partner's non-alert of 2NT is supposed to bid as though the auction had proceeded 1NT-2NT (may be very weak with diamonds) - 3NT (from a North who knows that South may be very weak with diamonds). Whether South did or did not so proceed, or how South should or should not have proceeded, is unclear.

 

As I said, I'd have passed, but on reflection maybe I should bid five diamonds. What I cannot do (and what I would stake my life that the actual South did) is bid four diamonds and fold up my cards. After all, systemically 2NT could also be strong with diamonds, so 4♦ might be a slam try without a club control, might it not?

 

It is a capital mistake to theorize without data, and until the OP gives us some more data I will not theorize further. But I bet that after all was said and done, North had some UI also.