Pass or 4D?

[mrdct]

With or without the alerts, non-alerts and non-systemic 3NT bid, south is looking a one-count with an 8-card suit opposite a weak 1NT. I couldn't possibly imagine any vaguely sensible player taking any action other than pass.

 

Yes, I have UI here that partner has probably forgotten that 2NT is a transfer and is treating it as invitational, but so what? If he'd alerted 2NT and described it as a transfer to ♦ and then pulled out a non-systemic 3NT bid it would still need to be some sort of super-accept of ♦ in which case we could very easily have 8 ♦ tricks and just need a 9th trick to come out in the wash. In any case what could be bad about playing 3NT undoubled when the opponents have 25-27hcp on a hand where 8-card suits are floating around?

[mjj29]

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.

Surely not, law 16A lists the information which a player may use (paraphrasing: it derives from legal calls and plays of the current board (unless affected by UI from another source); it is authorized information from a withdrawn source; it is information that a law specifies as authorized; it is information possessed before the board (unless specified otherrwise); estimates of your score or your opponents' traits.) It then goes on to say:

No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous.

The list in 16B is a list of examples and therefore not exhaustive, 16A is canonical, unless another law specifies it as authorized, which 16B does not, it just does not list is as unauthorized.

 

Going back to the hand in the OP, I agree that pass is an LA and 4D is probably suggested. I also agree that 3N undoubled is probably a good score anyway, so I would have passed. If they are playing MPs the director may end up ruling no damage because both everyone else is playing in a game the other way (-:

[bluejak]

At a London Congress a few years ago, Jason Hackett opened 1NT, his partner bid 2♣ which he announced as Stayman and he responded 6♥.

 

If you were his partner would you assume Jason Hackett had forgotten the responses to Stayman?

 

I really do not know why there is this pressure from some posters to avoid applying the Law as it stands. Law 16 gives us an approach in the presence of UI based on what is suggested by the UI and what are the LAs: why on earth not follow it? Why talk about meaningless UI and cancelled UI and other concepts that do not apply?

 

Has your partner never made an impossible bid? Of course he has. When he did so did it mean 100% of the time that he had forgotten the system? Really? And why do you need this concept? Solely to avoid applying the Law? I do not see the point.

[JLOGIC]

Aren't there plenty of people who will bid 3NT over 2NT with something like:

 

AQx

xxxx

Axxx

Ax

This hand is impossible given our hand, so I don't see why it's a relevant example?

[gordontd]

Aren't there plenty of people who will bid 3NT over 2NT with something like:

 

AQx

xxxx

Axxx

Ax

This hand is impossible given our hand,

How so?

[RMB1]

If opener has 4 diamonds opposite J109xxxx we are only missing one card, so partner has two of the top three honours.

[jdonn]

Aren't there plenty of people who will bid 3NT over 2NT with something like:

 

AQx

xxxx

Axxx

Ax

This hand is impossible given our hand,

How so?

How many diamond x's are in the deck?

[jdonn]

I really do not know why there is this pressure from some posters to avoid applying the Law as it stands.  Law 16 gives us an approach in the presence of UI based on what is suggested by the UI and what are the LAs: why on earth not follow it?  Why talk about meaningless UI and cancelled UI and other concepts that do not apply?

Because the law makes no sense when all information from the UI is easily available through AI. It's for much the same reason that this exists. (Also note it says "to a very high degree of probability" not "100%").

[RMB1]

Because the law makes no sense when all information from the UI is easily available through AI.

But the UI says partner has forgotten the agreement concerning 2NT, the AI says partner has forgotten the agreement concerning 3NT.

 

It is clearer to think in terms of logical alternatives and actions suggested over alternatives by unauthorised information.

[jdonn]

Because the law makes no sense when all information from the UI is easily available through AI.

But the UI says partner has forgotten the agreement concerning 2NT, the AI says partner has forgotten the agreement concerning 3NT.

My quoted statement was in general, not about this case.

[Vampyr]

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.

Interesting, all this from a member of the Laws & Ethics Committee. Last year, at a national event, we had a hand where the auction by the unopposed opponents began: 1x-1y-1NT-2♣-3♣. 2♣ - unalerted - was checkback, where the "only" systemic rebids were 2♠ and below. The director said the the opponent "knew that his partner had forgotten the system, so was a free agent". The appeals committee agreed, and the L&EC upheld our losing our deposit.

[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".

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".

Um, no. That is law 16B. Law 16A lists the various sources of information that may be used by the player -- which do not include partner's alerts, expected or otherwise -- and then says "no player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous)".

[bluejak]

Interesting, all this from a member of the Laws & Ethics Committee. Last year, at a national event, we had a hand where the auction by the unopposed opponents began: 1x-1y-1NT-2♣-3♣. 2♣ - unalerted - was checkback, where the "only" systemic rebids were 2♠ and below. The director said the the opponent "knew that his partner had forgotten the system, so was a free agent". The appeals committee agreed, and the L&EC upheld our losing our deposit.

Well, yes, but it really was not like the way you have described it here. It was far more complex, and discussed at length here. If you had merely said what you suggest here and nothing else I think you would have kept your deposit.