Possibly Inverted Raise

[Finch]

Unlikely - the hand occurred this year in Brighton. I was part of the AC with Jeffrey and Mike Ash

Ah yes - it looks familiar because Jeffrey told me about it at Brighton.

There was a similar hand in one of the appeals booklets from a few years ago.

In that one, the auction was

 

P p 1D P

2D P P ?

 

and the player in the passout seat protected them into game.

 

This auction is obviously different because (i) a 3rd seat 1D opener is much much much more suspect than a second seat one and (ii) it is reasonably common to play inverted raises by a passed hand but to play them as non-forcing,

[lamford]

I am coming to this thread a bit late. I agree with the two possible scenarios indicated by jallerton, but I think that one has to assume that partner has psyched, unless it is overwhelmingly likely that he has not. What "overwhelmingly" means in terms of percentage is up to the TD or AC to decide, I guess.

 

If West had alerted 2C, described it as forcing, and then passed, I bet you East would have shrugged and passed over 2H, but again he would be using UI. This time he must assume that partner has forgotten the methods, as it is the UI that confirms partner has psyched, rather than just the pass. This is a little different to partner making a 1NT overcall and then passing Stayman, but even then the possibility that partner thinks it is weak and non-forcing, which I know to be some players' methods, must not be discounted.

 

I am intrigued to know the decision of the eminent AC.

[jallerton]

I am coming to this thread a bit late. I agree with the two possible scenarios indicated by jallerton, but I think that one has to assume that partner has psyched, unless it is overwhelmingly likely that he has not. What "overwhelmingly" means in terms of percentage is up to the TD or AC to decide, I guess.

This is where different laws and regulations can lead to different conclusions.

 

The UI might suggest that a player is obliged to act as you say, but the Orange Book regulations on psyching suggest that you should never assume that partner has psyched unless nothing else makes sense.

[jallerton]

The AC found this to be a difficult case as there were a few issues to consider.

 

1. Unauthorised information

 

East has UI. As I mentioned earlier, without the UI, there are two logical possibilities from East's point of view: either partner is not on the same wavelength, or he has psyched his 1♣ opening.

 

It seemed to us that if screens were in use, East would take an action (such as 2♥ or redouble) which caters for both possibilities and hence he is perfectly entitled to do the same thing here (or, to put it another way, there is no logical alternative to taking such an action).

 

2. Misinformation - was there an infraction?

 

The AC took up PeterE's suggestion and asked the TD to explain why he had ruled there to be an infraction. He reiterated that he felt N/S ought to be entitled to know about the "no agreement" but could not explain why this meant E/W ought to alert. The TD kindly lent us his printout of the Orange Book.

 

One sad AC member knew the relevant Orange Book references and asked the Chairman to consider paragraphs 5B5 and 5B10:

 

5 B 5 If there is no alert and no announcement, opponents can assume that there is no agreement that the call falls within an alertable or announceable category.

 

5 B 10 A player who is not sure whether a call made is alertable, but who is going to act as though it is, should alert the call, as the partnership is likely to be considered to have an agreement, especially if the player’s partner’s actions are also consistent with that agreement.

 

Had West subsequently acted on the basis that 2♣ was forcing, them according to 5B10, he would have been obliged to alert it. However, as West was plainly interpreting the 2♣ bid as non-forcing, a corollary of OB 5B10 is that he was under no obligation to alert the call.

 

Hence the AC concluded that if there was no agreement about the meaning of 2♣ then:

 

the failure to alert was not an infraction; and

 

if there was no infraction then the table result should stand.

 

3 What was the real E/W agreement?

 

The TD was "convinced" that E/W had no agreement about 2♣ but was he right to be so convinced?

 

The AC asked East and West whether this auction had ever come up before, to which they replied "no" (perhaps the TD had already asked the same question to explain his finding of "no agreement").

 

However, the AC reflected that:

 

(i) East/West had been playing together for several years [if the players had not been known to the AC, then this is certainly something the AC should have asked about]; hence

 

(ii) East and West must have played thousands of boards together; hence

 

(iii) notwithstanding the reports of East and West, the not unusual sequence of 1♣-(1suit)-2♣ must have come up several times before for this pair, in all probability.

 

(iv) if the sequence really was undiscussed, would East really have risked a 2♣ bid when he had an attractive less ambiguous call (2♥) available?

 

It was therefore determined that E/W probably did have an agreement. In accordance with Law 75C, the AC ruled on the basis that the agreement had been misexplained, i.e. that 2♣ was forcing.

 

Whilst we believed that North would now be inclined to pass out 2♣, we were happy to leave the 20% weighting of -460 as even given the explanation of “forcing” North might have protected anyway (after all, from his point of view, Opener might have psyched - he has just passed a forcing bid!).

 

Maybe if we had not spent quite so long discussing the principles, we might have spent more time discussing the weighting, but as it was we left the TD's weighted adjustment to stand, but with different reasoning.

[lamford]

The UI might suggest that a player is obliged to act as you say, but the Orange Book regulations on psyching suggest that you should never assume that partner has psyched unless nothing else makes sense.

When they conflict, which one takes priority? I would have thought The Laws of Bridge should.

[Pict]

Perhaps, as I suggested earlier, we have had some absolutist posts about Law 73 - 'can't take any advantage'.

 

But it seems in the real world of TDs and ACs Law 73 is strictly deemed unworkable?

[jallerton]

The UI might suggest that a player is obliged to act as you say, but the Orange Book regulations on psyching suggest that you should never assume that partner has psyched unless nothing else makes sense.

When they conflict, which one takes priority? I would have thought The Laws of Bridge should.

Well the Orange Book psyching regulations are based on the EBU's interpretation of Law 40. Which takes priority out of Law 40 and Laws 73/16?

[lamford]

Well the Orange Book psyching regulations are based on the EBU's interpretation of Law 40. Which takes priority out of Law 40 and Laws 73/16?

A complex question. If East passes over the double of 2C, he will certainly be avoiding take advantage of the UI. Also, he "knows" really that partner has not psyched, from the UI, and he knows that passing is likely to get a bad result. In this example, by concluding his partner has psyched, East is not really breaching Law 40, because he is not gaining an advantage by so concluding.

 

So, in answer to your question, the one he follows is the one that he thinks is least favourable to him - at least that would be my approach.

 

Let us say that partner opens 1H and you respond 1NT which is forcing. Partner does not alert and they protect in the passout seat. You know that is very unlikely that partner has psyched, but here I think you have to assume he has. In short I think 73C is absolute, and "carefully avoid" a very clear instruction.

[bluejak]

But it seems in the real world of TDs and ACs Law 73 is strictly deemed unworkable?

Why?

[Pict]

But it seems in the real world of TDs and ACs Law 73 is strictly deemed unworkable?

Why?

When East bid 2C and there was no alert, he immediately had UI that his bid had been misunderstood.

 

When East bid 2H, without any extra values that I can see, rather than pass, he rescued the situation for his side, in seeming contravention of Law 73.

 

It appears from the discussion that many posters believe it possible to argue away Law 73.

 

1. Because West's pass gave AI of the misunderstanding (but we are often told that subsequent AI does not 'trump' UI. I've been told this myself in this Forum)

 

2. There was no agreement, because East and West had a different idea of their system. But what has this to do with Law 73 - which applies to the responsibilities of an individual player in receipt of UI.

 

So all I was saying is that for this AC, or at least a majority of them, Law 73 could be argued away, despite the absolute way it is written.

 

This leaves me with a great uncertainty as a player. With UI and AI, can I prefer the injunction to play to win, to the injunction to avoid taking advantage of UI, or can I not . I'd just like to know.

[campboy]

1. Because West's pass gave AI of the misunderstanding (but we are often told that subsequent AI does not 'trump' UI. I've been told this myself in this Forum)

It depends what you mean. When you have AI (subsequent or otherwise) you still have the UI and you must still carefully avoid taking advantage, in particular by not selecting an action which is demonstrably suggested over a logical alternative.

However, the presence of AI may mean that some actions are no longer logical alternatives and it may mean that the UI no longer demonstrably suggests anything (or changes which action is suggested).

 

Anyway, my reading of the EBU regulations concerning psyches suggests that catering for a psyche on this auction would not necessarly be considered fielding. WB 40.1.4 says:

Some examples of types of auction in which it is clear that the last caller may have a hand materially different from that which the auction to date has suggested:

(a) most auctions in which a player either passes when the partnership

agreements require a bid, or bids when the partnership agreement requires

a redouble;

(B) most auctions in which a player has bid two or more suits, has been given

preference by partner, been doubled for penalties, and bids another suit.

Of course a partnership agreement (which may be implicit, eg following repetitions of such incidents) relating to such an action is likely to be unauthorised, and so may give rise to an adjusted score (see Orange Book).

[lamford]

It seemed to us that if screens were in use, East would take an action (such as 2♥ or redouble) which caters for both possibilities and hence he is perfectly entitled to do the same thing here (or, to put it another way, there is no logical alternative to taking such an action).

I disagree with this. If screens were in use, East would not have the UI of the lack of an alert of 2C. Here he does, and must "carefully avoid" taking any advantage of this UI. I think all bids, or a redouble, after North's double are demonstrably suggested, and Pass is the only 73C compliant call.

[Pict]

However, the presence of AI may mean that some actions are no longer logical alternatives and it may mean that the UI no longer demonstrably suggests anything (or changes which action is suggested).

I can see that if I have no choice about what to do, then I can't breach 73C.

 

But it can hardly be said that East has no choice in this case. What would you bid if partner had alerted, explained the 2C as inverted and then passed? Do you believe you have no choices to make? Perhaps you just meant to explain how AI could narrow choices, without relating it to this post.

 

By the way, 73C does not mention 'demonstrably suggested'. If we decide that 73C, despite what it says, is exactly equivalent in its effect to Law 16, then I don't mind, because then I have one process to understand: I might wonder why we have both Laws but that is another matter.

 

The bottom line for me is that I view the OP as describing a blatant violation of Law 73C. Of course I can be wrong (though not just because you don't like my attitude). Many posts relate to MI or to Law 16, or to inadequacies in the stated reason for appeal, or to what it means to say someone has an agreement. I just wonder why the TD and AC chose to ignore or discount Law 73 in their decisions. I can't see that they are allowed to do that, and I'd like to understand because currently I regard myself as bound by 73C.

[Free]

I wonder why North should ask about the 2♣ call. It's not alerted, and opener passed. So what's the point? Letting West look at you like you're a moron?

[campboy]

I didn't mean to suggest that there were no LAs in this particular case.

 

As to what I'd do at the table, that depends. Playing with screens, if I knew that 2♣ was forcing in our methods then I would presume partner had psyched whereas if I didn't think we had an agreement (or didn't know what it was), then I would presume partner took it as non-forcing. So without screens I would take the same action whether partner alerts or not, but what that action is depends on how confident I was about bidding 2♣.

 

Of course, if I wasn't sure 2♣ was forcing I would have bid something else in the first place.

[Pict]

I didn't mean to suggest that there were no LAs in this particular case.

 

As to what I'd do at the table, that depends. Playing with screens, if I knew that 2♣ was forcing in our methods then I would presume partner had psyched whereas if I didn't think we had an agreement (or didn't know what it was), then I would presume partner took it as non-forcing. So without screens I would take the same action whether partner alerts or not, but what that action is depends on how confident I was about bidding 2♣.

 

Of course, if I wasn't sure 2♣ was forcing I would have bid something else in the first place.

Considering the case where partner alerts and passes is just a useful mental exercise to validate any notion that you 'had to' bid on.

 

I agree with Lamford that playing with screens is not a good analogy, because you have no UI in that case, so there seems nothing to compare.

 

I would not personally base any argument on the notion that West has psyched since it seems to me very much less probable than a misbid - system, mechanical or temporary aberration. I don't see how I can claim to avoid catering for an extremely unlikely pysch while catering for a much more probable forget.

 

Of course if you tell me this pair never forgets and partner often psychs that is different in general, but hardly fits this particular case, which will immediately falsify your proposition!

[aguahombre]

I agree with Lamford that playing with screens is not a good analogy, because you have no UI in that case, so there seems nothing to compare.

It is not a good analogy, but since North and East are screen mates it would change everything. There may be no UI, but there might well be undisclosed information from partnership experience.

 

North will have been alerted to the nature of 2C. When it comes back to him, the OP has a statement by North that he would have passed it out with the proper information. This might not be the thing to do if opener had, in fact, psyched. Should East volunteer, for instance, that his partner has never psyched in her life before North acts?

[jallerton]

It seemed to us that if screens were in use, East would take an action (such as 2♥ or redouble) which caters for both possibilities and hence he is perfectly entitled to do the same thing here (or, to put it another way, there is no logical alternative to taking such an action).

I disagree with this. If screens were in use, East would not have the UI of the lack of an alert of 2C. Here he does, and must "carefully avoid" taking any advantage of this UI. I think all bids, or a redouble, after North's double are demonstrably suggested, and Pass is the only 73C compliant call.

Why? Imagine for a moment that you are in East's position and you happen to know from authorised information that partner has psyched. What do you know about the hand?

 

1. Partner probably lacks opening values, but you know nothing about his shape.

 

2. Both opponents are limited to an extent (RHO started with a simple overcall. LHO has passed twice) so the opponents' bidding and East's own strength suggest that this is a part score deal.

 

3. E/W are not vulnerable at Pairs, so -50 or -100 will be better than conceding a making part score.

 

Hence Pass would be a poor choice of call, in my opinion.

 

In which suit should East compete? East doesn't know, because West's shape is not known. Is there a solution? Yes: cue bid the opponents' suit and hopefully partner will bid 3♣ if he has some length there (East's 2♣ bid is authorised to West) and otherwise West can bid his longest suit!

[jallerton]

However, the presence of AI may mean that some actions are no longer logical alternatives and it may mean that the UI no longer demonstrably suggests anything (or changes which action is suggested).

I can see that if I have no choice about what to do, then I can't breach 73C.

 

But it can hardly be said that East has no choice in this case. What would you bid if partner had alerted, explained the 2C as inverted and then passed? Do you believe you have no choices to make? Perhaps you just meant to explain how AI could narrow choices, without relating it to this post.

 

By the way, 73C does not mention 'demonstrably suggested'. If we decide that 73C, despite what it says, is exactly equivalent in its effect to Law 16, then I don't mind, because then I have one process to understand: I might wonder why we have both Laws but that is another matter.

 

The bottom line for me is that I view the OP as describing a blatant violation of Law 73C. Of course I can be wrong (though not just because you don't like my attitude). Many posts relate to MI or to Law 16, or to inadequacies in the stated reason for appeal, or to what it means to say someone has an agreement. I just wonder why the TD and AC chose to ignore or discount Law 73 in their decisions. I can't see that they are allowed to do that, and I'd like to understand because currently I regard myself as bound by 73C.

Consider the three different scenarios:

 

1. Playing without screens, partner does not alert 2♣ and then passes.

 

2. Playing without screens, partner does alert 2♣ and then passes.

 

3. Playing with screens, partner passes 2♣.

 

It is my contention that this East would almost certainly have bid 2♥ in scenario 2 or scenario 3. It is matter of fact that this East did bid 2♥ at the table (scernario 1).

 

Law 73C says:-

 

When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information.

 

If it is judged that the player would have made the same call in both the other two of the three possible scenarios above then he has clearly not taken any advantage from the UI.

[jallerton]

I agree with Lamford that playing with screens is not a good analogy, because you have no UI in that case, so there seems nothing to compare.

It is not a good analogy, but since North and East are screen mates it would change everything. There may be no UI, but there might well be undisclosed information from partnership experience.

 

North will have been alerted to the nature of 2C. When it comes back to him, the OP has a statement by North that he would have passed it out with the proper information. This might not be the thing to do if opener had, in fact, psyched. Should East volunteer, for instance, that his partner has never psyched in her life before North acts?

Playing with screens is a very good analogy when considering the effect of UI, as it is a very good way of asessing the logical alternatives; similarly, when polling players to assess logical alternatives we do not tell them about the UI.

 

Playing with screens is not always such a good analogy when considering the MI aspects, because in theory a player is only allowed to know about the opponents' agreements and sometimes a player receives additional information from his screenmate as a quirk of the screen regulations.

[Vampyr]

message deleted

[lamford]

It is my contention that this East would almost certainly have bid 2♥ in scenario 2.

You were on the AC and would have been better able to judge, but if a number of peers of East would have considered pass, and some would have selected it, then Pass becomes an LA. I was not there, so could not judge that, not even knowing who East was.

[bluejak]

If it is judged that the player would have made the same call in both the other two of the three possible scenarios above then he has clearly not taken any advantage from the UI.

That's not right, is it? When a player has UI from partner he does not take the same action as he would take without the UI. In nearly every case a player has a choice - otherwise why do players take so long thinking during the auction? - and some calls are no longer legal in the presence of UI. Even if it is a fact that he would have made the call in different circumstances, that does not make it legal, and being sure of what a player would do is a fairly dubious approach anyway.

[jallerton]

Sorry, David. Perhaps I did not express myself clearly enough.

 

If, hypothetically speaking:

 

(i) the player were allowed to know that partner had alerted 2♣, he would want to bid 2♥; and

 

(ii) the player were allowed to know that partner had not alerted 2♣, he would want to bid 2♥; and

 

(iii) the player did not know whether his partner had alerted 2♣ or not he would want to bid 2♥

 

then the UI from the alert or lack therof cannot possibly have affected his bidding and there can be no breach of Law 73C (no advantage taken of any UI).

[blackshoe]

This sounds like just another way to say "there is no LA to 2♥ for this player".