Possibly Inverted Raise

[Pict]

I hesitate to intrude, but I still think pass by East is so blindingly an option (LA) that I still am reluctant to accept jallerton's position.

 

Of course jallerton is honest and was there, but I think he might admit to an extreme position on the importance of AI in UI situations - would he?

[lamford]

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.

If partner can have anything, then North-South can still have the balance of points or even game. North might be quite good for 1H - a lot of players with a good 4-5 in the majors will overcall 1H and then double back in. South won't have primary heart support, but can have a few values, but not suitable for some action on the previous round. It is rare that partner will psyche 1C second in hand - almost unheard of in my experience - but I could not imagine someone thinking 2C was inverted here either. The MI argument of the AC was well handled, and we are only arguing about the 20% of 460 - whether East-West deserve this. If I was North, I would get a good feel of how likely this inverted explanation was in reality, and whether West had ever psyched a 1C bid second in hand. In practice I would expect to work out what had happened and pass it out.

[mjj29]

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.

I agree with jallerton here, which is not to say that the score could not be adjusted under L16.

 

IMHO if a player genuinely believes they have taken the action which they would have (always) taken anyway then they are not in breach of L73, but it may be judged by their peers that they had an LA and the score still be adjusted. Generally I would assess score adjustment under L16 and PPs under L73 and always tell players that their responsibility is to try and obey L73 , not to try and avoid things which would be judged under L16 as an LA.

[Pict]

I agree with jallerton here, which is not to say that the score could not be adjusted under L16.

 

IMHO if a player genuinely believes they have taken the action which they would have (always) taken anyway then they are not in breach of L73, but it may be judged by their peers that they had an LA and the score still be adjusted. Generally I would assess score adjustment under L16 and PPs under L73 and always tell players that their responsibility is to try and obey L73 , not to try and avoid things which would be judged under L16 as an LA.

Well I happen to disagree with some of what of you say.

 

The reasonable possible bids for East at the critical point are:

 

Pass

Redouble

2H

3C

 

We have concentrated on some of these to indulge discussion about 'psychs', but for no other good reason.

 

In the continuing absence of the views of the many TD's we have online, I will now withdraw my objections to jallerton's logic.

 

I have always preferred the idea that players can continue to play Bridge, in all circumstances. This thread has confirmed my conviction.

[bluejak]

Play bridge according to the rules, or play bridge despite the rules?

[Pict]

Play bridge according to the rules, or play bridge despite the rules?

Well Bluejak, I tell you what, you review the post and you tell me.

[bluejak]

Sadly the post suggests playing bridge despite the rules.