Possibly Inverted Raise

[bluejak]

40A3.

[jdonn]

What you have done is ask me a specific position question, and then a general question, and compared them.  Of course one is far more than the other!

 

Now ask me how often has my partner forgotten an inverted minor in my life?  Not making one, but remembering one that I have made?  I have no idea?  Forty?

Lol that at least as misleading a question to as than the one I asked! Your partner has has opened the bidding 1♣ probably hundreds of times more often than you have bid 1♣ 2♣!

 

But forget that for a moment, if you would. You are, as often happens in this particular forum, focusing on a minor point at the expense of the important point. However you word the question, after partner passes 2♣ it's far more likely that partner has forgotten 2♣ was inverted or didn't think it applied in this situation than it is that partner psyched. This is so clearly true that to assume partner psyched is simply a terrible bridge assumption, with "terrible" not being a strong enough word. I will never make that assumption and (if I may perhaps exceed my boundaries and offer a bridge suggestion) nor should you.

 

So if you rule east passing over the double is an LA (with the possible exception of east intending to act when south's action returns to him with a double/cuebid/game bid) then I'm simply saying you are wrong. It's not L to assume partner has psyched with virtually any partner, and if you want to do that yourself you are being ilL.

[barmar]

But forget that for a moment, if you would. You are, as often happens in this particular forum, focusing on a minor point at the expense of the important point. However you word the question, after partner passes 2♣ it's far more likely that partner has forgotten 2♣ was inverted or didn't think it applied in this situation than it is that partner psyched. This is so clearly true that to assume partner psyched is simply a terrible bridge assumption, with "terrible" not being a strong enough word. I will never make that assumption and (if I may perhaps exceed my boundaries and offer a bridge suggestion) nor should you.

The problem is that you also have UI from the failure to alert. Absent UI, you simply have to guess why he passed, and you're allowed to guess right. But when the UI makes one guess more likely to be right than the other, you're not allowed to make that guess, if the alternative is possible.

 

If you're playing with a partner who has never psyched in his life, go ahead and assume he forgot. But if there's any chance he psyched, it's not so clear.

[jdonn]

That something happened once in your life (btw it's never happened from my partner in my life in live bridge in 1st or 2nd seat) doesn't make it logical to assume it's what happened when it's many times more likely something else has happened. It doesn't matter what's possible, it matters what's logical.

[bluejak]

I think that in the long run it is important for partnership morale that you trust your partner not to have made a mistake, even if she has. So, if I have a choice, and one choice is that she has made a mistake, I have tended to assume my long term partnership will be more effective if I assume she has not made a mistake.

 

So, when partner may have made a mistake, and [quite possibly considerably less likely] might have psyched, I shall probably assume she has psyched.

 

Now give me UI that tells me she has made a mistake - what do you expect me to do?

[gnasher]

40A3.

That doesn't make it illegal to use your knowledge of partner's tendency to forget a partcular agreement. It makes it illegal to use it unless you disclose it in the manner specified by the Regulating Authority.

 

Suppose that in this instance EW have the implict agreement that West sometimes passes an inverted raise because he's forgotten what it means. This pass is probably alertable in the EBU, because it has a "potentially unexpected" meaning - the "expected" meaning of a pass of a forcing raise is "I don't have my earlier bidding".

 

So, East should alert his partner's pass, and explain it if asked; having done so, he is then free to use his knowledge of his partner's inadequate memory.

[gnasher]

I think that in the long run it is important for partnership morale that you trust your partner not to have made a mistake, even if she has. So, if I have a choice, and one choice is that she has made a mistake, I have tended to assume my long term partnership will be more effective if I assume she has not made a mistake.

 

So, when partner may have made a mistake, and [quite possibly considerably less likely] might have psyched, I shall probably assume she has psyched.

 

Now give me UI that tells me she has made a mistake - what do you expect me to do?

That's your philisophy, but unless East in the original post has the same philosophy, I don't see how it bears upon his obligations with respect to the UI.

[bluejak]

First, it might be worth finding out East's philosophy.

 

But the thing that worries me somewhat is that, when ruling, people are often quite affected by what did happen, and ignore what might have happened.

 

People have looked at opener's hand, his pass, the apparent reason for his pass, namely that he did not realise he was playing inverted minors - and then have reversed it to assume there is no other possibility. I think this apparent reversal is dangerous.

 

Is there any other possibility? Well, I have had people pass forcing bids for other reasons before now. I once passed my partner's strong club opening. My opponents - a charming couple - were fully prepared to let me take may pass back. I certainly knew we were playing strong club. So what happened? I asked the opponents to wait while I considered what I had done. I finally decided that I had had a brain fart, and it was not a mechanical error, so did not change it.

 

I just dislike the presumption that [a] partner forgot the system and it is reasonable for responder to assume that because no other possibility exists when [c] we happen to know because of UI that that is what happened.

 

It reminds me of these pseudo-Ghestem sequences where a player, having overcalled 3♣, feels he should be allowed to rebid 4♣ over 3 of a major when partner had passed originally because partner cannot have six in the suit. Of course they know what has happened because of the UI. That argument leaves me cold as well, partly because I certainly pass hands with six-card majors that I consider unsuitable for pre-empts, eg with two aces.

 

As a general approach, when a player has UI telling him something, and it is a likely possibility, I think we should be careful before we take the next step and say he is allowed to assume it. Would a highly ethical player do this?

[Bbradley62]

Suppose this had occurred in a "psyches not allowed" game. In that case, would opener's pass be sufficient to make the misunderstanding completely AI, since there is no possibility that she psyched?

[jdonn]

I just dislike the presumption that [a] partner forgot the system and it is reasonable for responder to assume that because no other possibility exists when [c] we happen to know because of UI that that is what happened.

No one has suggested in this case, so though I agree with your dislike of the presumption I don't see how it applies here.

 

As a general approach, when a player has UI telling him something, and it is a likely possibility, I think we should be careful before we take the next step and say he is allowed to assume it.  Would a highly ethical player do this?

There is very wide range between "impossible" and "likely" into which the possibility opener has psyched falls, so though I agree with this general approach I don't see how it applies here.

[gnasher]

Is there any other possibility? Well, I have had people pass forcing bids for other reasons before now. I once passed my partner's strong club opening. My opponents - a charming couple - were fully prepared to let me take may pass back. I certainly knew we were playing strong club. So what happened? I asked the opponents to wait while I considered what I had done. I finally decided that I had had a brain fart, and it was not a mechanical error, so did not change it.

 

I just dislike the presumption that [a] partner forgot the system and it is reasonable for responder to assume that because no other possibility exists when [c] we happen to know because of UI that that is what happened.

As I understand it, by a "brain fart" you mean a short-term lapse of memory or concentration. If that's what has happened, it's still sensible for East to bid 2♥, so as to ensure that the lapse has, in fact, ended.

[shyams]

Can the AC poll a few players' action with the North hand assuming West alerted and said "inverted if uncontested, not sure if contested" etc?

 

If the poll overwhelmingly suggests North would act, then the AC should restore table result. If it is mixed (50:50 or better in favour of acting), then I'd go with gnasher's first suggestion

Anyway, North was entitled to the explanation "no agreeement, but it would be forcing in an uncontested auction".  Given that explanation, he might or might not have bid, so the TD's ruling was on the right lines.

 

I think North would bid a lot more than 20% of the time - it looks hard to pass out 2♣ when you have the makngs of seven winners.  I'd give 50% of 150 and 50% of 460.

I agree with gnasher that 20% appears too low.

[mr1303]

Supposing you have this thought process when it is your turn to bid:

 

Hmm, I have a limit raise in support of clubs. How do I show it? I know we play inverted minors when RHO passes. Do we play them here? Not sure. Ah well, let's try it anyway....

 

Oh dear, partner has passed here. Apparently we don't play inverted minors here. Still, at least opponents have kept the auction going for us. That's nice of them. How can I persuade partner that I did have a limit raise after all? I know, I'll cue-bid their suit. That must be forcing....

 

Is this illegal?

[Codo]

I still do not get it, why some people rule against E/W.

 

Do they have an agreement? Obviously not.

So you wish to penalisze them for not alerting "no agreement"?

 

What do you wish the players to do? Alert any possible call when they are in doubt and explain that this bid would be xyz in another situation?

[gerry]

I still do not get it, why some people rule against E/W.

 

Do they have an agreement? Obviously not.

Bull.

 

East thought they had an agreement. Where is the required evidence that he has it wrong and not his partner?.

 

Weighted adjustment is entirely appropriate.

[Codo]

So if you think you have an agreement and your partner does not think so, you have an agreement?

 

Is this written down in the rules anywhere?

[gnasher]

So if you think you have an agreement and your partner does not think so, you have an agreement?

 

Is this written down in the rules anywhere?

The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

[Codo]

So the TD who judged:

 

Basis of TD's Ruling

Having spoken to East and West, he was "convinced" that they did not have an agreement about the meaning of 2♣.

 

was wrong- and you know better?

[blackshoe]

So if you think you have an agreement and your partner does not think so, you have an agreement?

 

Is this written down in the rules anywhere?

The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

um, no. That the law requires the TD to presume mistaken explanation does not mean they have an agreement. It means there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the explanation given was correct.

[gnasher]

um, no. That the law requires the TD to presume mistaken explanation does not mean they have an agreement. It means there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the explanation given was correct.

Yes, I know - I too can read English.

 

If you look at the post by Gerry, to which Codo's post was a reply, you will see why Law 21B is relevant, and provides an answer to the point that Codo was making.

[blackshoe]

My point was that it is not the case that Law 21B says a pair have an agreement when they disagree as to what that agreement is.

 

Those who are familiar with the laws may roll their eyes and think "everybody knows that!", but in fact, everybody doesn't. We try here to help people understand the laws as they are, and we try not to let them believe something that isn't true. Even if it seems trivial to the more experienced.

[Pict]

I imagined that this was a post about fielding.

 

We are in the EBU (?) where fielding 'misbids' (whatever they are) is a transgression.

 

I am amazed to not see any discussion of this topic.

 

Maybe I have misunderstood, but I will await the DBurn and JAll summaries with a lot of interest.

[gnasher]

So the TD  who judged:

 

Basis of TD's Ruling

Having spoken to East and West, he was "convinced" that they did not have an agreement about the meaning of 2♣.

 

was wrong- and you know better?

As I understand it, the TD found that:

- They had an agreement to play inverted raises in some sequences

- They had no agreement about whether that included this sequence

- As a result of this incomplete agreement, one of them thought that the raise was inverted and one did not.

 

The opponents are entitled to know about this agreement, even though it is incomplete. That is, they're not entitled to know that there's a misunderstanding going on, but they are entitled to know that the partnership has an agreement that may make this rase forcing.

 

Having said that, the EBU regulations (Section 5B) don't necessarily say that. It tells us to alert a bid if we don't know whether it's alertable but we're going to bid as though it is, but doesn't say what we should do if we plan to treat it as not alertable.

[jallerton]

I would also ask E what he thought 2♥ shows. IMO this shows extra values and a GF opposite an 11 count which I don't think he necessarily has, particularly when partner has failed to alert his inverted raise and may well have values. Wouldn't 3♣ show the 5th club and 11 or so points after the inverted raise from E's point of view (but a lot less from W's) ? Not sure what W does over 3♣, possibly depends on what other raises were available initially.

East said that 2♥ was showing a good hand and asking for a stop. He said that he knew 2♣ had not been interpreted as inverted because partner had passed a forcing bid.

 

I imagined that this was a post about fielding.

 

We are in the EBU (?) where fielding 'misbids' (whatever they are) is a transgression.

 

I am amazed to not see any discussion of this topic.

 

The TD should only adjust for a fielded misbid or psyche if there is sufficient evidence of an unauthorised, undisclosed agreement. I don't which call you consider to be "fielding", but you should appreciate that East is entitled to draw inferences from the auction. When there is no possible hand consistent with all of West's actions to date then the only logical conclusion is that at least one of West's calls or plays is not as East first believed.

 

West passed the 2♣ bid, it is 100% that partner forgot about inverted raises or didn't think they were on here.

 

I agree with Bluejak that because of the theoretical possibility of partner having psyched, it is clearly not 100% that partner forgot about inverted raises or didn't think they were on here. But how much less than 100% will depend on the partnership experience. Imagine that I am East playing with screens.

 

Scenario 1. I am playing with a brand new partner. In our short system discussioin, we agree to play inverted raises without further discussion. On an early board I elect to bid 2♣ after 1♣-(1♥) hoping that partner will take it as forcing. When partner actually passes, I will become 99.99% certain that we are not on the same wavelength and, frankly, there is no logical alternative to basing my subsequent bids on this conclusion.

 

Scenario 2. I have been playing with this partner regularly for the last ten years. I know we play inverted raises in this sequence and the sequence 1♣-(1suit)-2♣ has come up dozens of times before. When partner actually passes, now I shall consider partner having psyched the 1♣ opening or having "taken a view" on a subminimum opener a significant possibility.

 

In the actual case. there were no screens so East had UI, hence:

 

Scenario 1. East has UI, but there is no logical alternative to assuming that partner is not on the same wavelength about the meaning of 2♣. Hence East is perfectly at liberty to bid 2♥ or anything else that he thinks might wake partner up.

 

Scenario 2. East has UI, but now he should base his subequent bidding on the other logical possibility of partner having a suspect 1♣ opening.

[Pict]

Excellent summary from JAllerton.

 

I happen to regard the supposed severe extra constraints of Law 73 as unneccesary, and otherwise misguided.

 

However, I have seen both dburn and jallerton toy with Law 73 more than once - more than toying for dburn.

 

I'd still like to understand where they stand on not taking advantage of UI in this case.