Opening pass out of turn: UI considerations

[alphatango]

Dlr N, EW vul:

 

[hv=pc=n&n=skjt7hqjt97dq4c86]133|100[/hv]

 

Methods in use include an opening 2♥ which shows 4+♥4+♠, either could be longer, less than an opening hand. North's hand is about the top of the range at this seat and vul.

 

Unfortunately, South passes before anyone else has called. The usual options are offered to West, who declines to accept the pass. The auction therefore reverts to North, and South is barred for one round (L30A). As I understand it, the information that South attempted to pass is UI; the knowledge that South must pass for one round is AI.

 

North chooses to open 2♥, which is passed out. Subsequently, East/West suggest they were damaged (L16D) and request an adjustment. Assume that a pass from North would have led to a better result for EW. The questions seem to be:

 

1. Is pass a logical alternative?

2. Does the UI demonstrably suggest that 2♥ will be more successful than pass?

 

Are the answers obvious?

 

Suppose you wanted to poll North's peers. How would you phrase the question?

 

I'm still thinking about this, but my current idea is to poll based on L24B: ask the pollees to assume they have exposed an honour (inadvertently, of course!) before making their first call, thus barring partner for a round. Is this a reasonable approach?

[WellSpyder]

I'm still thinking about this, but my current idea is to poll based on L24B: ask the pollees to assume they have exposed an honour (inadvertently, of course!) before making their first call, thus barring partner for a round. Is this a reasonable approach?

I'm struggling to understand this. Is the EW argument that without the knowledge that partner has a weak hand (from the POOT) then an opening pass would be more attractive? I would have thought perhaps the opposite. By all means poll players to determine whether pass would be an LA opposite a partner who has to pass on the first round (and I would have thought you could simply state this without clarifying the irregularity that caused it). But unless the LA chosen could be demonstrably suggested over an alternative LA then it doesn't actually matter whether pass is an LA or not.

[alphatango]

Is the EW argument that without the knowledge that partner has a weak hand (from the POOT) then an opening pass would be more attractive?

 

Yup. The EW argument is that South's possible hand types are (with the UI) restricted to those which didn't want to open; now EW are more likely to be having a constructive auction and North is less likely to be interfering with his own constructive auction. Without the UI, it might be more attractive to pass and hope that EW would act, then overcall and hope to find NS's best fit for a partscore (or even reach game).

 

By all means poll players to determine whether pass would be an LA opposite a partner who has to pass on the first round (and I would have thought you could simply state this without clarifying the irregularity that caused it).

 

You could state that. But someone who knows the laws might recognise (perhaps subconsciously) that the reason they're being polled is overwhelmingly likely to be this situation. Certainly that's where my mind would jump if you asked me. :rolleyes: I'm just wondering whether it's sensible to try to minimise that effect. Maybe I'm worrying too much?

[mycroft]

I agree that there is a polling issue, but if that's the systemic bid, especially it's heavy but in bounds for the systemic bid, then pass almost certainly won't be an option for this pair. That requires an assumption based on a belief that "there are no hands between a 2 bid and a 1 bid", and I would ask the OS about that, but it's a decent assumption without anything being posted. E/W might argue that bidding 2 rather than 1 was based on the fact that partner doesn't have an opening, and if 1H would have made their bidding easier, I'll look at that - but I have trouble faulting North for making the systemic bid with his hand.

 

Now, of course, I wouldn't have a problem with North making the same bid with one more heart and one less spade - because I assume the systemic bid for *that* is 2D, and that is clearly not sane. I realize that's an issue - but I don't think this looks like the Rottweiler "partner's forced to pass" psychic to me.

 

In my part of the world, finding peers that have experience playing this system would be tough, too. Australia? No problem.

[Free]

This is a very complicated matter. This is a case that's handled very poorly by the regulations imo.

 

Suppose that, instead of 2♥, NS play 2♦ as showing a weak hand with at least 4-4M. North would have a normal 2♦ opening, but it on first glance it seems unattractive to open an artificial bid when you know partner must pass. Note that because of the vulnerability he might just bid 2♦ anyway. His partner will pass, but opps can't penalize him because he can always keep the auction open so partner can bid in his second turn: after 2♦-Dbl-p-p;RDbl-p-... or 2♦-p-p-Dbl;RDbl-p-... responder can speak. The main point is however that, because North knows his partner doesn't have an opening, he also knows it's safe to assume it's opps' hand. So should he be allowed to open 2♦, his systemic bid, like nothing happened? It doesn't feel right.

Now, what if North held a weak two in ♦ and his partner must pass. He can simply open 2♦, systemically it's artificial, but his partner has to pass anyway which is AI. If opps Dbl he can just leave it in. It also doesn't seem right that all of a sudden North can open this hand while otherwise he couldn't.

 

Back to the main question, they play 2♥ as weak with at least 4-4M. I'm not sure but I guess NS play some sort of multi that includes a weak two in ♥. Should North open 2♦ when he holds a weak two in ♥? No, when you know partner will pass the first round, the most obvious rule "all systems are off" applies imo (you won't open a strong 2♣ for example). In this case, all sorts of tactics can be used. Passing can be right, but bidding 2♥ can be right as well. It's just a random choice. This time North is weak so it's pretty safe to assume 2♥ will be a playable spot. But it gets ugly when North has around 16HCP: should he stay low or should he overbid?

 

This shows why I think it's handled very poorly: North can do pretty much whatever he wants and opps won't know anything about his hand. He can psych (open 2♣ for example), he gets extra possibilities (2♣ becomes natural all of a sudden), bid something that will have some play (like 2♥), pass (even with strong hands), overbid (3NT with 17HCP, hoping for some values in partner's hand),... It's also easy to accuse someone of cheating when he psychs successfully or pulls out a luck call.

 

From experience it seems better to just accept the pass, which can't be the main goal of the regulations.

 

This specific case may indeed be interesting in a poll. You don't tell anyone about partner's strength, only that he'll pass 1 round.