UI? Or not?

[bluejak]

There is a thread on RGB which as ever is drifting into very murky waters. However, I was specifically asked one question, to which I am not sure of the answer, and I answered another question, where I am sure of the answer but not everyone agrees. I have decided to simplify things by just asking the questions and seeing what you think.

 

[hv=d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1c2cp2s]133|100[/hv]

 

Your 1♣ is better minor, LHO's 2♣ was alerted but not asked.

 

Since this is the ACBL, and "everyone" plays Michaels, you assume, despite the alert, that 2♣ shows the majors. You now bid 3♥ intending it as showing a very strong hand with a heart stopper.

 

Before partner bids he asks the meaning of 2♣ and is told that it is natural, which is alertable in the ACBL.

 

Now, the questions.

 

1. Is the fact you did not ask before bidding 3♥ UI to partner?
   
2. Is the fact that 2♣ is natural [which you did not realise] UI to you now you have found out because of partner's question?
   

[Coelacanth]

Just one club director's humble opinion...

 

I don't know the answer to your question #1 either, but in #2 the fact that 2♣ is natural is definitely NOT UI. Partner's question at his second turn to call is entirely appropriate (NOT made solely for your benefit as per L20G1) and of course you are entitled to know your opponents' agreements in any case.

[mrdct]

1. Yes, partner's questions and non-question are clearly extraneous information which is unauthorised as partner is the source.

 

2. No, unless it could be demonstrated that partner asked the question solely for my benefit (e.g. partner knew that 2♣ was natural but was worried that I didn't so asks just to be sure we are all on the same page) - but I'm yet to see anyone pinged for doing this in practice.

[Vampyr]

1. I don't know how to express my answer in terms of UI, but partner should assume that you knew the meaning of 2♣ when you bid.

 

2. What would be the implications of a "yes" answer? That we could never rely on the answers partner got about the opponents' system and had to ask all the same questions ourselves?

[WellSpyder]

My answers pretty much agree with everyone else here:

 

1) Not entirely sure whether it is strictly UI or not, but I do feel sure that partner is not entitled to take account of whether or not I asked before bidding in deciding how to interpret my call, so that certainly sounds equivalent to UI....

 

2) I can't see any way this is UI - is this really in doubt?

[blackshoe]

1. Is the fact you did not ask before bidding 3♥ UI to partner?
   
2. Is the fact that 2♣ is natural [which you did not realise] UI to you now you have found out because of partner's question?
   

 

1. No. It is extraneous information, but I don't see how it is "extraneous information that may suggest a call or play". However, if it does suggest a call or play to partner, that suggestion is UI to him.

2. No.

[StevenG]

In this thread from rgb, a month or so ago, bluejak argued strongly that analogous information from partner's question was UI.

 

https://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge/browse_thread/thread/cdb7621ac48eab97?hl=en

[Xiaolongnu]

Another humble club director's opinion.

 

1. I really don't know. The information clearly came from partner, and the list of potential sources of UI given in 16B1a is not exhaustive, but it seems unreasonable to penalize someone for something that partner did not do. If we assume that there is an invisible screen, then indeed one would not have known whether partner asked a question, so it seems indeed true that you are "not supposed" to know that partner had not asked the question. I am inclined to not rule it as UI, though, in view of for example in the following. Suppose partner makes a bid that is in tempo, with no particular haste or hesitation. Is the fact that partner did not hesitate nor bid quickly UI to you? It could theoretically suggest loads, perhaps it suggests that the bid was sound or the pass was 4-5 hcp since with 0 partner would pass quickly while with a maximum partner would probably hesitate at least a bit. All these are things that partner is not supposed to know if we assume that there is a screen between u and him. So if the scenario in the OP is UI, then we are facing UI with every bid that is in tempo, and every bid that is out of tempo. Wrong, every call that is in tempo and out of tempo. Then doesn't 16 break down?

 

2. I don't think so. For more or less the same reasons as given here. In particular, with the fact that it is my entitlement to know my opponents' system.

[Trinidad]

1. Yes, it is information from my action (or lack of it) that is not a bid or play.

 

2. No.

 

Rik

[Coelacanth]

One further thought about question #1...

 

From partner's point of view, your 3♥ call without asking about the 2♣ bid means either:

 

(a) you assumed 2♣ was Michaels (and are now bidding 3♥ as some sort of control bid showing a strong hand)

 

OR

 

(b) you knew 2♣ was natural (perhaps you saw your opponents' convention card, or have played against this pair before) and are now bidding 3♥ naturally, showing a strong hand with probably 6 clubs and 5 hearts (yes, a natural 2♣ overcall would be unlikely if you held that hand, but not impossible)

 

Provided that you don't make any kind of startled reaction (which definitely WOULD be UI) when 2♣ is revealed to be natural, partner has no way of knowing how you interpreted the 2♣ bid, and is thus unconstrained by UI.

[mycroft]

I would say (warning, massive pedantry here):

 

1) Yes, the fact that you didn't ask is UI. I'm used to this defence, playing transfer overcalls of NT:

1NT-2D!-3NT - shows (or denies) a diamond stopper

1NT-2D! "what is that?" "Hearts"-pause 3NT - shows (or denies) a heart stopper.

 

This defence works well against strong clubs, too:

1C!-2C is the majors

1C!-"what is it?" "strong" - 2C is clubs.

Of course, with this one, 1C!-"what is it?" "strong" - pass is *also* clubs, but not good enough to play unless partner has support.

 

Yes, it could mean that he already knew, or that it didn't matter to him (because 3H is natural either way). It could mean many things. But it's most likely to mean "he thinks it's Michaels, and he's got a 3H call over Michaels".

 

2) The fact that 2C is natural is AI to opener after the question - the opponents' system is AI by definition - but the fact that partner wanted to know what it meant isn't (here's where the pedantry comes in). Whether that makes a difference I don't know.

[mrdct]

1. No. It is extraneous information, but I don't see how it is "extraneous information that may suggest a call or play". However, if it does suggest a call or play to partner, that suggestion is UI to him.

2. No.

Another way to look at this situation:

 

a. Pretend screens are in use, in which case East would have been told 2♣ was natural and on the face of it could only treat 3♥ as natural and pretty strong on the assumption that partner has received the same explanation on the other side of the screen.

 

b. Pretend that West did ask about 2♣ before bidding 3♥ which, again, would reinfornce that 3♥ is natural and strong.

 

In both of these scenarios, East would proceed on the basis that partner has ♥ and no doubt bid 4♥ if he has 4-card support.

 

If West neglects to enquire about the 2♣ bid, on the given fact that "everyone" in the ACBL plays Michaels, East clearly has UI that suggests an action other than raising ♥ as it now appears that 3♥ may merely be stopper-showing.

 

I run into a similar situation quite often with my regular partner where we play Rubens Advances and might have an auction like (1♦):1♠:(2♣):2♦ where "everyone" in the ABF plays 2♦ as a cue raise of ♠ but we play it as 5+♥. In Australia bids of suits called or shown by your opponents are not alerted. Invariably the 1♦ opener doesn't ask about 2♦ and might pull out a 2♥ bid which with no enquiry looks natural but if he'd been told beforehand that 2♦ showed 5+♥ it's more likely a cue raise of ♣. I'm yet to have found myself in a situation where I was damaged in this scenario, but I think there could be hands where I would argue that the 2♣ bidder would be ethically obliged to bid on the basis that 2♥ showed ♣ support which might see them get to a stupid contract.

[Trinidad]

I once had a part in beautiful example of this when I was playing against two ladies. The bidding went (I was South):

[hv=d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1n2h(Alert)2sp2np3s(Alert)p3nppp]133|100[/hv]

 

2♥ was DONT, promising both majors. It was alerted, but East didn't ask. Therefore, "obviously" 2♠ was natural. West didn't ask about 2♥ therefore 2NT "obviously" showed a heart stop. Before East bid 3♠, she asked about the meaning of 2♥. I explained that it showed both majors. Now East bid 3♠, which was promptly alerted by West: "It asks for a spade stop."!

 

By asking and bidding in this precise way, East had given the perfect description of her hand: Values to play game with 8xxxx in spades.

 

Rik

[bluejak]

2. What would be the implications of a "yes" answer? That we could never rely on the answers partner got about the opponents' system and had to ask all the same questions ourselves?

No, of course not. In the 100 million cases a year where partner asks before you did and you were going to of course it is not UI, and this is not such a case.

 

The implications of a Yes answer to 2 has no effect on completely different situations, unsurprisingly in my view.

 

:ph34r:

 

1) Yes, the fact that you didn't ask is UI. I'm used to this defence, playing transfer overcalls of NT:

1NT-2D!-3NT - shows (or denies) a diamond stopper

1NT-2D! "what is that?" "Hearts"-pause 3NT - shows (or denies) a heart stopper.

 

This defence works well against strong clubs, too:

1C!-2C is the majors

1C!-"what is it?" "strong" - 2C is clubs.

Of course, with this one, 1C!-"what is it?" "strong" - pass is *also* clubs, but not good enough to play unless partner has support.

Last weekend we were playing a 2♣ opening as either a weak two in diamonds, or a very strong hand.

 

(2♣!) 2♦ = diamonds

(2♣!) ask then 2♦ = takeout of diamonds

[WellSpyder]

My answers pretty much agree with everyone else here:

 

1) Not entirely sure whether it is strictly UI or not, but I do feel sure that partner is not entitled to take account of whether or not I asked before bidding in deciding how to interpret my call, so that certainly sounds equivalent to UI....

 

2) I can't see any way this is UI - is this really in doubt?

Hmmm, I'm rather less sure of my answer now than I was at the time.

 

An auction yesterday, starting with LHO:

1♣* - P - 1NT* - ?

 

1♣ alerted = Precision

1N alerted = positive response with C.

 

 

With 6♠ to the Q and very modest other values I decided my hand was worth 2♠ at favourable vulnerability. After opener passed, partner asked about the 1N response and was told it showed a positive with spades! My information about it showing clubs had come from misreading the system card (my eyesight isn't what it was!).

 

Not surprisingly, partner now had some trouble working out what I was showing with 2♠. Am I allowed to bid on in the knowledge that responder has shown spades and I have misdescribed my hand? At the time it felt right to assume partner's 3♦ bid was made in the "knowledge" that I had shown spades, but that doesn't seem necessary if my response to Q2 above was correct......

[barmar]

That makes my head hurt.

 

The best way I can see of trying to judge it is with the "screens rule" -- what would happen if you were using screens, so you didn't hear partner's question and its answer? You'd continue in your delusion that 1NT showed clubs.

 

When I recently brought this up in r.g.b, someone (maybe David?) objected that it's not reasonable to apply this all the time, and I agree. If partner asks a question, you don't have to re-ask the same question, you're entitled to the answer. I mainly advocate it in non-trivial cases like this.