UI question

[dan_ehh]

Hi everybody, I would like your opinions on what should be the correct ruling:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saq5hak3daj7caj43&w=s9743hj2dkq953ckq&n=sk2hqt9854dt82ct8&e=sjt86h76d64c97652&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p2cp2dp2n(23+%20%5Bany%20bal%20hand%2C%20forcing%5D)p3dp3np4hp4nppp]399|300[/hv]

 

3♦ was intended as a transfer, but there was no alert, which is required by the Israeli alert regulations. NS claimed they have no agreement about the 3NT call.

South said she thought 4♥ was kickback for ♦s (the system card confirmed they play kickback) and 4NT was the correct answer.

 

4NT made 12 tricks after the ♦K lead.

[Cascade]

Unless there is some history of bidding 3NT with a stiff heart and they haven't told you about that then I don't think there is a logical alternative to 4♥.

 

At 4NT its obvious to north that something has gone wrong unless south has some history of overbidding or unless Jacoby followed by 4♥ is supposed to show some slam interest.

 

Nevertheless pass of 4NT is suggested by the UI (failure to alert) and most likely I would think that there were logical alternatives to pass.

 

I think it is likely that NS will get to slam failing.

[Fluffy]

If EW were runnign 5 clubs and north pulled to 5♥ EW would then complain that there is a LA of passing 4NT instead of bidding 5♥.

 

Just because you had a missunderstanding you don´t have to land in a losing contract.

[jallerton]

A few thoughts:

 

1. The TD should ascertain whether, from North's point of view, 4♦ would be a retransfer. If yes, the TD should ask North why this call was not selected.

 

2. Interestingly, if North does bid 4♦ showing, from South's point of view, a single-suited slam try in diamonds South would probably now bid 4♥ (whether it is Kickback or just a cue bid). North would probably pass this.

 

3. If North/South reach slam, it is quite likely to make (unless a plausible auction to 6♦ can be constructed!) . If South is declarer, a minor suit lead gives away the contract immediately. On a passive lead, in most variations, West will end up being squeezed in the minors.

[mjj29]

If EW were runnign 5 clubs and north pulled to 5♥ EW would then complain that there is a LA of passing 4NT instead of bidding 5♥.

 

Just because you had a missunderstanding you don´t have to land in a losing contract.

Sure, it's likely both of them are LAs (this is common), the question is, which is suggested by the UI. The UI is that partner thinks we have diamonds, and yet we have hearts.

 

After 3NT, the UI suggests we may be better off than partner thinks we are in hearts when he signed off in 3NT - so it suggests bidding hearts again. Thus, if we were to adjust we would adjust to 3NT+3 - the same as table result. Over 4NT, the UI is that it's a response to kickback in diamonds, showing whatever number of controls that is - and also that partner still doesn't think we have hearts. Would bidding 5H cause south to bid some kind of failing diamond slam? If it would land them in 5H then the UI suggests bidding 5H over passing 4NT (After all, it still could be better that NT and P doesn't know it). If it would land them in a failing D slam, which N can presumably pull to 6H legitimately, do we think 6H makes? If so, again, we won't adjust, either because it would be an adjustment back to table result, or because the adjustment would have been back to 4NT anyway. This way round 6H might not always make (on a diamond lead), but that's mostly a coincidence, and doesn't really affect what's suggested by the UI. It also might get corrected to a making 6NT by south (I might always bid that in preference to 6D anyway on that hand) who has no UI.

 

So, it's not clear what the UI suggests over 4NT. Personally, I think that given the responses so far, the UI suggests that 6H may be quite a reasonable slam (it is, if partner had completed the transfer it would be excellent) and that hearts in general may be better than NT (oppo could still be cashing running clubs), so it suggests bidding over passing, so we cannot adjust when they do pass

[Cyberyeti]

Well since 6♥ is cold with the ♣KQ coming down, I don't see that there can be much damage. Pairs/teams ?

 

Was 2♦ all negatives, single negative, waiting ?

 

3N looks like either a transfer break showing a hand suitable for heart play, or a doubleton or less, but certainly not this hand.

 

Whatever it means, N signs off in 4♥, and if S has taken 3♦ as natural, replying to this as KB is reasonable. From N's point of view, S is showing say 25-26 and giving N an opportunity to re-evaluate. So N might bid 6♥, and if he does, 3 rounds of spades ditching a club trying to ruff out the ♣KQ before making something of the diamonds does the job.

 

No adjustment for me.

[gordontd]

Well since 6♥ is cold with the ♣KQ coming down,

Easy game, when you can see all the hands.

[Cyberyeti]

Easy game, when you can see all the hands.

Yes but ruffing a club and seeing if one of the honours comes down does look the best line before trying to make something of the diamonds. When they both come down it's trivial.

[blackshoe]

Over 4NT, the UI is that it's a response to kickback in diamonds,

 

How does North know that 4NT is a response to kickback? More to the point, is this the same UI as over 3NT, or is it a different UI?

 

If "the UI" (the information that South unexpectedly did not alert 3♦) suggests bidding 4♥ over some LA (pass?) then the TD will adjust the score based on the bid of 4♥ if there was damage. If there was no damage, then no adjustment.

 

I don't see how the information that South unexpectedly did not alert 3♦ demonstrably suggests passing 4NT over bidding 5♥, when it suggested exactly the opposite over 3NT. But you appear to be saying that North's knowledge of their system is UI to him when South bids 4NT. If I were North, I'd be very reluctant to buy that.

[mjj29]

How does North know that 4NT is a response to kickback? More to the point, is this the same UI as over 3NT, or is it a different UI?

 

If "the UI" (the information that South unexpectedly did not alert 3♦) suggests bidding 4♥ over some LA (pass?) then the TD will adjust the score based on the bid of 4♥ if there was damage. If there was no damage, then no adjustment.

 

I don't see how the information that South unexpectedly did not alert 3♦ demonstrably suggests passing 4NT over bidding 5♥, when it suggested exactly the opposite over 3NT. But you appear to be saying that North's knowledge of their system is UI to him when South bids 4NT. If I were North, I'd be very reluctant to buy that.

It's UI that South bid 4NT over 4H _while thinking that 4D was natural_. The sequence 3D-3N-4H-4N means one thing if 3D is natural and another if 3D is a transfer, this difference is UI. At 3N, north has the UI that south thinks he has diamonds and has a 3N response to a natural 3D. At 4N, north has the UI that south thinks he has diamonds, has a 3N response to a natural 3D and has a 4N response to the sequence 3D-3N-4H after a natural 3D - these things _are_ different and might have different suggested calls.

[blackshoe]

Then in order to rule you're going to have to know (and specify) what each sequence means in their system. It's not enough to assert there are different meanings.

 

These arguments about multiple UI based on a single event always leave me with the feeling that the OS might just as well throw in their hands and take a bottom. :( :(

[mjj29]

Then in order to rule you're going to have to know (and specify) what each sequence means in their system. It's not enough to assert there are different meanings.

Sure, but most of the point of my post was that I'd probably rule 'table result stands' in any of the cases.

[dan_ehh]

Thanks to everyone who answered.

Sorry for not mentioning this earlier - this was a team match, and the other table played in 4♥ making 12 tricks.

 

4♥ and pass of 4NT were both the result of a blatant use of UI. North admitted to that - he said he bid 4♥ because he knew his partner did not understand the transfer (nevermind that he should be penalized for this). North did not know 4NT was intended as an answer to kickback, this was only explained by South in the presence of the director.

 

I think that the North hand must make a slam try, because whatever 3NT means, it can't be a minimum 2♣ bid (because you bid 3♥ with that). So it has to be either a super accepting bid, or 25+ balanced (note that 2NT had no upper limit), and in both cases the North hand is too good to simply stop in game. The UI suggests not making a slam try.

 

Some have suggested that bidding 4♥ IS a slam try, but in that case, passing 4NT is not allowed (because partner has cooperated with our slam try).

 

If you agree with this point, then the contract might end up to be any of 3 slams (red suits or NT), or maybe even something more obscure - who knows. The UI has helped the NS pair to avoid an accident, and this shouldn't be allowed.

 

 

The question then becomes, in my opinion, whether the opponents have been damaged, because obviously 6♥ can (and should) make. Cyberyeti's line looks like the normal line.

The director was of the same opinion, and the decision was that the table result stands, because 6♥ can't possibly go down, so there was no damage.

 

However, I think crediting the offending side with the correct line of play is wrong. They were a weak pair (that was obvious from the other results in the match). Why would declarer not try, for example, to find one of the minor KQs onside? Another option is to play a low ♣ or ♦ towards the ten, and if West wins an honor, then finesse East for the other honor. A 3rd option is to try to run one of the tens, hoping that East won't cover. The contract is not very good, and weak players sometimes panic when they can't see a reasonable line.

All of these suggested lines are obviously inferior to Cyberyeti's line, but playing for one of them is not absurd, it gives roughly 25% chances to make.

Note also that once North bids 4♥, it is no longer possible to give away the contract on the opening lead, since the other player is on lead.

[BunnyGo]

It seems pretty clear that a PP should be applied to the North player (especially because he admits knowing that he used UI). As for whether the contract should be modified, I don't see that it should, since it will only help the OS.

[phil_20686]

I think it is likely that NS will get to slam failing.

 

I doubt that slam will fail - would it not be normal to lead form one of your KQ's yielding 3 minor suit winners, 6 hearts, and three spades?

 

If LHO leads passively, its still possible to make, and likely would be, since when you run the T from dummy most good players will cover to prevent trivially giving up the contract when declarer lacks the 9C. Declarer then has a no cost extra play of a minor suit squeeze before repeating the finesse. Given that many would cover holding the 9C, and given that lho will discard lots of small diamonds by no small clubs, there is a very high % to get this right.

[jallerton]

The question then becomes, in my opinion, whether the opponents have been damaged, because obviously 6♥ can (and should) make. Cyberyeti's line looks like the normal line.

The director was of the same opinion, and the decision was that the table result stands, because 6♥ can't possibly go down, so there was no damage.

 

However, I think crediting the offending side with the correct line of play is wrong. They were a weak pair (that was obvious from the other results in the match). Why would declarer not try, for example, to find one of the minor KQs onside? Another option is to play a low ♣ or ♦ towards the ten, and if West wins an honor, then finesse East for the other honor. A 3rd option is to try to run one of the tens, hoping that East won't cover. The contract is not very good, and weak players sometimes panic when they can't see a reasonable line.

All of these suggested lines are obviously inferior to Cyberyeti's line, but playing for one of them is not absurd, it gives roughly 25% chances to make.

Note also that once North bids 4♥, it is no longer possible to give away the contract on the opening lead, since the other player is on lead.

 

Presumably weighted scores are allowed in Isreal.

 

We need to consider the possible legal auctions and attach and probability to each occuring assuming the UI laws had been adhered to.

We then need to consider the likelihood of each possible final contract making. Let's say 6♥ and 6NT are judged equally likely to be reached, with the former making one half of the time and the latter making most of the time. Let's also give some symapthetic weighting to the non-offending side and assume that 6♦ will be reached occasionally.

 

We might end up with something like:

 

35% of 6NT= by N, N/S +990

+20% of 6♥ by N, N/S +980

+5% of 6NT-1 by N, N/S -50

+20% of 6♥by N, N/S -50

+20% of 6♦-3 by N, N/S -150

 

We then needs to IMP these potential score with the other table's result of N/S +480.

 

Weighted IMPS

 

35% of 11 = +3.85

20% of 11 = +2.2

5% of -11 = -0.55

20% of -11 = -2.2

20% of -12 = -2.4

 

Total weighted IMPS +0.9

 

As +0.9 IMPS is better than N/S achieved at the table, we conclude (if these weightings are used) that there was no damage from the infraction, so the table result is allowed to stand.

 

We can still give North a PP, of course: that assessment should be independent of any rectification adjustment.

[bluejak]

Sorry for not mentioning this earlier - this was a team match, and the other table played in 4♥ making 12 tricks.

 

4♥ and pass of 4NT were both the result of a blatant use of UI. North admitted to that - he said he bid 4♥ because he knew his partner did not understand the transfer (nevermind that he should be penalized for this).

The result in the other room is irrelevant for the purposes of ruling.

 

Why is 4♥ blatant use of UI? If 3NT does not exist over 3♦ then North knows his partner has misunderstood 3♦ from the bidding and 4♥ is far from blatant use of UI.

[jallerton]

The result in the other room is irrelevant for the purposes of ruling.

 

It's relevant for assessing whether damage exists (see my IMPing example above).

 

Why is 4♥ blatant use of UI? If 3NT does not exist over 3♦ then North knows his partner has misunderstood 3♦ from the bidding and 4♥ is far from blatant use of UI.

 

That might be true in some sequences where there is no conceivable meaning for a bid. But here where Opener has shown 23+ balanced (with no uppoer limit apparently) there are various possible reasons why Opener might bid 3NT, even if the meaning of the call is undiscussed. What would you assume partner had playing with screens?

 

Anyway, the lack of alert gives North the specific UI that South has interpreted 3♦ as natural. That would not be apparent from AI even if you were certain that partner had not interpreted 3♦ as a standard Jacoby transfer.