UI case (England)

[WellSpyder]

[hv=pc=n&s=s9htdak8642cjt832&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p1sp2dp2hp2sp3hp]133|200[/hv]

Match points. Acol (4-card majors, 12-14 NT). So 1♠ could be 4, 2♦ is only F for one round, 2♥ shows at least 5-4 and is (probably) F, 2♠ (which you may or may not agree with) is NF.

 

What are your LAs now? What is suggested by a BIT before partner's 3♥ bid?

[gordontd]

I think I would need to know my partner before I knew what was suggested by the slow 3♥ bid. He might be wondering if I would take it as forcing when it's not, or he might be hoping it is forcing. Obviously those are contradictory, and with a hand like mine it might be right to pass even if he wouldn't have expected me to be able to.

 

It looks to me as though the normal action, given the auction thus far, would be to bid 3♠. Pass could be right if partner is 5-6 in the majors, but in that case I would have expected the BIT to have come before the opening bid, not before the second re-bid.

[WellSpyder]

I think I would need to know my partner before I knew what was suggested by the slow 3♥ bid.

OK. Your partner is an old player with a pretty old-fashioned way of playing Acol - and he knows that you know this. It is actually extremely debateable that he would think 2♥ was forcing, although nearly everyone plays that way these days. I don't think he will expect you to take 3♥ as F, or to be worrying about whether you might or might not think it was.

 

Does that help you decide what might be suggested by the BIT before 3♥? (I can't tell you whether there was a BIT before the opening bid or not. It wasn't mentioned by any of the players and there is often enough extraneous discussion at the club between hands than any hesitation might not be attributed to a bidding choice anyway.)

[PeterAlan]

N is at least 5-5 in the majors with ♥ no longer than ♠. For me, 3♥ isn't forcing, unless there's some further partnership understanding about the sequence, so if N's 5-5, I'd be expecting extra values, or (s)he should be (regretfully) passing the initial potentially-false preference. If 6-5, I'd rather be in the 6-1 fit than the 5-1 one, and 3NT has no chance unless there are substantially greater values in the N hand than I think this sequence is showing, or the ♠/♥ tops and ♦Qx / xxx). The lack of 3♣ FSF instead of 3♥ on N's third turn might be significant, but depends on partnership methods following such a bid.

 

I want to drop this auction as fast as possible, but in view of the above not at 3♥. (I would have bid 3♦ on the second round expecting partner to recognise a misfit and stop unless very strong. I might even have responded 1NT initially - don't you just know partner's re-bid will be ♥?) So it's 3♠ for me, unless this could be taken as some sort of forward-going move, in which case I'd Pass.

 

As for the BIT before 3♥, I think it suggests N hasn't really got the values for the bid but is making it anyway, reluctantly, to show the shape. It makes a weakish 6-5 shape more likely, and I therefore think it suggests trying to stop at 3♠ unless S has given false preference and has longer ♥.

[WellSpyder]

(I would have bid 3♦ on the second round expecting partner to recognise a misfit and stop unless very strong. I might even have responded 1NT initially - don't you just know partner's re-bid will be ♥?)

As it happens, when I held the same hand at a different table I did indeed bid 3♦ on the second round. It didn't stop my partner bidding 3♥, though, so I was faced with a relatively similar decision now.

 

So it's 3♠ for me, unless this could be taken as some sort of forward-going move, in which case I'd Pass.

Do you think you might be more or less worried about partner going on over something that he might take as a forward-going move, given the BIT? Or more generally, could your choice between pass and 3♠ be suggested by the BIT?

[Cyberyeti]

No thought before 1♠ or 2♥, so not thinking about what to do with a 5-6 or bidding 3♥ on the second round.

 

My suspicions would be either he's say 7-5 and thinking about 3♥ or 3♠, or it's a pass/3♥.

 

Whatever the hesitation suggests, 3♠ would appear to be the normal bid with (to me) no alternative. Was this an auto 2♦ btw by their methods, or has it been shaded ?

[WellSpyder]

Was this an auto 2♦ btw by their methods, or has it been shaded ?

Hard to say - I guess in old-fashioned Acol it could be pretty normal. Playing a slightly less old-fashioned Acol myself I certainly considered 1N as PeterAlan mentions above, but hoped partner would get the message if I bid 2♦ followed by 3♦.

[PeterAlan]

... So it's 3♠ for me, unless this could be taken as some sort of forward-going move, in which case I'd Pass.

 

Do you think you might be more or less worried about partner going on over something that he might take as a forward-going move, given the BIT? Or more generally, could your choice between pass and 3♠ be suggested by the BIT?

I made this comment in the context of the general, no-BIT, auction. In the context of BIT, ethically we shouldn't be stopping at 3♠ so I shouldn't bid that unless confident that partner would go on, and I don't think I'd feel justified in passing 3♥. I'd probably bid a horrible 3NT, denying ♥ support, as a further description of my hand opposite the putative strong N 2-suiter, expecting to go several off if left there.

 

Regarding the initial 2♦ response, I play a "Rule of 14"-style test with my usual partner for a 2/1 response, but this is only a borderline pass of that test, and, as I said earlier, you just know it's going to be wrong. Having said that, I agree with WellSpyder that I'd probably bid 2♦ / 3♦ and expect the message to get across.

[WellSpyder]

In the context of BIT, ethically we shouldn't be stopping at 3♠ so I shouldn't bid that unless confident that partner would go on, and I don't think I'd feel justified in passing 3♥.

I'm not 100% sure I've understood your argument here. Are you saying:

a) this hand clearly wants to stop the bidding as low as possible

b) but the BIT suggests partner may not really have the values for his bid

c) so it is even more clear we want the bidding to stop as low as possible

d) so we are ethically bound to make sure we go on bidding?

 

If so, I think I agree with a) and c). I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced by b) - couldn't partner be wondering whether to bid more strongly rather than less strongly? And I certainly wonder about d) - surely if there is no LA besides passing or bidding 3♠ then there is absolutely no reason why you now have to bid something else just because UI also tells you that passing or bidding 3♠ would be best?

[gordontd]

I made this comment in the context of the general, no-BIT, auction. In the context of BIT, ethically we shouldn't be stopping at 3♠ so I shouldn't bid that unless confident that partner would go on, and I don't think I'd feel justified in passing 3♥.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Would you explain?

[PeterAlan]

I'm not 100% sure I've understood your argument here. Are you saying:

a) this hand clearly wants to stop the bidding as low as possible

b) but the BIT suggests partner may not really have the values for his bid

c) so it is even more clear we want the bidding to stop as low as possible

d) so we are ethically bound to make sure we go on bidding?

 

If so, I think I agree with a) and c). I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced by b) - couldn't partner be wondering whether to bid more strongly rather than less strongly? And I certainly wonder about d) - surely if there is no LA besides passing or bidding 3♠ then there is absolutely no reason why you now have to bid something else just because UI also tells you that passing or bidding 3♠ would be best?

I'm certainly saying (a) & (b), ( c) I don't think adds much, but Yes, I agree, and I do end up close to (d).

 

It's the usual problem with Law 16B(1) not meaning what it actually says. I think that 3♠ and Pass are the only LAs unless N is believed to be strong, when other forward-going bids come into the picture. In the context of a weakish N then I think that both 3♠ and Pass could be held to be demonstrably suggested by the BIT, and there's also Law 73 to take into account. So as I understand the usual interpretation of these poorly-worded Laws, and I may well be under a misapprehension, if you bid either 3♠ or Pass and N is a weak hand then you're vulnerable to being ruled against if it works out well.

 

On the other hand, N might be a stronger hand and wondering what action to take. For the reasons I've given, I think this less likely than the alternative, which is what I'll therefore cover, but if I'm wrong then I may well be stuffed by partner's BIT. I suppose there's a case for Passing 3♥ on the grounds that it's not the better of the alternatives in either interpretation of N's BIT, but I'd still feel vulnerable if he proves to be weak.

 

As I say, it may well be that I've misinterpreted current practice. When I went on the EBU TD update course after the 2007 Laws came out, I exasperated poor John Pain by insisting that what we were being told was not wholly consistent with the wording of Law 16, but I'm sadder if no wiser now. Perhaps those with a clearer perspective can put me straight.

[gordontd]

I think that 3♠ and Pass are the only LAs unless N is believed to be strong, when other forward-going bids come into the picture. In the context of a weakish N then I think that both 3♠ and Pass could be held to be demonstrably suggested

If you think they are the only two alternatives, they can't both be suggested because the phrase in the Law continues "...over another".

[PeterAlan]

If you think they are the only two alternatives, they can't both be suggested because the phrase in the Law continues "...over another".

If I could rely on that protection, then Pass 3♥, since 3♠ seems to be to be demonstrably the better bid of these two LAs.

[WellSpyder]

If I could rely on that protection, then Pass 3♥, since 3♠ seems to be to be demonstrably the better bid of these two LAs.

You aren't prevented from making the better bid unless both are LAs and the UI gives you a reason to prefer the better bid. If the UI doesn't particularly suggest one over the other, then go ahead and choose whichever you like (which hopefully will be the better bid....)

[Zelandakh]

Perhaps it would not be such a bad idea to explain the process that the bidder needs to go through, at least as I understand it. First, decide which calls are LAs, that is calls which a significant proportion of your peers would seriously consider. Next decide what the UI you are in possession of demonstrably suggests and create a subset of these calls which are suggested. Throw out this subset and choose the best call from the remainder. If there is no remainder then choose the call which is least suggested by the UI. If you only have one LA then it does not matter how much UI you have suggesting it since you have no alternative call to make.

 

What the possession of UI does not mean is that you have to automatically choose the worst option from LAs or that you have to make a call that (almost) noone would consider without UI. It also does not mean to make the same call you would have done without UI. I think the average club player does not understand the UI laws at all and since TD calls are so frowned upon they are not going to start understanding them anytime soon. But as a TD it is important that you do understand them and can explain them lucidly should anyone brave the LOL wrath and involve you.

[bluejak]

I would bid 3♠, and believe pass and 3NT to be LAs. Trezel suggested, with Reese concurring, that passing rather than giving preference might be best when you are afraid partner will go on. 3NT looks an awful bid but it is strange how often these awful 3NT contracts on misfits get misdefended and let through.

 

Partner's hesitation before bidding 3♥ suggests to me:

 

• he was considering whether to try or pass, or
  
• he was considering whether to force to game or try, or
  
• he is 7-5, or 6-5 with much better spades, and was considering 3S as an alternative, or
  
• he was considering whether he would find out more information by using fourth suit
  

Put it another way, I do not believe the BIT suggests any action over another.

[gordontd]

Perhaps it would not be such a bad idea to explain the process that the bidder needs to go through, at least as I understand it. First, decide which calls are LAs, that is calls which a significant proportion of your peers would seriously consider. Next decide what the UI you are in possession of demonstrably suggests and create a subset of these calls which are suggested.

You don't necessarily need to do them in this order. If you think the UI doesn't demonstrably suggest anything, you can just get on and bid what you like.

[wyman]

I would bid 3♠, and believe pass and 3NT to be LAs. Trezel suggested, with Reese concurring, that passing rather than giving preference might be best when you are afraid partner will go on. 3NT looks an awful bid but it is strange how often these awful 3NT contracts on misfits get misdefended and let through.

 

Partner's hesitation before bidding 3♥ suggests to me:

 

• he was considering whether to try or pass, or
• he was considering whether to force to game or try, or
• he is 7-5, or 6-5 with much better spades, and was considering 3S as an alternative, or
• he was considering whether he would find out more information by using fourth suit

Put it another way, I do not believe the BIT suggests any action over another.

 

If these are in roughly equal probabilities, it seems like pass < 3N < 3S, since 75% of the time, partner has a forward-going hand. I'm not sure we want to bring Bayes into our UI discussion, but just because it's not 100% clear what partner's problem is doesn't mean that an action is not suggested on expectation. [my opinion; IANATD]

[WellSpyder]

FWIW, the bid chosen at the table was pass. I ruled that it wasn't at all clear what was suggested by the UI (for much the reasons set out by Bluejak), so, as Gordontd has pointed out, it wasn't really necessary to decide what the LAs were.

 

(My own decision at another table where the bidding was 1♠ - 2♦; 2♥ - 3♦; 3♥ was to pass, even though I think I agree really with those who would bid 3♠ - I just couldn't bear the thought of giving partner a chance to make yet another bid! The hand opposite was indeed 6511 rather than 5611, but there was surprisingly little difference in how badly 3 ♥ or 3♠ played. Both were 2 down opposite Kxxxxxx, AKJxx, x, x.)

[Finch]

This hand seems an excellent counter-example to the DBurn Ui theorem: when partner makes a slow call, he doesn't want you to pass.

Quite often at the table, if I'm playing with Jallerton and he does something slowly I know what he is thinking about, even if in abstract one could argue that nothing is 'demonstrably suggested'

Here I really wouldn't know what he was thinking about, and I have no idea what calls are suggested. He could be thinking about

- passing

- forcing to game

- bidding 3S (if he is, say, 6-5)

- bidding 2NT (if the hearts are poor and he has a club stop)

-bidding 3D on a 5=5=3=0

 

The first two are obviously the most likely two options, but both of them really do seem equally likely to me.

[Vampyr]

 

Partner's hesitation before bidding 3♥ suggests to me:

 

• he was considering whether to try or pass, or
  
• he was considering whether to force to game or try, or
  
• he is 7-5, or 6-5 with much better spades, and was considering 3S as an alternative, or
  
• he was considering whether he would find out more information by using fourth suit
  

 

 

If 2 was non-forcing, then I think that the 2nd and 3rd of these options are unlikely. I think that partner is 5-6, and was wondering if you made a false preference and a return to hearts would improve the contract. Although he did raise the level, so perhaps this is implausible.