UI Conundrum

[sfi]

[hv=pc=n&s=skqt8hakq2d62cj83&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1np1np]133|200[/hv]

 

You're playing with a pickup partner at the club, and you innocently open this hand playing standard (so 15-17 or 15-18 NT range). When partner also bids 1NT, we call the director and it turns out that partner thought you had opened 1♥. Pretend RHO accepts this bid.

 

Now what?

 

If this hand passes and make 7 or 8 tricks, is there a case for adjustment?

If this hand bids 3NT and makes game, is there a case for adjustment?

[kevperk]

[hv=pc=n&s=skqt8hakq2d62cj83&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1np1np]133|200[/hv]

 

You're playing with a pickup partner at the club, and you innocently open this hand playing standard (so 15-17 or 15-18 NT range). When partner also bids 1NT, we call the director and it turns out that partner thought you had opened 1♥. Pretend RHO accepts this bid.

 

Now what?

 

If this hand passes and make 7 or 8 tricks, is there a case for adjustment?

If this hand bids 3NT and makes game, is there a case for adjustment?

How did it come to light that your partner thought you had opened 1♥? If the director asked at the table, this director needs a refresher. If your partner volunteered this info unquestioned, then partner needs to be enlightened. Either way, this information is unauthorized.

You may not use the unauthorized info, so the question is, "what does the UI suggest"?

I haven't decide yet - without the UI, partner could have been opening 1NT himself, or thinking you opened a minor and is bidding a nonforcing NT, or thinking you opened a major and is bidding a forcing NT(if that is the agreement)

[sfi]

If your partner volunteered this info unquestioned, then partner needs to be enlightened.

 

Partner volunteered it - something along the lines of "oops - I thought that was 1H". It was not the most serious of evenings, wine was involved, and the posited situation did not come up (1NT wasn't accepted and partner bid 2D which ended the auction). But there was some discussion later about options on the scenario posted above. No agreement though.

[kevperk]

Partner volunteered it - something along the lines of "oops - I thought that was 1H". It was not the most serious of evenings, wine was involved, and the posited situation did not come up (1NT wasn't accepted and partner bid 2D which ended the auction). But there was some discussion later about options on the scenario posted above. No agreement though.

Sometimes it is hard not to blurt out something like this, or think it is helpful, but it causes more problems.

 

There is an issue with the substituted bid. If the north-south pair have no systemic way of play 2[d], but only 3[d], and the hand only makes 2, or goes down, the board may need to be adjusted. Otherwise, the pair benefits from the enforced pass.

[gnasher]

What partner said is UI. Without the UI, your logical alternatives were:

- Assume that partner thought you opened something else, and pass 1NT.

- Assume that partner intended to open 1NT, and raise to 3NT.

- Hedge with some two-level action. The auction is AI to partner, so with a 1NT opening he will bid game, and with a 1NT response he will probably pass whatever you bid.

 

The third option might be best, but the other two are still LAs. Hence I think you have to raise to 3NT. If that makes, there is no reason for adjustment.

[Zelandakh]

I think you should bid 2♣ (Stayman). If you take partner for having opened 1NT then I do not understand bidding 3NT here - we could easily have slam if partner has a major suit fit.

[iviehoff]

Often in UI cases, I think "but if he had done the other and that had been advantageous, the argument for adjusting would have been equally strong." I suspect that this too one of those UI cases where if you do well out of it, there is a case for adjustment.

[mycroft]

iviehoff's case should not happen; that was the goal of replacing "reasonably suggested" with "demonstrably suggested" in the UI Law. There shouldn't be a "no-win case."

 

Now, I don't mean the "no-win case" of "if it doesn't work, you keep your score; if it does, it gets ruled back" - that's normal and just fine. But if there's a situation where there are only two reasonable cases, and if you pick one and it works, you'll be adjusted to the other, *and* if you pick the other and it works, you'll be adjusted to the first, then the TD isn't ruling right. There has to be a case that is both "Logical" (per L16) *and* will allow you to keep a good score if it happens to work. It could be that it's the least-appealing case, and the least-likely-to-win (as opposed to break even) case, but it has to exist.

 

That doesn't mean that we can't rule "action is suggested over pass, and whatever you decide to bid, if it works, we'll adjust to Pass", of course.

[bluejak]

Sometimes it is hard not to blurt out something like this, or think it is helpful, but it causes more problems.

 

There is an issue with the substituted bid. If the north-south pair have no systemic way of play 2[d], but only 3[d], and the hand only makes 2, or goes down, the board may need to be adjusted. Otherwise, the pair benefits from the enforced pass.

There is no enforced pass: the opponent accepted the 1NT.

[sfi]

There is no enforced pass: the opponent accepted the 1NT.

 

I think kevperk was commenting on what happened at the table - not my posited scenario.

[bluejak]

For once I have actually remembered the OP correctly - and now I find he is talking about something else! :(

[sfi]

What partner said is UI. Without the UI, your logical alternatives were:

- Hedge with some two-level action. The auction is AI to partner, so with a 1NT opening he will bid game, and with a 1NT response he will probably pass whatever you bid.

 

The third option might be best, but the other two are still LAs. Hence I think you have to raise to 3NT. If that makes, there is no reason for adjustment.

 

There was more discussion about this option the other day, with general agreement that a 2-level hedge is a clear winner. We also agreed with your conclusion that 3NT should not be adjusted if it makes.

 

Now, I have AI that partner is confused in some way. The hedge always (for some approximation thereof) works assuming that partner wakes up to the fact that I opened 1NT. Given that a 2H bid caters to the set of possible meanings, and partner will now do the right thing, can it be argued that the UI suggests that partner may not wake up to it, and therefore the hedge is disallowed?

[Zelandakh]

Now, I have AI that partner is confused in some way. The hedge always (for some approximation thereof) works assuming that partner wakes up to the fact that I opened 1NT. Given that a 2H bid caters to the set of possible meanings, and partner will now do the right thing, can it be argued that the UI suggests that partner may not wake up to it, and therefore the hedge is disallowed?

 

There are two likely scenarios: either partner meant to open (or overcall) 1NT or thought they were responding to an opening bid. If the former then we would bid 2♣, if the latter then we would pass. We have the UI that partner has the weak responding hand so we can eliminate pass. I do not see what we can do except bid 2♣. This is not a fudge, it is simply selecting the least-suggested of our LAs. If partner happened to have a good raise of clubs and therefore a 2♠ rebid, thus getting us to a no-play 4+♠/5+♣, I think most TDs would rightly look very negatively towards an immediate jump to 3NT.