Imprecision

[Cyberyeti]

From the limited evidence we have, he seems to have thought he was playing Martian Precision, where 1♣ shows either 16+ HCP and any shape or exactly 12 HCP, precisely 3=2=3=5 shape, and exactly 9 HCP in clubs. Unfortunately, this system is flawed, because all rebids are as in normal Precision -- there's no way to show the second option, because the designer of the system didn't think it would come up often enough to be a problem. That's why no pairs actually agree to play it; however, this player had recently read about it, and the Martian Rover landing put it in his mind so he thought he was playing it. Since the system doesn't prescribe a rebid, there are no LAs. Therefore, he can do anything he wants, including passing 1♦.

 

:)

Unfortunately the rule in the UK that used to prohibit a negative 1♦ being NF by agreement has gone, otherwise pass could not be the system bid on the hand so there would have to be a LA.

[aguahombre]

Unfortunately the rule in the UK that used to prohibit a negative 1♦ being NF by agreement has gone, otherwise pass could not be the system bid on the hand so there would have to be a LA.

Unfortunately??? When the 1D responder is a passed hand and can only have 0-7 (no strong 3-suited alternative) opener with a bare 16 and diamond length should certainly be able to pass 1D if he wants to do that and not run afoul of something the bidding police dreamed up.

 

Whether doing so is advisable from the standpoint of letting the opponents in cheaply is not subject for litigation either.

[Trinidad]

It seems to me that "South though he was playing some other system" is an assumption with not a lot of evidence to back it up, save for the one bit that he opened 1♣ with insufficient values for Precision. If you want to ask him what system he thought he was playing, the answer might be interesting, but it seems quite likely to me that South had a non-specific (in that he didn't actually think anything in particular) brain fart, and wasn't actually thinking that he was playing some other system. If that's the case, this line of inquiry goes nowhere.

I agree somewhat with your last sentence (I disagree since I think it is a good idea to just ask South why he was opening 1♣), but completely disagree with your first. There is evidence to back up that South was not playing Precision when he opened 1♣. The original post starts with:

North-South were inveterate precision players and this was the last board of a close match. South could not explain how he came to open a strong club, but was awake enough to alert North's 1D reply and explain it as 0-7.

 

If South was fully aware that he was playing Precision, why did he need to be "awake enough" to alert North's 1♦ reply? If he was fully aware that he was playing Precision, he would alert 1♦ in his sleep, since he has done it a million times before. (Assume for example that South was aware he played Precision and that he thought that one of the x's was an ace, giving him 16 HCP. Now read the OP again. Why would South need to be particularly awake to alert 1♦? It is the natural, instinctive reflex of any Precision player to alert 1♦. If South would have been aware all along that he was playing Precision, the phrase about being awake enough to alert 1♦ doesn't make any sense.)

 

I think it is entirely reasonable to interpret the OP as "North's mind wandered, he forgot that they were playing Precision, he opened 1♣ (because it was the opening bid in whatever system he would otherwise play) and realized his gaffe by the time partner responded 1♦."

 

Yes, it is an interpretation, but it is consistent with the OP. IMO, assuming that South was aware that he played Precision is less consistent with the OP.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

I did not say there was no evidence. B-)

 

South "could not explain how he came to open a strong club". If he thought he was playing (for example) Acol, would he not have said so? As for "awake enough", that, it seems to me, is not a statement by south, but a comment the OP, based presumably on the evidence that South alerted 1♦ and properly explained it.

 

I'm not saying one should assume that South was aware he was playing Precision at the instant he bid 1♣, I'm saying one should not assume he thought he was playing some other system. If one does so assume, which system does one assume South thought he was playing? After all, there can't be more than a thousand or two possibilities. ;)

[Cyberyeti]

The fun one is where opener is rules aware enough not to show any reaction when partner produces the 1♦ response and realise he must have opened 1♣ when he thought he opened a (0/1/2+ card hence alertable) 1♦, but now partner's bid there is nothing he can do about it. Now he's allowed to know he's playing precision and all the agreements so I presume he has a free hand.

 

To Aquahombre - the unfortunately was not general, but for the implications of this in this thread as I thought it would be more amusing if the restriction still applied.

[barmar]

Unfortunately the rule in the UK that used to prohibit a negative 1♦ being NF by agreement has gone, otherwise pass could not be the system bid on the hand so there would have to be a LA.

I never said pass was the system bid, I said there's NO system bid in this situation. Whatever he does, he can't be accused of choosing from among the LAs the one that's suggested by the UI, because there are no LAs to choose from.

 

But maybe my hypothetical is flawed because Martian Precision is a prohibited agreement. But I think system regulations apply to actual agreements, not what you think you're playing when you misbid.

[aguahombre]

Whatever he does, he can't be accused of choosing from among the LAs the one that's suggested by the UI, because there are no LAs to choose from.

I believe others have pointed out that this is not true. He must choose a LA from those available in a system where 1C is not strong, forcing, and artificial. Any LA other than 1NT or 2C, such as pass, might well have been suggested by the UI that he had misbid the opening call.

[blackshoe]

Unfortunately the rule in the UK that used to prohibit a negative 1♦ being NF by agreement has gone, otherwise pass could not be the system bid on the hand so there would have to be a LA.

Would there? Have you never run across a situation where there is no correct bid in your system? If so, you must have a perfect system, and you could make a fortune marketing it.

 

I never said pass was the system bid, I said there's NO system bid in this situation. Whatever he does, he can't be accused of choosing from among the LAs the one that's suggested by the UI, because there are no LAs to choose from.

 

 

I believe others have pointed out that this is not true. He must choose a LA from those available in a system where 1C is not strong, forcing, and artificial.

Which law says so? Certainly not Law 16.

[Cyberyeti]

Would there? Have you never run across a situation where there is no correct bid in your system? If so, you must have a perfect system, and you could make a fortune marketing it.

Missing the point, there is no situation where a hole in my system requires me to make a bid specifically prohibited as an agreement by the RA. There can also be systems with no holes, you just have to make some bids wider range than you want to so you make "correct" system bids to bad contracts as you lose some of your precision.

[aguahombre]

He must choose a LA from those available in a system where 1C is not strong, forcing, and artificial.

 

Which law says so? Certainly not Law 16.

I don't know. But, back at you (and Barry) What law says that we can consider whether there are logical alternatives from a Strong Club system when it is unauthorized information to opener that he was playing that system?

 

To repeat, I don't know the exact legal basis for your stance ---nor for the stance of the others who disagree with you. But, common sense to me would be LA's from a natural opening system should be considered in this case.

[barmar]

To repeat, I don't know the exact legal basis for your stance ---nor for the stance of the others who disagree with you. But, common sense to me would be LA's from a natural opening system should be considered in this case.

The issue is that the law that says "using the methods of the partnership" in the definition of LAs apparently precludes applying common sense in this case.

 

I prefer to believe that when a law is so obviously misguided, common sense should win out. The lawgivers could not possibly have intended this interpretation, they just didn't think of this case when drafting it.

[barmar]

BTW, my "Martian Precision" posts were intended as Devil's Advocate, to show how trying to figure out the "system" they were thinking they were playing at the time can lead to nonsense. You can make up any system you want, so long as the hand matches the opening bid. Maybe he thought he was playing Intermediate Club, where 1♣ shows any 12+.

[aguahombre]

The issue is that the law that says "using the methods of the partnership" in the definition of LAs apparently precludes applying common sense in this case.

Yes. However, the "methods of the partnership" are not authorized information to the opening bidder; so, IMHO, we cannot apply that definition to opener's rebid ---and thus cannot use that Section to rule in this case....the only alternative is to interpret the Section as "alleged methods of the partnership known at the time of the opening bid and before the UI."

[blackshoe]

Missing the point, there is no situation where a hole in my system requires me to make a bid specifically prohibited as an agreement by the RA. There can also be systems with no holes, you just have to make some bids wider range than you want to so you make "correct" system bids to bad contracts as you lose some of your precision.

Wait a minute. We're talking about a situation where the agreed system of the partnership is legal, and where the bid actually made, although anti-system, is also legal per the convention regulations. So what bid are you talking about that's "specifically prohibited", and by which RA?

[blackshoe]

I don't know. But, back at you (and Barry) What law says that we can consider whether there are logical alternatives from a Strong Club system when it is unauthorized information to opener that he was playing that system?

 

To repeat, I don't know the exact legal basis for your stance ---nor for the stance of the others who disagree with you. But, common sense to me would be LA's from a natural opening system should be considered in this case.

Yes. However, the "methods of the partnership" are not authorized information to the opening bidder; so, IMHO, we cannot apply that definition to opener's rebid ---and thus cannot use that Section to rule in this case....the only alternative is to interpret the Section as "alleged methods of the partnership known at the time of the opening bid and before the UI."

Law 16 says nothing about "methods of the partnership" being UI. First off, before we can talk about "UI" we need to talk about "I". The "I" in this case is that opener has shown 16+ HCP (and nothing else) by his opening bid. That information (not the information that he's playing Precision) is what's unauthorized to him. What does it mean to say information is unauthorized? It means that he may not use that information in choosing from amongst logical alernatives one suggested over another by the UI. How are the LAs determined? By examining what calls might be considered using the methods of the partnership. The methods of this partnership are the methods of the Precision system. So that's where we look for LAs. Not some system the TD (or the player's opponent) makes up as the "system he is playing".

 

No, I haven't quoted a specific provision of law that says precisely this. I haven't because there isn't one. But everything I've said is logically derived from what Law 16 actually does say.

[Cyberyeti]

Wait a minute. We're talking about a situation where the agreed system of the partnership is legal, and where the bid actually made, although anti-system, is also legal per the convention regulations. So what bid are you talking about that's "specifically prohibited", and by which RA?

You used not to be able to agree in the EBU that the 1♦ negative to an artificial club was NF. You can now.

[blackshoe]

Even if your agreement is that it is forcing, you are not prohibited (absent UI, anyway) from passing it.

[aguahombre]

That information (not the information that he's playing Precision) is what's unauthorized to him.

I see the problem now. You don't believe that when pard alerted 1C, the fact that he is playing Precision became UI, and before that opener apparently was playing something else.

[lamford]

I don't know. But, back at you (and Barry) What law says that we can consider whether there are logical alternatives from a Strong Club system when it is unauthorized information to opener that he was playing that system?

 

To repeat, I don't know the exact legal basis for your stance ---nor for the stance of the others who disagree with you. But, common sense to me would be LA's from a natural opening system should be considered in this case.

That is completely against the wording in the Law which is that he must select LAs "using the methods of the partnership." There is already a precedent in the Laws, where someone makes a mechanical error, for him to use UI to discover that he has done something wrong. To say that he only knows he is playing Precision because of the UI is ridiculous. He has become aware that he misbid in Precision because of the UI, yes, but he still knows that his partner's response shows 0-7. If his partner had failed to alert 1C, inadvertently, but I have seen it happen, then he would still have alerted 1D and explained it if asked as 0-7. The overall methods of the partnership are AI to both sides, and I think that many rulings have been contrary to the wording of the Laws. The fact that he misbid comes from the alert and that is UI. But he knows that the combined assets of the partnership are a maximum of 19 points, from his own hand and his basic system, and he should select his rebid accordingly. That is obviously Pass. The opponents will also get to game now, which they will miss if he lies again with 1NT, so he is carefully avoiding taking advantage of the UI. I would disallow bids other than Pass, and 1NT, as they were not seriously considered by those polled, and I would disallow 1NT, as I think it is marginally demonstrably suggested.

 

Blackshoe covers the issue extremely well.

[blackshoe]

I see the problem now. You don't believe that when pard alerted 1C, the fact that he is playing Precision became UI, and before that opener apparently was playing something else.

I do not believe that the alert makes the fact that the partnership is playing Precision UI. I do not believe that the opener was playing some other system. So?

[barmar]

I'll bring it up again. If "the methods of the partnership" are Precision, how can there possibly be any LAs after opener opens 1♣ with a 12 count? Every bid he makes shows at least 16 HCP, because there's nothing in the system that allows taking back what the opening bid showed.

 

It makes absolutely no sense to try to rule based on the actual methods of the partnership, it causes a logical paradox (similar to the Barber Paradox). But if you instead base the determination of LAs on a likely system consistent with his previous bidding, then you do not have a contradiction and can make a reasonable ruling.

 

Actually, I suppose there's a way out of this. If there are no LAs, you can conclude that EVERYTHING is an LA. Then you just have to decide which of the 34 possible bids are demonstrably suggested by the UI, and prohibit them. In this case, the UI indicates that your side has less than half the points in the deck, which implies that you should try to keep the bidding low. To avoid taking advantage of this UI, you must keep making forcing bids until you reach at least the 3 level.

[aguahombre]

I do not believe that the alert makes the fact that the partnership is playing Precision UI. I do not believe that the opener was playing some other system. So?

So?? So, I have expressed what you don't believe correctly, and that it is a problem keeping me from agreeing with you.

 

The conclusion from what you don't believe is that opener psyched, and we are back to an illegal bid of 1C and a ruling in accordance with that. LA's become moot. Can't have it both ways; either he knew he was playing Precision when he opened 1C (psyche), or he thought he was playing something else and woke up (UI). There is nothing in the OP about saying he miscounted his hand or pulled the wrong card from the bid box. How easy it would have been to say so, if that had ocurred

[barmar]

either he knew he was playing Precision when he opened 1C (psyche), or he thought he was playing something else and woke up (UI).

or he knew he was playing Precision, but had a brain fart and bid 1♣ anyway. Since he didn't intend to mislead, it's not a psyche, it's a misbid.

[blackshoe]

So?? So, I have expressed what you don't believe correctly, and that it is a problem keeping me from agreeing with you.

 

The conclusion from what you don't believe is that opener psyched, and we are back to an illegal bid of 1C and a ruling in accordance with that. LA's become moot. Can't have it both ways; either he knew he was playing Precision when he opened 1C (psyche), or he thought he was playing something else and woke up (UI). There is nothing in the OP about saying he miscounted his hand or pulled the wrong card from the bid box. How easy it would have been to say so, if that had ocurred

You appear to be saying that once a pair agrees to play Precision (and why Precision exactly, other than it's the system the pair in this thread had agreed to play? Why not <insert any system name here, including Standard American or Acol>?) they cannot possibly misbid the 1♣ opening. They either have a legitimate 1♣ bid, or they psyched. I don't buy that. It is not impossible to misbid when you're playing <insert system name here>.

 

You also seem to think that "UI" is some kind of mantra, and all you need to do is chant it. It's not.

 

Edit: Thanks, Barry, you expressed what I was trying to say better than I did.

Edited August 21, 2012 by blackshoe
add a sentence.

[campboy]

I'll bring it up again. If "the methods of the partnership" are Precision, how can there possibly be any LAs after opener opens 1♣ with a 12 count? Every bid he makes shows at least 16 HCP, because there's nothing in the system that allows taking back what the opening bid showed.

Of course there are LAs under that assumption. You ask players what they might do if they opened 1♣ by mistake and then had to deal with a 1♦ response. The LAs are those calls that "a significant proportion" would seriously consider, "some" of whom would select. There are no good calls at this point because of the earlier misbid, but an LA does not have to be a good call.