ACBL: Criteria for LA?

[Flem72]

Again, spun off from Rosenberg's "Active Ethics" article.

 

P-(P)-1S-(X)

2C [intended as Drury, not alerted]-(2H)-P-P

?

 

(1) You are the Drury bidder and you hold Axxxx x xx KJxxx. May you "legally" call 2S? If so, is it simply b/c everyone would agree that 2S, though suggested by the UI (P doesn't know you hold a Drury hand), is just so much better as a bridge decision than P or X?

 

(2) Now you hold Axx Axx xx QTxxx (Rosenberg's example hand), same questions.

 

(3)What about 3C? Always "legal"?

 

(4) Now you hold the hand in (1), but the auction is Rosenberg's example:

 

P-(P)-1S-(X)

2C [intended as Drury, not alerted]-(3H)-P-(4H)

?

 

Is 4S "legal"? If so, what is the LA reasoning?

[aguahombre]

I don't think you can go wrong by deciding partner just plain failed to alert, and if Drury is your agreement over the double partner knew that and chose to pass.

 

With the first one, I would not care whether partner thought I had clubs and spades, or a random Drury hand. Good grief. 4♠.

 

With the second one, I must support spades at the two-level after bidding 2C, no matter what the bids meant.

 

Q3) legal and suicidal with those hands.

 

4) 4S obv. You want to be in 4S whether partner has a dog 1S bid or a decent one. If your partner psyched 1S, you don't have any information to confirm in anyway.

[awm]

(1) Pass is not a logical alternative, nor is 2♠. You have five-card support plus shape! However, 3♣ is a logical alternative (showing a better-than-normal drury hand with strength in clubs, looking for game). I think the UI implies that partner may not know we have support, and might take 3♣ as natural... meaning that the UI makes bidding 3♠ or 4♠ more appealing and makes 3♣ less appealing... so I'd feel obligated to bid 3♣ here.

 

(2) 2♠ seems like the only logical alternative, so I'd bid that.

 

(3) Bidding 3♣ on the second hand is not really a LA, but the UI implies that bidding it will be less successful than the logical action (2♠) so you can bid it if you want. No obligation though because I don't think any significant number of players would actually choose that call without the UI.

 

(4) 4♠ is really the only LA.

[aguahombre]

the reason 3C is not logical (alternative) on the first one is: I am supposed to assume partner alerted 2C, and then chose pass. Since 4S should be the final contract, 3C could only give them more information than I want to give them. Hence, 4s.

[jmcw]

Assume partner has alerted and understood your bid.

 

1. What does his pass show over 2H (for me 2S would be a sub-minimum).

I rate the hand a GF opposite just about any opening bid and would probably just bid 4♠, (if P pass was showing a minimum).

2. 2♠ no reason to go higher.

3. It does seem logical, but not my choice.

4. I would always bid 4♠ and I see no ethical reason to change that.

 

FWIW my 2 cents. Give a PP for failure to alert in addition to any adjustments that may be forthcoming.

[Flem72]

(2) 2♠ seems like the only logical alternative, so I'd bid that.

 

(4) 4♠ is really the only LA.

 

In both , why is pass not _a_ LA in view of P's pass ? Why is the S bid not still "contaminated" by UI? Is this an acquired judgment thing only, no relatively hard and fast rules?

 

Struggling to find some criteria in these situations; maybe the best one is: if I have a hand tht is simply to good for the situation, in spite of LA, bid and let the director do his thing?

[Flem72]

Assume partner has alerted and understood your bid.

 

1. What does his pass show over 2H (for me 2S would be a sub-minimum).

I rate the hand a GF opposite just about any opening bid and would probably just bid 4♠, (if P pass was showing a minimum).

 

What distinguishes this 2S bid from 4S in Rosenberg's article: In both cases P has passed and you have UI about your S support. Is it that 2S here does not rate to "hit" the good hands P might hold for his pass (thnking you don't hold S support)? Also, in Rosenberg's example auction, opps were bidding strongly; here, not. So, I assume you have AI that P may have a pretty good hand--does AI, in combo with your much better hand (also AI), trump UI?

 

What lines of thought are allowed and/or recommended?

[blackshoe]

In both , why is pass not _a_ LA in view of P's pass ? Why is the S bid not still "contaminated" by UI? Is this an acquired judgment thing only, no relatively hard and fast rules?

 

Struggling to find some criteria in these situations; maybe the best one is: if I have a hand tht is simply to good for the situation, in spite of LA, bid and let the director do his thing?

Not sure what you mean by "simply too good for the situation".

 

Yes, it's an acquired judgement. Every case is different, and there's no really good "rule of thumb" that will stand in every case.

 

Trying to apply Law 16 at the table can be difficult, even for experienced players. First you have to identify what partner did that might convey UI, then identify the I, then figure out what that I suggests you do, then decide if there are less suggested or unsuggested LAs (and what the heck is an LA, anyway?). All very complicated. Doing all that without breaking tempo, and conveying UI yourself, is even more difficult.

 

Or you can look at Law 73C: make every effort to avoid taking advantage of UI. Identify the I, and then if something feels like you're taking advantage of it, don't do that. If you're inexperienced, you're more likely to get it wrong than would an experienced player. Just do the best you can, and accept any score adjustment graciously, file that one in your "lessons learned", and move on.

 

The real trick is to stay calm. Avoid what David Burn calls "unauthorized panic": partner does something, or fails to do something, that tells you that he doesn't know you have a good suit, or support for his suit, or whatever. Your first instinct will be to tell him. But that's taking advantage of UI, so you can't legally do that.

 

All doesn't mean that you have to do something stupid, just because you have UI. Well, not always. :P Some people will tell you "you have UI, you have to pass". Nope. Sometimes the UI will suggest you pass (OMG! I've completely screwed up, partner has no idea what's going on, and he's forcing me to bid, but we need to stop bidding NOW!) Nope. If the UI suggests you should pass, that's the last thing you should do, unless there's no LA.

 

If you think everyone of your skill and experience level would do whatever it is the UI is suggesting you do, go ahead and do it. As in all judgement matters though, be prepared to be wrong. B-)

[jmcw]

What distinguishes this 2S bid from 4S in Rosenberg's article: In both cases P has passed and you have UI about your S support. Is it that 2S here does not rate to "hit" the good hands P might hold for his pass (thnking you don't hold S support)? Also, in Rosenberg's example auction, opps were bidding strongly; here, not. So, I assume you have AI that P may have a pretty good hand--does AI, in combo with your much better hand (also AI), trump UI?

 

What lines of thought are allowed and/or recommended?

 

I am not responding to Rosenberg's post here, rather to the OP.

I don't understand your comment:

How can "you have UI about MY ♠ support"?

 

What I do have is UI because my partner has failed to alert, has he forgotten our agreement?, nodded off?, maybe he understood the bid as Drury and just didn't alert!.

Your ethical responsibility in this scenerio is to bid as you would normally bid if partner HAD alerted.

In this case he passed over the opponents 2♥ overcall, so what does that pass show in your agreements?. Think about it, he could have called

 

1. Pass

2. Double

3. Bid 2♠

4. New suit.

5. etc

 

In my agreements, his pass indicates a minimum hand, 2♠ would have been sub minimum. Ergo, I just sign off in 4♠, making the bid I would make opposite a minimum.

[Flem72]

I am not responding to Rosenberg's post here, rather to the OP.

I don't understand your comment:

How can "you have UI about MY ♠ support"?

 

Perhaps I phrased clumsily. According to a whole raft of world-class folks, the UI here is that I have S support; now the problem is taht I am not allowed to bid so as to hit any of the good ahnds that P may hold, but that s/he has not revealed b/c s/he didn't pick up oin the Drury call. The "bid as if P forgot to alert" or "imagine screens" criteria didn't fare well in the commentary. Though the hand presented by Rosenberg ws a MUCH worse hand than the 5-1-2-5 one I gave, in fact, the one I gave in (2).

[Phil]

I wonder what a Drury call followed by 3♣ looks like? Partner's forcing pass over 2♥ indicates the same hand type as 1M - 2♣ - 2♦, so in my partnerships 3♣ shows shortness.

 

In the case with the 5332, again, partner's pass is forcing, so 2♠ looks obvious.

[Flem72]

Not sure what you mean by "simply too good for the situation".

 

I (think I) mean a hand that is going to bid some number of S opposite P's 3rd seat opener no matter what -- Rosenberg's hand (the one in my (2)) defiinitely was not.

 

Thank you for your comments -- this helps. After reading the Rosenberg article, I was in a bit of an existential panic. The first two cases seemed clear; the 3rd presented to me for the first time ever this notion of "hitting" a hand that P could hold but did not describe b/c of the failure to alert/understand Drury. I was totally surprised to learn that even if I chose to call 4S for some tactical reason (everyone agrees it is a horrible call), it would be "illegal" as well as stupid (though I guess she did pick this example from an actual, one supposes high-level, match.)

[Flem72]

In the case with the 5332, again, partner's pass is forcing, so 2♠ looks obvious.

 

Yes, obvious without UI/LA rules clouding the picture. In order to exclude pass as a LA, I wonder whether, in order to survive, one's notes would have to say someting like"after Drury, we are forced to 2S no matter what" or "after P shows a non-submin hand after Drury, we are forced to 2M no matter what." Or does the general "level-forcing" concept provide enough cover?

[aguahombre]

Yes, obvious without UI/LA rules clouding the picture. In order to exclude pass as a LA, I wonder whether, in order to survive, one's notes would have to say someting like"after Drury, we are forced to 2S no matter what" or "after P shows a non-submin hand after Drury, we are forced to 2M no matter what." Or does the general "level-forcing" concept provide enough cover?

I wouldn't think we need notes to say we don't use Drury as a Psychic control. How else, with spade support would we ever NOT continue to at least 2M?

[Flem72]

I wouldn't think we need notes to say we don't use Drury as a Psychic control. How else, with spade support would we ever NOT continue to at least 2M?

 

 

(5) OK, noted, there are some general bridge situations that remove the contamination by UI. Extension: If my 2S wakes P to the Drury call, iss/he allowed to do whatever s/he wants? or is s/he still screwed as many of the "Convention Disruption" proponents would argue?

 

(6) Now: change the auction to

 

P-(P)-1S-(X)

2C [intended as Drury, not alerted]-(3H)-P-P

?

 

Would 3S, with the (2) hand, not the good one, be "legal"?

[Phil]

Yes, obvious without UI/LA rules clouding the picture. In order to exclude pass as a LA, I wonder whether, in order to survive, one's notes would have to say someting like"after Drury, we are forced to 2S no matter what" or "after P shows a non-submin hand after Drury, we are forced to 2M no matter what." Or does the general "level-forcing" concept provide enough cover?

 

I don't think notes would be necessary but they wouldn't hurt.

[aguahombre]

(6) Now: change the auction to

 

P-(P)-1S-(X)

2C [intended as Drury, not alerted]-(3H)-P-P

?

 

Would 3S, with the (2) hand, not the good one, be "legal"?

Now, we get to an applicable case. With AXX XX AXX QTXXX, passing 3H would (IMO) be more than just a mere logical alternative to bidding 3S; and bidding 3S would clearly be an action suggested by the UI that partner might not know 2♣ was Drury.

[Phil]

Right, 3♠ would be suggested by the FTA.

 

The curious aspect of this auction, and what has been expounded on (in other cases) at the BW site, is the requirement to make a double, based on the FTA.

 

It seems that many believe the threshold for making a marginal call is rather low.

[mycroft]

A lot of this depends on what the pass of 2♥, and/or more hearts is. I bet that most people that have this issue have no clue, but you (and I) should.

 

2♥ should be easy; one of pass/2♠ is sub-minimum, the other is minimum. I like the agreement espoused by most here that 2♠ is weaker than pass; on the philosophy of "when we're forced to a contract, bidding it is the weakest action". Assuming that, I can't see passing either hand. Don't know about 3♥ or 4♥ - once we're past our forced-to level, pass becomes weakest, I would guess; isn't the point of Murray Drury to avoid playing a crap 3rd-seat 1M bid at the 3 level?

 

Like everybody else, I'm bidding 4♠ on 1, no other alternative; even if it's a minimum with 4 spades, I want to be in 4♠ with 5-and-a-singleton (and it probably won't be). I'd say the same thing on the 3, then 4 auction; the question now comes what happens when they take the push.

 

The second hand is too dangerous not to bid spades - it will only be wrong when partner has a minimum with 4 "lead-directing" spades and a balanced hand. I could be convinced into passing, but I'd never do it. Again, it will be interesting when they take the push. If pass is subminimum, then I think pass becomes legitimate - in fact, 2♠ seems dangerous (except you "know" partner has forgotten).

[TimG]

P-(P)-1♠-(X)

2♣*-(2♥)-P-P

?

 

*intended as Drury, not alerted

I'm sure if I played Drury I would have an agreement about the pass of 2♥. I suspect it would mean that I have a sub-minimum hand with perhaps only 4 spades. I also assume that 2♣ can be a 3-card raise. In that light, I don't think that opener's pass over 2♥ is forcing. Perhaps I am wrong, but it would be good to know what agreements are in play.

 

If I am right about the pass of 2♥, I would think that passing is a LA whenever responder holds three spades and that bidding 2♠ is suggested by the failure to alert.

 

According to a whole raft of world-class folks, the UI here is that I have S support

The UI is not that you have spade support. The UI is that partner is unaware that you have spade support.

[Flem72]

The UI is not that you have spade support. The UI is that partner is unaware that you have spade support.

 

 

Correct--my bad.

[blackshoe]

I'm sure if I played Drury I would have an agreement about the pass of 2♥. I suspect it would mean that I have a sub-minimum hand with perhaps only 4 spades. I also assume that 2♣ can be a 3-card raise. In that light, I don't think that opener's pass over 2♥ is forcing. Perhaps I am wrong, but it would be good to know what agreements are in play.

 

If I am right about the pass of 2♥, I would think that passing is a LA whenever responder holds three spades and that bidding 2♠ is suggested by the failure to alert.

 

 

The UI is not that you have spade support. The UI is that partner is unaware that you have spade support.

Yes. And it is the fact that partner is unaware of your spade support, not the failure to alert, that suggests you tell him about your support. Pedantic of me, I suppose, but I think it's important to correctly identify the I in UI cases.

[aguahombre]

Yes. And it is the fact that partner is unaware of your spade support, not the failure to alert, that suggests you tell him about your support. Pedantic of me, I suppose, but I think it's important to correctly identify the I in UI cases.

I have stated my problem with this way of thinking; and I don't know if you are right, or I am right (in law).

 

The problem is "that partner is unaware of your spade support" is not "fact" to me. I think I must assume partner is aware. Others don't. The only case posted here where telling partner (again) about the spade support is wrong IMO is the one where I have a somewhat balanced hand with only 3-card support and the auction has come back to me at 3H. Selling out at the two-level with that hand, is just bad bridge, but passing at the 3-level is abiding by partner's decision; bidding 3S there would be bad bridge if partner is aware of Drury, and illegal if I believe he might not be aware.

[TimG]

The UI is not that you have spade support. The UI is that partner is unaware that you have spade support.

Yes. And it is the fact that partner is unaware of your spade support, not the failure to alert, that suggests you tell him about your support. Pedantic of me, I suppose, but I think it's important to correctly identify the I in UI cases.

Maybe I wasn't careful enough. The UI is that partner may be unaware that you have spade support. I don't think it is fact that partner is unaware, though for the purposes of the Laws and UI, we might have to treat it as fact.

 

Last weekend (ACBL), my partner forgot to announce the range when I opened 1NT. Over the years, I have played more 1NT ranges with this partner than you have probably played in your lifetime, but there was absolutely no doubt in my mind that he knew what NT range we were currently playing.

[jmcw]

Maybe I wasn't careful enough. The UI is that partner may be unaware that you have spade support. I don't think it is fact that partner is unaware, though for the purposes of the Laws and UI, we might have to treat it as fact.

 

Last weekend (ACBL), my partner forgot to announce the range when I opened 1NT. Over the years, I have played more 1NT ranges with this partner than you have probably played in your lifetime, but there was absolutely no doubt in my mind that he knew what NT range we were currently playing.

 

Yes indeed. As I alluded to also, partner may just have forgot to alert. It is even possible he did alert and I missed it.

Strange stuff sometimes happens.