Chris3875 Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 [hv=pc=n&s=sq8hq752dcakt9854&w=st764hk64djt3c763&n=sj532hajt98dak65c&e=sak9h3dq98742cqj2&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1d1np2d3d3h]399|300[/hv] South opened 1NT showing 9-14 HCP, 4 of a Major and 5+ clubs. It was not alerted, but West asked about it at his turn to bid and was toldby North 16-18 HCP, balanced. North then bid 2D which was alerted as a transfer to hearts, East inserted 3D and South bid 3H. I'm not surewhat happened after that - I think they ended up in 5H making. I was just asked the question about the legality of the 3H bid after the sessionwas over. Their system is that the 1NT overcall is as South bid it, North just forgot. The reply to the enquiry by North should have beenUI to South - did he take advantage of it? A 2D response by North is impossible in their system apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris3875 Posted November 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 Bugger ! South didn't open - he overcalled ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campboy Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 The reply to the enquiry by North should have been UI to South - did he take advantage of it? A 2D response by North is impossible in their system apparently.Then he should have said that it was impossible in their system, not that it was a transfer. Opponents are entitled to know N/S real agreements. As to the UI issue, I'm not sure what to expect from an "impossible" 2♦ here but it sounds like partner wants to know what my major is and doesn't want to make a non-forcing bid. I would therefore bid 3♥ as South. I guess we need to poll players to find out if pass is an LA (if it is, 3♥ is suggested). There is also the issue of whether there is damage. You do not say how the auction continued, but presumably N/S made a heart game; if we decide that South's 3♥ bid is illegal then North will certainly bid again -- the auction might well continue 3♠ from North, 4♣ from South, 4♥ from North, leading to the same result, though doubtless other outcomes are possible (is 12C1c available?). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 Players are required to explain their actual agreements. If their agreement is that 1NT shows clubs and a major, and that 2♦ by North has no defined meaning, then those are the correct explanations, and so both N and S have given MI to opponents, and N has given UI to S, and S has illegally avoided giving UI to N. Also, I suspect the latter was deliberate. Whether 3♥ is legal depends on whether S had an LA, and whether 3♥ could demonstrably have been suggested over any LA by the UI that N thinks S has a balanced strong NT type hand. Without knowing more about their system, I'm not prepared to speak to that question. How would they bid Stayman, for example (if 1NT is natural)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c_corgi Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 As if it were not messy enough already, I suspect East's 3D is also an infraction: Pass looks like an LA and acting rather than passing is suggested by partner's question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 Players are required to explain their actual agreements. If their agreement is that 1NT shows clubs and a major, and that 2♦ by North has no defined meaning, then those are the correct explanations, and so both N and S have given MI to opponents, and N has given UI to S, and S has illegally avoided giving UI to N. Also, I suspect the latter was deliberate.I am sure that South deliberately tried to avoid giving UI to North. However, I don't see any indication that South deliberately (i.e. knowingly) illegally avoided giving UI to North. Absent any evidence, I would assume either that South doesn't know the laws very well or that South is Herman de Waele. I would not assume out of the blue that South deliberately breaks the laws. Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lalldonn Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 I know I'm inferring or guessing, but despite you saying 2♦ doesn't exist for them, wouldn't it have to be asking for the major? That just seems completely normal so I would think 3♥ by south is a normal bid given his extra playing strength. I could believe they haven't discussed it but it's hard to believe they have actually agreed to never bid 2♦, so I wouldn't bar south from using normal bridge logic. Of course I would want south to tell me that's why he bid it, but on it's face I certainly wouldn't consider 3♥ taking advantage of anything (but I would expect south to make the same 3♠ bid with his majors reversed or else I might then think he was taking advantage!) That is all aside from the other issues of the explanations and whatever, that I will leave to all the genius directors here to comment on. I wonder if east would rather go back to -800 in 3♦X. What kind of bid was that? (Sorry for the slight rant) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 I am sure that South deliberately tried to avoid giving UI to North. However, I don't see any indication that South deliberately (i.e. knowingly) illegally avoided giving UI to North. Absent any evidence, I would assume either that South doesn't know the laws very well or that South is Herman de Waele. I would not assume out of the blue that South deliberately breaks the laws. RikYes. I did not intend to imply that South was deliberately and knowingly breaking the laws. Although I think even Herman has probably given up the de Wael school by now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 Yes. I did not intend to imply that South was deliberately and knowingly breaking the laws. Although I think even Herman has probably given up the de Wael school by now. As of September, he had not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr1303 Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 It is possible to rule result stands, but to give NS a procedural penalty for blatant disregard of the UI laws? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 Yes. I did not intend to imply that South was deliberately and knowingly breaking the laws. Although I think even Herman has probably given up the de Wael school by now. As of September, he had not.Then he's even more stubborn than I thought. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted November 18, 2012 Report Share Posted November 18, 2012 Then he's even more stubborn than I thought. :)Mmmm. The reasoning is that the opponents are not entitled to the information that you are having a misunderstanding; this, however, has no basis in law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 18, 2012 Report Share Posted November 18, 2012 Oh, I understand the deWael School.Also that it has no legal basis — and that the WBFLC has said so. So... stubborn. Very stubborn. B-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted November 18, 2012 Report Share Posted November 18, 2012 Mmmm. The reasoning is that the opponents are not entitled to the information that you are having a misunderstanding; this, however, has no basis in law.You are entitled to correct explanation of opponents' understandings, period. But if you have been given incorrect explanation during the auction and your opponents become the (presumed) declaring side then you are entitled to such explanation be corrected before the opening lead, and the auction can be continued (on certain conditions). Now it is up to you, at your own risk, to deduce that opponents have had a misunderstanding and make use of that information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted November 18, 2012 Report Share Posted November 18, 2012 It is possible to rule result stands, but to give NS a procedural penalty for blatant disregard of the UI laws?That would certainly be possible, in general. But in this case there was no blatant disregard for the UI laws. I would say that 3♥ is the only LA. I mean, you show a hand with a 4 card major and 5+clubs. Now partner bids the opponents' suit. What else could it possibly mean but "describe your hand partner?". OK, RHO comes in and you have to describe your hand 1 level higher. That means that you pass with a minimum 2425 hand. But with a 2407 hand, you will definitely bid. So far, the only infractions have been MI (2x). The first one was because partner forgot the system, the second because you didn't understand the laws, but tried to do the best you could. This is not something that I would give PP's for. I would do some friendly educating instead. Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted November 18, 2012 Report Share Posted November 18, 2012 2♦ is strong bid, and south really looks like blatantly taking advantage of UI. I am not an expert on raptor, but 4♣ looks to me like a LA to 3♥ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted November 18, 2012 Report Share Posted November 18, 2012 2♦ is strong bid, and south really looks like blatantly taking advantage of UI. I am not an expert on raptor, but 4♣ looks to me like a LA to 3♥Why?South has already shown 5 of his 7 clubs. He has shown 0 of his 4 hearts. He has only shown a four card major. To me it makes sense that 2♦ is a forcing way to find out what the major is (rather then by making a pass or correct bid). The only possible LA to 3♥ that I can imagine would be 4♥: showing the heart suit and logically implying extra club length. But since I would expect 3♥ to be GF too, I could imagine that you would require a maximum (or a minimum) for this kind of specific jump. Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted November 18, 2012 Report Share Posted November 18, 2012 You are entitled to correct explanation of opponents' understandings, period. But if you have been given incorrect explanation during the auction and your opponents become the (presumed) declaring side then you are entitled to such explanation be corrected before the opening lead, and the auction can be continued (on certain conditions). Now it is up to you, at your own risk, to deduce that opponents have had a misunderstanding and make use of that information. The problem is that you and your partner have a different opinion of your understandings. So you are asked for an explanation of 4NT, and say RKC; then they ask what 5♣ is, and are told that it is his better minor. According to the dWS, you alert and explain according to partner's agreement, but still bid according to yours. After the auction you will correct the misinformation that both of you have given; the dWS applies during the auction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 18, 2012 Report Share Posted November 18, 2012 The dWS is wrong. Period. If you know your partnership agreement regarding partner's call is X, then explaining that call as Y is an infraction of law, even though you suspect (or even know) that partner thinks the agreement is that it means Y. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted November 18, 2012 Report Share Posted November 18, 2012 The problem is that you and your partner have a different opinion of your understandings. So you are asked for an explanation of 4NT, and say RKC; then they ask what 5♣ is, and are told that it is his better minor. According to the dWS, you alert and explain according to partner's agreement, but still bid according to yours. After the auction you will correct the misinformation that both of you have given; the dWS applies during the auction.I have never, ever considered dWS as anything but a very serious and deliberate (premeditated) violation of the laws.Luckily WBF finally issued a statement to that effect. I shall always explain my partner's calls as if I never heard any of his explanations during the auction. Out opponents will probably from our differing explanations understand that we have a misunderstanding within our partnership and are free to use this information at their own risk. If they after the board is completed can show probable damage from whatever MI has been given (in spite of subsequent correction and/or the conflicting explanations) they are (of course) entitled to compensation in the form of rectification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 Why?South has already shown 5 of his 7 clubs. He has shown 0 of his 4 hearts. He has only shown a four card major. To me it makes sense that 2♦ is a forcing way to find out what the major is (rather then by making a pass or correct bid). The only possible LA to 3♥ that I can imagine would be 4♥: showing the heart suit and logically implying extra club length. But since I would expect 3♥ to be GF too, I could imagine that you would require a maximum (or a minimum) for this kind of specific jump. RikYeah, 4♥ looks right if it shows extra clubs, I'm not an expert on raptor, but bidding my AK10xxxx again looks very promising as well, partner knows I have 4cM somewhere so can bid p/c 4M if he wants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iviehoff Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 I shall always explain my partner's calls as if I never heard any of his explanations during the auction.You are permitted to use UI to assist you in ensuring you give the correct explanation of your partner's bids. That is different from the dW approach where one uses UI to help you give an incorrect explanation of partner's bids, for the purposes of concealing a bidding misunderstanding from the opposition, and reducing the transmission of UI. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr1303 Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 Apparently I explained partner's 2D as a transfer to hearts. That sounds fairly blatant to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 You are permitted to use UI to assist you in ensuring you give the correct explanation of your partner's bids. That is different from the dW approach where one uses UI to help you give an incorrect explanation of partner's bids, for the purposes of concealing a bidding misunderstanding from the opposition, and reducing the transmission of UI.While very questionable that assertion depends on what you mean by "correct explanation". If by that you mean "correctly describing your partner's actual hand" your assertion is just plain wrong and your idea is illegal. If you mean that you use the UI as a reminder to yourself on what your partnership understandings really are then you are skating on very thin ice: You may use the UI to give opponents correct explanation, but you are not allowed to change your own misunderstanding because of this reminder! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 Apparently I explained partner's 2D as a transfer to hearts. That sounds fairly blatant to me.That is blatant giving misinforation (MI). It is not blatant use of unauthorized information (UI). Your question was whether one could give a PP for blatant disregard of the UI laws. It is possible to rule result stands, but to give NS a procedural penalty for blatant disregard of the UI laws? Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.