I have UI but what is partner doing?

[jillybean]

ACBL

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sq9h52dj753cakj84&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1cp2dp4cp?]133|200[/hv]

 

2♦, not altered is a limit raise in clubs,

4♣ is obstensibly 1430 keycard in clubs. Love it or hate it this is where you are.

 

I have UI from the non alert of 2♦ but what the heck is partner doing now?

Has partner forgotten the agreement or forgotten to alert and does that have any

affect on how I can use or avoid the use of the UI?

[Cascade]

ACBL

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sq9h52dj753cakj84&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1cp2dp4cp?]133|200[/hv]

 

2♦, not altered is a limit raise in clubs,

4♣ is obstensibly 1430 keycard in clubs. Love it or hate it this is where you are.

 

I have UI from the non alert of 2♦ but what the heck is partner doing now?

Has partner forgotten the agreement or forgotten to alert and does that have any

affect on how I can use or avoid the use of the UI?

 

This seems easy. Give a normal response to RKCB.

[Phil]

It would be much harder if partner bid 4♦ and didn't alert 2♦.

[iviehoff]

Has partner forgotten the agreement or forgotten to alert and does that have any

affect on how I can use or avoid the use of the UI?

Alerts are for the assistance of the opponents alone. You must do more than be deaf to whether your partner alerts or not, you must carefully avoid taking any advantage of the fact that actually you heard.

 

In this case it is easy. You give 4C the meaning that it should have, and respond appropriately.

[paulg]

I have a new method for dealing with these problems. I imagine partner has stood on her chair and shouted "that is a limit raise in clubs" and then bid accordingly. If partner had done this, you would not dream of doing anything other than responding to keycard. You would never contemplate that partner has forgotten the system. If you do think partner may have the system wrong, then I'd suggest you are using UI to do this.

[pran]

A player is never allowed to assume that his partner has forgot their partnership understanding, and then call accordingly, except after this is obvious from the auction (partner's calls) alone (or in the case partner's forgetfulness is so frequent that it is part of their implicit understandings).

 

Example: You bid 4NT and partner responds with a bid that shows more key cards than exists outside your own hand.

[bluejak]

It doesn't have to be just partner's calls. If I open 1NT, partner bids 2♥ (transfer), the opponents then bid 2♠ (natural) 4♠ (natural) I am allowed to assume partner has not got five spades.

[iviehoff]

A player is never allowed to assume that his partner has forgot their partnership understanding, and then call accordingly, except after this is obvious from the auction (partner's calls) alone (or in the case partner's forgetfulness is so frequent that it is part of their implicit understandings).

I presume you are referring only to the situation that there is UI that partner has forgotten. If there is no UI, you can do what you like. Though if you appear to be uncannily accurate in predicting that your partner makes calls with different meanings from those you have disclosed, without some circumstance to explain it, you are at risk of being found to have made wrongful disclosure.

[pran]

I presume you are referring only to the situation that there is UI that partner has forgotten. If there is no UI, you can do what you like. Though if you appear to be uncannily accurate in predicting that your partner makes calls with different meanings from those you have disclosed, without some circumstance to explain it, you are at risk of being found to have made wrongful disclosure.

Sure.

Here the UI was a missing expected alert, but UI can be a lot of things. And if your reason is that your partner has a habit of being forgetful then you come dangerously close to a ruling that you selected your action(s) based on some concealed partnership understanding.

[Cascade]

A player is never allowed to assume that his partner has forgot their partnership understanding, and then call accordingly, except after this is obvious from the auction (partner's calls) alone (or in the case partner's forgetfulness is so frequent that it is part of their implicit understandings).

 

This is not true.

 

If you have no UI and no concealed partnership understanding then Law 40 allows a player to make any call. Any call includes a call that is based on an assumption that partner has forgotten your partnership understanding.

[pran]

A player is never allowed to assume that his partner has forgot their partnership understanding, and then call accordingly, except after this is obvious from the auction (partner's calls) alone (or in the case partner's forgetfulness is so frequent that it is part of their implicit understandings).

 

This is not true.

 

If you have no UI and no concealed partnership understanding then Law 40 allows a player to make any call. Any call includes a call that is based on an assumption that partner has forgotten your partnership understanding.

Please give an example where a player has a legal reason to assume that his partner has forgotten their partnership understanding from other sources than the auction.

 

(I accept bluejak's assertion that also opponents' auction in some situations can bring the probability of a forgotten understanding so high that it is close to certainty.)

[ArtK78]

Please give an example where a player has a legal reason to assume that his partner has forgotten their partnership understanding from other sources than the auction.

 

(I accept bluejak's assertion that also opponents' auction in some situations can bring the probability of a forgotten understanding so high that it is close to certainty.)

The only "legal" reason to make an assumption that partner has forgotten a partnership agreement from a source other than the auction would be a comment or action by an opponent which indicates that such is the case. While such a comment or action is UI to the opponent's partner, it is not UI to you. You can draw whatever inference you like from an opponent's comments or actions. But you draw such inferences at your own risk.

 

In an extreme case, an opponent's comments or actions might be actionable if they were calculated to cause you to draw a false inference. While such an action would no doubt lead to procedural penalties and possible disciplinary actions against the opponent, it might not result in an adjustment to your score.

[jillybean]

I followed what I thought was my obligation and responded to the keycard ask. It was after the game that it was suggested that I could have passed or bid 5C as it was obvious partner could not be interested in a club slam when I held club AKJ84 and that this was bridge knowledge and had nothing to do with UI. Perhaps an example of a little knowledge being dangerous? :)

 

We ended up 6N-1, partners hand was A874,AKQ,A6,Q632. 1C 2D 4C 4S 6N

Forgotten agreement or not, it seemed like over aggressive bidding.

[Vampyr]

I followed what I thought was my obligation and responded to the keycard ask. It was after the game that it was suggested that I could have passed or bid 5C as it was obvious partner could not be interested in a club slam when I held club AKJ84 and that this was bridge knowledge and had nothing to do with UI. Perhaps an example of a little knowledge being dangerous? :)

 

This is fatuous.

[Zelandakh]

Please give an example where a player has a legal reason to assume that his partner has forgotten their partnership understanding from other sources than the auction.

I open 1NT. Partner responds 2♥. RHO now has a coughing fit and I cannot avoid (unintentionally) noticing that his hand contains 8 spades (maybe it was the shock at hearing a spade transfer!). I hold 5 spades. Am I obligated to super-accept partner's transfer?

[c_corgi]

I followed what I thought was my obligation and responded to the keycard ask. It was after the game that it was suggested that I could have passed or bid 5C as it was obvious partner could not be interested in a club slam when I held club AKJ84 and that this was bridge knowledge and had nothing to do with UI. Perhaps an example of a little knowledge being dangerous? :)

 

It sounds like this argument was presented with the intention of blaming you for the silly result rather than partner forgetting the system. It certainly didn't originate from trying to follow the rules. Partner could have had QT9xxx clubs and not be worried about the trump suit opposite a limit raise. You were quite right to respond to keycard: in fact you were ethically obliged to do so.

[ArtK78]

I open 1NT. Partner responds 2♥. RHO now has a coughing fit and I cannot avoid (unintentionally) noticing that his hand contains 8 spades (maybe it was the shock at hearing a spade transfer!). I hold 5 spades. Am I obligated to super-accept partner's transfer?

Absolutely not. Nor are you required to regular-accept the transfer.

 

Information obtained from the opponents (even the way it happened in your hypothetical) is AI to you. You can act on it as you see fit at your own risk.

[ArtK78]

I followed what I thought was my obligation and responded to the keycard ask. It was after the game that it was suggested that I could have passed or bid 5C as it was obvious partner could not be interested in a club slam when I held club AKJ84 and that this was bridge knowledge and had nothing to do with UI. Perhaps an example of a little knowledge being dangerous? :)

 

We ended up 6N-1, partners hand was A874,AKQ,A6,Q632. 1C 2D 4C 4S 6N

Forgotten agreement or not, it seemed like over aggressive bidding.

I agree with c_corgi. The 4♣ bid, by agreement, is a key-card ask. Just because you have a powerful club holding does not mean that partner does not have his or her call. And partner is allowed to make a mistake.

 

Looking at partner's hand, it appears that, rightly or wrongly, partner intended 4♣ as a key-card ask. So you were on the same wavelength. You could have won this board by refusing to answer key card correctly, but you would have damaged partnership morale by doing so.

[Zelandakh]

Absolutely not. Nor are you required to regular-accept the transfer.

 

Information obtained from the opponents (even the way it happened in your hypothetical) is AI to you. You can act on it as you see fit at your own risk.

Tell this to pran! This is a source other than the auction.

[ArtK78]

Tell this to pran! This is a source other than the auction.

I actually did. See my post of Jan 28 at 17:45.

 

I did not consider the possibility of seeing an opponent's hand through no fault of one's own. That is clearly AI, and if the sight of an opponent's hand leads you to conclude that partner forgot your partnership agreement, you are entitled to act on that information. However, and I am repeating myself here, any inference that you draw from information provided by your opponent outside of the auction is at your own risk, and you cannot later complain that the inference that you drew from such information was erroneous.

[gnasher]

Please give an example where a player has a legal reason to assume that his partner has forgotten their partnership understanding from other sources than the auction.

Sometimes you can judge from your own hand that partner has probably forgotten the system. For example, if I had AKx AKx KQ xxxxx and it went

1

♣

-2

♦

(limit raise or better in clubs)

4

♣

(keycard for clubs)

I would assume that partner had forgotten our methods. I'm not sure what I would do with this assumption, but I wouldn't feel obliged to bid according to the system.

 

There are other factors that you can take into account, such as an opponent's reaction to an explanation, the a priori probabilities, and how obscure or unintuitive the sequence is. In the absence of UI or CPU, there is no obligation under the Laws to follow the system (though there may be regulations, like the EBU's, that make it advisable to do so).

 

Also, you don't have to be certain that partner has forgotten - it's perfeclty legitimate to act on the basis of probabilities, and to take into account the expected gains and losses. With no UI or CPU, if the AI tells you that your side's interests are best served by playing for partner to have forgotten the system, you are entitled to do so.

[barmar]

Is this debate really useful?

 

If you don't have UI, your actions are pretty much unconstrained. You're allowed to deviate from your system, or guess that partner has done so, and you don't have to justify it (so long as what you do isn't based on a CPU). Whether the clue comes from the auction or some other source is not relevant.

 

If you have UI, you're not allowed to use it. This is when it becomes relevant how you might conclude that partner has forgotten the system. If the UI suggests it, you'd need AI that also makes this the only LA.

[Cascade]

Please give an example where a player has a legal reason to assume that his partner has forgotten their partnership understanding from other sources than the auction.

 

(I accept bluejak's assertion that also opponents' auction in some situations can bring the probability of a forgotten understanding so high that it is close to certainty.)

 

No reason is a legal reason. I am not obligated to justify my reason for my choice of call. An assumption does not have to be based on a reason. Law 40 protects my right to choose any call, which may be based on any assumption or reason that I am free to make, provided I do not have a concealed partnership understanding.

 

The bottom line is that there is no law that compels me to base my calls on partnership agreements and there is a law that permits me to choose any legal call without restriction (almost) on the reason why I choose that call.

 

Obviously one's own hand may lead you to an assumption that partner has forgotten. You are then free to choose any call. This reasonably frequently happens in obscure auctions where I might choose a flexible or asystemic call when I believe that partner has forgotten.

[Cascade]

I followed what I thought was my obligation and responded to the keycard ask. It was after the game that it was suggested that I could have passed or bid 5C as it was obvious partner could not be interested in a club slam when I held club AKJ84 and that this was bridge knowledge and had nothing to do with UI. Perhaps an example of a little knowledge being dangerous? :)

 

I am not convinced by this suggestion why can partner not have a great hand that only needs you to have good trumps and if that is the case key card is a simple way to find that information.

[Vampyr]

You could have won this board by refusing to answer key card correctly, but you would have damaged partnership morale by doing so.

 

And gotten an adverse ruling -- not to mention a reputation as a cheat.