Auction UI or AI?

[par31]

[hv=pc=n&s=skj64hj8dkjt54ct3&w=sa9852h9732d7ckj8&n=sqt73ha6da932cq54&e=shkqt54dq86ca9762&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=2hd2n3d3sp4hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Club multiple teams, 4 board matches IMPs -> VPs

Bidding boxes in use

 

Table result 4♥=W, NS-420.

 

2♥ is alerted and explained by East as spades and a minor. The correct explanation is weak with both majors. East had misread the bid as 2♠.

 

X is undiscussed.

 

2NT is alerted and explained by West as a game-forcing enquiry. Opposite a 2♠ opener, 2NT would have been Lebensohl-like. After this explanation, East woke up to his mistake and the TD was called. After North was provided with the correct explanation of the 2♥ bid he was given the option to change his double which he declined.

 

1) Is it UI or AI to East that West has opened 2♥?

 

2) Do you adjust the score?

[billw55]

Your description of events is quite clear that east was woken up by west's explanation. 4♥ is therefore disallowed.

[lamford]

1) Is it UI or AI to East that West has opened 2♥?

2) Do you adjust the score?

The actual auction is always AI, which is why the cards are left out. Law 16 specifies that the player may use information if:

(a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source.

 

West's explanation however does wake East up to the fact that he has misread the bid. However, the AI that West opened 2H makes 4H the only logical alternative based on the authorised auction. In addition, if 2NT was to play in a minor, then 3S would be impossible. No adjustment for me.

[aguahombre]

If the West explanation of 2NT didn't wake East up, the 3S rebid would have woke him up anyway.

[helene_t]

If the West explanation of 2NT didn't wake East up, the 3S rebid would have woke him up anyway.

Shouldn't we assume that that isn't the case if we are unsure? Maybe 3♠ would show 6-5 if the opening had been 2♠?

[Vampyr]

Shouldn't we assume that that isn't the case if we are unsure? Maybe 3♠ would show 6-5 if the opening had been 2♠?

 

Why are we unsure? The idea that the auction is UI is bonkers.

[helene_t]

Hmm ok I suppose that once he looked at his partner's bidding cards again to see the second bid he would likely notice the correct first bid anyway.

[campboy]

The actual auction is always AI, which is why the cards are left out. Law 16 specifies that the player may use information if:

(a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source.

That depends on how you interpret "unaffected by unauthorized information from another source". Here East is only aware of the relevant information because of West's explanation, so I'm inclined to think it is affected by that UI.

[billw55]

IMO if he misread the bid once, he could do so again. Allowing 4♥ feels like a license to use partner's explanations as AI.

[aguahombre]

Shouldn't we assume that that isn't the case if we are unsure? Maybe 3♠ would show 6-5 if the opening had been 2♠?

I can't imagine showing 6-5, and leaving the minor undisclosed, in response to 2NT which, despite the "lebensohl-like" misnomer in the OP, must be asking for the minor. 3S has to be an impossible rebid which itself would alert responder to relook at the auction.

[lamford]

That depends on how you interpret "unaffected by unauthorized information from another source". Here East is only aware of the relevant information because of West's explanation, so I'm inclined to think it is affected by that UI.

I agree it is affected, but the auction is still AI, and logical alternatives are decided using the actual auction.

[campboy]

I agree it is affected, but the auction is still AI, and logical alternatives are decided using the actual auction.

Why do you think the 2♥ bid is still AI? Law 16A1a (which you previously quoted) doesn't say so, since it only covers information unaffected by UI from another source. So which law does?

[Vampyr]

Why do you think the 2♥ bid is still AI? Law 16A1a (which you previously quoted) doesn't say so, since it only covers information unaffected by UI from another source. So which law does?

 

Read the quoted portion of the law again.

[aguahombre]

Read the quoted portion of the law again.

I read Campboy's post again. The knowledge that partner actually opened 2H (normally AI because it is staring us in the face) could be said to have been "affected" by UI. Responder did not notice the actual 2H bid before the explanation.

 

At that point, we had a problem. However, the 3S rebid is AI; if 3S is impossible after 2S-2NT, then the wake-up should be allowed, IMO.

[Vampyr]

I really have to wonder whether most of the participants in this thread believe what they are posting or are just saying it for effect.

[lamford]

Why do you think the 2♥ bid is still AI? Law 16A1a (which you previously quoted) doesn't say so, since it only covers information unaffected by UI from another source. So which law does?

That law itself. The bid itself is AI. The information from the bidding card, that it is a 2H bid and what 2H means, is unaffected by the unauthorized information that partner thought you had bid 2S. Partner is allowed to use the information that you opened 2H, but if he thought that 2H showed spades and a minor, he would not be allowed to change his view using the UI.

[aguahombre]

I really have to wonder whether most of the participants in this thread believe what they are posting or are just saying it for effect.

Most often it means you don't understand it... probably a consequence of my not knowing your language.

[campboy]

That law itself. The bid itself is AI. The information from the bidding card, that it is a 2H bid and what 2H means, is unaffected by the unauthorized information that partner thought you had bid 2S. Partner is allowed to use the information that you opened 2H, but if he thought that 2H showed spades and a minor, he would not be allowed to change his view using the UI.

That makes sense, but you seem to have changed your position on whether or not it is affected by UI since the previous post I was responding to. If it's unaffected then of course the player can use it.

 

My view is that it is affected by UI for the purposes of this law, but I could easily be wrong about that.

[campboy]

Also, I'd be interested to know whether anyone would rule differently depending on whether bidding boxes or spoken bidding were in use.

[mycroft]

2♥!-x-2NT!-3♦; 3♠-p "review please?" Alerts come with the same explanations as in OP, spoken bidding.

 

Is the "review please" allowed, because the reason for the request, and therefore the answer given, is "affected by the UI"?

[blackshoe]

Law 20B: During the auction period, a player is entitled to have all previous calls restated when it is his turn to call, unless he is required by law to pass. Alerts should be included when responding to the request. A player may not ask for a partial restatement of previous calls and may not halt the restatement before it is completed.

Nothing in there about "affected by the UI". In fact, there is no restriction on a player's entitlement here.

 

Law 16A1{a}: A player may use information in the auction or play if it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source

What is the UI here? It is that East was unaware that West had opened 2♥. East "woke up" when West explained East's 2NT bid as something different to what East expected. Does this mean that East is now not permitted to know what the auction actually was? No, it does not. It means he is not allowed to use the knowledge that he misunderstood his partner's opening bid. He's allowed to think "I bid Lebensohl, LHO interfered. Partner could have doubled to indicate he has diamonds. What would pass show? Clubs? He didn't pass, what's that mean? He bid 3♠. I suppose that means he has a pretty good spade suit". Is "pass" a LA for East at this point? If so, he has to pass.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=skj64hj8dkjt54ct3&w=sa9852h9732d7ckj8&n=sqt73ha6da932cq54&e=shkqt54dq86ca9762&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=2hd2n3d3sp4hppp]399|300|

Club multiple teams, 4 board matches IMPs -> VPs. Bidding boxes in use. Table result 4♥=W, NS-420. 2♥ is alerted and explained by East as spades and a minor. The correct explanation is weak with both majors. East had misread the bid as 2♠. X is undiscussed. 2NT is alerted and explained by West as a game-forcing enquiry. Opposite a 2♠ opener, 2NT would have been Lebensohl-like. After this explanation, East woke up to his mistake and the TD was called. After North was provided with the correct explanation of the 2♥ bid he was given the option to change his double which he declined.

1) Is it UI or AI to East that West has opened 2♥?

[/hv]

It might depend on the likely systemic meaning of

2♠ (Double) 2N 3♦

3♠

If opener would double or pass with ♠ and ♦ then 3♠ might logically show a good hand with ♠ and ♣. Opener's explanation of 2N seems to have woken responder up to his misreading of the opening bid. Absent UI, It's uncertain whether responder would review the previous auction and realise his error. I'm told that an international Italian pair completed a complex auction to the wrong slam before one partner realised his opening bid was a mechanical error.

 

Furthermore, systemically, must opener rebid after RHO bids 3♦? 3♠ smacks of a deliberate attempt to wake up a dozy responder.

[LH2650]

What is the UI here?

 

West also has UI that East did not understand his bid, and I believe it suggests bidding 3♠ over the logical alternative of Pass, so 3♠ should not be allowed. Does anyone agree? Where does that leave us?

[blackshoe]

What is the UI here?

 

West also has UI that East did not understand his bid, and I believe it suggests bidding 3♠ over the logical alternative of Pass, so 3♠ should not be allowed. Does anyone agree? Where does that leave us?

Why does it suggest bidding 3♠? Why is pass a logical alternative?1

[campboy]

What is the UI here?

 

West also has UI that East did not understand his bid, and I believe it suggests bidding 3♠ over the logical alternative of Pass, so 3♠ should not be allowed. Does anyone agree? Where does that leave us?

East has UI, since the explanation of 2NT was not the one he was expecting.

 

West also has UI, as you say. We are told 2NT is GF enquiry over 2♥, though, so I expect it asks about shape and 3♠ is just the system bid here, with pass being 4-4 (of course we should check if called to the table, but here we can only speculate).