Bergen debacle

[shevek]

Matchpoints, club game

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sqhkqt54d5caq6542&w=sakj7432h6da2ck98&n=s985hj973dkqj93c7&e=st6ha82dt8764cjt3&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1h1s3d(N%3DBerg%2C%20S%3Dweak)pp3s4hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

North thought Bergen applied, with 3♦ showing a limit raise.

Then bid 4♥ because ....

South thought no Bergen after an overcall. No alert.

For some reason, South went 1 off in 4♥.

[mike777]

I also play Bergen on in this situation but some may not. That is how I was taught it many moons ago.

 

I also don't think this is a limit raise so 3c for me.

 

 

As for the 4h bid well....

 

----

 

 

 

Wht did south think 3d was, natural and weak, I thought that was an alert but perhaps not? In any event on bbo there is "self alert"

 

 

In any event this looks like a good teaching moment for each partner and for the director to sort it all out.

[lamford]

For some reason, South went 1 off in 4♥.

I guess South ruffed the second spade and played a top trump, ducked. Now a second trump is fatal. If South plays instead a diamond and West rises to play a third spade, declarer must ruff and not play trumps, but playing the ace of clubs and ruffing a club gets home. 4H does appear to use the UI if 3D was wrongly explained. 3S normally makes an overtrick so I would probably adjust to this.

[aguahombre]

Isn't South's pass AI to North? I don't think a red psyche of 1H in first chair is a likely possibility.

 

The real question is whether the MI caused West to bid again. Result adjusted to 3D down whatever n/s or not adjusted at all, depending on that answer. What is the real agreement??

[mgoetze]

North thought Bergen applied

So then why did he bid Reverse Bergen? :P

[ArtK78]

South passed 3♦. North is allowed to know that. End of discussion. No adjustment.

[shevek]

South passed 3♦. North is allowed to know that. End of discussion. No adjustment.

 

Maybe.

There is the screens argument.

If West is North's screenmate, North will explain 3♦ as a heart raise. West might infer that South forgot and take his chances against 3♦.

 

Also, if North thinks he has shown a limit raise, why should he bid 4♥ on a hand worth 3♥? South is still there to wake up. Perhaps South psyched 1♥. Unlikely but North knows this is not the case from the failure to alert 3♦. That's UI.

 

In Australia, no alert for weak jump shift responses.

[blackshoe]

Isn't South's pass AI to North? I don't think a red psyche of 1H in first chair is a likely possibility.

 

The real question is whether the MI caused West to bid again. Result adjusted to 3D down whatever n/s or not adjusted at all, depending on that answer. What is the real agreement??

It's not a question of a psych, or of whether the auction is AI (which it is). South's failure to alert 3♦ is unexpected to North, because North thinks 3♦ is artificial and therefore requires an alert. So because it's unexpected it provides to North the UI that South does not realize North has a heart raise. Passing 3♠ is a logical alternative, so 4♥ is illegal.

 

NS are the OS, and if West bid 3♠ on the basis of MI, well, since he could make 4, he would not have been damaged by the 3♠ bid. He was damaged by the illegal 4♥ bid, so neither of 3♦ or no adjustment can be right.

[gordontd]

There is the screens argument.

The "screens argument" is there to help us determine what might have happened in the absence of UI; not to tell us what information the opponents are entitled to.

[aguahombre]

Passing 3♠ is a logical alternative, so 4♥ is illegal.

No. The only UI North has at that point is that his partner was willing to pass a weak natural 3D response. I don't believe we can show North used that UI in his decision to bid 4H.

[blackshoe]

No. The only UI North has at that point is that his partner was willing to pass a weak natural 3D response. I don't believe we can show North used that UI in his decision to bid 4H.

Does 3♦ (Bergen) not require an alert? Was there not a failure to alert? How can this not convey to North the information that his partner is unaware that he (North) has a heart raise? What did I miss?

[aguahombre]

Does 3♦ (Bergen) not require an alert? Was there not a failure to alert? How can this not convey to North the information that his partner is unaware that he (North) has a heart raise? What did I miss?

You missed the AI of the pass by opener which followed. This tells Responder clearly that Partner missed Bergen. The failure to alert might have been just a failure to alert, but the PASS is obvious and legally usable.

 

edit: as a side issue: IMO, Bergen is tremendously high-maintenance for the players and the directors. It is abused and confused much too often...in or out of competition, resulting in BIT issues ("But, I was always gonna..") in addition to MI/UI. Inexperienced or infrequent partnerships would do well to abandon Bergen altogether.

Edited December 5, 2014 by aguahombre

[blackshoe]

You missed the AI of the pass by opener which followed. This tells Responder clearly that Partner missed Bergen. The failure to alert might have been just a failure to alert, but the PASS is obvious and legally usable.

 

edit: as a side issue: IMO, Bergen is tremendously high-maintenance for the players and the directors. It is abused and confused much too often...in or out of competition, resulting in BIT issues ("But, I was always gonna..") in addition to MI/UI. Inexperienced or infrequent partnerships would do well to abandon Bergen altogether.

Since when does AI (as from the fact that partner passed 3♦) trump UI (from the failure to alert)? Does the fact that partner passed mean that responder has no LA to 4♥ when it gets back around to him? How so?

[aguahombre]

Since when does AI (as from the fact that partner passed 3♦) trump UI (from the failure to alert)? Does the fact that partner passed mean that responder has no LA to 4♥ when it gets back around to him? How so?

It means Responder isn't using UI, so whether there is a logical alternative is moot. You can use AI and you have AI. Don't think of one "trumping" the other.

 

Change the situation a little bit, and THEN there would be an issue:

 

1H-(1S)-3D

3H...Opener didn't alert 3D as Bergen, but bid 3H. Responder could decide the failure to alert was just an oversight --- or he could decide the failure was because he forgot Bergen and Holds something like 7-0 in the red suits.

 

That would be using UI, and doing anything but pass would be illegal because Responder has the same Bergen hand he started with and Opener's 3H declines game.

Edited December 5, 2014 by aguahombre

[gordontd]

I think we have to consider what North would have done had the 3D bid been alerted and explained as Bergen, but South had nevertheless passed. If I was North I wouldn't have a clue what was going on, so I would pass to let South continue to do whatever it was he was doing.

[ggwhiz]

I don't understand how the pass of 3♦ can possibly be AI to North. Having already "shown" his hand (plus a card he invented) North has no business bidding again.

[blackshoe]

It means Responder isn't using UI, so whether there is a logical alternative is moot. You can use AI and you have AI. Don't think of one "trumping" the other.

 

Change the situation a little bit, and THEN there would be an issue:

 

1H-(1S)-3D

3H...Opener didn't alert 3D as Bergen, but bid 3H. Responder could decide the failure to alert was just an oversight --- or he could decide the failure was because he forgot Bergen and Holds something like 7-0 in the red suits.

 

That would be using UI, and doing anything but pass would be illegal because Responder has the same Bergen hand he started with and Opener's 3H declines game.

This is not the way I learned to deal with Law 16. Where are you getting this?

[jeffford76]

I think we have to consider what North would have done had the 3D bid been alerted and explained as Bergen, but South had nevertheless passed. If I was North I wouldn't have a clue what was going on, so I would pass to let South continue to do whatever it was he was doing.

 

While in general I think it's a good idea to consider "What would you have done if partner had correctly alerted/explained, and then took the action they took?" there are cases where there are no hands consistent with that except outright psyches. I think I am allowed to assume in those situations that partner (or I) forgot the method rather than being required to play partner to have done something completely bizarre on purpose.

[gordontd]

I don't understand how the pass of 3♦ can possibly be AI to North.

It's AI because it's part of the auction. What is UI is the information passed by the failure to alert 3D - ie that the reason South passed 3D was due to misunderstanding 3D, not for any other reason. That UI demonstrably suggests bidding 4H to North, and I believe Pass to be a logical alternative.

[gordontd]

While in general I think it's a good idea to consider "What would you have done if partner had correctly alerted/explained, and then took the action they took?" there are cases where there are no hands consistent with that except outright psyches. I think I am allowed to assume in those situations that partner (or I) forgot the method rather than being required to play partner to have done something completely bizarre on purpose.

Here you don't need to make any assumptions - partner will get another bid if you just pass.

[helene_t]

Yes but if you can ethically come to the conclusion that he forgot - which I think you can - it may be a good idea to wake him up.

 

In the absurd scenario that he explained 3d as showing support, and then passed, I would bid 4h as well since passing would be using the ui from partners alert.

[jeffford76]

In the absurd scenario that he explained 3d as showing support, and then passed, I would bid 4h as well since passing would be using the ui from partners alert.

 

I don't think this is required - the laws only have "unexpected alerts" as generating UI.

[ArtK78]

There are only two conclusions that can be drawn from partner's pass of 3♦:

 

(1) He forgot that 3♦ was a conventional raise of hearts; or

(2) He psyched his 1♥ opening bid.

 

The failure to alert does steer one towards explanation (1) as opposed to explanation (2); however, given that explanation (2) is extremely unlikely ab initio, I don't believe that it is unethical for responder to draw a conclusion from the authorized information (the pass of 3♦) that opener forgot the meaning of the 3♦ bid. Quite frankly, I seriously doubt that explanation (2) ever entered responder's mind.

 

So, I am going to stay with my initial conclusion that responder did nothing wrong in bidding 4♥ when given a second chance to do so later in the auction. The unauthorized information of a lack of alert is entirely consistent with the authorized information of opener's pass of 3♦. Since responder is permitted to use the authorized information, I would not grant any adjustment.

[aguahombre]

This is not the way I learned to deal with Law 16. Where are you getting this?

16A3..."No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous)." He is "basing" a call or play on AI. Whether he chooses to Pass or to bid 4H, all we can say about the choice is whether we like it or not. I don't, because he already described his hand. But in order to get to L.A.'s we first have to decide that he didn't "base" his decision on authorized information. You don't see how AI can trump UI; I don't see that UI trumps AI unless it provides more information than the AI did and that is what is used.

[dburn]

The AI from the auction is that South (who did not know West would bid again) wanted to play in 3♦ facing a limit raise in hearts. North should act as if this is the case, not as if South would not want to play in 3♦ had he known that he was facing a limit raise in hearts. The fact that South didn't know this is UI and may not be used.