Bergen debacle

[aguahombre]

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.

That would make sense if there were any hand where South would want to do this. The fact that there isn't one is AI.

[blackshoe]

Agua, either I'm going to have to discard everything I've learned over the years about the UI laws, or I'm going to have to conclude that you're wrong. Occam's Razor…

[gnasher]

Since when does AI (as from the fact that partner passed 3♦) trump UI (from the failure to alert)?

It's not a matter of AI trumping UI. But we determine what the LAs are in the context of the AI.

 

If all we had was the AI that partner had passed 3♦, it would be obvious that partner had misunderstood 3♦. An LA is only an LA if it's logical given that knowledge.

 

Does the fact that partner passed mean that responder has no LA to 4♥ when it gets back around to him? How so?

I think there's no LA to 4♥. I have a 9-card fit in a major, a source of tricks, and a singleton. I know (from the AI) that partner doesn't know about this. Why would I choose to defend 3♠ instead of showing my heart fit?

[lamford]

Why would I choose to defend 3♠ instead of showing my heart fit?

What heart fit? Partner wanted to play in 3♦ opposite a limit raise in hearts. He hasn't got hearts. The pass of 3♦ exposes his psyche on a balanced Yarborough

[aguahombre]

What heart fit? Partner wanted to play in 3♦ opposite a limit raise in hearts. He hasn't got hearts. The pass of 3♦ exposes his psyche on a balanced Yarborough

In first seat, red. Right.

[blackshoe]

I don't think we always have to shoot ourselves in the foot when we have UI. I do think we have to carefully avoid taking advantage of UI. And for the TD, I think he has to poll North's peers and find out what they would do. Perhaps two polls, both given the auction, and one give an alert of 3♦. I'm not at all sure there's no LA to 4♥ here. OTOH, Lamford's argument has weight, but it may lead to "pass is suggested over 4♥" Seems to me this problem is thornier than it looks.

[jallerton]

I don't think we always have to shoot ourselves in the foot when we have UI. I do think we have to carefully avoid taking advantage of UI. And for the TD, I think he has to poll North's peers and find out what they would do. Perhaps two polls, both given the auction, and one give an alert of 3♦. I'm not at all sure there's no LA to 4♥ here. OTOH, Lamford's argument has weight, but it may lead to "pass is suggested over 4♥" Seems to me this problem is thornier than it looks.

 

To assess the logical alternatives, we don't mention in the poll whether 3♦ was alerted or not. I'd ask people two questions:

 

1. What do you think is going on? I'd divide the answers into:

 

(i) Partner clearly thought we were playing 3♦ as natural and non-forcing.

(ii) Partner has clearly psyched his 1♥ opener.

(iii) Partner has clearly made a mechanical error and passed when he meant to bid 3♥ (or 4♥).

(iv) It's not clear: (i) and (ii) are both plausible explanations.

(v) It's not clear: (i) and (iii) are both plausible explanations.

(vi) It's not clear: (ii) and (iii) are both plausible explanations.

(vii) It's not clear: (i), (ii) and (iii) are all plausible explanations.

 

For me, the answer might depend on how confident I was about the agreement. A long standing partnership which rarely changes it system is not the same situation as a fairly new partnership which has agreed to play a named convention without discussing when it applies. Therefore I'd expect the TD to try to establish why South thought that Bergen applied here and why North did not (he'll need to ask this for MI purposes anyway) and then pass this information on to the people being polled if they ask.

 

2. What calls would you seriously consider over 3♠?

[blackshoe]

To assess the logical alternatives, we don't mention in the poll whether 3♦ was alerted or not.

If you're only taking one poll, yes. I suggested a second poll because the failure to alert seems, for some people, to be only a side issue. They're focusing on the pass rather than the lack of alert.

 

What do you do if one of your pollees asks whether 3♦ was alerted?

[chrism]

There is another possibility for what is going on (though I don't think it is material to the legal question). I perpetrated this one myself a decade or so ago:

 

1♠ - Pass - 3♣ - Pass

 

I alerted 3♣ and correctly explained it as a 4-card constructive spade raise. I then thought to myself "I have no interest in game; we are as high as we need to be" ... PASS

 

Partner played 3♣ very nicely (and graciously) for down 3 :)

 

So it is possible that opener has remembered the agreement but misfired a couple of synapses before rebidding. This is not quite jallerton's possibility (iii) since it isn't a mechanical error.

[blackshoe]

Yeah. I think it falls under "at the instant you passed, that's what you intended - however wrongly - to do." B-)

[dburn]

Oh, first seat red is the ideal time to psyche. Indeed, for most people (including aguahombre's partners) it is quite possibly the only time to psyche.

[PhilKing]

I might be being thick here, but isn't West entitled to know what i going on?

 

If that is the case, he could pass out 3♦ for plus a few hundred or bid 4♠ at his second or third turn.

[blackshoe]

Some time ago, the table was having a general discussion on the subject of psyching. Well, three of us were. My partner's sole contribution came when she said to me "if you ever psych, this partnership is over!" :blink: :ph34r:

[blackshoe]

I might be being thick here, but isn't West entitled to know what i going on?

 

If that is the case, he could pass out 3♦ for plus a few hundred or bid 4♠ at his second or third turn.

Well, yes and no. He's entitled to know the opponents' methods, and he's entitled to an alert of 3♦, but when he doesn't read their card (so doesn't know they're playing Bergen Raises) and doesn't hear an alert, he would assume, presumably, that 3♦ is natural, and probably that it's weak. So he has MI, but he's not entitled to a correction of it until 1) East South realizes he failed to alert and calls the director immediately or 2) West North calls the director at the end of play. Whichever comes first.

 

It's possible that it's West North who's wrong about their agreements, or that both are. In the former case there's no MI. In the latter case, there may or may not be MI. Probably not.

 

Hm. If West North is wrong, and East South is right, and their agreement here is that 3♦ is natural and weak, does East's South's unexpected failure to alert still convey UI to West?1

Edited December 7, 2014 by blackshoe
Read the auction too quickly. Thanks dburn!

[aguahombre]

Oh, first seat red is the ideal time to psyche. Indeed, for most people (including aguahombre's partners) it is quite possibly the only time to psyche.

no.

[dburn]

It is possible that blackshoe might wish to edit his post so that, for the most part, "West" becomes "South" and "East" becomes "North". Once this is done, I will have to edit mine. That's the biz.

 

But West, as PhilKing correctly suggests, is indeed entitled to know that 3♦ was a heart raise if (and only if) 3♦ really was a heart raise by agreement. The OP suggests that there was no agreement; if there wasn't, then that is all the information to which West is entitled. In those circumstances he might or might not bid 3♠.

[lamford]

Oh, first seat red is the ideal time to psyche. Indeed, for most people (including aguahombre's partners) it is quite possibly the only time to psyche.

I would say that, for aguahombre's opponents, first seat red is the only time to psyche. He will assume his partner is the joker, much to his detriment.

[aguahombre]

I would say that, for aguahombre's opponents, first seat red is the only time to psyche. He will assume his partner is the joker, much to his detriment.

Guaranteed, I have only found partner to be the joker once on purpose in some 25 years. And it wasn't to our detriment. Furthermore, every failure to alert by her was because she was busy figuring out her continuation and just plain forgot to do so. If she passed 3D in the OP case, it would have been a brain-fart and I would have UI that she was not accepting game....thus would have to bid game.

[Trinidad]

Guaranteed, I have only found partner to be the joker once on purpose in some 25 years. And it wasn't to our detriment. Furthermore, every failure to alert by her was because she was busy figuring out her continuation and just plain forgot to do so. If she passed 3D in the OP case, it would have been a brain-fart and I would have UI that she was not accepting game....thus would have to bid game.

Why would it be UI that she wasn't accepting game? It is just a (presumed) implicit partnership agreement. They are not forbidden, they merely need to be disclosed.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

It is possible that blackshoe might wish to edit his post so that, for the most part, "West" becomes "South" and "East" becomes "North". Once this is done, I will have to edit mine. That's the biz.

 

But West, as PhilKing correctly suggests, is indeed entitled to know that 3♦ was a heart raise if (and only if) 3♦ really was a heart raise by agreement. The OP suggests that there was no agreement; if there wasn't, then that is all the information to which West is entitled. In those circumstances he might or might not bid 3♠.

Thanks, David. I've fixed it, I think.

[aguahombre]

Why would it be UI that she wasn't accepting game? It is just a (presumed) implicit partnership agreement. They are not forbidden, they merely need to be disclosed.

 

Rik

Hmm..guess you are right.

[ruleof15]

I can't see the problem here. E-W can make 4♠. Their stopping requires more ability to handle interference. If one side tries to bluff by bidding on is one thing. Failure to evaluate a hand is another. If the opponents either miss the bid or its intention is no fault of theirs. Had west doubled and made 800 there would be no difficulty with the board. Not bidding to ones full potential is not the fault of the opponents.These players thinking psyche bidding works will find out that is a way to go for phone numbers when playing top competition. Psyching has been removed from ACBL games because of the stratification. In top competition it is tolerated. One psyche per round is allowed. When you suspect a psyche, call the director to get it recorded.

[blackshoe]

Psyching has been removed from ACBL games because of the stratification. In top competition it is tolerated. One psyche per round is allowed. When you suspect a psyche, call the director to get it recorded.

Huh? Since when? The only thing I can agree with here is the last sentence.

[lmilne]

Everyone is discussing what North is allowed to do after South passes, whether it is AI, etc. I know which side of that I stand on - partner has clearly forgotten our agreement, and we can do whatever we feel is best, which might include bidding 4♥ here. But I don't think that is the key point at all.

 

What was the NS agreement?

 

Assuming their agreement was Bergen:

 

If West had known that 3♦ was a Bergen raise, and South had passed, West might well have passed as well. As others have commented, there is no hand where South can logically pass 3♦, and therefore he has forgotten the agreement. West might well play for the opponents having had a screw-up and defend 3♦. He was never allowed that opportunity because of the mis-information.

 

This argument would be a lot easier to make if the West hand wasn't so strong. If West held something like ♠AJxxxx ♥x ♦Ax ♣ KQxx and was bidding over 3♦ on the expectation that 3♦ was natural and EW might have a good black-suit fit, I think the ruling would be clear: 3♦ some number off. On the hand, West may well bid even suspecting the NS have had a miscommunication, as 4♠ doesn't require much to make. I still think he should get the chance to defend 3♦, however.

 

If their agreement was NOT Bergen, but something else e.g. natural:

 

No adjustment - clear-cut, IMO.

[PhilKing]

Everyone is discussing what North is allowed to do after South passes, whether it is AI, etc.

 

This is an overbid.