Is offender allowed to know partner is constrained by UI?

[BudH]

ACBL club matchpoints, no interference, involving best pair in the room (5000+ masterpoints each)

[hv=pc=n&w=skq64hk875dq6ca76&e=sa7ha3dakjt97c983&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1cp2dp2np6nppp]266|200[/hv]

WEST EAST

♠KQ64 *** ♠A7

♥K875 *** ♥A3

♦Q6 *** ♦AKJT97

♣A76 *** ♣983

 

1C - 2D**

2NT (balanced 12-14) - 6NT

Pass

 

** I was called to the table as Director after responder East 2♦ and just before South was about to pass. East (stupidly) said to me and the rest of the table she thought partner had opened 1♠ and wanted to know if she could change her bid.

 

1. I ruled the 2♦ bid stands. (Obviously, if she had lied and told me it was a mechanical error and that she intended to bid 1♦, she would have gotten away with it.)

2. I informed opener the unauthorized information cannot be used and that on a close decision, he must choose the call that is least advantageous to his side.

3. I informed opener that at this point, if 2♦ is alertable in the auction 1♣-Pass-2♦, he needs to alert and if asked, to explain the systemic meaning of the 2♦ bid. (That bid by responder showed an artificial game forcing club raise.)

 

An easy 12 tricks were made in 6NT and I let the result stand because it was clear that the player learned herself the opening bid was 1♣ instead of 1♠ so she isn't required to bid her hand as if the opening bid was 1♠.

 

I know I have seen EBU documents describing a player cannot just jump to slam or game to avoid a misinformation situation to prevent a disaster. (Can someone tell me the two word phrase to describe that principle? I couldn't find it after numerous internet searches.) I decided that was not the case - but some might think with the type of hand responder held that a 4♣ Gerber bid might appropriate, but responder knows 4♣ might be misinterpreted after a club game forcing raise (although it shouldn't be).

 

Is the fact opener is potentially constrained due to UI responder caused allowed to be used by the responder?

[gordontd]

I think the phrase you are looking for is "unauthorised panic", but I'm not sure it applies here. East knows that she has mis-described her hand, without any use of UI, so is allowed to make any call to minimise further misunderstanding.

 

She knows that her partner will be avoiding taking advantage of the knowledge that she has misbid, which is knowledge that in my opinion she is not able to use due to L16A1a, but I think it tells her no more than that her partner does not have a club suit. I would expect the obvious bid by East at this point to be 4NT, but since that will also get them to 6NT I'm not sure there's any case to adjust.

[The_Badger]

I agree with gordontd's comment. Experienced pairs are always going to end up in 6NT on the bidding, not 6♦ having all keycards plus the ♦Q by bidding another way. And in 6NT if bid quantitatively.

 

And East should be reminded by the TD it is the TD that explains the rules and makes the decision, and not for her to question or influence the TD whether she has a right to change her bid.

[johnu]

Is 2♦ a weak or strong jump shift after 1♣? If weak, the score should be adjusted to +170 for 2♦ making 6.

[gordontd]

Is 2♦ a weak or strong jump shift after 1♣? If weak, the score should be adjusted to +170 for 2♦ making 6.

It was described in the original post as an artificial game forcing club raise.

[sfi]

I think the phrase you are looking for is "unauthorised panic", but I'm not sure it applies here. East knows that she has mis-described her hand, without any use of UI, so is allowed to make any call to minimise further misunderstanding.

Is it clear that East knows this without any UI? I would have expected 2D to be alerted by this time. The alert is UI and East would then wake up to the situation because of it.

 

Even so, it's hard to see any result other than 6NT - even if you think East forgot system and meant 2D as strong, a 3D continuation would get there.

[pescetom]

** I was called to the table as Director after responder East 2♦ and just before South was about to pass. East (stupidly) said to me and the rest of the table she thought partner had opened 1♠ and wanted to know if she could change her bid.

You don't say why or by whom you were called to the table, or whether 2♦ was alerted or an explanation requested.

[BudH]

Is it clear that East knows this without any UI? I would have expected 2D to be alerted by this time. The alert is UI and East would then wake up to the situation because of it.

 

Even so, it's hard to see any result other than 6NT - even if you think East forgot system and meant 2D as strong, a 3D continuation would get there.

 

I expected this question. I don't know how soon after the 2♦ bid was placed on the table that the 2♦ bidder called the Director - but I think responder saw the 1♣ bid on the table a moment after the 2♦ bid was made. There had not been an alert by opener and responder determined her own bidding error without UI.

 

Yes, lucky for her she did, for if her partner was quick to alert, the result might have been different. (However, there is still a good chance that 6NT would be reached, even if you forced responder to continually treat the auction as if opener's first bid was 1♠.)

[barmar]

You don't say why or by whom you were called to the table, or whether 2♦ was alerted or an explanation requested.

I'm guessing it was East who called the TD, since she's the only one who could have known that something was wrong. We haven't been told how she realized that she'd seen opener's bid incorrectly, whether it was spontaneous or because of hearing an alert of her bid.

The bid seems to be appropriate, even if the bidder was not aware of this (or much else).

It would be appropriate if they were playing strong jump shifts, but not the criss-cross agreement they actually have.

 

A player is allowed to correct an unintended bid no matter how they become aware of it. But this wasn't an unintended bid -- she intended it based on her mistaken reading of opener's bid. That's why she wasn't allowed to correct it. But a player is always allowed to call the TD to find out what their rights and obligations are, so there's no problem with her calling the TD about this. The big problem was the UI she gave to partner by explaining her mistake.

 

But as Gordon said, West didn't appear to take advantage of the UI in any way. Nor did East seem to take advantage of knowing that West has to ignore the UI.

[sfi]

I expected this question. I don't know how soon after the 2♦ bid was placed on the table that the 2♦ bidder called the Director - but I think responder saw the 1♣ bid on the table a moment after the 2♦ bid was made. There had not been an alert by opener and responder determined her own bidding error without UI.

If there no alert by opener before she made it clear she had made the wrong bid, then she is indeed free to do what she likes. However, if opener alerted the bid between the time she realised her mistake and made a comment about it (or called the director), the director still has to rule that the alert could have woken her up to the situation.

 

So as director I would definitely be enquiring closely about timing.

[blackshoe]

Bud was the director. He already said that the 2♦ bid was not alerted. What more do you want?

[sfi]

Bud was the director. He already said that the 2♦ bid was not alerted. What more do you want?

You've never come across a situation where someone said the bid wasn't alerted when they really meant it wasn't alerted before [whatever the situation in question is]? It's moderately common in my experience.

[blackshoe]

You go through life believing that no one means what he says. I go through life believing that people say what they mean. I don't know which one of us gets bit more often, but I think my way is easier. Maybe I'm wrong.

[pran]

You go through life believing that no one means what he says. I go through life believing that people say what they mean. I don't know which one of us gets bit more often, but I think my way is easier. Maybe I'm wrong.

I share your opinion.

[lamford]

If East, keen to avoid selecting from LAs one demonstrably suggested by the UI, jumps to 7NT and this makes, because a different player guards spades and hearts and there is now a double squeeze, is there an infraction? 7NT is about 18% according to my software.

[barmar]

If East, keen to avoid selecting from LAs one demonstrably suggested by the UI, jumps to 7NT and this makes, because a different player guards spades and hearts and there is now a double squeeze, is there an infraction? 7NT is about 18% according to my software.

I presume this actually happened when East was RR and SB was an opponent. After all, West "could well have known" when he hesitated that the cards would magically align to make this successful.

[blackshoe]

ROFL!

[lamford]

An easy 12 tricks were made in 6NT and I let the result stand because it was clear that the player learned herself the opening bid was 1♣ instead of 1♠ so she isn't required to bid her hand as if the opening bid was 1♠.

I think the actual auction is always authorised, regardless of how she found out that she it was different to what she thought.