UI due to change of call

[BudH]

Let's assume the Director is called and let's assume the Director takes East away from the table, at which point East tells the Director:

 

"at the last moment, I realized my 2NT bid would be taken as the minors and immediately changed to a double. If my double is withdrawn, since I am aware of my error prior to my partner's next call, am I allowed to know my partner's next call will be required to assume I hold the minors? And can I try to make calls getting partner to bid notrump so that I can pass it, since if I bid notrump you may adjust the score?"

[blackshoe]

The fact that partner's next call is constrained by the laws is, it seems to me, authorized for the player who made a cancelled/withdrawn call (Law16A1{c}, Law 16C).

[johnu]

The fact that partner's next call is constrained by the laws is, it seems to me, authorized for the player who made a cancelled/withdrawn call (Law16A1{c}, Law 16C).

I don't see those as making this AI.

 

16A1(a) says AI is allowed "including illegal calls and plays that are accepted". The illegal call, the change to double was not accepted so this section shouldn't apply

16A1(b) says "it is authorized information from a withdrawn action (see 16C)". 2NT was not withdrawn, changing to double was an illegal action not a withdrawn action so this shouldn't apply. I think if double was the original call, and East was allowed to withdraw double and change to 2NT, then 16C would apply

16C2 says "For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized."

[johnu]

I am more interested (with good players) how many people think 6♦ is in the picture after the 3NT rebid.

 

I don't have any agreements about 3NT and can't remember ever having that sequence, so I was trying to figure out some examples of what 3NT might show for this pair.

 

Maybe something like

 

[hv=pc=n&e=sahk2dak532ckqjt4]133|100[/hv]

 

where 6♦ should be cold barring a heart ruff?

 

Something weaker?

 

[hv=pc=n&e=s7ha2dak532ckqjt4]133|100[/hv]

 

Now 6♦ is even better but is 3NT the bid? Maybe singleton ♠Q instead?

 

As a minimum, West should be thinking about slam with the actual hand.

[Cyberyeti]

I don't have any agreements about 3NT and can't remember ever having that sequence, so I was trying to figure out some examples of what 3NT might show for this pair.

 

Maybe something like

 

[hv=pc=n&e=sahk2dak532ckqjt4]133|100[/hv]

 

where 6♦ should be cold barring a heart ruff?

 

Something weaker?

 

[hv=pc=n&e=s7ha2dak532ckqjt4]133|100[/hv]

 

Now 6♦ is even better but is 3NT the bid? Maybe singleton ♠Q instead?

 

As a minimum, West should be thinking about slam with the actual hand.

 

These examples are fanciful, 3N is a bad contract on even the first hand as even if the diamonds run, that's not 9 tricks, you are dependent on partner having a second stop in the major they lead or the club ace. If partner has the club ace and the diamonds don't run, you need partner to have a spade stop and even if he has QJ, you need them not to be able to run the hearts when you lose the lead, you only have 8 tricks.

[johnu]

These examples are fanciful, 3N is a bad contract on even the first hand as even if the diamonds run, that's not 9 tricks, you are dependent on partner having a second stop in the major they lead or the club ace. If partner has the club ace and the diamonds don't run, you need partner to have a spade stop and even if he has QJ, you need them not to be able to run the hearts when you lose the lead, you only have 8 tricks.

 

Where did I say 3NT was going to make? I was just trying to think of a hand where 3NT could be bid and 6♦ would be a good contract opposite the West hand. Do you have a better idea for a "natural" 3NT after making an unusual NT?

[Cyberyeti]

Where did I say 3NT was going to make? I was just trying to think of a hand where 3NT could be bid and 6♦ would be a good contract opposite the West hand. Do you have a better idea for a "natural" 3NT after making an unusual NT?

 

I don't think it exists. I can't imagine a hand on which it's a good bid. I would agree an artificial meaning with partner if I could be bothered.

[axman]

... 2NT was not withdrawn, changing to double was an illegal action not a withdrawn action so this shouldn't apply. ...

 

B>> Pass - 1H - 2NT changed to Double - Director, please!

 

The player bid 2N. He withdrew 2N to X. the X was not accepted- the X was canceled and 2N was reinstated.

[johnu]

The player bid 2N. He withdrew 2N to X. the X was not accepted- the X was canceled and 2N was reinstated.

 

Attempted to withdraw the 2NT bid. Since double was not accepted, 2NT is not withdrawn. IF double was accepted for some reason, then 2N would be a withdrawn action.

[blackshoe]

2NT was not withdrawn, changing to double was an illegal action not a withdrawn action

I think you are mistaken. "Withdrawn" and "cancelled" are synonymous (see the Definitions).

[BudH]

If you were given a problem on paper and told you hold with nobody vulnerable as dealer ♠T9 ♥9xx ♦QJ98x ♣Axx with an auction Pass-1♥-2NT-Pass-?, I would expect with a group of good players given this problem that few of them are going to choose 3♦ and a significant minority or majority are bidding 5♦.

 

If I had been West and had this happen to me, I would have felt that a significant number of good players would bid 5♦ and I would have felt obligated to commit possible suicide by bidding 5♦.

[jillybean]

East?

Is not obliged to commit suicide, they woke up to their misbid, that is AI for East. The subsequent oops 2NT is UI for West but I think East is free to bid their hand.

[johnu]

I think you are mistaken. "Withdrawn" and "cancelled" are synonymous (see the Definitions).

 

Agree, withdrawn and cancelled are the same.

 

However, in Law 25B

 

25B Call Intended

1. A substituted call not permitted by A may be

accepted by the offender’s LHO. (It is accepted

if LHO calls intentionally over it.) The first call is

then withdrawn, the second call stands and the

auction continues (Law 26 may apply).

2.Except as in B1, a substitution not permitted by

A is cancelled. The original call stands and the

auction continues (Law 26 may apply).

3.Law 16C applies to any call withdrawn

 

seems clear that in 2) since double was not allowed , double is the canceled/withdrawn call. And under 16C, the double is UI for the offending side.

[Cyberyeti]

If you were given a problem on paper and told you hold with nobody vulnerable as dealer ♠T9 ♥9xx ♦QJ98x ♣Axx with an auction Pass-1♥-2NT-Pass-?, I would expect with a group of good players given this problem that few of them are going to choose 3♦ and a significant minority or majority are bidding 5♦.

 

If I had been East and had this happen to me, I would have felt that a significant number of good players would bid 5♦ and I would have felt obligated to commit possible suicide by bidding 5♦.

 

I absolutely disagree, the odds are you have 5 losers and the opps no slam, but this is dependent on what your 2N looks like.

 

Is Kxxxx, Qxxxx more likely than AKxxx, Kxxxx the way you bid 2N ? Yes he might have Kxxxx, KQxxx whichever way you bid it and this is without any useless major quacks.

 

Further incvestigation is required.

[BudH]

East?

Is not obliged to commit suicide, they woke up to their misbid, that is AI for East. The subsequent oops 2NT is UI for West but I think East is free to bid their hand.

My error - West. Corrected.

[BudH]

BridgeWinner poll:

 

4 votes for 3D

7 votes for 4D

20 votes for 5D

[sanst]

BridgeWinner poll:

 

4 votes for 3D

7 votes for 4D

20 votes for 5D

Doesn’t matter. These are almost certainly not all peers of EW, nor do they have the same agreements. Organizing a correct poll - with those who are polled not having previous knowledge of the board - is really difficult.

[Cyberyeti]

BridgeWinner poll:

 

4 votes for 3D

7 votes for 4D

20 votes for 5D

 

Without knowing what 2N showed, the poll is meaningless.

 

I gave this to one of my sometime partners and he raised another possible issue, for him, 3N shows a good hand with a stop in neither major so is automatically removed on the hand in question (he doesn't bid 2N with a stop in both).

[barmar]

I don't see those as making this AI.

 

16A1(a) says AI is allowed "including illegal calls and plays that are accepted". The illegal call, the change to double was not accepted so this section shouldn't apply

16A1(b) says "it is authorized information from a withdrawn action (see 16C)". 2NT was not withdrawn, changing to double was an illegal action not a withdrawn action so this shouldn't apply. I think if double was the original call, and East was allowed to withdraw double and change to 2NT, then 16C would apply

16C2 says "For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized."

I believe the "information" this refers to is the meaning of the action. The fact that partner may be barred, or must ignore some UI that they've received, is not what this is talking about.

[johnu]

[quote name='barmar' timestamp='1686840062' post='1055332']
I believe the "information" this refers to is the meaning of the action. The fact that partner may be barred, or must ignore some UI that they've received, is not what this is talking about.
[/quote]
I disagree.

Edit: There are separate laws if partner is barred, e.g. you can make any legal bid.

[smerriman]

I disagree.

I'm not sure why there was a long discussion about which call was the 'withdrawn' one then, since 16A1b about which information is authorized points to 16C, which says *no* information is AI to the offending side regardless.

 

Are you therefore saying in the other situation I mentioned - where if you make an insufficient bid, and when not replacing it with a simple higher alternative, the director warns you that if you make a different bid your partner will be barred - you're not allowed to know that partner will be barred?

 

Everything I've read says that not only are you allowed, but you're encouraged to make a 'sign-off' bid that you would never make otherwise.

 

[Edit] This came before your edit. Where are the other laws?

[BudH]

One issue that comes into play is ATTRIBUTABLE meanings of 2NT:

 

1. 2NT was bid thinking the opening bid was 2!H, not 1!H. (perhaps good 15 to bad 19 HCP)

2. 2NT was bid thinking he was dealer or that RHO had passed. (perhaps 20-22 HCP)

3. Something else

[mycroft]

Okay, I get to eat my words again.

 

Sure, only one in 4 bid 4, but surely that is "bid game if you can make it, or take the points if you can't?" I guess if you think that the ♣A is the setting trick in 4M, because partner has the other three...or you think 6 is on, and are trying to talk them out of finding it, more likely.

 

But I agree with sanst and CyberYeti - I bet BW is no more peers of the players than I am (maybe even less so); and unless you show me the poll, I wouldn't trust it to have a clear agreement of 2NT at these colours for this pair (mostly because it wasn't given here; and also because these sorts of "what would you do" polls tend to omit this kind of information, whether it's "everyone plays it my way" or "it's not important"). If 2NT is mini-maxi, especially the kind of mini that stopped me playing mini-maxi, my response would be very different from if it's "(almost always) 9 HCP in the minors at equal vul", and there are all kinds of preempt agreements in the wash.

[BudH]

Okay, I get to eat my words again.

 

Sure, only one in 4 bid 4, but surely that is "bid game if you can make it, or take the points if you can't?" I guess if you think that the ♣A is the setting trick in 4M, because partner has the other three...or you think 6 is on, and are trying to talk them out of finding it, more likely.

 

But I agree with sanst and CyberYeti - I bet BW is no more peers of the players than I am (maybe even less so); and unless you show me the poll, I wouldn't trust it to have a clear agreement of 2NT at these colours for this pair (mostly because it wasn't given here; and also because these sorts of "what would you do" polls tend to omit this kind of information, whether it's "everyone plays it my way" or "it's not important"). If 2NT is mini-maxi, especially the kind of mini that stopped me playing mini-maxi, my response would be very different from if it's "(almost always) 9 HCP in the minors at equal vul", and there are all kinds of preempt agreements in the wash.

 

True, when I put this on BridgeWinners as a poll, I knew those being polled would be on average a higher standard than the West in question. Although since I know the West player, she is at a pretty decent level for an average Flight A club player.

 

What I think it does show is how clearly 5D is likely a logical alternative even for a moderately high club player skill level. And that 3D even for a club game was probably too much influenced by the UI.

[mycroft]

I agree with your conclusion.

 

But I am much more concerned about "did the poll give *that pair's* agreement on two-suited Preempt (or preemptive overcalls in general) style, or were the pollees allowed/expected to use their default?" than "class of player". I'm also concerned that even if it was given, how many of the pollees didn't read it.

 

Because if I'm expecting that 5D will go 500 (or 800! - x xx Kxxxx Qxxxx), I'm bidding 3. If I'm expecting my style of Unusual 2NT (knowing that I'm almost always outbid with the minors, there has to be a reason why I'm saying something and telling declarer how to play the hand), then 5 should be -1 at worst, and if they don't take their tricks in time, or partner has Kx or A/Ax, it might make - and if it doesn't make, 4M will.

 

So if I'm playing with my regular partners, 5D. If I'm playing with random Calgary player, 3D. If I'm playing with this partner, with their agreements...?