|
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF |
International Bridge Laws ForumIf you need help with the Laws or rulings from |
| To ask a question, click HERE and type in your message. Please specify your country in your query where indicated. Right click your mouse button for help on abbreviations. |
| Welcome, Register :: Log in |
| View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ] |
| [ Get Email Advice of Replies ] | [ Print ] | [ Send ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ] |
|
Hiroko Plant Reply |
In a club game, in EBU-land, in fourth seat after the auction
P-P-1  , I forget that I and my regular partner are now playing Michaels cue-bids and bid 2 on: AJx AQKx AQxxxxPartner obediently alerts this, explains it as Michaels for the majors, and promptly bids 4 Clearly his alert and explanation are UI, so I try to work out what he can hold on a no-UI auction, and what I should, ethically, do. He ought to have at least 7 , to set the suit this unequivocally opposite what might be a big 1 or 2 suiter.He might have a truly awful hand (but why 4 and not 2?) or 8-10 ish (but why didn't he bid on the first round? We have a number of long major suit bids of varying strength)Nothing quite makes sense, but I don't think I'm allowed unequivocally to conclude that I've stuffed up; both options are the kind of hand where partner might muck around. Opposite the first hand, the only sane option is a pass; opposite the second (and some varieties of the first), 6 or 6NT might well be on, so I could bid one or other directly, or invite with 5 or a 5 cue-bid. Rule out passing 4 ex hypothesi as the thing I'd like to do, given the UI, and I'm left with bidding one of two slams or inviting slam in spades. In the end, I bid 6NT, pretty much at random (and partly because I don't want to give partner a problem opposite the longest hesitation ever by making an invitational bid...)Question is, what should I have done, ethically? I think it's a problem worth submitting to this forum; as a player with no directing training or experience, I find it hard to work out the correct action in these situations and an example might help. |
|
Robin Barker Reply |
Your logical alternatives are probably Pass, and almost any bid from 4NT to 6NT. Partner could be KQxxxxx Kxxx x x, which he might not preempt in second seat; we may not have two diamond losers, even if partner is declarer.
Any bid from 4NT to 6S partner will probably taken as agreeing spades, while Pass and 6NT are attempts to recover from a wheel coming off. Because the UI tells you a wheel has come off, the UI suggests Pass and 6NT over the others and so (IMHO) you can not Pass or bid 6NT (sorry). If this were a genuine sequence, I guess you would bid 5C or 5S, both of which sound like you want a diamond control, and you would probably play in 5S. |
bluejak  427 posts Forum Host Reply |
While I agree with Robin that your 6NT has probably misjudged it slightly you have done the most important thing: you have done your best not to take advantage of the UI. As a player if you always do your best in that direction then your ethics are pure despite the occasional time when the TD or Appeals Committee adjust your score.
 On the actual hand he might have short spades, which you know because of the UI, so you must take no action that tries to get you out of spades. 
|
|
Hiroko Plant Reply |
Hadn't pictured him with short spades, even on the basis of the UI (I think I thought bidding 4
as a passed hand opposite a Michaels bid meant he must think we had a huge fit on, so 43 at worst in the actual case). So thank you for making that point. The actual outcome was 6 NT 4 off NV on a misdefence (pd had Qxx in and 5 Spades to the K but both black suits broke horribly. 4 2 off was the normal contract, and any of the actions except a pass would have produced the same well-deserved bottom in practice. |
|
ne_trepide Reply |
the whole purpose of a pre-empive bid as you describe is in fact a declaration as to "this is the location at which this contract should be played."
i feel sorry for your confusion holding 20 points but you must trust your partner's judgement, even if it is based upon flawed information, especially in view of the fact that the original, and prime error, was yours. you are now in uncharted territory and should try to get out for a plus score. you have no choice but to grit your teeth and pass and then apologise for your slip. partner will understand and the relationship will be stronger for your trust. |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
You have UI [unauthorised information] from partner's explanation [and alert]. No, you do not pass as the best way out of this mess - that is illegal. You must make every effort not to gain from knowledge of the UI.
You know his bid is pre-emptive because of the UI, so you should not treat it as pre-emptive. It is important when in receipt of UI that you make every effort to take no advantage. If everyone did this it would be a far pleasanter game.
|
|
ne_trepide Reply |
david a pass here by the michael's cue bidder is not taking advantage of UI but merely suffering the penalty that ineviatably follows a systemic bidding error.
the poster of this thread went on to state (after my response) that 4s was the common contract and that is where they ended. what do you suggest? he now bid on to a higher level contract? he would not have needed his partner's explanation to realise his bidding error - the jump to 4s would have revealed the situation quite clearly. and as i say - what contract do you suggest they play in - pray tell! |
mycroft  67 posts bridgetalk member  Reply |
I'm not David, but I hope I'm allowed to grab some of his flak...
First a side complaint - not pointed solely at you, I see this all the time, and it bugs me. The guy's name is Mike Michaels. It's a Michaels cuebid. Nobody plays Berge'n raises, nobody should make a Michael's cuebid. (Yes, of course my name is Michael, why do you ask?) Having said that... Let's look at this. P-P-1D-2D; P-4S-P-. You have AJx AQ Kx AQxxxx, a 20-count. Opener has 12 or so plus, partner has 7 spades; unless you're really unlucky, it'll include the SK or SQ. Yeah, it's preemptive, but if he has anything else to go with his 7 spades, you have a good shot at slam - you really going to tell me that finesses are going to be off?
Irrelevant. At the other tables, it probably went P-P-1D-X; P-1S-P-2C; P-something-P-4S. If you get to 4S legally, pass is perfectly legal; unfortunately, here, you don't have that luxury. You've misbid, your partner has woken you to your misbid, you must bid on as if you still don't know you've misbid. What I suggest? Especially if you play RKC, 4NT. And when I get one keycard, 6S. If you get none, ok, 5S - I can't reasonably force you to bid slam off two keys, especially when I'm planning on using the SK as one of my finesse entries.
That's what they always say. Wouldn't you bid 4S opposite a strong takeout with KTxxxxx x Qxx xx? or K8xxxxx Kx xx xx? Or KTxxxxx xxxx -- xx, even? "Partner, I don't really care what you have, I can only play in spades, but game's on." You say earlier:
No, you are not in uncharted territory. You must work out what 4S would be opposite a strong takeout - I think my hands above are reasonable - and bid accordingly. You are not allowed to "try to get out with a plus score"; you must "carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side" (Law 73C, my emphasis). If you can prove that nobody knows what a jump to game opposite a strong takeout is, fine. But you'll have to prove that nobody knows what P-P-1D-X; P-1S-P-2C; P-4S is, either (that's how the moderns would bid the "same" hand). Good luck!
With my partners (though I haven't played cuebid=strong T/O my entire life, except the two or three times my partner and I have decided to be silly and play "1950's Goren") 5S or 6S, depending on the response to 4NT. Yeah, partner could have xxxxxxx x xx xxx, but even in the real world I'm not giving up on slam because of the few times 5S will go down! And when I'm restricted to not passing unless (GB)it's a 70% action/(ACBL)few to none of my peers would do anything else - it's automatic. It's going to get me a bottom? Well, I should really know my system when I walk in, no? Michael. |
|
ne_trepide 14 posts bridgetalk member  Reply |
i could not disagree more with your comments (should i say i could not be more disagreeable?).
the jump to 4s is certainly pre-emptive and the very nature of a pre-emptive jump to game is a signal to partner that this is where the contract should rest. as to your statement that partner has realised your 2d bid is not michaels i cannot fathom why you say this - is it not feasible that the response indicates long spades and no points opposite 5 spades and good points? obviously responder thinks game is on but it is a judgement call by the michaels cue bidder as to whether or not to proceed further. this call has nothing whatsoever to do with UI from any source. they reached the common contract by erroneous bidding and should learn from that experience but the jump to 4s is more likely to signal a weak (points) hand than a strong one. pass is the only sensible (and honest) rebid and hope that partner has the weaker option (as his bid indicates) than the stronger one that might suggest a slam is on. their penalty, which luckily for them does not exist, is that they stood the chance - by pre-empting and then passing - of missing a higher contract. |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
Mycroft seems to have explained it quite well - perhaps better than Sherlock would have.
You bid 2 thinking it was strong, and you have unauthorised information that says your partner has taken it as Michaels. Despite various arguments of how to get away with this, you must avoid taking adavantage - I say "must" both because the Laws require it, and because you will never get real pleasure from a game where you get an illegal advantage.The best reason for passing 4 is because you know from the unauthorised information that partner might not have length in spades. Since that is the information you must not use therefore you must not pass 4.
|
|
HenryS Reply |
I find it interesting that Mycroft and David, taking the same position regarding the UI from the alert, suggest different rebids by the QBidder. Mycroft argues that pass is no longer an option because bidding on is a logical alternative and hence suggests that qbidder bid 4nt=rkc if that is available. David suggests, unless I misread him, that the safest action is to pass 4s. Taken together, this apparent difference of opinion is the strongest argument against the attempt some US experts are making to replace the appeals committee system with a system in which the director is the final judge of damage and adjustment. Personally, I think that Mycroft's argument is more compelling than David's, and so I would rule in favor of bidding on. But it must be better for a committee consensus to develop instead of the opinion of one person. One additional point: in the US, qbids are NOT alertable, being considered instead to be 'self-alerting.' Of course, if an opponent asks what the qbid means, qbidder is in the same position vis-a-vis UI. |
|
mycroft 67 posts bridgetalk member Reply |
So you always obey your partner's signoffs with an unlimited hand? You must miss a lot of good games and slams. Remember, I said unlimited. Please go back and tell me that you would not bid 4 with the hands I presented, opposite a strong takeout of 1.I was playing EHAA one day and held Qxxxx Kxxxxx x x. Partner opened 1 (13+, 4+hearts, absolutely unlimited). I, like everyone else here would have, responded 4, preemptive, signoff. Guess what? Partner bid 6. If I had been xxxx Kxxxxx xx x, he would have made it. He had a beautiful 29-count, but couldn't pitch enough spades from dummy to avoid a loser.Back to this hand, though. You can make slam opposite many hands partner would bid 4 on (if he knew you had a strong takeout, rather than bidding as if it were Michaels). Your hand is that good, and it improves that much by the knowledge that partner is one-suiter spades. I've got no problem with you passing 4 with no unauthorized information - if your system really was cuebid=strong takeout, and it was explained as such (or, in the ACBL, not asked about) - but I think it's losing bridge.But you probably can't make slam opposite most hands partner would bid 4 on opposite a Michaels cuebid (for the key reason that you don't have a 10-card spade fit, and those other two cards of partner's are probably red). So, the Laws put you in the following situation:- You may not be "woken up" by partner's explanations - it's Unauthorized Information to you. Even if you worked it out on your own, case history is that partner's explanation has pooched you, because you can't prove it wasn't the UI that brought the misbid to your attention. - When in posession of UI, you "must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side" (L73C), and this means you "may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information" (L16A). Therefore, - Whether you would have passed 4 or not, with no UI, looking for slam is a definite option, and since pass is the logical alternative suggested by the UI, you can't pass. As Robin Barker said very early in this thread, the same thing goes for a direct 6NT, as well.Frankly, if I as TD let you pass 4 , it's because you have convinced me you are such a novice that you literally cannot see how most hands with the K to 7 and almost any outside honour won't give you at least a 50% slam. And therefore, looking for slam is not something "some of your peers would consider, and at least one of them would actually have done."And even that may not save you outside the ACBL, where the definition of logical alternative is different!
That's exactly what it says. Or opposite 5 spades and few points, if I'm playing :-). But you are not allowed to know that! Sorry to shout, but this is the key point. You have information that partner thought you has 5-5 in the majors. This information was acquired through something other than his calls and plays, specifically, by his Alert and explanation of the 2 bid. Therefore, you can't use it - you must continue to bid as if your agreement is what you thought it was when you bid 2, that partner knows it, and that partner bid 4 opposite an unlimited hand too strong to either double or overcall.If you still don't understand that, and I realize I don't always explain well, especially in a written medium, get a local TD to sit down with you and explain it until you do understand. If you can't understand your obligations under L73C, even after a TD has patiently explained it and shown you the Laws - please stop playing bridge.
What Michaels cuebidder? I see no Michaels cuebidder here. I see someone who made a strong takeout of diamonds, and whose partner bid 4 in response. Ok, so partner explained it as a Michaels cuebid, and the system agreement is that it is a Michaels cuebid, but I've forgotten this when I bid 2 - and I am required, by the most stringent wording the Laws permit of, to avoid any action that is based on partner thinking I have a Michaels cuebid.
That is certainly true. Partner has no UI whatsoever (unless you groaned or grimaced when the explanation hit the table). Partner is allowed to do whatever he wants. But you aren't.
I showed you three hands, ranging from 3 to 6 HCP, that make slam odds-on. They certainly can make slam opposite a "weak (points) hand". Give him KTxxxxx xx -- Kxxx and I'd lay good odds on partner making *7*. (yeah, this hand is not likely, opps would have bid something with 11 diamonds. But still). They have reached the common contract, by erroneous bidding. However, because of UI transmitted to the strong hand, they just can't stop there. Sorry. Michael. |
|
mycroft 67 posts bridgetalk member Reply |
Why thanks :-)
Well, yes, but no :-) We all agree that the safest action is to pass 4 . In fact, we all - even David and I - want to pass 4. But we don't do it for the same reason we don't break into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom - because we aren't legally allowed to.Read David's last paragraph again - it tells you why you can't pass 4 . David, here, doesn't say what you should do instead; just that you can't pass.I don't know what David would do - I'm sure he'd tell you, and he has a few more years of high-level bridge experience than I, so he's more likely to be right. Of course, if he would bid RKC too, then of course he's right :-)
Well, no :-). I don't know what to say about Director panels - I disagreed with them when they came in, but looking at the casebooks since then, I think they do at least as good a job as the Appeals committees - in key, because they always check with expert players or appellants' peers (whatever is appropriate, often both) before making a bridge judgement - and sometimes Appeals committees don't check well enough with the TDs before making a laws judgement. I definately do not agree with abolishing/ignoring L92 :-) Michael. |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
Sure I did, but re-read the bit you quoted of what I said:
Mycroft and I are in complete agreement.
Ignoring the fact that there was no difference of opinion, there may be a case for Appeals Committees with incompetent Directors. But assuming competent ones, what you say is wrong: judgement rulings are never decided by one person. It is routine to consult one more person as a minimum. In North American tournaments it is normal to discuss amongst a larger number of Directors. Furthermore, there is a growing view that at least one top player should be consulted as well. If Appeals Committees were dispensed with I am sure that regulating authorities would tighten up the rules for making sure that Director's rulings include adequate concensus. Appeals Committees take up a lot of time. Apart from anything else, do players want to wait around for an hour or so after the end of a session? My view is that Director's judgement rulings in major events are probably 70% correct, and Appeals Committees decisions are 80% to 85% correct. Is it really worth all that trouble and time for the 10% to 15% increase?
|
|
HenryS Reply |
Mycroft/David:
You are both completely correct. I read David's post too quickly and misread him. I apologize for the error. It has been an interesting conversation about the value/benefit of abolishing appeals committees. Personally, I happen to like Rubens's view that it wouldn't be wise, but then again I must state that, as far as I know, Rubens is not a currently active director (or even tournament participant), and if that is the case, he opens himself to the criticism of being an ivory tower observer. Partly, though, my disinclination to abolish appeals committees has to do with the fact that your best directors would presumably be national level directors, and at the highest national championship level one might want the 'error factor' reduced as much as possible. Thus, as someone who will likely never experience the thrill of winning a national (US) championship, I could be persuaded to accept a compromise that for open/national championships there must be an appeals committee procedure in place, whereas at the restricted/national championship level and lower, directors can be empowered to make the final decision. As to whether this sort of compromise could ever be countenanced by the laws, I am completely uninformed. |
| View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ] |
| [ Get Email Advice of Replies ] | [ Print ] | [ Send ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ] |
|
8 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 7 guest(s). (The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003) bluejak |
|
Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm. | Register :: Log in The time is now 00:35:08 Wed Aug 27 2003 |
© 2001-2003 BbBoy.net
|
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF |
Legend :: 
Read Topic :: 
Unread Topic
Read Topic :: Unread Topic
Help | Full Format: ON :: OFF | Text: ON :: OFF | Email Status