|
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 2 ] |
| [ Get Email Advice of Replies ] | [ Print ] | [ Send ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ] |
|
albert Ohana Reply |
Hello all
East opens 1NT, alerted 12-14 and West bids 2C, alerted Stayman which may be weak. North overcalls 2D, East pass, South 3D, and West bids 3H, not alerted. East bids 4H, and now West takes the 4S carton and puts it on the table with a manerism indicating clearly that partner has not understand the precedent bidding. East takes moment of thought and passes. South calls Director, who says play should continue. 4S is just made ( 4H would be two down). Director adjusts to 5S-1. E-W appeals, and A.C. restores the store to 4S made. Here are the two hands : West East AJ10xx Qxx Q10xx KJx x Ax Axx Dxxxx What is your opinion ? Many thanks in advance Al. Ohana |
|
AlanW Reply |
Whose action are you questioning here? There seem to be two possibilities. First, West's action in bidding 4S rather than passing 4H, and second, East's action in passing 4S rather than bidding on.
To decide on these, we really need to know what EW's system was - in particular, what did 3H show? If, for example, it showed 4H, 5S and invitational values, then East has perhaps made an eccentric choice in raising to 4H, but West has presumably no way of knowing East has failed to understand 3H other than his failure to alert. This is, of course, unauthorised information and I for one would rule West must pass 4H. If the 4S is the bid being questioned, then the manner in which it was made isn't really relevant. The director on the other hand, seems to have been happy to allow 4S to stand but to have felt East should have bid on. If 3H is natural and forcing, then 4S sounds to me like a cue-bid and East's only reason for passing looks like the potential unauthorised information conveyed by West's manner of bidding. Of course, West's 4S bid itself is authorised, and this may have led East to reconsider and remember their system. It sounds inherently a little unlikely to me that it was the authorised rather the unauthorised information that led to this appraisal, but it's possible of course, and I don't really know how you decide between these if East insists it was the bid itself. So I would first East a) what did 3H mean? If he comes up with an explanantion along the lines of the first possibility above I would ask b) why did he/she bid 4H? If he comes up with an explanation along the lines of the second possibility above I would ask b) why did he pass 4S? |
RichM  285 posts bridgetalk member  Reply |
Sounds like West was playing Smolen with himself, intending 3H to show 4H and 5S.
Without any hesitation or mannerisms, it seems right to let the correction to 4S stand. East may think that West has bid abnormally, but passing 4S seems to be the normal action. RichM |
|
AlanW Reply |
Rich If 3H showed 4H+5S and East selected 4H on that basis, why is West overruling East's choice to bid 4S? Hasn't he already shown what he has got? Doesn't it look as if the lack of an alert for 3H warned West of a misunderstanding? |
|
RichM 285 posts bridgetalk member Reply |
AlanW wrote
<< If 3H showed 4H+5S and East selected 4H on that basis, why is West overruling East's choice to bid 4S? Hasn't he already shown what he has got? Doesn't it look as if the lack of an alert for 3H warned West of a misunderstanding? >> Yes, I think it does look like the lack of an alert of 3H was UI (unauthorized information). But if we accept that after the first round: 1NT - P - 2C - 2D opener's second round Pass denied a 4-card major then it is reasonable to correct 4H to 4S based on good old "bridge logic". My uninformed opinion is that correcting 4H to 4S is allowable on this basis. On the other hand, passing 4H is reasonable if you assume that opener neglected to bid a 4-card Heart suit. RichM |
bluejak  427 posts Forum Host Reply |
Rich, you seem very generous to a pair who are clearly having a misunderstanding in allowing them to get things right.
 First, not everyone agrees on what 1NT p 2  2 p shows, and when 3 gets raised to 4 it sounds like four hearts to me!I would rule this back to 4 -2, and I do not consider it even close. Once 3 is not alerted, the 4 bid is illegal.
|
|
al.ohana Reply |
Rich
I agree with you when you say that 4S is allowed and may be considered as "old good bridge", but at one condition: it must be said without manerism, allowing partner to bid again . In this occasion, partner was "summoned" to stop by the attitude taken when bidding 4S Suppose responder has AKJx KQ10xx xx Kx and want to hear Diamond control . Is he not going to be 4S now ? And partner has to continue bidding, as the Heart fit is found With the great respect I have for David 's decisions, I do not understand why 4S is illegal, if it is made "normally" Best regards |
|
RichM 285 posts bridgetalk member Reply |
IMO, there are 2 issues here.
1) Is correcting to 4 Spades an reasonable bridge action ? 2) Should correction be allowed in light of "mannerism" and/or lack of alert ? On issue 1), I think it is sort of normal (note the weak qualifier) to correct to 4 Spades. If the table used screens and silent bidding and I was holding the West hand (the one with 4H and 5S) AND - *important qualification*- I knew we had not discussed this type of sequence, I would bid 4S as a "safety bid". It does not figure to be worse that 4 Hearts unless pard has 2 Spades and 4 Hearts. On issue 2), I have no opinion. David and Ed have more experience with rulings and I would defer to them on whether the contract should or should not revert to 4 Hearts. RichM |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
Suppose you are playing behind screens, and you bid as shown to 3
. You believe that you have shown 4s and 5s. Now partner bids 4. What do you do?The answer is that at least some of you would trust your partners and pass. I certainly would: I would assume partner knows what he is doing. Either he had 4 s which he did not show over 2 or he has something like a good trebleton heart and a doubleton spade and has decided that 4 is the answer rather than 3NT. Whichever, I would pass 4, and so would some other people.Back to that actual case. The player that bid 3 knows his partner did not alert it - that's UI. Pass over 4 is an LA [logical alternative] as shown above. So we disallow 4 - a routine UI decision.
|
|
Ed 172 posts Forum Host Reply |
Perhaps it's pedantic of me, but let me point out that it's not the fact that an LA exists that means we disallow 4 (or, more pedantically, means that we adjust the score  ) but the fact that the UI suggests bidding 4 over 4. |
|
albert Ohana Reply |
David
Thank you for your clear explications as if we were behind screens. I now have understood, and agree completely. We have been focused on the manerism, and in fact it was the absence of alert which was essential That means that both Director and A.C. had got it wrong.... I can now tell you that I was South Many thanks to all Best regards Al. Ohana |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
To adjust because of UI you require the following: [1] UI [2] An LA to the chosen action [3] Possible damage [4] The UI to suggest the chosen action over the LA If any one of these are missing we do not adjust. The reason I stressed [2] rather than [4] is because of the other answers - people were tending to assuming that the 4 bid was automatic, but all four items are required.
I would never have guessed! 
|
} but the fact that the UI suggests bidding 4|
RichM 285 posts bridgetalk member Reply |
bluejak wrote
<< Suppose you are playing behind screens, and you bid as shown to 3. You believe that you have shown 4H and 5s. Now partner bids 4H. What do you do? The answer is that at least some of you would trust your partners and pass. I certainly would: I would assume partner knows what he is doing. >> For deciding a real world appeal Davids four-point list looks right. Practical ======= There are situations in contested auctions where you *know* that your side does not have a specific agreement. You know based on the fact that you that you and your partner have discussed only a general agreement. You may have agreed on certain default principles that apply to undiscussed actions; "natural as possible and non-forcing in competetion" is one example. "Treatments stay on unless ridiculous" is another. Unfortunately, default principles can conflict is specific cases. Procedural ======== In terms of your obligations to your opponents, what to do when you "know you don't know" ?  Playing online, I tell the opps and not pard when I am guessing. Playing live, I have no idea of what's right. Any general principles Dave/Ed ????Opinion ====== I don't think "trust partner" is a guideline for deciding if and action is sensible, logical, allowable, etc. Directors and committe members should avoid any tendency to think "I (and other reasonable persons) would trust(or mistrust) partner so this or that call is reasonable or not reasonable". That introduces some prejudgement to step [2. Done ==== RichM |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
You tell your opponents that you do not know. Perhaps you even offer to call the TD for them. But it is more important to keep your opponents informed than to worry about UI - that is for partner to sort out. The TD has methods to sort out such problems, but cannot unless he is called.
TDs and ACs will look at alternatives. If some people would decide to pass, whether on a basis of trusting partner or any other basis, that is an LA [logical alternative]. Of course item [2] is all about judgement, but pass is clearly a logical alternative on the actual hand because without the UI a number of players would pass. LAs are always decided by considering what other players would do in the opinion of the TD or AC.
|
|
AlanW Reply |
Suppose that instead of showing his annoyance at East for not understanding 3H, West had simply bid 4S in tempo and then later claimed that 3H was a psyche to muddy the waters which he was always planning to correct to spades. Would the TD or appeals committee feel obliged to accept this? If West knew 3H was a natural bid when he made it then the correction to 4S may be ill-judged but looks allowable. But how do we know what West meant by 3H when he bid it except by his own, possibly self-serving, comments?
This may sound far-fetched, but it's not so different from something I did see at the table once. I opened a multi 2D, partner responded 2H and the next hand, with 5-5 in the majors, bid 3D (not alerted). I doubled with a strong balanced hand including AJxxx diamonds, and the 3D bidder rescued himself to 3H. This was also doubled and defeated, but not enough to compensate for missing 6D! Now what is going on here? One possibility that occurred to me was that 3D was intended as Michaels, but once his partner failed to alert he realised it hadn't been understood. One might argue that no-one plays 3D as Michaels here, and I would agree, but it may be relevant that on the very next hand my partner opened 2D multi and the same player now asked what 2D meant, which he hadn't done on the hand in question. One could also argue that the 3D bidder knew they didn't have an agreement here and once his partner failed to bid a major he knew he hadn't shown his hand (ie it was his partner's failure to bid not the failure to alert that warned him his partner hadn't understood). I think I would have gone along with this if argued. But instead, he claimed 3D was a deliberate psyche that had been very successful in talking us out of the best contract. Now this might be true, of course. It's a very unusual and risky psyche if so, but perhaps the more unusual the psyche the better the pay-off when it works. But I'm afraid it left a bit of a sour taste since I had (and still have) doubts as to how honest he was being. The TD said he had to accept the explanation of a psyche, in which case there were no problems with UI. |
| View Thread Page(s): [ 1 2 ] |
| [ 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 00:40:28 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