[blackshoe]

jillybean, on 2011-November-14, 14:29, said:

No I did not call him back. I was told to call him back if we thought we were damaged and we didn't.


Th 2N bid showed a weak hand, relay to 3C or a hand with slam interest. After East hears this explanation he must bid game as he now knows partner will pass any other bid. Without this information 3♥ a LA.


And what should happen if East does agree that this is their agreement but I believe East had forgotten and was woken up by the explanation? I doubt that this is an intentional violation, then again I can't be sure as these things are allowed to slide
I don't want to draw swords and accuse people of cheating and I am beginning to understand why people let these things slide in B/C/D but I don't like it.


So I should have asked the TD to rule on the possible UI before the hand was played?

You could still call him back if you felt there was an infraction that deserved a PP, or one that has not been addressed. You might have asked if the director felt there was use of UI even if there was no damage.

It seems you're arguing that 3♥ and 4♥ are LAs, and that 3♥ is suggested by the UI... or are you saying that 4♥ is suggested?

Did anyone ask East why he bid 4♥? Or, for that matter, why he bid 2NT? I can't imagine he thought 2NT was natural.

If there is a dispute about whether there was UI in the first place, the time to resolve that is when the dispute occurs, and the person to resolve it is the TD. Yes, before the hand is played. So that the TD can, if he determines UI is present, inform the OS of their obligation to avoid taking advantage of it. The reason the ruling on the question of use of UI is delayed is that in order to make the ruling, the TD will have to look at the hands, and he should not do that while the hand is still "live", because he might then give UI himself.

[blackshoe]

On PPs: in North America (and probably most other places) PPs are awarded sparingly. One could argue "too sparingly", but I don't think we here are going to change the culture, even if we all agree — and we probably don't. In the case of "use of UI", Law 16 says a player in receipt of same "may not" use it; Law 73C says he "must" make every effort to avoid using it. In either case, it would seem on first reading that in spite of the statement in the Introduction to the laws that these are serious offenses which should "more often than not" draw a PP, the current culture says otherwise. About that, all I can say is that before the current laws came into effect, I pointed out to blml that Law 9 then said that when attention had been drawn to an irregularity, the TD "must" be called, and if he wasn't, that implied that a PP should be issued to the contestants who did not call him. The end result of that was that the WBF changed "must" to "should" in the 2007 revision of the laws. So if we push too hard on getting PPs awarded here, we may find these laws weakened in future as well.

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-14, 14:58, said:

It seems you're arguing that 3♥ and 4♥ are LAs, and that 3♥ is suggested by the UI... or are you saying that 4♥ is suggested?

Did anyone ask East why he bid 4♥? Or, for that matter, why he bid 2NT? I can't imagine he thought 2NT was natural.

Err, no. I am suggesting 4♥ was suggested by the UI, 3♥ would be a signoff over 3♣.

No questions were asked about the auction other than to query the 2N alert.

[aguahombre]

jillybean, on 2011-November-14, 21:53, said:

Err, no. I am suggesting 4♥ was suggested by the UI, 3♥ would be a signoff over 3♣.

I think perhaps you are missing what they stated at the table about their agreements. The 2NT bidder was making a an artificial call showing either weak (obviously for a minor) or slam try (unspecified strain). He had not bid 2H, though it was available over the reverse. 3H in that context could never be a signoff. It would logically still be slammish even though opener had shown a weak version of the reverse.

Maybe the two were not on exactly the same wavelength in the auction, or in their explanations. But, there is no way 3H could possibly have been intended as non-forcing.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-14, 22:44, said:

I think perhaps you are missing what they stated at the table about their agreements. The 2NT bidder was making a an artificial call showing either weak (obviously for a minor) or slam try (unspecified strain). He had not bid 2H, though it was available over the reverse. 3H in that context could never be a signoff. It would logically still be slammish even though opener had shown a weak version of the reverse.

Maybe the two were not on exactly the same wavelength in the auction, or in their explanations. But, there is no way 3H could possibly have been intended as non-forcing.

Many people play that going through the 2NT relay is the only way to make a shut-out bid, it's not "obviously for a minor". Responder can rebid their suit with a 5-card suit, and it's forward-going.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2011-November-15, 00:37, said:

Many people play that going through the 2NT relay is the only way to make a shut-out bid, it's not "obviously for a minor". Responder can rebid their suit with a 5-card suit, and it's forward-going.

Maybe so, but it seems strange to bypass 2H in order to sign off in 3H, wasting two benefits of the either-or agreement they announced --the ability to back off slam if opener rebids 3C by jumping to game, or to continue trying for slam even though opener is minimum by showing what trump is at the 3-level.

It is analogous to using NMF with 6+ in your major. 2M is a signoff, 3M is invitational, 4M is sign-off in game. So, none of those hands need to go thru NMF. But, if responder is slammish with 6+ in the major, she uses the toy to determine not only 3-card support, but whether the opener was minimum or maximum --and can back off opposite an 11-12 dog by jumping to 4M, or continue slam exploration opposite that dog by setting the suit as trump at the lower level.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-November-15, 01:02

[jillybean]

barmar, on 2011-November-15, 00:37, said:

Many people play that going through the 2NT relay is the only way to make a shut-out bid, it's not "obviously for a minor". Responder can rebid their suit with a 5-card suit, and it's forward-going.

Yes, this is very common around here. 2N is a relay to 3♣, allowing responder to signoff at the 3level.

[blackshoe]

East's possibilities over 2♦ include 2♥, 2♠, 2NT, 3♣, 3♦, 3♥ at least. What would these have meant in their system?

[bluejak]

I feel awarding PPs is done too sparingly. But minimum PPs are merely meant as slaps on the wrist, and I believe that the ACBL's quarter-board standard is too high, and an active discouragement to TDs to issue them. When an EBU TD issues a slap on the wrist, 10% of a top feels much more the correct level. I also think personally that the equivalent at teams should be 2 imps not 3.

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-15, 05:39, said:

East's possibilities over 2♦ include 2♥, 2♠, 2NT, 3♣, 3♦, 3♥ at least. What would these have meant in their system?

I don't know. A common treatment here is
2♥ forward going with hearts
2♠ 4th suit
2N relay to 3C, intending to signoff in 3x or slam probe.
3♣/♦ fit
3♥ does not exist

[aguahombre]

jillybean, on 2011-November-15, 09:34, said:

I don't know. A common treatment here is
2♥ forward going with hearts
2♠ 4th suit
2N relay to 3C, intending to signoff in 3x or slam probe.
3♣/♦ fit
3♥ does not exist

Elsewhere:
2H might be weak with 6+hearts or only 5 hearts and unclear as to strength (an either-or bid).
2N could be as you state, and therefore resolve the UI issue of the thread.
3H might well exist as a 6-card heart suit within a narrow constructive range (around 11).

[Fluffy]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-15, 00:42, said:

Maybe so, but it seems strange to bypass 2H in order to sign off in 3H, wasting two benefits of the either-or agreement they announced --the ability to back off slam if opener rebids 3C by jumping to game, or to continue trying for slam even though opener is minimum by showing what trump is at the 3-level.

This is kind of standard where I live.


Jilly, what you should ask yourself is: why did I ask them about these convention before the bidding is over if I don´t care?. Whoever asked just helped them.

[RMB1]

Fluffy, on 2011-November-15, 10:39, said:

Jilly, what you should ask yourself is: why did I ask them about these convention before the bidding is over if I don´t care?

In case the answer creates UI and then they might be ruled against.

[aguahombre]

RMB1, on 2011-November-15, 10:56, said:

In case the answer creates UI and then they might be ruled against.

That might be a fair jab, if she had pursued the matter with the TD; but she didn't. Pursuing it on this thread is another matter, since it seems the nuances have been covered and recovered.

It certainly was worthwhile, IMO, just to discuss the theoretical use of 2NT vs. other bids, and the follow-ups afterward.

[jillybean]

Fluffy, on 2011-November-15, 10:39, said:

This is kind of standard where I live.


Jilly, what you should ask yourself is: why did I ask them about these convention before the bidding is over if I don´t care?. Whoever asked just helped them.

I didn't ask

[jillybean]

RMB1, on 2011-November-15, 10:56, said:

In case the answer creates UI and then they might be ruled against.

This is offensive.

[RMB1]

jillybean, on 2011-November-15, 11:22, said:

This is offensive.

Sorry, I did not mean to offend.

There are players in England who ask about e.g. Blackwood responses when they have no interest. This can create UI problems when the opponents appear to take advantage of hearing a (mis)explanation. Some of these players appear to ask these questions with this end in mind.

I am sure that jillybean and partner are not such players.

This post has been edited by RMB1: 2011-November-15, 16:11

[jillybean]

RMB1, on 2011-November-15, 11:39, said:

Sorry, I did not mean to offend.

Thanks, I will retract my offense

RMB1, on 2011-November-15, 11:39, said:

There are players in England who ask about e.g. Blackwood responses when they have no interest. This can create UI problems when the opponents appear to take advantage of hearing a (mis)explanation. Some of these players appear to ask these questions with this end in mind.

I am sure the killybean and partner are not such players.

This raises another issue where I think it is difficult for newer players to know what to do. My partner here always asks,
I'm sure out of habit rather than trying to create UI problems. I dislike it and think it can only help the opps. I only ask if I need to know, I now tend to look at their CC rather than ask. Call me odd but I did not do this to start with as some players seem to be annoyed when their CC is picked up and scrutinized and I felt as if I was being rude doing so.

[aguahombre]

Fluffy, on 2011-November-15, 10:39, said:

Jilly, what you should ask yourself is: why did I ask them about these convention before the bidding is over if I don´t care?. Whoever asked just helped them.

jillybean, on 2011-November-15, 11:20, said:

I didn't ask

I believe it is acceptable literary license to phrase a post in the manner Fluffy did, when it seems as if the OP is in the position being discussed. Whether OP was watching the hand or participating; whether she was North or South; doesn't change the value (if any) of Fluffy's concern.

Maybe, "why did someone ask if they didn't care?" might have been more careful wording. But, we all have used less exact rhetoric on occasion. Well, not Steph, of course.

[bluejak]

RMB1, on 2011-November-15, 11:39, said:

I am sure the killybean and partner are not such players.

killybean?