[wyman]

All red, MP. The partnership agreement is Capp over all NT.

1N (2D) 2S

Now 4th seat alerts 2D as majors, and 3rd seat retracts his 2S

1N (2D) P

(1) Holding Qxx / 7xx / xxx / xxx, is 2S a LA to 2H?

Suppose you believe that 2S is a LA and 4th seat is compelled to bid 2S. Or suppose that the above never happened, and you see the following:

1N (2D) P (2S)
P ?

(2) Holding 1=3=5=4, and having intended 2D as natural, is pass a LA?

[bluejak]

2♥ and 2♠ are LAs by advancer. People like myself who have made bad bids in defence all my life bid the cheapest when in trouble so to me 2♥ is automatic. But there is a case for bidding your stronger suit with equal length so some people will bid 2♠.

Overcaller has a routine pass over 2♠. Since it is the normal action, taken by 75%+ of people without the UI, and 25%+ with the UI , it is an LA.

[ArtK78]

What difference does it make? Advancer does not have UI from his partner. He was slow to alert 2♦ and RHO called 2♠. After the alert and explanation RHO retracted the 2♠ call. Why does that put any burden on advancer to call 2♠ because his 3 card spade holding is better than his 3 card heart holding?

Unless someone points out a law or regulation to the contrary, I believe that advancer is entitled to the information provided about the hand by RHO's 2♠ call. It was not provided by partner, so it is not UI. In a normal situation, a player is entitled to draw any inferences that he can from his opponents' actions, although he often does so at his peril. This is not a normal situation, but I am not aware of any law or regulation that provides that advancer cannot use the information obtained from the withdrawn call.

Given RHO's 2♠ call, partner cannot hold 4 spades. LHO opened 1NT so he has to have 2 spades (assuming that he did not open with a singleton) and RHO has to have 5 spades for his (presumably) natural 2♠ call. Advancer has Qxx of spades. That leaves 3 spades at most for partner. So perhaps partner's 2♦ bid was an error, and he actually has diamonds. Advancer did not find this out from anything that his partner did. So it is not UI.

Quite frankly, if I were in this position, I would pass 2♦. I don't believe that this is unethical. Furthermore, while RHO is under no obligation to inquire about the 2♦ bid, if RHO has any experience whatsoever he should do so before calling 2♠. So RHO should not be relying on your slow alert for protection against his volunteering information to you about his hand. I don't believe the 2♠ call followed by the retraction gives any UI to opener, because RHO is entitled under the rules to make his call and then retract it after the alert and explanation. But I could be wrong about that.

[wyman]

2S is definitely UI to both the overcaller and the advancer. Otherwise you could slowroll your alerts always with impunity.

edit: but 2S is AI to opener, as it turns out.

[ArtK78]

 wyman, on 2012-February-14, 14:12, said:

2S is definitely UI to both the overcaller and the advancer. Otherwise you could slowroll your alerts always with impunity.

edit: but 2S is AI to opener, as it turns out.

Please cite a law or regulation to support your position. I am not going to spend the time to look it up, but I don't believe you are correct.

And no, I don't think you can slow roll your alerts with the intention of getting information from the opps. Clearly, the slow alert was inadvertent. If a player deliberately delayed his alerts, there could of course be redress.

[bluejak]

 ArtK78, on 2012-February-14, 14:10, said:

Unless someone points out a law or regulation to the contrary, I believe that advancer is entitled to the information provided about the hand by RHO's 2♠ call.

Quote

Law 16
D. Information from Withdrawn Calls and Plays

When a call or play has been withdrawn as these laws provide:

1. For a non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn action is authorized, whether the action be its own or its opponents’.

2. For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. A player of an offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorized information.

[wyman]

 ArtK78, on 2012-February-14, 14:15, said:

Please cite a law or regulation to support your position. I am not going to spend the time to look it up, but I don't believe you are correct.

And no, I don't think you can slow roll your alerts with the intention of getting information from the opps. Clearly, the slow alert was inadvertent. If a player deliberately delayed his alerts, there could of course be redress.

I will look, but according to the TD, I'm correct. I don't understand why my side should be penalized for their failure to alert in a timely manner.

edit: TY Bluejak

[ArtK78]

OK. So fourth hand cannot use the information from the 2♠ call. He must bid on the basis that the bidding went (1NT)-2♦-(P). I would hope that the TD would make that ruling at the table.

It is a close call whether he should bid the lower ranking of his 3 card suits or the better of his 3 card suits. I would bid 2♠, given that Qxx is better than xxx, but not everyone would.

By the way, what was the pace of the auction? Did the 2♠ bidder make his call immediately over the 2♦ call, thereby depriving fourth seat of his opportunity to alert? Or was there a fair amount of time between the 2♦ call and the 2♠ call?

[wyman]

 ArtK78, on 2012-February-14, 14:28, said:

By the way, what was the pace of the auction? Did the 2♠ bidder make his call immediately over the 2♦ call, thereby depriving fourth seat of his opportunity to alert? Or was there a fair amount of time between the 2♦ call and the 2♠ call?

There was no deprivation. Additionally, 4th seat took about 20 seconds _after_ the 2S call before alerting the 2D. She knew they were playing Capp but was struggling to remember what 2D meant. Knowing that it wasn't natural, she still didn't alert it until way later when she figured out what it meant. This wasn't some sinister plan I cooked up to share UI with my partner and fleece my unsuspecting 70 year old opponents.

[wyman]

 ArtK78, on 2012-February-14, 14:28, said:

It is a close call whether he should bid the lower ranking of his 3 card suits or the better of his 3 card suits. I would bid 2♠, given that Qxx is better than xxx, but not everyone would.

That's why I was asking if 2S was an LA. Obviously if opps had some document that says "if we make a 2-suited overcall of 1N, we _always_ pref the cheapest with equal length" then there's no issue. I would expect that this is a normal agreement, in fact, but that doesn't mean that 2S is not an LA. I know if this happened to me, I would have bid 2S.

[barmar]

 ArtK78, on 2012-February-14, 14:28, said:

OK. So fourth hand cannot use the information from the 2♠ call. He must bid on the basis that the bidding went (1NT)-2♦-(P).

No, it's worse than that. If he has a choice of actions, he can't choose the one that's demonstrably suggested by the 2♠ bid. In this case, he presumably has a choice between ♥ and ♠. Knowing that RHO has ♠ makes ♥ more attractive, so he may NOT choose that -- he MUST bid 2♠.

If they have the agreement that with equal length in the majors they will always bid the lower one, he could then get away with bidding 2♥ -- 2♠ wouldn't be an LA in their methods.

[ArtK78]

 wyman, on 2012-February-14, 14:39, said:

There was no deprivation. Additionally, 4th seat took about 20 seconds _after_ the 2S call before alerting the 2D. She knew they were playing Capp but was struggling to remember what 2D meant. Knowing that it wasn't natural, she still didn't alert it until way later when she figured out what it meant. This wasn't some sinister plan I cooked up to share UI with my partner and fleece my unsuspecting 70 year old opponents.

I never said that it was, and I don't think there was anything stated in the posts above that fourth seat was "an unsuspecting 70 year old opponent."

Although, as I assume that this happened on Sunday in Glenside, it is likely that 70 is as young as it is going to get.

[wyman]

 ArtK78, on 2012-February-14, 15:17, said:

I never said that it was, and I don't think there was anything stated in the posts above that fourth seat was "an unsuspecting 70 year old opponent."

Although, as I assume that this happened on Sunday in Glenside, it is likely that 70 is as young as it is going to get.

Friday eve. And I didn't call the director back to see if they should be forced to take the result of 2S-5 instead of 2H-3.

[BunnyGo]

 wyman, on 2012-February-14, 15:20, said:

Friday eve. And I didn't call the director back to see if they should be forced to take the result of 2S-5 instead of 2H-3.

But you could have had .5 more matchpoints!

[Zelandakh]

Question 1 is obvious and has already been answered - 4th hand has to bid 2♠ unless there is some special agreement in place. Question 2 I find more interesting; if 1NT were weak or mini then 2♠ over a natural 2♦ would be forcing for many pairs.

[wyman]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-February-15, 05:57, said:

Question 1 is obvious and has already been answered - 4th hand has to bid 2♠ unless there is some special agreement in place. Question 2 I find more interesting; if 1NT were weak or mini then 2♠ over a natural 2♦ would be forcing for many pairs.

1N was strong

[ahydra]

Quote

Holding Qxx / 7xx / xxx / xxx, is 2S a LA to 2H?

Has nobody called the director because they have only 12 cards?

Surely partnership style comes in a lot here. Perhaps their system mandates rebidding 2H with 3/3, in which case there are no LAs to 2H.

As for (2), if 1NT was strong then pass is an LA - otherwise, again, it depends on partnership style. I'm not even sure what the standard forcing-or-not-status of 2S is here (when opps open a weak NT).

ahydra

[wyman]

 ahydra, on 2012-February-15, 11:20, said:

Has nobody called the director because they have only 12 cards?

Surely partnership style comes in a lot here. Perhaps their system mandates rebidding 2H with 3/3, in which case there are no LAs to 2H.

As for (2), if 1NT was strong then pass is an LA - otherwise, again, it depends on partnership style. I'm not even sure what the standard forcing-or-not-status of 2S is here (when opps open a weak NT).

ahydra

the 13th is in a minor, of course, but I don't remember now which.

[Trinidad]

 wyman, on 2012-February-14, 11:55, said:

All red, MP. The partnership agreement is Capp over all NT.

1N (2D) 2S

Now 4th seat alerts 2D as majors, and 3rd seat retracts his 2S

1N (2D) P

(1) Holding Qxx / 7xx / xxx / xxx, is 2S a LA to 2H?

Yes, it is.

 wyman, on 2012-February-14, 11:55, said:

Suppose you believe that 2S is a LA and 4th seat is compelled to bid 2S. Or suppose that the above never happened, and you see the following:

1N (2D) P (2S)
P ?

(2) Holding 1=3=5=4, and having intended 2D as natural, is pass a LA?

Not for me, but the auction would continue:

1N (2D) P (2S)
P (3C)¹ P (3H)²
P (4H)³ Dbl⁴ P⁵

1. Intended as natural, showing a second suit. Understood by advancer as a club fragment showing a decent hand and about a 4513 distribution.
2. Time to show support for overcaller's second suit. Interpreted as Natural, distributional and forcing.
3. I have three card support for your hearts partner! (see 5)
4. Enough of this nonsense
5. What do you mean my hearts? They were your hearts. (see 3)

I don't think that would lead to a good result for the overcalling side.

Rik

[gnasher]

 Trinidad, on 2012-February-17, 06:47, said:

Not for me, but the auction would continue:

1N (2D) P (2S)
P (3C)¹ P (3H)²
P (4H)³ Dbl⁴ P⁵

I agree with most of this, but wouldn't 3♥ be FSF?