[Cyberyeti]

This is a variation on a position that occurred at the table with me as NOS, but I wondered how it should be treated.

I regularly play slightly different systems with 3 partners, much more frequently with A and B than C.

With A and B, I play multi with strong options, with A 2♦-3♥ is forcing with hearts, with B it's "pick between 3♠/♥"

With C I play 2♦ as "my big bid or 20-21 bal" and 3♥ is 8+ with 5 hearts

I pick up QJ109xx, Qxx, Kx, xx and open 2♦, unfortunately I'm playing with C so I've just shown 23+ which I find out when he alerts and is asked, then he bids 3♥. Clearly for the purposes of the auction, I have to assume partner has responded 3♥ to my multi, but I hadn't decided who I was playing with at the point I opened the multi, so 3♥ could be one of two things.

If I was playing with A: I have a possible 4♦ bid, x, AKxxxx, AQx, Axx would be a typical hand for partner and 6♥ could well be on, unfortunately playing with B this shows a strong 2 in diamonds, but would normally just bid 4♥, it's pretty close as to whether 4♦ is a LA.

If I was playing with B: I have a clear 3♠ bid, this unfortunately shows a good spade suit playing with A and no heart fit.

What are my obligations here ?

Do I simply mentally nominate which system I'm playing ? and am I allowed to choose the less damaging of the two ? Clearly if I can justify bidding 4♥ I'm much more likely to avoid a disaster particularly if partner doesn't have enough to bid on opposite a balanced 20 with 3 hearts.

Edit: the bonus question, if I have a similar situation where I don't actually know what partner's bid means (say partner responded 4♦ to my multi and I have no clue whether this is diamonds or pick a major), am I allowed to not have to guess which in the attempt to minimise my losses.

[Zelandakh]

Under these circumstances I would just bid 3♠, both because it is not the bid to avoid disaster and also because this is the "normal" way of playing a multi, which you might assume if you suddenly started playing it with a new partner.

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-January-29, 08:33, said:

Do I simply mentally nominate which system I'm playing ? and am I allowed to choose the less damaging of the two ?

If you think that assuming either system would be a logical alternative, you're required to choose the more damaging of the two.

[WellSpyder]

Zelandakh, on 2013-January-29, 09:43, said:

Under these circumstances I would just bid 3♠, both because it is not the bid to avoid disaster and also because this is the "normal" way of playing a multi, which you might assume if you suddenly started playing it with a new partner.

I agree with Zel that if it is clear which is the more normal way of playing it then you should probably assume this. If it isn't clear which is more normal, then I think you have to choose the least favourable, unfortunately, since bids based on both interpretations are presumably LAs, and the bid based on the less disastrous interpretation is clearly suggested by the UI over the other.

[barmar]

The UI tells you that partner has 5+♥. So any continuation that's likely to get you to a ♥ contract is suggested by the UI, and you must not choose it. I think this essentially forces you to choose the B system.

Also, the UI indicates that partner may not have a strong hand, so keeping low is suggested, so you shouldn't pass. Again, that points to B.

[blackshoe]

1. What are the LAs?
2. The I, which is that partner thinks I have a strong hand, could demonstrably suggest I do what?

[campboy]

I would think both 3♠ (your normal action playing with B) and 4♥ (your normal action playing with A) are LAs.

If 4♦ is only a borderline LA if you are sure you're playing with A then presumably it isn't an LA unless you're sure you're playing with A (which you aren't).

[Vampyr]

Was it here or on rgb that dburn started a thread on whether the identity of your partner was AI?

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-29, 19:51, said:

Was it here or on rgb that dburn started a thread on whether the identity of your partner was AI?

Doesn't this get us into the same muddy territory as system forgets, i.e. the debates lamford and I have had over whether LAs are based on your actual agreements or the agreements you thought you had when you made the incorrect bid? I think they're isomorphic -- the identity of your partner is only relevant insofar as it indicates the set of agreements and implicit understandings you have with him.

[bluejak]

I cannot see how anyone can disagree with WellSpyder's reasoning. Just read the Law then consider it.