[nige1]

lamford, on 2013-November-25, 08:54, said:

The authorised information, that partner pulled 3NT to 4S, but did not open a weak two spades, makes 5D automatic for me. If partner does have two aces, then 5D will be fine.

RMB1, on 2013-November-25, 10:25, said:

If 4♠ doesn't exist then I think it is clear that Pass is a logical alternative.

wank, on 2013-November-25, 10:26, said:

it's easy to use this kind of soft logic to justify using UI (i'm guessing 3nt was alerted as some sort of raise), but it's all a fallacy. there are plenty of other reasons why partner might choose not to open a pre-empt with a long spade suit - a heart suit on the side, or a plan to be sneaky later in the auction, for example.

FrancesHinden, on 2013-November-26, 14:58, said:

What RMB and wank said. Partner pulls our 3NT bid to game in spades. Pass is always a logical alternative. More so if the bid systemically doesn't exist, not less so.

dburn, on 2013-November-27, 09:48, said:

Pass is automatic. 5♦ is illegal.

lamford, on 2013-December-01, 16:38, said:

But 16B1(b) defines an LA as "<snip> using the methods of the partnership", so, even if system violation is possible, LAs are decided assuming that the methods of the partnership are being used.

Lamford notes that for CyberYeti, pass isn't an LA, because, according to his partnership methods, partner has fewer than 6 ♠. Other opinions seem right in common sense but wrong in Bridge-Law.

[blackshoe]

It probably has nothing to do with the ruling, but if N bid 3NT naturally, he should have a heart stopper. So with what kind of dreck did East overcall 1♥?

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2013-December-02, 00:15, said:

It probably has nothing to do with the ruling, but if N bid 3NT naturally, he should have a heart stopper. So with what kind of dreck did East overcall 1♥?

Kx, QJ98xx, 10x, A9x

[Cyberyeti]

nige1, on 2013-December-01, 19:55, said:

Lamford notes that for CyberYeti, pass isn't an LA, because, according to his partnership methods, partner has fewer than 6 ♠. Other opinions seem right in common sense but wrong in Bridge-Law.

This is not the first time I've had a ruling which is tantamount to saying "We don't believe you play this".

[campboy]

lamford, on 2013-December-01, 16:38, said:

But 16B1(b) defines an LA as "<snip> using the methods of the partnership", so, even if system violation is possible, LAs are decided assuming that the methods of the partnership are being used.

I think the snip misses something important. They are decided assuming that the player with UI is using the methods of the partnership; there is no assumption that his partner is using the methods of the partnership.

[dburn]

I believe I have the answer. When South passed at his first turn, this was because he had picked up a twitch from West that he interpreted as showing a good hand with spades. East had also twitched to show a good hand with short spades. When the auction developed as it did, South concluded that these must have been psychic twitches, so he had better show his jack-seventh of spades after all.

[nige1]

RMB1, on 2013-November-25, 09:42, said:

I can't help thinking that if we had different UI (which suggested partner had eight spades?), there would be a suggestion that we could Pass because there were no other logical alternatives.

lamford, on 2013-December-01, 16:38, said:

But 16B1(b) defines an LA as "<snip> using the methods of the partnership", so, even if system violation is possible, LAs are decided assuming that the methods of the partnership are being used.

Cyberyeti, on 2013-December-02, 03:37, said:

This is not the first time I've had a ruling which is tantamount to saying "We don't believe you play this".

campboy, on 2013-December-02, 05:23, said:

I think the snip misses something important. They are decided assuming that the player with UI is using the methods of the partnership; there is no assumption that his partner is using the methods of the partnership.

We can take another Rorschach test and judge for ourselves

TFLB L16B1b said:

A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

[mycroft]

All I'm saying is that "partner forgot the system/misguessed what I had" is, given how well you know your system, about as high on the list as "partner psyched/partner missorted his cards". But of course, with the UI, you have a pretty good idea that the latter didn't happen. Is it enough? I don't know. I would certainly poll people *with the correct system* and see.

I won't say (having played weird systems that I've had to ask "did you tell them that my partner can't have that hand?" myself) "I don't believe you play that", but I will say that "okay, this happened" (without the Alert and, when asked, the confident explanation, of course) and see what it gets me. If everyone says "so, partner can't have 6 spades, at all? Even a zero count? Then I have no clue what's going on", then fine, you get to use your experience to guess - and, of course, correct the explanation at the right time and see what happens. If not...

[lamford]

campboy, on 2013-December-02, 05:23, said:

I think the snip misses something important. They are decided assuming that the player with UI is using the methods of the partnership; there is no assumption that his partner is using the methods of the partnership.

However, 40B2a empowers the RA to insist that both halves of a partnership are playing the same methods, and they have done so; from the Blue Book:

5 A 2 The members of a partnership must have the same bidding understandings and play the same system of leads, signals and discards.

I repeat, LAs are decided using the partnership methods, not based on some guess as to what partner's motives might have been. So, when polling, one is told the partnership methods, and then asked to make a decision. I don't think it makes two hoots of difference what style of weak twos one is playing here. As FrancesHinden's partner says, "4S isn't making." I did not understand why her partner concluded that 5D was not either. If 4S was a choice of pointed-suit games, I would be worried I was missing 6D. Or even 7D, opposite ATxxxx x xxxx Ax.

As an afterthought, 5C should be last-train here. A good hand for a diamond slam with or without a club control. Or perhaps it should be reverse last-train - a puppet to 5D, and either terminal in diamonds or a slam force, releasing 5D to be last train. Now what should 4NT be?