[Jinksy]

Last night, my P opened 2♦, announced by me as 'weak to intermediate with five or more diamonds'.

I responded 2♥, which P alerted. When LHO asked about the meaning of 2♥, my P looked uncomfortable and said 'I'll have to step away from the table to explain it to you' - which prompted me to remember we'd adopted the multi 2♦.

Fortunately, my 2♥ was passed out, so I didn't have any ethical dilemma. But suppose P had corrected to 2♠, or the opps had acted and I'd had another call. What are my obligations now? Am I supposed to attempt to recreate a full auction faithfully, all the way to 7N (for a slightly extreme example) on the assumption that I would never have remembered our actual system? Or does one of us get forced to pass throughout? Or something else?

[Vampyr]

Your partner's correct explanation should simply be "pass or correct" if that is your agreement.

About ethical obligations, you lucked out here because partner had hearts. If he'd had spades you would have had to stick to your misapprehension, but would most likely end up only in game, or anyway the 5-level. Also your partner has UI, so you will be conducting two different auctions, probably with a poor result.

If you tend to forget new conventions, it might help if you included it at the start of every round when you are announcing you basic system to the opponents.

[weejonnie]

Well your partner shouldn't have asked to speak to the opponent away from the table. He should have stated "Willing to play in 2♥ if that's my suit, so probably hasn't good heart support" - since that is the partnership understanding. Note that his action - speaking to the opponent away from the table - woke you up just as if he has given the correct explanation.

So you wake up! Which means you must call the director - law 20F4. (Who will give your RHO the chance to change his call, if he thinks since your LHO hasn't called - law 21B.). Please read the law for the various options thereafter, but in general if he does change his call (not compulsory) there is no further rectification and you can change your call without any further rectification - but if damage has resulted then an adjusted score is issued via 16D. (Your previous call is AI for opppnents but UI for your partner).

Since you woke up due to UI, you must still continue to call under the assumption that partner has a weak to intermediate hand with diamonds (and your partner must still call as if he believes you are replying to a Multi 2♦).

You have no obligation to pass (this is not a call out of turn or insufficient bid scenario) UNLESS, give the alternatives of passing and making a different call, the different call is demonstrably suggested over the pass. (Law 16B)

Whilst 7NT is an extreme example (and in both scenarios impossible since it seems your hands aren't strong enough) - there are plenty of cases where abuse of UI has resulted in contracts being allocated of e.g. 8-off doubled. (Often after a Ghestem overcall and 'unauthorised panic').
Ghestem -1100 is a well-known convention.

(If LHO had refused the chance to change their call and partner bids 2♠ then you have to decide whether such a bid is possible (given that, to you, partner has a weak - intermediate hand with diamonds). If you have diamond tolerance then I would expect that 3♦ by you would be a correct response - and after that - who knows.

[paulg]

Vampyr and weejonnie have covered most of it - you need to call the TD and explain that you misexplained partner's 2♦ bid while at the same not remembering this for the purposes of your own subsequent bids.

In terms of what you should do next depends on what you intended 2♥ as? Was it natural and forcing for one round, constructive but non-forcing, weak, or relay?

[Jinksy]

2♥ was intended as inv+ relay.

[Jinksy]

So if we both have to bid according to the system we started out believing the hand was, how are we supposed to deal with marginal bids? Eg P 'shows' a min with my major, and I'm somewhere between bidding game and passing it out. It seems impossible to be honest even with yourself in such a position - far less for any director to judge that you weren't.

[Jinksy]

Vampyr, on 2016-October-15, 06:49, said:

If you tend to forget new conventions, it might help if you included it at the start of every round when you are announcing you basic system to the opponents.

We were actually doing this. But it apparently didn't work :\ Need more sleep next time.

[paulg]

Jinksy, on 2016-October-15, 15:01, said:

So if we both have to bid according to the system we started out believing the hand was, how are we supposed to deal with marginal bids? Eg P 'shows' a min with my major, and I'm somewhere between bidding game and passing it out. It seems impossible to be honest even with yourself in such a position - far less for any director to judge that you weren't.

Yes, you've put yourselves into a very difficult situation but you just have to try your best not to take advantage.

Speaking very generally, directors and an appeals committee will be more tolerant if you take the optimistic view of any marginal bid, since this is often more clearly not taking advantage. But every case is different, which is why directors poll, and you'll frequently get a ruling against you when you forget conventional bids. Happens to us all

[weejonnie]

Jinksy, on 2016-October-15, 15:01, said:

So if we both have to bid according to the system we started out believing the hand was, how are we supposed to deal with marginal bids? Eg P 'shows' a min with my major, and I'm somewhere between bidding game and passing it out. It seems impossible to be honest even with yourself in such a position - far less for any director to judge that you weren't.

The general rule is that you consider your options (which are defined as being those that a player of your same class and ability would have in the same situation, playing the same conventions). In the case you mention you seem to be in a posiiton where the choices are : bid game or pass. (These are known as Logical Alternatives).
You then decide: what could partner's pause mean? In the example is almost certainly means that he has slightly more than than a dead minimum.
This would indicate that bidding game is likely to be the winning action. In the parlance of the lawbook "Game is demonstrably suggested by the Unauthorised Information"
Which means that you have to select pass.
Note that partner pausing does NOT compel you to pass in all cases (despite what many players (but no directors) tell you.). If you have a clear game call once partner has responded to your bid then you make it.
Also note that the action could be demonstrably suggested. If you open 1NT and partner thinks and then bids 2NT (natural), you have no idea whether he was considering passing 1NT or nearly had a raise to 3NT. All you can consider is that his raise to 2NT was not obvious. Since neither passing, nor bidding 3NT is demonstrably suggested, then you can do either with a clear conscience.

[ggwhiz]

I had a similar situation a long time ago, different but with this one might have played out as follows.

I alert 2♦, UI to partner
partner alerts 2♥ UI to me then bids 2♠
I don't alert cause it's natural and (intermediate?)as far as I'm concerned and raise

etc. with some real funny looks from the opponents (probably trying not to laugh at our explanations) ending in something with a double. My lho raised his hand and said "I think we need the Director" and rho said "No we don't, your lead".

[Zelandakh]

Jinksy, on 2016-October-15, 15:01, said:

So if we both have to bid according to the system we started out believing the hand was, how are we supposed to deal with marginal bids?

You make the call that you think is less suggested by the UI. In fact, even if you are deciding between 2 calls where you think the one suggested by the UI is an overwhelming favourite, you should still choose the other one if a significant number of your peers would choose that option. This is often a difficult area and few are able to behave perfectly ethically. Sadly, fewer still are held to account as there is often a stigma attached to bringing in the TD to deal with this sort of thing.

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2016-October-19, 07:20, said:

This is often a difficult area and few are able to behave perfectly ethically.

I would say rather that it is difficult to get it right. It's a judgement matter. Someone whose judgement turns out to be different to the director's (or committee's) is not behaving unethically, he simply made a mistake.

Zelandakh, on 2016-October-19, 07:20, said:

Sadly, fewer still are held to account as there is often a stigma attached to bringing in the TD to deal with this sort of thing.

This is the kind of thinking (that there is a stigma attached to calling the TD) that needs to be eradicated from the game.

[StevenG]

blackshoe, on 2016-October-19, 17:05, said:

I would say rather that it is difficult to get it right. It's a judgement matter. Someone whose judgement turns out to be different to the director's (or committee's) is not behaving unethically, he simply made a mistake.

... or, maybe, the director made a mistake.

[paulg]

blackshoe, on 2016-October-19, 17:05, said:

I would say rather that it is difficult to get it right. It's a judgement matter. Someone whose judgement turns out to be different to the director's (or committee's) is not behaving unethically, he simply made a mistake.

It can be very difficult to make the judgement and keep some semblance of tempo. Directors and committees often take a considerable time, and discuss with others, and take polls, to make a decision, whereas the hapless player has, perhaps, 10 seconds!

[barmar]

paulg, on 2016-October-20, 02:02, said:

It can be very difficult to make the judgement and keep some semblance of tempo. Directors and committees often take a considerable time, and discuss with others, and take polls, to make a decision, whereas the hapless player has, perhaps, 10 seconds!

This is why I've long maintained that even though it's not strictly to the letter of the law, the most practical way to proceed in the face of UI is often to make your normal bid, trying to ignore the UI. Trying to figure out specifically what the LAs are and which are suggested by the UI is either too hard (you have to imagine what other players of your class would consider) or will create new UI because of the time it takes. You just have to accept that sometimes your action will be ruled as an infraction and the score will be adjusted.