[gnasher]

---

Matchpoints. Systemically 2♦ showed both majors, but South forgot and intended it as natural.
At this point South passed 2♠.

The appeal was mainly about the later auction, but the appeals committee commented "South ... passed 2♠ when the UI had suggested otherwise."

Do you agree?

Edit: We can assume that 1♦ and 1NT were standard for North America. 2♦ was alerted and explained as both majors.

[pran]

 gnasher, on 2013-March-22, 01:50, said:

---

Matchpoints. Systemically 2♦ showed both majors, but South forgot and intended it as natural. At this point South passed 2♠.

The appeal was mainly about the later auction, but the appeals committee commented "South ... passed 2♠ when the UI had suggested otherwise."

Do you agree?

It depends on the partnership understanding of the 1♦ opening bid and the intervening 1NT bid, and on how South understood the auction so far.

[barmar]

 pran, on 2013-March-22, 01:59, said:

It depends on the partnership understanding of the 1♦ opening bid and the intervening 1NT bid, and on how South understood the auction so far.

They weren't alerted, and nothing was said about them in the writeup, so I think we can assume they were both "standard": 1♦ is presumably 4+ cards unless the hand is 4=4=3=2, and 1NT is 15-18 with a likely diamond stopper.

[barmar]

Interestingly, Appeal #3 involved this same board and another pair forgetting that they were playing this convention over the 1NT overcall.

[GreenMan]

Being reminded by partner's alert that you have forgotten an agreement makes the agreement UI to you, so South had to act as if 2♠ was natural. IIRC the writeup stated that 1♦ might be 3 but was likely 4+.

With a weak hand and a natural 2♠ bid in front of him, South in the absence of UI would have a choice of staying at the 2 level or going a level higher in what may not be a better fit; so pass is a logical alternative to 3♦. The UI demonstrably suggests that passing could well mean playing a 3-3 fit when a 4-4 or better fit is available in diamonds. So "South passed when the UI suggested otherwise" seems accurate to me.

I was a bit amused that the same board from an NABC+ event and the same first three bids (with the same system forget) also appeared in Appeal 3.

[barmar]

 GreenMan, on 2013-March-22, 02:15, said:

I was a bit amused that the same board from an NABC+ event and the same first three bids (with the same system forget) also appeared in Appeal 3.

Did our posts cross?

[iviehoff]

 gnasher, on 2013-March-22, 01:50, said:

The appeal was mainly about the later auction, but the appeals committee commented "South ... passed 2♠ when the UI had suggested otherwise."
Do you agree?

I presume S had the UI that 2D was alerted or explained in his hearing.

If 2D shows the majors, would there be a risk that 3D by S would not have been passed by N? It has the look of some sort of encouraging bid in that context. And if that is true, then actually the UI suggests passing 2S, to avoid the escalation that would follow a call of 3D. But whether 3D is actually a LA in that context, to make pass an unethical bid, I'm not sure.

If however 3D is always passed even when 2D is for the majors, then I think it is quite clear that pass is an ethical bid in the context of the UI. I suspect that is what the appeal committee meant, because the UI made 3D a more attractive bid than without it.

[GreenMan]

 barmar, on 2013-March-22, 02:19, said:

Did our posts cross?

Oops. Guess so. I'm slow after 3am.

[cherdano]

I don't get it.
Without the UI, it would be normal to bid 3D to play in our 5-4 fit rather than our 4-3 fit.
With the UI, 3D is probably a game try, and may lead to partner bidding 4S - the best I can hope is to get out in 3S to play in our 4-3 fit at the 3-level, instead of playing in our 4-3 fit at the 2-level.

I can't remember a clearer case of UI suggesting a particular action (passing 2S, in the hope that we are in a 4-3 fit, and survive).

[nige1]

gnasher wrote "Matchpoints. Systemically 2♦ showed both majors, but South forgot and intended it as natural. At this point South passed 2♠. The appeal was mainly about the later auction, but the appeals committee commented "South ... passed 2♠ when the UI had suggested otherwise." Do you agree? We can assume that 1♦ and 1NT were standard for North America. 2♦ was alerted and explained as both majors."


I agree with Cherdano that the UI suggests passing and the committee are mistaken. Especially as, absent the UI, 2♠ is likely to be shapely and constructive (if not forcing). Well spotted Gnasher!

---

[ggwhiz]

An interesting point to me is that in #3 the forgetful one explained their partnership agreements to the opps with his pard removed from the table and asked the committee if he should have revealed his forget as well as the actual agreement that he only remembered because of pards alert.

I think he was obviously trying to do the right thing.

The committee found that he did get it right but the Laws Commission was considering changing this disclosure obligation which sounds like including the but I forgot part. Feels like an improvement to me as the balancer can float 2♠ or take their juice after risking a double and a run.

[barmar]

 cherdano, on 2013-March-22, 05:33, said:

I can't remember a clearer case of UI suggesting a particular action (passing 2S, in the hope that we are in a 4-3 fit, and survive).

Seems that there are several levels to this decision.

The first level, which is what the AC seems to have considered, is that the 2♠ bid doesn't show a real suit -- all it shows is that partner's spades are better than his hearts. For all you know, you're in a 3-3 fit (probably not worse, though -- the 1NT overcall and your diamond length makes a freaky distribution unlikely), probably not your best suit. Playing here instead of trying to get back to your likely 8-card fit in diamonds is not taking advantage of the UI.

The second level, which is mentioned here, is that trying to recover could cause the wheels to come off even further, propelling you way too high. The AC didn't consider this. I think they suspected that partner might figure out that this is what you're doing, so your recovery attempt could succeed.

[aguahombre]

The third level would be that despite the NT overcall, if 2D is natural, 2S is forcing by any sane opener. So, passing is truly taking advantage of the UI. (AKJX X KTXXX AKX).

With the OP responder's hand, the L.A.'s not suggested by the UI seem to be 4D and 5D. 3D holding the spade queen and the QJXX of Diamonds would be a mindless rebid after 2S without any irregularities; with the UI, it is a hedge.

[RSliwinski]

 ggwhiz, on 2013-March-22, 09:27, said:

An interesting point to me is that in #3 the forgetful one explained their partnership agreements to the opps with his pard removed from the table and asked the committee if he should have revealed his forget as well as the actual agreement that he only remembered because of pards alert.

I think he was obviously trying to do the right thing.

The committee found that he did get it right but the Laws Commission was considering changing this disclosure obligation which sounds like including the but I forgot part. Feels like an improvement to me as the balancer can float 2♠ or take their juice after risking a double and a run.

Theere are at least two strange things with appeal 3:
1) the procedure to send pard from the table seems, in this case, be at odds with the Law Committee Minutes Minutes from 1998-09-01 See also White book p 52.
2) the committee's finding that "the Law’s presumption of mistaken explanation rather than misbid does not apply when both partners agree as to the meaning" is very surprising. What support can we find for this view?

[GreenMan]

 RSliwinski, on 2013-March-25, 08:14, said:

2) the committee's finding that "the Law’s presumption of mistaken explanation rather than misbid does not apply when both partners agree as to the meaning" is very surprising. What support can we find for this view?

Both partners agree on the meaning, so that's their agreement.

They explained the bids according to that meaning.

What possible support could one find for a presumption that there WAS a misexplanation? You'd think this was so obvious as to not require comment.

[RSliwinski]

 GreenMan, on 2013-March-25, 11:31, said:

Both partners agree on the meaning, so that's their agreement.

They explained the bids according to that meaning.

What possible support could one find for a presumption that there WAS a misexplanation? You'd think this was so obvious as to not require comment.

Aha, this would simplify the rullings - everytime there is a question of MI or missbid, the potential missbider will always claim that his partner was right and that he missbid. No need to check anything - how simple and how wrong.

[blackshoe]

Sure. Let's assume everybody cheats, every chance they get. That'll work well.

[barmar]

 RSliwinski, on 2013-March-25, 08:14, said:

2) the committee's finding that "the Law’s presumption of mistaken explanation rather than misbid does not apply when both partners agree as to the meaning" is very surprising. What support can we find for this view?

The law says "in the absense of evidence to the contrary". This is evidence to the contrary.

[Sjoerds]

I understand you would like to poll

After 1♦-1NT-2♦-pas partner introduces his ♠. That must be 5-4 and some extra value. I consider 3♦ or pass...tough... I think I pass and hope for a plus.

[MickyB]

 Sjoerds, on 2013-March-26, 07:47, said:

I understand you would like to poll

Polling is useless on this hand. All it can do is establish whether 3D is an LA, which it clearly is. In order to decide whether to adjust, we need to suggest whether the UI demonstrably suggests passing is likely to be more successful than bidding 3D.

In this case, 3D may be the only LA, but that is irrelevant to any adjustment. However, the selection of a bizarre call at the table - one very unlikely to be taken without UI - may justify a PP, even if we conclude that the UI does not suggest passing is more likely to be successful than 3D.