[jdonn]

bluejak, on Aug 28 2010, 06:18 PM, said:

jdonn, on Aug 28 2010, 11:40 PM, said:

Pict, on Aug 28 2010, 05:28 PM, said:

2H?  Pass looks like an LA since East appears to have a basic inverted raise.  If I am reading it correctly I am not accepting this EW auction.

West passed the 2♣ bid, it is 100% that partner forgot about inverted raises or didn't think they were on here.

... or had psyched.

If my partner opens 1♠, I bid 2♣, and he passes, do I think "Oh no, my partner has forgotten that 2♣ over 1♠ is forcing"? No, of course not, I think the silly prat has psyched.

So when I bid a forcing inverted minor and he passes, I assume he has psyched - unless I have UI to tell me otherwise.

How many times in your life do you approximate partner has psyched an opening bid in second seat on a very weak hand and then passed a forcing response to show it (or at least intended to do so)?

Now how many times in your life do you approximate partner has forgotten a convention?

If your honest answers are anywhere in the universe of what I expect, then why do you make an assumption that will lead to terrible scores?

[bluejak]

Well, I was surprised at the question, so I went back and looked at the OP. My memory of this hand - which led to four different rulings at Brighton - is that East dealt, so it would be a third hand opening.

How many times in my life has partner psyched an opening second in hand intending to pass the response? I do not know? Forty?

How many times has partner forgotten a convention? In my life? I don't know? 20,000 times?

Does this mean that on this occasion it is one rather than the other? No.

Also, the second statistic is completely meaningless anyway, because partner forgets some conventions rather than others, so you have experience of this - and using that is illegal. So perhaps the 2♥ bid is fielding a misbid, yes? The total number of convention forgets is not the relevant statistic.

What you have done is ask me a specific position question, and then a general question, and compared them. Of course one is far more than the other!

Now ask me how often has my partner forgotten an inverted minor in my life? Not making one, but remembering one that I have made? I have no idea? Forty?

That's the trouble with statistics: you can play with them to give a totally different feel to the answer by specific question. Suppose you ask me with my regular partner, which is more likely, she has psyched, she has forgotten an inverted minor. The answer is the latter is ten or twenty times as likely. But that it not enough to discount the psyche as a possibility, and if I discount it because of my experience then I am using both a CPU [the fact she forgets conventions and how often] and my knowledge of her psychic habits, which is a No-No.

[gnasher]

dburn, on Aug 29 2010, 12:34 AM, said:

Unlikely - the hand occurred this year in Brighton. I was part of the AC with Jeffrey and Mike Ash

Ah yes - it looks familiar because Jeffrey told me about it at Brighton.

[shyams]

bluejak, on Aug 29 2010, 02:42 PM, said:

Well, I was surprised at the question, so I went back and looked at the OP.  My memory of this hand - which led to four different rulings at Brighton - is that East dealt, so it would be a third hand opening.

Board 15 -- Friday evening session of MP pairs.

Board has not been rotated -- cards are as actually dealt & dealer/vul are correct.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on Aug 29 2010, 02:42 PM, said:

Also, the second statistic is completely meaningless anyway, because partner forgets some conventions rather than others, so you have experience of this - and using that is illegal.

Under which Law?

[bluejak]

40A3.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Aug 29 2010, 08:42 AM, said:

What you have done is ask me a specific position question, and then a general question, and compared them.  Of course one is far more than the other!

Now ask me how often has my partner forgotten an inverted minor in my life?  Not making one, but remembering one that I have made?  I have no idea?  Forty?

Lol that at least as misleading a question to as than the one I asked! Your partner has has opened the bidding 1♣ probably hundreds of times more often than you have bid 1♣ 2♣!

But forget that for a moment, if you would. You are, as often happens in this particular forum, focusing on a minor point at the expense of the important point. However you word the question, after partner passes 2♣ it's far more likely that partner has forgotten 2♣ was inverted or didn't think it applied in this situation than it is that partner psyched. This is so clearly true that to assume partner psyched is simply a terrible bridge assumption, with "terrible" not being a strong enough word. I will never make that assumption and (if I may perhaps exceed my boundaries and offer a bridge suggestion) nor should you.

So if you rule east passing over the double is an LA (with the possible exception of east intending to act when south's action returns to him with a double/cuebid/game bid) then I'm simply saying you are wrong. It's not L to assume partner has psyched with virtually any partner, and if you want to do that yourself you are being ilL.

[barmar]

jdonn, on Aug 29 2010, 04:31 PM, said:

But forget that for a moment, if you would. You are, as often happens in this particular forum, focusing on a minor point at the expense of the important point. However you word the question, after partner passes 2♣ it's far more likely that partner has forgotten 2♣ was inverted or didn't think it applied in this situation than it is that partner psyched. This is so clearly true that to assume partner psyched is simply a terrible bridge assumption, with "terrible" not being a strong enough word. I will never make that assumption and (if I may perhaps exceed my boundaries and offer a bridge suggestion) nor should you.

The problem is that you also have UI from the failure to alert. Absent UI, you simply have to guess why he passed, and you're allowed to guess right. But when the UI makes one guess more likely to be right than the other, you're not allowed to make that guess, if the alternative is possible.

If you're playing with a partner who has never psyched in his life, go ahead and assume he forgot. But if there's any chance he psyched, it's not so clear.

[jdonn]

That something happened once in your life (btw it's never happened from my partner in my life in live bridge in 1st or 2nd seat) doesn't make it logical to assume it's what happened when it's many times more likely something else has happened. It doesn't matter what's possible, it matters what's logical.

[bluejak]

I think that in the long run it is important for partnership morale that you trust your partner not to have made a mistake, even if she has. So, if I have a choice, and one choice is that she has made a mistake, I have tended to assume my long term partnership will be more effective if I assume she has not made a mistake.

So, when partner may have made a mistake, and [quite possibly considerably less likely] might have psyched, I shall probably assume she has psyched.

Now give me UI that tells me she has made a mistake - what do you expect me to do?

[gnasher]

bluejak, on Aug 29 2010, 08:41 PM, said:

40A3.

That doesn't make it illegal to use your knowledge of partner's tendency to forget a partcular agreement. It makes it illegal to use it unless you disclose it in the manner specified by the Regulating Authority.

Suppose that in this instance EW have the implict agreement that West sometimes passes an inverted raise because he's forgotten what it means. This pass is probably alertable in the EBU, because it has a "potentially unexpected" meaning - the "expected" meaning of a pass of a forcing raise is "I don't have my earlier bidding".

So, East should alert his partner's pass, and explain it if asked; having done so, he is then free to use his knowledge of his partner's inadequate memory.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on Aug 30 2010, 12:01 AM, said:

I think that in the long run it is important for partnership morale that you trust your partner not to have made a mistake, even if she has. So, if I have a choice, and one choice is that she has made a mistake, I have tended to assume my long term partnership will be more effective if I assume she has not made a mistake.

So, when partner may have made a mistake, and [quite possibly considerably less likely] might have psyched, I shall probably assume she has psyched.

Now give me UI that tells me she has made a mistake - what do you expect me to do?

That's your philisophy, but unless East in the original post has the same philosophy, I don't see how it bears upon his obligations with respect to the UI.

[bluejak]

First, it might be worth finding out East's philosophy.

But the thing that worries me somewhat is that, when ruling, people are often quite affected by what did happen, and ignore what might have happened.

People have looked at opener's hand, his pass, the apparent reason for his pass, namely that he did not realise he was playing inverted minors - and then have reversed it to assume there is no other possibility. I think this apparent reversal is dangerous.

Is there any other possibility? Well, I have had people pass forcing bids for other reasons before now. I once passed my partner's strong club opening. My opponents - a charming couple - were fully prepared to let me take may pass back. I certainly knew we were playing strong club. So what happened? I asked the opponents to wait while I considered what I had done. I finally decided that I had had a brain fart, and it was not a mechanical error, so did not change it.

I just dislike the presumption that [a] partner forgot the system and [b] it is reasonable for responder to assume that because no other possibility exists when [c] we happen to know because of UI that that is what happened.

It reminds me of these pseudo-Ghestem sequences where a player, having overcalled 3♣, feels he should be allowed to rebid 4♣ over 3 of a major when partner had passed originally because partner cannot have six in the suit. Of course they know what has happened because of the UI. That argument leaves me cold as well, partly because I certainly pass hands with six-card majors that I consider unsuitable for pre-empts, eg with two aces.

As a general approach, when a player has UI telling him something, and it is a likely possibility, I think we should be careful before we take the next step and say he is allowed to assume it. Would a highly ethical player do this?

[Bbradley62]

Suppose this had occurred in a "psyches not allowed" game. In that case, would opener's pass be sufficient to make the misunderstanding completely AI, since there is no possibility that she psyched?

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Aug 29 2010, 07:23 PM, said:

I just dislike the presumption that [a] partner forgot the system and [b] it is reasonable for responder to assume that because no other possibility exists when [c] we happen to know because of UI that that is what happened.

No one has suggested [b] in this case, so though I agree with your dislike of the presumption I don't see how it applies here.

Quote

As a general approach, when a player has UI telling him something, and it is a likely possibility, I think we should be careful before we take the next step and say he is allowed to assume it.  Would a highly ethical player do this?

There is very wide range between "impossible" and "likely" into which the possibility opener has psyched falls, so though I agree with this general approach I don't see how it applies here.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on Aug 30 2010, 01:23 AM, said:

Is there any other possibility? Well, I have had people pass forcing bids for other reasons before now. I once passed my partner's strong club opening. My opponents - a charming couple - were fully prepared to let me take may pass back. I certainly knew we were playing strong club. So what happened? I asked the opponents to wait while I considered what I had done. I finally decided that I had had a brain fart, and it was not a mechanical error, so did not change it.

I just dislike the presumption that [a] partner forgot the system and [b] it is reasonable for responder to assume that because no other possibility exists when [c] we happen to know because of UI that that is what happened.

As I understand it, by a "brain fart" you mean a short-term lapse of memory or concentration. If that's what has happened, it's still sensible for East to bid 2♥, so as to ensure that the lapse has, in fact, ended.

[shyams]

Can the AC poll a few players' action with the North hand assuming West alerted and said "inverted if uncontested, not sure if contested" etc?

If the poll overwhelmingly suggests North would act, then the AC should restore table result. If it is mixed (50:50 or better in favour of acting), then I'd go with gnasher's first suggestion

gnasher, on Aug 29 2010, 12:24 AM, said:

Anyway, North was entitled to the explanation "no agreeement, but it would be forcing in an uncontested auction".  Given that explanation, he might or might not have bid, so the TD's ruling was on the right lines.

I think North would bid a lot more than 20% of the time - it looks hard to pass out 2♣ when you have the makngs of seven winners.  I'd give 50% of 150 and 50% of 460.

I agree with gnasher that 20% appears too low.

[mr1303]

Supposing you have this thought process when it is your turn to bid:

Hmm, I have a limit raise in support of clubs. How do I show it? I know we play inverted minors when RHO passes. Do we play them here? Not sure. Ah well, let's try it anyway....

Oh dear, partner has passed here. Apparently we don't play inverted minors here. Still, at least opponents have kept the auction going for us. That's nice of them. How can I persuade partner that I did have a limit raise after all? I know, I'll cue-bid their suit. That must be forcing....

Is this illegal?

[Codo]

I still do not get it, why some people rule against E/W.

Do they have an agreement? Obviously not.
So you wish to penalisze them for not alerting "no agreement"?

What do you wish the players to do? Alert any possible call when they are in doubt and explain that this bid would be xyz in another situation?

[gerry]

Codo, on Aug 31 2010, 02:25 AM, said:

I still do not get it, why some people rule against E/W.

Do they have an agreement? Obviously not.

Bull.

East thought they had an agreement. Where is the required evidence that he has it wrong and not his partner?.

Weighted adjustment is entirely appropriate.