[kayin801]

(Warning, this post is sorta long, and you kinda need to read most of it to really get it, but I've inserted a tl;dr at the bottom if you just want to read the questions)

Art's UI thread got me thinking about this hand we played in Philly in a bottom bracket KO. It's mostly funny. Spots are random and please ignore that N has a submin opening, I really don't remember the whole hand at all because I played like I was drunk that entire day. Partner and teammates will confirm this fact.

---

I was S, partner was N. Here's the auction as I heard it (Assume explanations are for bids as they are made)

2+ ♦ limited ........................ natural forcing 1 round w ♣
unbal w 5+ ♦ or 4=4=4=1 ............. GF w ♦ support, asks shortness
♥ shortness ......................... RKC for ♦
0 or 3 KC .............................. Signoff
3 KC plus stiff K in ♥ .............. SIGNOFF

Unfortunately this is not what partner heard:

2+ ♦ limited ........................ natural forcing 1 round w ♣
unbal w 5+ ♦ or 4=4=4=1 ............. GF w ♦ support, asks hand type
♣ shortness, suitable for NT ........ RKC in clubs (Partner's logic: with ♦ I can safely bid 3♦ first)
0 or 3 KC .............................. Asks for ♦K, grand try
Denies ♦K, shows ♥K (???) ........ Impossible call, auction is off the rails*

* 6♦ is impossible because partner already "knows" we don't have the ♦K, so for him to ask in ♦ again implies he must have it, in which case why didn't he just bid 5♥ in the first place, asking for the ♥K, unless I'm masterminding?

At the 4♠ call, E (for no apparent reason, once again, bottom bracket KO) stopped to ask what our bidding meant throughout the auction, and all the miscommunication came to light. We finish the auction, go down 1 in 6♦ (I really don't remember the actual hands but partner played it well to only go down 1) and we lose imps vs 3NT making.

Discussing this afterwards partner and I agreed that the auction went hella off the rails and that partner's interpretation of the auction up through 4♠ is right and I was wrong. We both thought we did our best to ignore UI from each other during the discussion of the auction. This did bring up other questions.

Partner thought it was possible that he had AI at 5♦ that the auction had gone off the rails and/or that 5♦ might be the last making contract, and therefore he might be able to pass 5♦. I'm not sure of his logic for this. He maybe thought his hand was so bad that I've just clearly taken him for the wrong number of KCs, or something, or he's just decided his hand is so misfitting that he wanted to slow down. Or maybe he just wanted to convince himself that we could salvage a result from this, I dunno, but I'm glad he decided to bid on from an ethical standpoint, I guess.

That said, I don't understand his 5♥ bid if the hands are how I remember them, if we are actually on the same wavelength, since to him my bidding up through 5♦ is also consistent with something like Ax, -, AQxx, AKQJxxx (making 7 opposite a min like Kxx, KQxx, Kxxxx, x or xxx, AKxx, KJxxx, x but only 50% opposite KQx, KQxx, J10xxx, x). I really don't remember the exact hands so I don't know if partner SHOULD have bid 7 or not, but maybe he also thought that with a hand like that, why would I bother showing a diamond fit? So maybe he woke up later trying to recall why I showed a diamond fit, and therefore ♦ was a viable playing point? I dunno. I also don't want to make it seem like I'm targeting my partner because it's possible that his hand was different and 5♥ was somehow a reasonable call.



tl;dr? Start here.

Anyhow, I guess my question is this: if partner has AI that the auction is off the rails and 5♦ might be a good stopping point even though 5♦ is technically a forcing bid on his interpretation of the auction, can he pass a) if there's no UI and b) if there is UI from the opponents asking questions. I know the answer to a, I suppose, but b is more complicated?

AND, if our opponent (who had no intention of ever bidding) had never asked any questions, partner might have passed 5♦, so hilariously our opponent generated UI which constrained us to bid on.

[gnasher]

Why did opener deny ♦K?

I don't think he can pass 5♦, given the UI and his interpretation of the auction. For pass to be legal, there would have to be no logical alternative. If your partner makes an artifical asking bid, answering the question is nearly always a logical alternative.

[Zelandakh]

kayin801, on 2012-July-26, 12:03, said:

tl;dr? Start here.

Anyhow, I guess my question is this: if partner has AI that the auction is off the rails and 5♦ might be a good stopping point even though 5♦ is technically a forcing bid on his interpretation of the auction, can he pass a) if there's no UI and b) if there is UI from the opponents asking questions. I know the answer to a, I suppose, but b is more complicated?

AND, if our opponent (who had no intention of ever bidding) had never asked any questions, partner might have passed 5♦, so hilariously our opponent generated UI which constrained us to bid on.

This is pretty much an occupational hazard of playing very complex methods. You need very good rules that are ideally simple and consistent across pretty much all auctions. Otherwise accidents are guaranteed and it does not take many such acccidents to wipe any theoretical advantage the system gives. The answer to your question a is that you can do what you like when you do not have any UI. When you do have UI, as in b, you must not choose any option that is suggested by the UI over any other Logical Alternative. So if the UI suggests passing a forcing bid then you cannot do it since it is clear that giving the systemic answer is a LA.

Like Andy, I do not understand what is going on with the ♦K in your auction. In fact, it rather looks like giving the wrong answer to 5♦ is what allowed your partner to pass 6♦. If partner had shown the ♦K then presumably 6♦ would now be asking for the ♦Q(?) That would get you to the 7 level - that would indeed have been properly ethical . I also hope you explained the confusion to the opps before the play. It seems that a Director call would also have been in order (technically you are responsible for calling the TD in cases like this, not the opps).

Finally, why would your partner pass 5♦ here? Would you not be really upset if your partner passed your forcing relay ask if you did indeed have the big club one-suiter and were on the way to 7♣ or 7NT? In fact, passing 5♦ would be evidence that partner is used to you misbidding on this kind of sequence and is fielding. In that case, they should also inform the opps (when asked or at the end of the auction) since it might represent an undisclosed partnership understanding.

[kayin801]

So okay, I'm completely sure now that I've messed up the hands, though I think the auction and the points from the auction remain. I'm pretty sure I actually had 2 KCs and partner's 5♥ showed 3 key cards, plus a 2nd round control in hearts... which would give partner AK singleton in the suit. ANYWAY. Sorry.

Zel, thank you for you criticism of our methods. Given that you've never had an auction go off the rails in your entire life, I look forward to your guidance every time I err in bidding in the future, which I'm almost certainly sure will happen. I will admit that playing artificial methods gives you extra problems when UI arises since meanings can be radically different depending on interpretation.

I guess the issue then was, lets suppose hypothetically my partner thought the auction went off the rails (with whatever justification he had for that, even though if it hadn't we might be cold for a grand) and thought to sign off in diamonds if given a chance. If he figured this out a) before or b) after the UI, does it make a difference? Now that he has UI, even if he was planning on potentially signing off before, can he not do so?

Hypothetical tangent: you're playing a pair who you sense has let an auction go off the rails. Can you ask about the bidding so as to generate UI? I know the answer to this is no, and our opponents were just inexperienced, but it leads to a point-counterpoint thing? IF they hadn't asked, THEN there wouldn't be UI, AND they had no intention of bidding, therefore their asking is unethical and we might have signed off in 5♦? Yes I know this is a stretch and obviously the bidding side is responsible for their own bidding.

[gnasher]

kayin801, on 2012-July-28, 11:10, said:

I guess the issue then was, lets suppose hypothetically my partner thought the auction went off the rails (with whatever justification he had for that, even though if it hadn't we might be cold for a grand) and thought to sign off in diamonds if given a chance. If he figured this out a) before or b) after the UI, does it make a difference? Now that he has UI, even if he was planning on potentially signing off before, can he not do so?

In general, no. If the UI suggests signing off, and bidding on is a logical alternative, then he's required to bid on. What he intended to do before receiving the UI is irrelevant.

Quote

Hypothetical tangent: you're playing a pair who you sense has let an auction go off the rails. Can you ask about the bidding so as to generate UI? I know the answer to this is no, and our opponents were just inexperienced, but it leads to a point-counterpoint thing? IF they hadn't asked, THEN there wouldn't be UI, AND they had no intention of bidding, therefore their asking is unethical and we might have signed off in 5♦? Yes I know this is a stretch and obviously the bidding side is responsible for their own bidding.

There's no rule against asking a question in order to inflict a UI problem on the opponents. (Edit: But I'd like to think that no bridge player would do it.)

It would be very hard to make such a rule workable - we don't want to have to start ruling on people's motives in asking questions, and any rule that discouraged the asking of questions would conflict with the need for full disclosure.

The only good answers are to know your system or play with screens.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-July-28, 11:39

[Zelandakh]

kayin801, on 2012-July-28, 11:10, said:

Zel, thank you for you criticism of our methods. Given that you've never had an auction go off the rails in your entire life, I look forward to your guidance every time I err in bidding in the future, which I'm almost certainly sure will happen. I will admit that playing artificial methods gives you extra problems when UI arises since meanings can be radically different depending on interpretation.

I did not criticise your methods. Indeed I am always interested to see alternative ways of doing things. What I did do is write that it is a standard danger of playing complex methods that misunderstandings happen. As someone who has played some complex and artificial methods I know this rather well. Of course there was a learning period for my partner when switching from natural (Acol) to artificial (strong club relay). Indeed, my partner created a new convention in the system - an impossible jump to mean "Sorry, I forgot the system". Another "fun" off the rails auction from natural methods was

2♦ (GF)
... - 2♥ (relay)
4♦ (Opener: diamonds are trumps; Responder: short diamonds)
... - 4♥ (Opener: cue; Responder: natural)
4♠ (Opener: cue; Responder: no idea, big black 2-suiter perhaps)
... - 7♠ (Opener: !!!)

Perhaps I remember this one because 7♠ in the 3-4 fit missing the queen was the perfect contract but "impossible" to reach. Normally such auctions result in a much worse fate.

The truth is that I very rarely forget the system, even a complex one. The times it has happened have always been when I play one method with a partner but they want to play something else for a session. On the other hand, I play enough unusual stuff on occasion that I am used to partners forgetting sometimes. No problem with that - it is a good reminder and chances are they will not forget next time. Or if they do, well perhaps the methods are wrong for this particular partnership. As well as the artificial system I sometimes post here, I also play very simple, natural methods. As you can see from the above, sometimes they go off the rails too. I would certainly never claim to be infallible as a bidder! and I am sorry that you felt the need to use such sarcasm in your reply.

Finally, I concur with Andy on his answers to your UI questions, including the edit. You could probably get some additional advice about these matters in the Laws forums, located towards the bottom of the forum list.