[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2012-January-16, 13:42, said:

If partner does "figure it out" don't you now have an agreement? One that has not been disclosed?

Perhaps - for the next time this happens. You don't have an agreement this time.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-16, 17:55, said:

Perhaps - for the next time this happens. You don't have an agreement this time.

Well... I am not so sure. There must be a reason for a player to believe that partner will think you have a different hand from the you have shown. I know that I would never assume this with any of my regular partners. Perhaps I wouldn't understand partner's bid, but I would puzzle over it and guess something. And that would never be that partner's hand is inconsistent with his previous bidding.

So what is the reason? UI? A history of "improvisation"? The opponents will probably assume that the second bid is a cuebid, shaping out, or whatever, and would have no idea that it might be showing a long suit. So somehow the partnership inventing this sequence knows more than their opponents.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2012-January-16, 18:02, said:

Well... I am not so sure. There must be a reason for a player to believe that partner will think you have a different hand from the you have shown. I know that I would never assume this with any of my regular partners. Perhaps I wouldn't understand partner's bid, but I would puzzle over it and guess something. And that would never be that partner's hand is inconsistent with his previous bidding.

So what is the reason? UI? A history of "improvisation"? The opponents will probably assume that the second bid is a cuebid, shaping out, or whatever, and would have no idea that it might be showing a long suit. So somehow the partnership inventing this sequence knows more than their opponents.

Certainly the TD should investigate these possibilities, and if evidence of a CPU is found, so be it. But I don't think we can say that because the player did what he did, there "must be" such evidence.

No, you wouldn't do that with any of your regular partners. Neither would I. But we've both been around the block a couple of times, and we know better. Not everyone has learned that lesson.

[mycroft]

Argh, after all of that, I did get it wrong. Auction fixed, in the obvious way. Thanks.

[bluejak]

aguahombre, on 2012-January-15, 21:21, said:

The problem with the above, Mrdct, is that natural and forcing is not possible after a natural 2c overcall of a strong NT. By that, I mean on this planet you can't make 2H forcing believable.

There are too many posts like this one. Apparently you and other people with similar posts do not play enough bad club bridge.

I know plenty of people who treat a change of suit as forcing. They do not think about it, they have no idea whether it is logical or sensible, they ignore the range of the opening 1NT, partner changed suit so they do not pass.

[gnasher]

Are we talking about (1NT) 2♣ (pass) 2♥ ?

I never play 2♣ as natural, but if I did I would play a 2♥ advance as forcing, regardless of the notrump range. Or, at least, I play (1NT) 2♥ (pass) 2♠ as forcing, and I'd need to be convinced that there was sufficient reason to play this one differently.

[tabaresort]

mrdct, on 2012-January-15, 20:52, said:

Assuming this is played without screens, if 2♣ was alerted and described as indicated in the diagram, south clearly has UI in the form of a "wake-up call" as to his misbid. Passing 2♥ undoubled is a very attractive option which is demonstrably suggested by the UI, so I would adjust score to an outcome likely if south had chosen to treat 2♥ as natural and forcing.

Providing both convention cards show 2c as majors and north claims to have forgotten then the ruling should be MB with no adjustment.

[DaveB]

Agree

BUT

If the members of the partnership are (apparently) playing
different systems then there is misinformation irrespective
of what is on the system card.

[barmar]

If they're playing different systems, then the correct explanation is presumably "no agreement", and any more specific explanation is MI. Filling out that section of the CC is misinformation itself.

[tabaresort]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-16, 10:28, said:

No. North has no UI, and South's hope that North would pass 3♣ has nothing to do with UI. "Partner figuring it out" might, to a Secretary Bird, imply a CPU, and thus MI, but that's a different issue, and also not the case here. All the phrase means is that South hopes that North won't keep insisting on hearts after South shows clubs, a hope based not on UI or MI or a CPU, but pretty much on South's desperation. "I don't know how to show this hand. I'll try this, and I can only hope partner figures it out". I don't know how else to express it.

In this case north is always going to pass south's 2nd suit as the previous 2d bid showed less that 3hearts and no game interest. 3c would then show the 5 card suit ie clubs.

[tabaresort]

gnasher, on 2012-January-17, 11:33, said:

Are we talking about (1NT) 2♣ (pass) 2♥ ?

I never play 2♣ as natural, but if I did I would play a 2♥ advance as forcing, regardless of the notrump range. Or, at least, I play (1NT) 2♥ (pass) 2♠ as forcing, and I'd need to be convinced that there was sufficient reason to play this one differently.

The example was (1nt) 2c (alerted as both majors) (pass) 2h. All pass. The 2c bidder "forgot" and has 6c. The opps miss a major game. The EBU ruling is MB.
The query in the first post is exactly the same and therefore should be treated in the same way and not as MI.

[tabaresort]

DaveB, on 2012-January-17, 16:00, said:

Agree

BUT

If the members of the partnership are (apparently) playing
different systems then there is misinformation irrespective
of what is on the system card.

Not according to the EBU see the example on #41. The bidder cannot give MI ( save by having an inaccurate CC which opps read). Generally MI comes from bidders partner. See also previous quote from Judgment Rulings which states if you depart from your system then accidentally (a MB) or deliberately (a psyche).
In the event south departed from the system being faced with a hand not previously discussed with partner and made the best of it. It cannot be MI. as partner was also fooled. South took a flyer and got lucky. However unless there is evidence that partner made allowance (fielding) your misbid or psyche the score stands, irrespective of the damage done.

[tabaresort]

Vampyr, on 2012-January-16, 18:02, said:

Well... I am not so sure. There must be a reason for a player to believe that partner will think you have a different hand from the you have shown. I know that I would never assume this with any of my regular partners. Perhaps I wouldn't understand partner's bid, but I would puzzle over it and guess something. And that would never be that partner's hand is inconsistent with his previous bidding.

So what is the reason? UI? A history of "improvisation"? The opponents will probably assume that the second bid is a cuebid, shaping out, or whatever, and would have no idea that it might be showing a long suit. So somehow the partnership inventing this sequence knows more than their opponents.

If after puzzling over partners bid you realise that they have departed from your system, you are stuck!! and to guess at something could be UI. You must continue to bid according to your system.

[Vampyr]

tabaresort, on 2012-January-17, 18:30, said:

If after puzzling over partners bid you realise that they have departed from your system, you are stuck!! and to guess at something could be UI. You must continue to bid according to your system.

I'm not sure what you mean here. If partner makes a bid that we have left undefined, I am not "stuck"; I have to figure out what he is trying to do, under the assumption that he is doing something intelligent. Of course it will be something of a guess, but I will not give any consideration to guesses that require that partner's bid on the previous round is somehow "cancelled". And how on earth could my bid be UI?

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2012-January-17, 23:27, said:

And how on earth could my bid be UI?

Agreed. The only potential UI is if you make your distress obvious.