[szgyula]

I was in a strange situation yesterday and I do not know what is the proper procedure: Auction went like 3S - 4C (me). My partner was asked what the 4C was and he explained it correctly as "leaping Michaels", i.e. clubs and hearts, game force. The explanation was correct, my bid was not (we just introduced this convention and I forgot) -- I had a long C. My partner had a very good H holding so he bid H.

What are you supposed to do in this situation? I heard the explanation which "woke me up". I have to ignore it as it is UI. Thus, I repeated C since I had a single small H. My partner repeated H. My partner is clearly allowed to "weak up" and realize the bid error -- with proper disclosure, of course. When am I allowed to "wake up" and act on it? With screens, I can, since I do not hear the explanation. Unfortunately there were no screens.

It was MP so it did not matter much -- bottom for us -- but in IMP it does make a huge difference.

[RMB1]

szgyula, on 2016-January-31, 01:37, said:

When am I allowed to "wake up" and act on it?

You are allowed to wake up when all your peers would wake up without hearing partner's alert/explanation.

[szgyula]

RMB1, on 2016-January-31, 01:56, said:

You are allowed to wake up when all your peers would wake up without hearing partner's alert/explanation.

That is simple in theory. How would you determine that "peers would wake up" at a certain point? I.e. as a TD, what would you rule acceptable "wake up time"? At the table I said that I would "never wake up", thus, I bid up to 6C (showing 7) and only passed 6H (partner shows 7 hearts, with my small heart that is 8 hearts, better than potentially 7-0 in 7C). Thus, I treated all H bids as natural.

As a TD, you can not even ask people in a meaningful way. Either you tell them that they play leaping Michaels or you don't. Either you wake them up up front or they never wake up. A marginally correct question: The bidding goes 3S - 4C - p - 4H - p - 5C - X - 5H - X - 6C - X - 6H - X ... When would you entertain the thought that something went wrong and there is a misunderstanding?

[gordontd]

szgyula, on 2016-January-31, 04:41, said:

As a TD, you can not even ask people in a meaningful way. Either you tell them that they play leaping Michaels or you don't. Either you wake them up up front or they never wake up.

You tell them they don't and sooner or later they will recognise that there must be a misunderstanding of some sort.

[Zelandakh]

You have to interpret your partner's calls as if they had given the explanation you expected (long clubs) for your 4♣ call. If your partner had 8 solid hearts and a club void, would they not keep bidding hearts? And would you not accept their decision knowing you had already shown your hand? It sounds to me that you have not carefully avoided actions suggested by the UI here but there was probably no damage the way the auction progressed.

[szgyula]

Zelandakh, on 2016-January-31, 05:27, said:

You have to interpret your partner's calls as if they had given the explanation you expected (long clubs) for your 4♣ call. If your partner had 8 solid hearts and a club void, would they not keep bidding hearts? And would you not accept their decision knowing you had already shown your hand? It sounds to me that you have not carefully avoided actions suggested by the UI here but there was probably no damage the way the auction progressed.

I interpreted the 4H as 5+ hearts, maximum 2 clubs. I interpreted the 5H as 6+ hearts and 1- clubs. I interpreted the 6H as 7+ hearts and no clubs. Having 1 heart, I was able to pass and play in a 7-1 fit in hearts. Am I supposed to bid 7C and risk playing in a 7-0 fit and one level higher?

[nige1]

szgyula, on 2016-January-31, 01:37, said:

I was in a strange situation yesterday and I do not know what is the proper procedure: Auction went like 3S - 4C (me). My partner was asked what the 4C was and he explained it correctly as "leaping Michaels", i.e. clubs and hearts, game force. The explanation was correct, my bid was not (we just introduced this convention and I forgot) -- I had a long C. My partner had a very good H holding so he bid H. What are you supposed to do in this situation? I heard the explanation which "woke me up". I have to ignore it as it is UI. Thus, I repeated C since I had a single small H. My partner repeated H. My partner is clearly allowed to "weak up" and realize the bid error -- with proper disclosure, of course. When am I allowed to "wake up" and act on it? With screens, I can, since I do not hear the explanation. Unfortunately there were no screens. It was MP so it did not matter much -- bottom for us -- but in IMP it does make a huge difference.

IMO, you should pass 4♥. Without UI, from your point of view, your 4♣ overcall shows long ♣ s and partner's 4♥ advance shows long ♥ s.

[Zelandakh]

nige1, on 2016-January-31, 13:14, said:

IMO, you should pass 4♥. Without UI, from your point of view, your 4♣ overcall shows long ♣ s and partner's 4♥ advance shows long ♥ s.

This is the point. If partner had happened to pass one of your later club calls and playing in, say, a 7-2 fit turned out to be better than the alternative 3-1 heart fit at the same level, the chances are that the TD would adjust the score. That you ended up playing hearts anyway and at a higher level means that damage was unlikely in this case. But on another day there could well have been damage and that was the point being made.

[barmar]

Figuring out logical alternatives in the heat of the moment is often very difficult, especially without a break in tempo that would give significant UI to partner. A common suggestion is that the "practical" way to deal with a situation like this is to pretend you didn't hear partner's explanation, i.e. do what you think you would have done if this had occurred online or with screens.

If you hadn't heard the explanation, and thought partner understood your 4♣ bid as just showing clubs, what would you do? He knows you have clubs, but doesn't care, he wants to play in hearts. So you should presumably pass.

There's one wrinkle, though: if 4♣ is natural, is his 4♥ bid forcing?

[ggwhiz]

barmar, on 2016-February-01, 10:58, said:

There's one wrinkle, though: if 4♣ is natural, is his 4♥ bid forcing?

Not a real wrinkle unless your name is Lotan. I agree that you should pass 4♥ and on a good day you score 10% instead of zero.

Bidding 5♣ puts your partner under severe pressure and if they happen to pass it for a good score it will certainly be rolled back with a dark cloud over their intent. And if your lho unwisely doubles 4♥ you may be able to (rarely) justify the run out based on your cards instead of the UI.

Scheinwolds first rule of holes: When you are in one, stop digging.

[szgyula]

ggwhiz, on 2016-February-01, 11:42, said:

Not a real wrinkle unless your name is Lotan. I agree that you should pass 4♥ and on a good day you score 10% instead of zero.

Bidding 5♣ puts your partner under severe pressure and if they happen to pass it for a good score it will certainly be rolled back with a dark cloud over their intent. And if your lho unwisely doubles 4♥ you may be able to (rarely) justify the run out based on your cards instead of the UI.

Scheinwolds first rule of holes: When you are in one, stop digging.

The problem is that 4H would have been a very good score for us. The TD can argue that I passed because of the Scheinwolds first rule. Over a preempt, the 4C is a good five suiter for us. The 4H is also a good fiver. I had 1H in my hand. Thus, 5C was obvious to me. I would have bid that anyway. Try a 5-2 fit in ♣ instead of an 5-1 in ♥. Using the UI I would have passed, hoping they bid 4S or just simply minimize the effect of MI.

So for me it was upside down: I did not have a long club and I knew we were heading for doom but I did not want to pass based on the UI (we have a miscommunication). I could have also bid ♦ in that situation but the TD can argue that I was warned by the UI and I simply wanted to warn the partner about the miscommunication.

After the auction period I called the TD, of course and explained what happened.

[weejonnie]

There is no reason at all why you can't pass 4H. There is no bridge law as far as I am aware that says that you are bound to get a good score and the opponents a bad one if they have a misunderstanding (although many people seem to think so!)

Suppose partner hadn't alerted your bid and bid 4H - would you have passed? That is the position you are in. (Your opponents of course are fully entitled to know what your bid means - not what you hold).

Of course, the question arises - has partner fielded your misbid? 'Holding a good heart holding' and hearing you bid at the 4 level, shouldn't he be thinking of possible slams?

[szgyula]

weejonnie, on 2016-February-03, 06:35, said:

There is no reason at all why you can't pass 4H. There is no bridge law as far as I am aware that says that you are bound to get a good score and the opponents a bad one if they have a misunderstanding (although many people seem to think so!)

Suppose partner hadn't alerted your bid and bid 4H - would you have passed? That is the position you are in. (Your opponents of course are fully entitled to know what your bid means - not what you hold).

Of course, the question arises - has partner fielded your misbid? 'Holding a good heart holding' and hearing you bid at the 4 level, shouldn't he be thinking of possible slams?

Without alert or with screens, I would have bid 5♣. Thus, I did so.

One complication: We can not prove that we play leaping Michaels. If the 4♥ turns out to be a very good contract (as a matter of fact it would have been), the TD can not possible decide if if was misunderstanding or MI. I was more concerned with that than the results. I did not want to get an accidental, questionable good score...

[Zelandakh]

szgyula, on 2016-February-03, 08:00, said:

If the 4♥ turns out to be a very good contract (as a matter of fact it would have been), the TD can not possible decide if if was misunderstanding or MI.

21B1b addresses this:

Quote

The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

[Vampyr]

szgyula, on 2016-February-03, 08:00, said:

Without alert or with screens, I would have bid 5♣. Thus, I did so.

One complication: We can not prove that we play leaping Michaels. If the 4♥ turns out to be a very good contract (as a matter of fact it would have been), the TD can not possible decide if if was misunderstanding or MI.

There might be a way around this. You could, for example, tell him.

Though it is true that he may need evidence. It is wise to put this sort of thing on your convention card.

But even an agreement that appears on your convention card may not be what you are actually playing if you have a tendency to forget.

[blackshoe]

A statement, even a self-serving one, is evidence. Thus, even without copious system notes, or an entry on the system card, the director may well have "evidence to the contrary". In such a case, he cannot presume MI. He has to weigh the evidence.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2016-February-03, 13:55, said:

A statement, even a self-serving one, is evidence.

I like to assume that when the law says "evidence", it means "credible evidence", otherwise almost anything can make that sentence useless.

I'm not suggesting that a self-serving statement is automatically not credible. But if the TD has a good reason to disbelieve the player, he can ignore it and follow the "in the absence of evidence" clause.

[blackshoe]

I don't think it's a good idea to assume things that actually change the meaning of the words of the law. Thus, IMO, "evidence" means "evidence", not "some 'evidence' doesn't count".

The fact that evidence of misbid exists does not preclude the conclusion that the preponderance of the evidence suggests that there was MI. It does preclude a ruling that "I must presume MI rather than misbid".

[szgyula]

I hate to be pedantic here but law 21B1(b) states that

"The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary."

This law does not explicitly state what the TD should do in the presence of evidence. Thus, the TD can weight the evidence and rule MI, even if there is evidence to support mistaken call. The TD can simply use 85A1:

"In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect."

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2016-February-03, 17:13, said:

I don't think it's a good idea to assume things that actually change the meaning of the words of the law. Thus, IMO, "evidence" means "evidence", not "some 'evidence' doesn't count".

I think words have to be read with some measure of common sense.