[jillybean]

smerriman, on 2023-June-08, 05:35, said:

I'm aware. My point was there exist other situations where it's perfectly legal to compensate for the knowledge that partner will be constrained by UI. Why does that not apply here?

Please explain further

[mycroft]

I stand by my previous.

Good players would be thinking about 5♦ absent UI; not sure how many would take it given the flat hand and three obvious major suit losers (plus however many minors - remember one is all you get for free, unless by magic 6 is on).

Everyone else, which includes 80+% of most clubs, bid 3♦ because they were told to take their pick of the minors, and they prefer diamonds. They don't even think about what will happen later. (they start thinking whether 5♦ is a good sacrifice only after the opponents magically find game)

With that hand, 4♦ is simply telling the opponents "take your pick of good scores." It is a non-option IMO, no matter what skill level the player is.

I am more interested (with good players) how many people think 6♦ is in the picture after the 3NT rebid.

re: "I know my partner is constrained" That has been (and remains) a great argument in the Laws crowd, along with the "am I allowed to know that partner's call is 100% because I gave him UI?" 10C1 makes clear that everyone is entitled to "how the laws will apply in this situation". 10C4 says "and you're entitled to get the best score you can within the laws' restrictions, even as offenders". But does "I know partner has to think I have minors, how can I bid in such a way that she can pass what I want her to pass?" (and the other side of the coin "can I bid slam because I know partner's call is IOTTMCO/has no LA?") It would be nice to have official guidance. But second-order issues in the Laws are legion, and difficult, and (thankfully) rare.

[johnu]

axman, on 2023-June-08, 05:09, said:

I understand the theory behind bidding a high contract that rates to go minus when the indicated capacity suggests that every minus score will be disastrous. I also think it is a bad theory.

Just standard preemptive theory IMO. Like an opening preempt. You aren't bidding to make, that's where the rule of 2 and 3 comes in. Let the opponents make the last decision at a high level. Opponents should have an unknown 8-11 card spade fit in addition to whatever heart fit they have.

[axman]

johnu, on 2023-June-09, 01:21, said:

... You aren't bidding to make, ...

My objective was identifying that the remark conveyed that when advancer responds 5D instead of 3D it demonstrably suggests 5D is to make rather than allow the opponents make the last decision.

[sanst]

It’s totally irrelevant whether you would bid 3, 4 or 5♦ as W. If there ever was a pollable situation, this is one. Firstly you ask a bunch of peers of W what they would bid, secondly you ask them what they would bid after 3♦-3NT, given the methods and agreements of EW. It’s rather important to know what these are about a 2NT overcall, certainly the strength of such a call. If they pass after 3NT, I would also want to know why.
As I read Law 16C2 the information that W received UI is unauthorized for E, since it arose from his own withdrawn action.

[BudH]

Let's assume the Director is called and let's assume the Director takes East away from the table, at which point East tells the Director:

"at the last moment, I realized my 2NT bid would be taken as the minors and immediately changed to a double. If my double is withdrawn, since I am aware of my error prior to my partner's next call, am I allowed to know my partner's next call will be required to assume I hold the minors? And can I try to make calls getting partner to bid notrump so that I can pass it, since if I bid notrump you may adjust the score?"

[blackshoe]

The fact that partner's next call is constrained by the laws is, it seems to me, authorized for the player who made a cancelled/withdrawn call (Law16A1{c}, Law 16C).

[johnu]

blackshoe, on 2023-June-09, 19:18, said:

The fact that partner's next call is constrained by the laws is, it seems to me, authorized for the player who made a cancelled/withdrawn call (Law16A1{c}, Law 16C).

I don't see those as making this AI.

16A1(a) says AI is allowed "including illegal calls and plays that are accepted". The illegal call, the change to double was not accepted so this section shouldn't apply
16A1(b) says "it is authorized information from a withdrawn action (see 16C)". 2NT was not withdrawn, changing to double was an illegal action not a withdrawn action so this shouldn't apply. I think if double was the original call, and East was allowed to withdraw double and change to 2NT, then 16C would apply
16C2 says "For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized."

[johnu]

mycroft, on 2023-June-08, 09:38, said:

I am more interested (with good players) how many people think 6♦ is in the picture after the 3NT rebid.

I don't have any agreements about 3NT and can't remember ever having that sequence, so I was trying to figure out some examples of what 3NT might show for this pair.

Maybe something like

---

where 6♦ should be cold barring a heart ruff?

Something weaker?

---

Now 6♦ is even better but is 3NT the bid? Maybe singleton ♠Q instead?

As a minimum, West should be thinking about slam with the actual hand.

[Cyberyeti]

johnu, on 2023-June-10, 00:50, said:

I don't have any agreements about 3NT and can't remember ever having that sequence, so I was trying to figure out some examples of what 3NT might show for this pair.

Maybe something like

---

where 6♦ should be cold barring a heart ruff?

Something weaker?

---

Now 6♦ is even better but is 3NT the bid? Maybe singleton ♠Q instead?

As a minimum, West should be thinking about slam with the actual hand.

These examples are fanciful, 3N is a bad contract on even the first hand as even if the diamonds run, that's not 9 tricks, you are dependent on partner having a second stop in the major they lead or the club ace. If partner has the club ace and the diamonds don't run, you need partner to have a spade stop and even if he has QJ, you need them not to be able to run the hearts when you lose the lead, you only have 8 tricks.

[johnu]

Cyberyeti, on 2023-June-10, 03:08, said:

These examples are fanciful, 3N is a bad contract on even the first hand as even if the diamonds run, that's not 9 tricks, you are dependent on partner having a second stop in the major they lead or the club ace. If partner has the club ace and the diamonds don't run, you need partner to have a spade stop and even if he has QJ, you need them not to be able to run the hearts when you lose the lead, you only have 8 tricks.

Where did I say 3NT was going to make? I was just trying to think of a hand where 3NT could be bid and 6♦ would be a good contract opposite the West hand. Do you have a better idea for a "natural" 3NT after making an unusual NT?

[Cyberyeti]

johnu, on 2023-June-10, 03:29, said:

Where did I say 3NT was going to make? I was just trying to think of a hand where 3NT could be bid and 6♦ would be a good contract opposite the West hand. Do you have a better idea for a "natural" 3NT after making an unusual NT?

I don't think it exists. I can't imagine a hand on which it's a good bid. I would agree an artificial meaning with partner if I could be bothered.

[axman]

johnu, on 2023-June-10, 00:30, said:

... 2NT was not withdrawn, changing to double was an illegal action not a withdrawn action so this shouldn't apply. ...

B>> Pass - 1H - 2NT changed to Double - Director, please!

The player bid 2N. He withdrew 2N to X. the X was not accepted- the X was canceled and 2N was reinstated.

[johnu]

axman, on 2023-June-10, 04:04, said:

The player bid 2N. He withdrew 2N to X. the X was not accepted- the X was canceled and 2N was reinstated.

Attempted to withdraw the 2NT bid. Since double was not accepted, 2NT is not withdrawn. IF double was accepted for some reason, then 2N would be a withdrawn action.

[blackshoe]

johnu, on 2023-June-10, 00:30, said:

2NT was not withdrawn, changing to double was an illegal action not a withdrawn action

I think you are mistaken. "Withdrawn" and "cancelled" are synonymous (see the Definitions).

[BudH]

If you were given a problem on paper and told you hold with nobody vulnerable as dealer ♠T9 ♥9xx ♦QJ98x ♣Axx with an auction Pass-1♥-2NT-Pass-?, I would expect with a group of good players given this problem that few of them are going to choose 3♦ and a significant minority or majority are bidding 5♦.

If I had been West and had this happen to me, I would have felt that a significant number of good players would bid 5♦ and I would have felt obligated to commit possible suicide by bidding 5♦.

[jillybean]

East?
Is not obliged to commit suicide, they woke up to their misbid, that is AI for East. The subsequent oops 2NT is UI for West but I think East is free to bid their hand.

[johnu]

blackshoe, on 2023-June-10, 15:44, said:

I think you are mistaken. "Withdrawn" and "cancelled" are synonymous (see the Definitions).

Agree, withdrawn and cancelled are the same.

However, in Law 25B

25B Call Intended
1. A substituted call not permitted by A may be
accepted by the offender’s LHO. (It is accepted
if LHO calls intentionally over it.) The first call is
then withdrawn, the second call stands and the
auction continues (Law 26 may apply).
2.Except as in B1, a substitution not permitted by
A is cancelled. The original call stands and the
auction continues (Law 26 may apply).
3.Law 16C applies to any call withdrawn

seems clear that in 2) since double was not allowed , double is the canceled/withdrawn call. And under 16C, the double is UI for the offending side.

[Cyberyeti]

BudH, on 2023-June-10, 18:58, said:

If you were given a problem on paper and told you hold with nobody vulnerable as dealer ♠T9 ♥9xx ♦QJ98x ♣Axx with an auction Pass-1♥-2NT-Pass-?, I would expect with a group of good players given this problem that few of them are going to choose 3♦ and a significant minority or majority are bidding 5♦.

If I had been East and had this happen to me, I would have felt that a significant number of good players would bid 5♦ and I would have felt obligated to commit possible suicide by bidding 5♦.

I absolutely disagree, the odds are you have 5 losers and the opps no slam, but this is dependent on what your 2N looks like.

Is Kxxxx, Qxxxx more likely than AKxxx, Kxxxx the way you bid 2N ? Yes he might have Kxxxx, KQxxx whichever way you bid it and this is without any useless major quacks.

Further incvestigation is required.

[BudH]

jillybean, on 2023-June-10, 19:25, said:

East?
Is not obliged to commit suicide, they woke up to their misbid, that is AI for East. The subsequent oops 2NT is UI for West but I think East is free to bid their hand.

My error - West. Corrected.