[Cyberyeti]

How in general do you approach a situation where you make a bid, partner announces/alerts it as something other than what you intended and you know he's right, you know what he actually has (responding to what you've shown) but you have no clue what his bid means in response to what you thought you were bidding.

Example:

Favourable 1st in you open 2♦ multi, only realising when partner fails to alert and LHO asks that you're playing a strong 2 in diamonds, LHO doubles, partner bids 4♦, you know what he has (aceless diamond raise of a strong 2), but have no clue what this means in your multi auction.

RHO bids 4♥, can you pass with a clear conscience with a minimum 6142 weak 2♠, particularly if a 4♦ opener is one of the possibilities for the 4♦ bid and pick a major is another ?

[barmar]

If partner's bid is totally impossible in the system you originally thought you were playing, I think you can be "woken up" to your mistake by it.

However, if there's any chance that it could have a meaning in response to what you thought you were showing, you must interpret it in that way. However, if the opponents ask what it means, you should explain what he's actually showing in your agreed system.

[Cyberyeti]

barmar, on 2012-March-24, 02:08, said:

If partner's bid is totally impossible in the system you originally thought you were playing, I think you can be "woken up" to your mistake by it.

However, if there's any chance that it could have a meaning in response to what you thought you were showing, you must interpret it in that way. However, if the opponents ask what it means, you should explain what he's actually showing in your agreed system.

Not so much impossible as undiscussed. This is two very experienced players in a once a month partnership with very little system, the non offender being no help because he never plays a multi, the offender plays a multi in all his other partnerships (including with me) and I have no idea what 4♦ would mean playing with him, "pick a major" would be my best guess.

More to the point if you know the bid is undiscussed, and it could have one of several meanings, how do you pick between them ? and are you (or the director) obliged to take the one that causes you the most peril ?

[barmar]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-March-24, 02:23, said:

More to the point if you know the bid is undiscussed, and it could have one of several meanings, how do you pick between them ? and are you (or the director) obliged to take the one that causes you the most peril ?

I would pick the meaning that I think most players use, since that would presumably be his most likely meaning.

You don't have to pick the one you think will work out worst. The only thing you can't do is pick the meaning suggested by the UI from his explanation, if there are other logical alternatives. But if there are multiple other LAs, you can select any of them, using any criteria you wish.

[Cyberyeti]

barmar, on 2012-March-24, 02:35, said:

I would pick the meaning that I think most players use, since that would presumably be his most likely meaning.

You don't have to pick the one you think will work out worst. The only thing you can't do is pick the meaning suggested by the UI from his explanation, if there are other logical alternatives. But if there are multiple other LAs, you can select any of them, using any criteria you wish.

In this case, pass is very clearly suggested by the UI, the question is are there any LAs.

Over 2♦(multi)-X-4♦(pick a major)-4♥-? Pass is certainly reasonable with Q97643, 3, 10742, K3, but is it the only bid ? Is 4♠ in the frame ? From what I remember, when this guy opens a multi, it's a 6 card suit except occasionally at favourable where it can be 5, as this case is, and 5-9.

If 4♦ could be x, xxx, KQJxxxx, Ax, clearly you have to be bidding 5♦, which was my point about choosing the most damaging of meanings.

On the actual board, the maximum number of tricks the multi side can make in any denomination is 3, and 2 in any strain they actually might play in, so bidding will be VERY expensive.

[RMB1]

If there are different plausible meanings for partner's bids then assuming any such meaning is a logical alternative. If 4♠ (say) is the proper rebid for one of the plausible meaning of 4♦ then that makes 4♠ a loigcal alternative. Logical altnernative bids must be suggested over Pass (which has the best chance to get out of this mess).

[gnasher]

Your logical alternatives are (paraphrasing) the actions that you might take opposite an undiscussed 4♦ bid.

In your example, those are pass and 4♠. I don't think anyone would raise an undiscussed 4♦ here, so that's not a logical alternative.

Your best chance of a reasonable result is to pass, hoping that partner now cue-bids 4♠, which you can pass. If you bid 4♠, it will get you to 5♦ or 6♦, which might be a good save but will probably be too expensive. Hence pass is suggested over 4♠, and you should bid 4♠.

[gnasher]

RMB1, on 2012-March-24, 03:59, said:

If there are different plausible meanings for partner's bids then assuming any such meaning is a logical alternative.

I don't think that's true. The fact that 4♦ is undiscussed is AI, so in determining the logical alternatives we're entitled to take that into account.

Suppose that we think that the most likely intended meaning for 4♦ is "bid your major", and the second most likely is "natural", and there are no other possibilities. It's not a logical alternative to assume that the undiscussed 4♦ is intended as natural, because nobody would actually do that in an unpolluted auction - they would choose an action that caters for both possible meanings.

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on 2012-March-24, 04:38, said:

Your logical alternatives are (paraphrasing) the actions that you might take opposite an undiscussed 4♦ bid.

In your example, those are pass and 4♠. I don't think anyone would raise an undiscussed 4♥ here, so that's not a logical alternative.

Your best chance of a reasonable result is to pass, hoping that partner now cue-bids 4♠, whihc oyu can pass. If you bid 4♠, it will get you to 5♦ or 6♦, which might be a good save but will probably be too expensive. Hence pass is suggested over 4♠, and you should bid 4♠.

Sorry if it wasn't clear, the 4♥ bid was made by the other side, without it you're dialling 2000 for certain.

The question is whether the 4♥ bid gets you off the hook, or whether you have to bid 4♠ or 5♦. What actually happened was that it went 4♥-P-6♥ and while this could have been made, it wasn't, I've posed it as a play problem elsewhere.

At favourable, I think it's unlikely that if partner has bid 4♦ as either "pick a major" or "diamonds" then 4♠/5♦ will be too expensive if you guess correctly which he has.

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-March-24, 05:17, said:

Sorry if it wasn't clear, the 4♥ bid was made by the other side, without it you're dialling 2000 for certain.
hen 4♠/5♦ will be too expensive if you guess correctly which he has.

No, I understood what the auction was, I just wrote "undiscussed 4♥" when I meant "undiscussed 4♦". I've corrected it now.

Quote

At favourable, I think it's unlikely that if partner has bid 4♦ as either "pick a major" or "diamonds" then 4♠/5♦ will be too expensive if you guess correctly which he has.

It seems I wasn't clear. What I meant was:

- Without the UI, nobody would risk bidding 5♦ opposite an undiscussed 4♦. Therefore 5♦ is not a logical alternative. The only LAs are pass and 4♠.

- With the UI, the best chance to survive is to pass, hoping partner will cue-bid 4♠. Therefore pass is suggested by the UI over 4♠, and you are obliged to bid 4♠.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-March-24, 07:38

[Cyberyeti]

Thanks Andy, makes perfect sense now.

Chance of getting it overturned in Norfolk, close to zero without appealing it 3 or 4 times, I'll see if the team has the will to appeal.

[gnasher]

gnasher, on 2012-March-24, 04:43, said:

I don't think that's true. The fact that 4♦ is undiscussed is AI, so in determining the logical alternatives we're entitled to take that into account.

Sorry, that's an oversimplification. The knowledge that we haven't discussed 4♦ may be either
(a) AI, because even if we'd agreed to play a Multi we would never have got around to discussing 4♦, or
(b) UI, because if we had agreed to play a Multi we would or might have discussed 4♦. That is, the information that we haven't discussed 4♦ is affected by the UI from partner's explanation.

So, in determining the LAs we have to consider how detailed a discussion we would have had if we were playing a Multi.