Help
TimG, on 2012-August-28, 06:24, said:
The UI is not that you have spade support. The UI is that partner is unaware that you have spade support.
Correct--my bad.
ACBL: Criteria for LA?
#21
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 505
- Joined: 2011-March-04
Posted 2012-August-28, 06:56
Correct--my bad.
#22
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,693
- Joined: 2006-April-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rochester, NY
Posted 2012-August-28, 08:43
TimG, on 2012-August-28, 06:24, said:
I'm sure if I played Drury I would have an agreement about the pass of 2♥. I suspect it would mean that I have a sub-minimum hand with perhaps only 4 spades. I also assume that 2♣ can be a 3-card raise. In that light, I don't think that opener's pass over 2♥ is forcing. Perhaps I am wrong, but it would be good to know what agreements are in play.
If I am right about the pass of 2♥, I would think that passing is a LA whenever responder holds three spades and that bidding 2♠ is suggested by the failure to alert.
The UI is not that you have spade support. The UI is that partner is unaware that you have spade support.
If I am right about the pass of 2♥, I would think that passing is a LA whenever responder holds three spades and that bidding 2♠ is suggested by the failure to alert.
The UI is not that you have spade support. The UI is that partner is unaware that you have spade support.
Yes. And it is the fact that partner is unaware of your spade support, not the failure to alert, that suggests you tell him about your support. Pedantic of me, I suppose, but I think it's important to correctly identify the I in UI cases.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#23
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 12,029
- Joined: 2009-February-21
- Gender:Male
- Location:St. George, UT
Posted 2012-August-28, 09:17
blackshoe, on 2012-August-28, 08:43, said:
Yes. And it is the fact that partner is unaware of your spade support, not the failure to alert, that suggests you tell him about your support. Pedantic of me, I suppose, but I think it's important to correctly identify the I in UI cases.
I have stated my problem with this way of thinking; and I don't know if you are right, or I am right (in law).
The problem is "that partner is unaware of your spade support" is not "fact" to me. I think I must assume partner is aware. Others don't. The only case posted here where telling partner (again) about the spade support is wrong IMO is the one where I have a somewhat balanced hand with only 3-card support and the auction has come back to me at 3H. Selling out at the two-level with that hand, is just bad bridge, but passing at the 3-level is abiding by partner's decision; bidding 3S there would be bad bridge if partner is aware of Drury, and illegal if I believe he might not be aware.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
#24
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,972
- Joined: 2004-July-25
- Gender:Male
- Location:Maine, USA
Posted 2012-August-28, 10:53
blackshoe, on 2012-August-28, 08:43, said:
Quote
The UI is not that you have spade support. The UI is that partner is unaware that you have spade support.
Maybe I wasn't careful enough. The UI is that partner may be unaware that you have spade support. I don't think it is fact that partner is unaware, though for the purposes of the Laws and UI, we might have to treat it as fact.
Last weekend (ACBL), my partner forgot to announce the range when I opened 1NT. Over the years, I have played more 1NT ranges with this partner than you have probably played in your lifetime, but there was absolutely no doubt in my mind that he knew what NT range we were currently playing.
#25
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 662
- Joined: 2008-October-15
Posted 2012-August-28, 12:17
TimG, on 2012-August-28, 10:53, said:
Maybe I wasn't careful enough. The UI is that partner may be unaware that you have spade support. I don't think it is fact that partner is unaware, though for the purposes of the Laws and UI, we might have to treat it as fact.
Last weekend (ACBL), my partner forgot to announce the range when I opened 1NT. Over the years, I have played more 1NT ranges with this partner than you have probably played in your lifetime, but there was absolutely no doubt in my mind that he knew what NT range we were currently playing.
Last weekend (ACBL), my partner forgot to announce the range when I opened 1NT. Over the years, I have played more 1NT ranges with this partner than you have probably played in your lifetime, but there was absolutely no doubt in my mind that he knew what NT range we were currently playing.
Yes indeed. As I alluded to also, partner may just have forgot to alert. It is even possible he did alert and I missed it.
Strange stuff sometimes happens.
#26
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,693
- Joined: 2006-April-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rochester, NY
Posted 2012-August-28, 16:59
TimG, on 2012-August-28, 10:53, said:
Maybe I wasn't careful enough. The UI is that partner may be unaware that you have spade support. I don't think it is fact that partner is unaware, though for the purposes of the Laws and UI, we might have to treat it as fact.
Last weekend (ACBL), my partner forgot to announce the range when I opened 1NT. Over the years, I have played more 1NT ranges with this partner than you have probably played in your lifetime, but there was absolutely no doubt in my mind that he knew what NT range we were currently playing.
Last weekend (ACBL), my partner forgot to announce the range when I opened 1NT. Over the years, I have played more 1NT ranges with this partner than you have probably played in your lifetime, but there was absolutely no doubt in my mind that he knew what NT range we were currently playing.
Maybe I wasn't careful enough.
I agree that "may be unaware" is correct and "it is a fact
" is not. Still, the point I was trying to make is that it is not the case that partner's action which may have transmitted UI is UI, as many people sloppily or unknowingly state. Rather, it is the information which may have been implied by the action which is UI.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#27
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 21,585
- Joined: 2004-August-21
- Gender:Male
Posted 2012-August-29, 12:39
jmcw, on 2012-August-28, 12:17, said:
Yes indeed. As I alluded to also, partner may just have forgot to alert.
Strange stuff sometimes happens.
Strange stuff sometimes happens.
This is almost always a possibility in FTA situations. But unless the player is prone to forget to alert (or maybe the alertability isn't clear -- ACBL's alert rules are not the best in this regard), I think it's generally more appropriate to assume that they forgot the agreement, not the alert.