Join Bridge Winners
Are you "allowed to know"?

Say you make a call, not playing behind screens, and the later auction strongly suggests that partner has misunderstood your call.

As an example -

W
N
E
S
1
X
2
P
P
2
P
P
3
P
?

You have unauthorised information that confirms whether partner understood your bid as a transfer or as natural NF (let's assume the latter would not be alertable). You are 2-2 in hearts and clubs. You would not expect partner to forget the meaning of this bid, but you are in a first-time partnership.

Let's suppose that a poll would show that pass is not a logical alternative, as most consider it clear, absent the unauthorised information, that partner understood your 2 bid as natural NF. (As an aside, my belief is that those responding to polls should be told to consider themselves to be behind screens; any thoughts on this? My experience is that many responding to polls take the attitude, "I know why I'm being polled, I would have UI at the table, and I mustn't act on it", which makes it a futile exercise IMO).

So, two questions -

If partner explained your 2 bid as natural non-forcing, are you now allowed to correct to 3/3?

If partner correctly explained your 2 bid as a transfer to diamonds, are you now compelled to bid as though there has been a misunderstanding?

 

Edit:

I realise I have confused two points here.

I would have been better off saying that we should assume that both pass and 3 are logical alternatives (which, based on the informal polling I've done, is true, based on the conditions above, plus that it was IMP scoring). My understanding of the laws is that, if partner alerted and explained your bid as diamonds, this is unauthorised infomation to you, therefore you have to choose from the logical alternatives the one that is not suggested by the UI. In this situation, the UI suggests partner is likely 5-6 with a minimum, so with 2-2 in hearts and clubs you are compelled to give preference back to hearts, playing partner to have forgotten the system.

This feels far too draconian. My proposal is that you should be entitled to assume partner correctly understood your bid, unless actions that are based on this assumption are not logical alternatives. This would avoid making the game unplayable in many situations, but doesn't allow players to use unauthorised information to their advantage.

For the poll, please assume the original scenario above, i.e. about the "edit" line.

You have to pass if partner didn't alert your bid (and are allowed to pass if he did)
You have to correct to 3/3 if partner did alert your bid (and are allowed to correct if he didn't)
You are allowed to correct to 3/3 if partner didn't alert your bid, and are allowed to pass if partner did alert your bid
You have to pass if partner didn't alert your bid, and you have to correct to 3/3 if partner did alert your bid

Sorry, to answer polls. Registered users can vote in polls, and can also browse other users' public votes! and participate in the discussion.

Getting results...
loading...
118 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top