A friend of mine got “accidentally jobbed” by “accidental UI” in a very simple auction last week. How do you think a director or committee would treat this?
1S-P-3C(nat, inv, alerted)-X-All pass
Now, clearly X here is takeout, right? Well…except the doubler never asked what 3C was. He had a 5-card club stack and assumed 3C, alerted, was
It’s clearly wrong for this to stand, because, however far this was from the players’ intentions, it gives them the ability to make takeout or penalty doubles in the same auction. If you agree, would you trust a director or committee to get this right? (I wouldn’t.)
BTW, it is impossible to avoid conveying UI on this hand, unless you follow the “always ask regardless of your hand” principle, which very few do. If the club stack asks, is told 3C is natural, and passes, the message is clear unless he is an always-asker. That particular UI would have been fairly innocuous on this deal, but the problem remains.
I guess if I were arguing this hand with a committee, one of the strongest points is that doubler ignored the skip bid.
4 comments:
There are many auctions where it would be annoying, at a minimum, to ask every time, it seems to me that in today's world it is ridiculous to assume you know what 1S-3C means and you should ask every time.
I've been told by a director that when the meaning of partner's action is dependent on the meaning of the opponent's action, you are required to assume that partner knows what the opponent's action means despite your UI that partner did not ask. However, in the case you gave, the person with the club void is never going to be required to bid because the auction and his hand are telling him that the double was not takeout.
Hi Jon,
This is an interesting situation. It seems like both sides would have a reasonable case in a committee. Perhaps, the best solution would be to throw the board out completely, but the laws probably do not allow for that.
A related situation occurs when you know opponents' methods but partner does not. This happens to me more often than one would guess. It feels weird to ask a question you know the answer to full well. However, if you don't do that partner is not going to be able to alert your bids properly.
Regards,
Alex
My first reaction was that I agree with Applecor that in general holding a club void is enough authorized information to pass. However, what if responder had a 6-7 card club suit weak jump shift, opener had 3-4 clubs as well, and partner has some sort of 2443 or 2452 strong hand? Not as clear as originally thought.
As for Alex, your question is answered in this month's ACBL Bulletin in the Ruling the Game section. It's definitely wrong to ask questions for the sake of your partner, but unbeknownst to me, it is also improper to ask a question that you know the answer to. Doesn't that throw a monkey wrench in that whole "questions should be random to avoid UI" approach?
I agree with Pretender, I don't think the pass with a void should hold up in committee. Partner can easily have 3 clubs in a 1(54)3 hand good enough to bid, and the opponents can have a 10-card fit.
As for the second point, if you ask/don't ask based on whether you know their system, this seems ok since it reveals nothing about your hand.
Post a Comment