[Shugart23]

Bidding went: 1C by Peter (alert - 16 plus) and opponents over call 1S - Double by me showing 5-7, not alerted - 2S raise by Opponent and back to Peter. Peter bids 3D, alerted and explained as a transfer to Hearts - Peter now realizes he made a mistake - Pass by Opponents and I super accept to 4H. Pass and Peter correct to 5D since he had a Diamond runner...All Pass as I realize Peter made a mistake on his 3D bid.

Everything Kosher here ?

[jillybean]

No, everything is not Kosher. The alert and explanation appear to have alerted Peter to his mistake.
Director please.

[pescetom]

Could we see the hand diagram please?

What was the agreement about 3D, is transfer documented somewhere?

Did opponents ask for the explanation after alert of 3D?

[barmar]

Peter has UI from the alert and explanation, but could that really be the reason to pull 4♥? Doesn't the AI that responder has only 5-7 HCP suggest that they couldn't have a hand that can make 4♥ on its own? I think we need to see Peter's hand, particularly his heart holding.

Did 5♦ make?

[mycroft]

Sure, he has UI - and has to carefully avoid using it. But like all, there just might be no alternative, depending on the hand.

Or, systemically is 4♥ a splinter (if 3♦ would be Natural)? 4153 7-count? I don't know, but I do know one of my meta-rules (not played in my Precision partnership, but that's a partner issue) is "if a bid is forcing and Natural, then the next level up is a splinter."

Or, systemically is 4♥ Redwood/Kickback? I would guess it is in my Precision partnership (see above). Again, what 5-7 hand could want to KC? No idea, but we absolutely play Kickback, and what else could it be? (now, if 5♦ bidder *doesn't have* 2-or-5 with the Q, well, then, we're back to "use of UI").

[strong 1c]

barmar, on 2026-March-04, 01:22, said:

Peter has UI from the alert and explanation, but could that really be the reason to pull 4♥? Doesn't the AI that responder has only 5-7 HCP suggest that they couldn't have a hand that can make 4♥ on its own? I think we need to see Peter's hand, particularly his heart holding.

Did 5♦ make?

Answering Questions:

Peter was 3rd to bid and had AJ spades J8 of Hearts AQJ863 Diamonds and K 10 5 of Clubs My hand was 10 4 3 Spades Q875 hearts 543 Diamonds AJ6 Club

The 3D bid was alerted and explained as a transfer to Hearts ( our agreement... we use a transfer lebensohl type bidding scheme). I was expecting at least 5 Hearts in his hand

Contract went down one for a 30 percent

[pescetom]

There is a wonderful symbol (at least on PC) of Hand Editor, at the far right of the line of icons starting with Bold.
Makes it so much easier for everyone to understand and not waste time.
Is this attempt right (and what was vulnerability) ?

---

[strong 1c]

pescetom, on 2026-March-04, 16:33, said:

There is a wonderful symbol (at least on PC) of Hand Editor, at the far right of the line of icons starting with Bold.
Makes it so much easier for everyone to understand and not waste time.
Is this attempt right (and what was vulnerability) ?

---

Thanks, We were white and they were red.

SO I suppose the ethical problem is, not that Peter made a mistake on his 3D bid, but that he tried to rescue my 4H bid and should have passed instead? Is that what you all think ?

My pass of his 5D was made, realizing that he had made a mistake, but I think that's ok because we have no agreement as to what his 5D bid could mean and I don't believe I am using UI

[pescetom]

 strong 1c, on 2026-March-05, 05:58, said:

Thanks, We were white and they were red.

SO I suppose the ethical problem is, not that Peter made a mistake on his 3D bid, but that he tried to rescue my 4H bid and should have passed instead? Is that what you all think ?

My pass of his 5D was made, realizing that he had made a mistake, but I think that's ok because we have no agreement as to what his 5D bid could mean and I don't believe I am using UI

To evaluate the legality of the situation we need to know what 4H over a natural 3D means (or would be likely to mean, given other agreements) in this partnership: splinter, hearts control, Kickback or absolutely nothing?

[Shugart23]

pescetom, on 2026-March-05, 06:59, said:

To evaluate the legality of the situation we need to know what 4H over a natural 3D means (or would be likely to mean, given other agreements) in this partnership: splinter, hearts control, Kickback or absolutely nothing?

If Peter wanted to show Diamonds, he would have bid 3C (transfer) and we have no agreement what a jump to 4H would mean...I cant see us bidding it- undefined

[mycroft]

So, there's at least two issues here (with the other information).

• Partner has UI from the Alert and explanation. But partner also has the AI that you have made a bid that has no agreed meaning, and "doesn't make sense", given what he does know (5-7 any, and no 3♥ call). So, oh by the way, would ...(2♠)-3♣ (showing diamonds)-3♥ be forcing? If not, how does (or does?) a 5-7 hand make a forcing call?
  
• Could this hand exist (or would it preempt 1st white on red)? Would this hand bid 4♥?

  ---

There's also at least two issues here:

• The legal issue: Will the director, if called, rule that (other options exist, but the obvious one) pass is a LA to 5♦ having shown good diamonds in a minimum already with 3♦? A bunch of the questions being asked, including the previous ones above, are part of what will inform that answer.
  
• The propriety issue: Did West "carefully avoid" using the UI from the explanation in bidding 5♦? Knowing, of course, that "unauthorized panic" is a thing (in the ACBL, not a thing with specific weight, but the concept of "when partner makes clear they didn't understand a bid, many players show the suit they actually have at the first opportunity, and this frequently is not 'carefully avoiding'" is universal). If so, is it critical enough that we should be looking at a violation of 73C1?

which are both things that could lead to adverse rulings. But I think you're more concerned about something else:

• The ethical issue: Did West *realize* what they were doing? And that it was improper? Or did West try to do the correct thing and judged poorly? Or did West just not know what's supposed to happen, and we should educate?

And I think, if that were the case, you and partner need to pull up Law 73C1 and discuss "carefully avoid" and how the "pattern matching brain" bridge players are trained for their entire lives to develop will do the wrong thing "automatically" if not short-circuited. Showing more obvious examples of "unauthorized panic" (say, the traditional Drury p-1♠; 2♣-2♠; 4♠ with no Alert or explaned as "clubs"; or p-1♠; 2♣-3♣; 4♠ rather than a cuebid or even a "good hand for slam given a black two-suiter" 3♠ (okay, this one is much less likely in a Precision context, but it is an easy case to understand)). Explaining that these things will happen, and that instead of "oh dear, how do I get partner back on track?" or "oh dear, how to I get partner to realize I forgot (again)?", what needs to be thought is "okay, I know partner misunderstood/I messed up system. What would that call mean if we were on the same page? And what would I do then?" And realizing that sometimes, the answer is "that bid Does Not Exist" or "there's no hand that could reasonably make that call, because..." - and then trying to survive. But also, when the director is called, being able to give that explanation, and being willing to accept a L16 ruling against if your judgement on this hand is either bad or "not universal among your peers".

And, if I'm reading OP's question right, the prime thing to learn is not "did I do right here?" but "will I recognize this next time, and (attempt to) do right then?"

(no footnote) Remember bluejak's triptych:
"To do something against the Laws or Regulations is unlawful.
To do something unlawful deliberately is improper.
To do something improper, *knowing it is wrong*, is unethical."
There is no stain on one's ethics either if one did one's best and failed, or if one didn't know what they were doing was wrong. The first happens all the time; the second we need to educate so that they know next time.

[StevenG]

Am I missing something? Partner has made a mistake whereas you are following the system. Surely 3♦ sets hearts as trumps. Then 5♦ must be a control bid from your point of view. (I don't see how it can be a baffling bid.) How do you know partner has made a mistake without any use of UI? Surely you have to bid 5♥ rather than pass.

[strong 1c]

StevenG, on 2026-March-05, 12:05, said:

Am I missing something? Partner has made a mistake whereas you are following the system. Surely 3♦ sets hearts as trumps. Then 5♦ must be a control bid from your point of view. (I don't see how it can be a baffling bid.) How do you know partner has made a mistake without any use of UI? Surely you have to bid 5♥ rather than pass.

If I were asked by the director what his 5D bid meant, all I could say is we have no partnership agreement. SO I deduced he made a mistake when he bid 3D. I could probably also have deduced that he is showing a void or an Ace or something, but atm we have no agreement along these lines.

If he were to bid 4NT over my 4H bid, we also haven't discussed what a 4NT bid would mean, but I would answer number of controls, with 1st step being 0, then 1, then 2, then 3 with a 5-7 hcp hand. -

[strong 1c]

mycroft, on 2026-March-05, 11:36, said:

So, there's at least two issues here (with the other information).

• Partner has UI from the Alert and explanation. But partner also has the AI that you have made a bid that has no agreed meaning, and "doesn't make sense", given what he does know (5-7 any, and no 3♥ call). So, oh by the way, would ...(2♠)-3♣ (showing diamonds)-3♥ be forcing? If not, how does (or does?) a 5-7 hand make a forcing call?
  
• Could this hand exist (or would it preempt 1st white on red)? Would this hand bid 4♥?

  ---

There's also at least two issues here:

• The legal issue: Will the director, if called, rule that (other options exist, but the obvious one) pass is a LA to 5♦ having shown good diamonds in a minimum already with 3♦? A bunch of the questions being asked, including the previous ones above, are part of what will inform that answer.
  
• The propriety issue: Did West "carefully avoid" using the UI from the explanation in bidding 5♦? Knowing, of course, that "unauthorized panic" is a thing (in the ACBL, not a thing with specific weight, but the concept of "when partner makes clear they didn't understand a bid, many players show the suit they actually have at the first opportunity, and this frequently is not 'carefully avoiding'" is universal). If so, is it critical enough that we should be looking at a violation of 73C1?

which are both things that could lead to adverse rulings. But I think you're more concerned about something else:

• The ethical issue: Did West *realize* what they were doing? And that it was improper? Or did West try to do the correct thing and judged poorly? Or did West just not know what's supposed to happen, and we should educate?

And I think, if that were the case, you and partner need to pull up Law 73C1 and discuss "carefully avoid" and how the "pattern matching brain" bridge players are trained for their entire lives to develop will do the wrong thing "automatically" if not short-circuited. Showing more obvious examples of "unauthorized panic" (say, the traditional Drury p-1♠; 2♣-2♠; 4♠ with no Alert or explaned as "clubs"; or p-1♠; 2♣-3♣; 4♠ rather than a cuebid or even a "good hand for slam given a black two-suiter" 3♠ (okay, this one is much less likely in a Precision context, but it is an easy case to understand)). Explaining that these things will happen, and that instead of "oh dear, how do I get partner back on track?" or "oh dear, how to I get partner to realize I forgot (again)?", what needs to be thought is "okay, I know partner misunderstood/I messed up system. What would that call mean if we were on the same page? And what would I do then?" And realizing that sometimes, the answer is "that bid Does Not Exist" or "there's no hand that could reasonably make that call, because..." - and then trying to survive. But also, when the director is called, being able to give that explanation, and being willing to accept a L16 ruling against if your judgement on this hand is either bad or "not universal among your peers".

And, if I'm reading OP's question right, the prime thing to learn is not "did I do right here?" but "will I recognize this next time, and (attempt to) do right then?"

(no footnote) Remember bluejak's triptych:
"To do something against the Laws or Regulations is unlawful.
To do something unlawful deliberately is improper.
To do something improper, *knowing it is wrong*, is unethical."
There is no stain on one's ethics either if one did one's best and failed, or if one didn't know what they were doing was wrong. The first happens all the time; the second we need to educate so that they know next time.

Yeah, I was wondering what Peter should have done and what I should have done, if anything and when - before the lead is made ?

Good question 'when does the weak hand force ? Really just have to wing it ---I super accepted with my hand to force the heart game. I suppose a cue-bid would force opener to do something.

In your example, I'd likely preempt with that hand

[strong 1c]

strong 1c, on 2026-March-05, 13:59, said:

Yeah, I was wondering what Peter should have done and what I should have done, if anything and when - before the lead is made ?

Good question 'when does the weak hand force ? Really just have to wing it ---I super accepted with my hand to force the heart game. I suppose a cue-bid would force opener to do something.

In your example, I'd likely preempt with that hand

With your example 1C-1S -x -2S-3C-? I would sorely be tempted to bid 3H and hopefully partner knows I have 6 and maximum and don't like his diamonds - assuming I didnt preempt

[pescetom]

strong 1c, on 2026-March-05, 13:52, said:

If I were asked by the director what his 5D bid meant, all I could say is we have no partnership agreement. SO I deduced he made a mistake when he bid 3D. I could probably also have deduced that he is showing a void or an Ace or something, but atm we have no agreement along these lines.

If he were to bid 4NT over my 4H bid, we also haven't discussed what a 4NT bid would mean, but I would answer number of controls, with 1st step being 0, then 1, then 2, then 3 with a 5-7 hcp hand. -

And so both are undiscussed, yet you feel comfortable passing 5♦ which for most of us would show control and slam interest (but for you means he forgot, and therefore might make) but not 4NT which clearly will not make (but you have a convenient number of controls)?

[johnu]

strong 1c, on 2026-March-05, 05:58, said:

My pass of his 5D was made, realizing that he had made a mistake, but I think that's ok because we have no agreement as to what his 5D bid could mean and I don't believe I am using UI

Don't you play cue (control) bids when a trump fit has been established? That seems highly unlikely.

[jillybean]

I'm confused Shugart23 made the opening post and question, strong 1c is now answering further queries.
What's going on?

I have 3 questions

1. How experienced are the players , how experienced is the partnership?
2. Do we have a Convention Card?
3. Where was this played?

[Shugart23]

I am Shugart23, shugart24 and just recently also became strong 1c on bbo. Peter and i play mostly the 8 board tournament on BBO which kick you off after 45,seconds. Peter is almost 2 years into learning I’m very experienced but had a3-4 year break when COVID hit

[Shugart23]

 pescetom, on 2026-March-05, 15:44, said:

And so both are undiscussed, yet you feel comfortable passing 5♦ which for most of us would show control and slam interest (but for you means he forgot, and therefore might make) but not 4NT which clearly will not make (but you have a convenient number of controls)?

Short answer, yes. The 5d bid is undefined in this sequence for us . A 4Nt bid over my 4H bid is also undefined but I think I would take it as control ask