[jillybean]

Shugart23, on 2026-March-05, 19:52, said:

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

It sounds like you are a very experienced player but somewhat oblivious of the Laws, as are many players. If I am correct, you are better than most in wondering and asking if this auction was ethical. Now you've crossed the line of knowing this is UI and you must "carefully avoid" making use of it
If on the other hand, you were aware of your responsibility to "carefully avoid" using UI, I think it would be appropriate to look closer and apply the full force of the Laws. In a game forcing heart auction, 5D is forcing, there has been some use of UI if you pass 5D.

As for Peter, it's a good time for the TD to explain the Laws, he has also crossed the line and for ethical players, there is no going back.
Players ignorant of the Laws have the advantage.

[strong 1c]

jillybean, on 2026-March-05, 20:37, said:

It sounds like you are a very experienced player but somewhat oblivious of the Laws, as are many players. If I am correct, you are better than most in wondering and asking if this auction was ethical. Now you've crossed the line of knowing this is UI and you must "carefully avoid" making use of it
If on the other hand, you were aware of your responsibility to "carefully avoid" using UI, I think it would be appropriate to look closer and apply the full force of the Laws. In a game forcing heart auction, 5D is forcing, there has been some use of UI if you pass 5D.

As for Peter, it's a good time for the TD to explain the Laws, he has also crossed the line and for ethical players, there is no going back.
Players ignorant of the Laws have the advantage.

Thanks, I need to explain to Peter about not letting my alert 'wake him up'.

What kind of hand would you have to have in this auction, to make you want to cue bid 5D when you know your partner has 5-7 HCP, and at least 4 hearts particularly when a 4NT bid would likely be a control asking bid? I don't think I used UI when I passed; I just made the decision that Peter forgot the bid when he bid 3D which I don't think is unethical or illegal

[jillybean]

strong 1c, on 2026-March-06, 05:15, said:

Thanks, I need to explain to Peter about not letting my alert 'wake him up'.

What kind of hand would you have to have in this auction, to make you want to cue bid 5D when you know your partner has 5-7 HCP, and at least 4 hearts particularly when a 4NT bid would likely be a control asking bid? I don't think I used UI when I passed; I just made the decision that Peter forgot the bid when he bid 3D which I don't think is unethical or illegal

I don't know your system, only you and mycroft know the truth.

---

[Shugart23]

Assuming Peter and I are in same page, opener can bid 4Nt for control ask and 5H shows an ace or 2 kings. I just asked Peter how he would interpret a 4Nt bid in that sequence and he said control ask.

[mycroft]

A few notes, kind of all over the map.

• Those commenting on the pass of 5♦ need to show the UI that *East* has. Now it might exist - a flinch or a show of shock on the Alert of 3♥, or a tank before 5♦ as West tries to figure out how to recover, or... Frankly, the chance that it does exist is quite high. But nothing was mentioned. And without UI, a player is entitled to make whatever call they wish, including deciding partner "must have forgot" rather than "has 25 high, A=5=4=3".
  • This one really bothers me. As I said, most of the time, there *is* UI - a flinch or a audible reaction to the Alert or explanation; or a clear timing issue (UP-fast or "how do I get out of this" slow). And obviously, in this case it is in OP's interest to hide such UI from us, should it have existed. Frankly, it is in OP's interest to hide such UI from *himself*. Pattern-matchers that we all are, it is quite possible that there was UI, OP didn't notice it consciously at the time (and just "guessed right"), and doesn't recognize it now either. But with all that, " 'he guessed that partner forgot and partner did forget' equals 'he would only have guessed that with UI, so L16' " is just as Rule of Coincidence here as it always is.
    
  • Having said that, I find the argument that 5♦ isn't obviously a cuebid from an unlimited hand that just got a super-accept - and instead "is undefined" - very convenient, and frankly evidence of "unconscious brain trying to justify a decision it made". Which increases my suspicion about the above more than somewhat. But still, we don't get to say "East must have had UI because he guessed right".
    
  • In the appeal case that I have quoted repeatedly where I did my best to damage my own case (but the auction was such that they believed me because "why else?" anyway) I presented the UI at the time of the director call; "this call was slow, and this call was immediate. And his partner passed." Yes, I did not get agreement during the auction, or even during the Clarification period, or when dummy hit. I even waited to call the TD until *after* the hand was over and the contract made. But I presented my case for there being UI.
    
  • Now, I would *suggest* that OP look carefully at his memory, and see if there just might have been some "way" to know this was a forget. And, whether he finds one or not, remind himself to be aware of it for next time - and there *will* be a next time; regular partners playing a complicated, non-standard system that one of them doesn't truly understand yet will have forgets and will find their partners' reactions easier to read than most (and most, frankly, are *very bad at* this. But OP has shown serious interest in *being* ethical - and that implies "even when the opponents wouldn't be able to tell").
• Jillybean's hand would bid 4♠, not 5♦, shirley? Same with the 0=6=4=3 that can't just Keycard? That doesn't point to pass over 5♥, but still.
  
• I took the auction to my Precision partner, and we *do* play 3♦ in this auction natural. Without any explanations, I asked what 4♥ was, and he *immediately* said splinter. Now, we do play Kickback, but he said "no, can't be that, there's no 5-7 hand that can be ace-asking opposite 16." I asked about natural-to-play, because 3♥ can't be forcing; "there's no hand that would double that can bid 4♥ with no support", especially "and didn't preempt". This is not evidence for what OP and partner play it as; but *he* would have bid 5♦ with the West hand (while wondering how they have a 10-card heart fit and bid-and-raised spades) - without ♣A, slam is zero%; without the ♦K, it's 50% at best; with xxx x Kxx(x) Axxxx(x), is that not an upgrade into 2♣?

[pescetom]

--

[axman]

mycroft, on 2026-March-06, 09:56, said:

Kickback, but he said "no, can't be that, there's no 5-7 hand that can be ace-asking opposite 16." I asked about natural-to-play, because 3♥ can't be forcing;

Introducing a data point (where the 7pt hand asks for aces):

1H-P-2D-P
4N-P-5H-P
6H-P-6N**

opener J-AKTxxxxxx-x-xx

** there is no hand that 'can' ask for aces (when partner can well have zero) that doesn't have a fast entry opposite KTxx-VOID-AQxxxx-AQx. hehehehehe

[mycroft]

Okay, sure. Now remember the 7-count *passed as dealer* :-)

(seriously, though, and out of context, great story!)

[strong 1c]

mycroft, on 2026-March-06, 09:56, said:

A few notes, kind of all over the map.

• Those commenting on the pass of 5♦ need to show the UI that *East* has. Now it might exist - a flinch or a show of shock on the Alert of 3♥, or a tank before 5♦ as West tries to figure out how to recover, or... Frankly, the chance that it does exist is quite high. But nothing was mentioned. And without UI, a player is entitled to make whatever call they wish, including deciding partner "must have forgot" rather than "has 25 high, A=5=4=3".
  • This one really bothers me. As I said, most of the time, there *is* UI - a flinch or a audible reaction to the Alert or explanation; or a clear timing issue (UP-fast or "how do I get out of this" slow). And obviously, in this case it is in OP's interest to hide such UI from us, should it have existed. Frankly, it is in OP's interest to hide such UI from *himself*. Pattern-matchers that we all are, it is quite possible that there was UI, OP didn't notice it consciously at the time (and just "guessed right"), and doesn't recognize it now either. But with all that, " 'he guessed that partner forgot and partner did forget' equals 'he would only have guessed that with UI, so L16' " is just as Rule of Coincidence here as it always is.
    
  • Having said that, I find the argument that 5♦ isn't obviously a cuebid from an unlimited hand that just got a super-accept - and instead "is undefined" - very convenient, and frankly evidence of "unconscious brain trying to justify a decision it made". Which increases my suspicion about the above more than somewhat. But still, we don't get to say "East must have had UI because he guessed right".
    
  • In the appeal case that I have quoted repeatedly where I did my best to damage my own case (but the auction was such that they believed me because "why else?" anyway) I presented the UI at the time of the director call; "this call was slow, and this call was immediate. And his partner passed." Yes, I did not get agreement during the auction, or even during the Clarification period, or when dummy hit. I even waited to call the TD until *after* the hand was over and the contract made. But I presented my case for there being UI.
    
  • Now, I would *suggest* that OP look carefully at his memory, and see if there just might have been some "way" to know this was a forget. And, whether he finds one or not, remind himself to be aware of it for next time - and there *will* be a next time; regular partners playing a complicated, non-standard system that one of them doesn't truly understand yet will have forgets and will find their partners' reactions easier to read than most (and most, frankly, are *very bad at* this. But OP has shown serious interest in *being* ethical - and that implies "even when the opponents wouldn't be able to tell").
• Jillybean's hand would bid 4♠, not 5♦, shirley? Same with the 0=6=4=3 that can't just Keycard? That doesn't point to pass over 5♥, but still.
  
• I took the auction to my Precision partner, and we *do* play 3♦ in this auction natural. Without any explanations, I asked what 4♥ was, and he *immediately* said splinter. Now, we do play Kickback, but he said "no, can't be that, there's no 5-7 hand that can be ace-asking opposite 16." I asked about natural-to-play, because 3♥ can't be forcing; "there's no hand that would double that can bid 4♥ with no support", especially "and didn't preempt". This is not evidence for what OP and partner play it as; but *he* would have bid 5♦ with the West hand (while wondering how they have a 10-card heart fit and bid-and-raised spades) - without ♣A, slam is zero%; without the ♦K, it's 50% at best; with xxx x Kxx(x) Axxxx(x), is that not an upgrade into 2♣?

It was an on-line game, so no observable flinch....I really appreciate the education and I can see how the 5D bid is/could be a cue bid for some partnerships...just it truly is undefined with Peter at this time. I'll be having the conversation with Peter however about this topic

[StevenG]

mycroft, on 2026-March-06, 09:56, said:

Those commenting on the pass of 5♦ need to show the UI that *East* has.

East has the UI that his double wasn't alerted.

[strong 1c]

StevenG, on 2026-March-07, 02:53, said:

East has the UI that his double wasn't alerted.

Well, I am weak on the rules for sure, but I would think that double is not alertable as I think most doubles and cuebids are implicitly alerted by their very nature. Would a pass showing 0-4 be alerted ?

[jillybean]

strong 1c, on 2026-March-07, 05:31, said:

Well, I am weak on the rules for sure, but I would think that double is not alertable as I think most doubles and cuebids are implicitly alerted by their very nature. Would a pass showing 0-4 be alerted ?

What prompted you to ask the question in the opening post?

[Shugart23]

I actually wanted to know what Peter’s proper bid is after I superaccepted ? I’m comfortable with my bids actually Was he required to pass?

[StevenG]

My understanding is that, having been woken up, Peter is constrained to follow a system where his 3♦ bid is natural. In which case I don't see that passing 4♥ is an LA, and I think that 5♦ is an ethical bid, even if it was made for the wrong, i.e. unauthorised panic, reason.

I suspect I might get shot down in flames here.

[mycroft]

Whole lotta answers allatonce.

strong 1c, on 2026-March-06, 14:28, said:

It was an on-line game, so no observable flinch....I really appreciate the education and I can see how the 5D bid is/could be a cue bid for some partnerships...just it truly is undefined [] at this time.

Online, on BBO? Then how do you know anything about partner's (lack of) Alerts? How does partner know you took 3♦ as hearts?

If another platform with partner-Alerts, okay. Not terribly relevant, of course.

StevenG, on 2026-March-07, 02:53, said:

East has the UI that his double wasn't alerted.

And how exactly does that affect the guess that "partner forgot" over "partner has a 25 count and is looking for 6♥"? For the UI to be relevant, it has to "show" that partner woke up to their misbid/realized East misunderstood their 3♦ bid(*) somehow.

We've been assuming FtF, partner-Alert all the way through, so let's assume it for this, too.

Having said all that, this comes under the heading of "very unlikely that partner forgot the meaning". This auction comes up once a session on average; as I frequently say, "when you play Precision, you have to learn 3 systems: "when you don't open 1♣", "when you open 1♣ and the opponents pass", and "when you open 1♣ and the opponents don't pass". I would expect that "too busy working out what to do with the information and forgot to Alert" more likely than "didn't know it was Alertable" (but they definitely *should* know it is Alertable, see below) more likely than "forgot the system". Just like the people who "forgot to Announce their partner's transfer - again", neh?

(*) Here, we "know" that it's "partner misbid and got woken up". But from a ruling perspective, it's the same no matter which side of the table forgot the system.

strong 1c, on 2026-March-07, 05:31, said:

Well, I am weak on the rules for sure, but I would think that double is not alertable as I think most doubles and cuebids are implicitly alerted by their very nature. Would a pass showing 0-4 be alerted ?

From the Alert Procedure:

• Doubles. Do Not Alert: After a 1-level suit Opening Bid and a Natural suit overcall, a Negative Double by Responder. [mycroft: "card-showing" is not "Negative", so yes, Alert. Also note that if the interference is not Natural, then no meaning for Double should be Alerted.]
  
• Passes. Alert: A pass that is Forcing when the hand passing has not previously shown any strength, unless the partner of the passing hand has shown a Very Strong hand. [mycroft: Precision 1♣ is Strong, but not Very Strong. So, if the auction can go 1♣-(1♠)-AP, even if partner could have a trap pass, then I guess it's not Alertable. I do anyway; I expect the pass comes under the heading of "Not Forcing, but never passed, for bridge values of 'never'."]

Most of the Pass/X/XX Alertable decisions are on the first round; it is worth reading rather than "trusting your instinct" any first-round non-bid actions that are unusual.

jillybean, on 2026-March-07, 07:33, said:

What prompted you to ask the question in the opening post?

Assuming OP has woken up partner to his misbid (so, FtF or partner-Alert), OP would like to understand what their partnership's ethical considerations are, so that they can not only follow the Law, but be shown to be proactive in following the Law. This is a good thing - especially when playing an unusual system in an environment occasionally hostile to it (witness history from OP of "[pairs at our club] hate 'all the Alerts'"). OP has caught blowback for "so, how did you figure out to pass a slam-try?", in my eyes unfairly with the information given - but has learned that there's something for OP to think about as well (in re: UI that might only have been realized unconsciously; learning to pay attention to it will make it more consciously obvious in future, which will help with the "be proactive in following the Law".)

StevenG, on 2026-March-07, 08:23, said:

My understanding is that, having been woken up, Peter is constrained to follow a system where his 3♦ bid is natural. In which case I don't see that passing 4♥ is an LA, and I think that 5♦ is an ethical bid, even if it was made for the wrong, i.e. unauthorised panic, reason.

And why do you say that "if 3♦ was natural, 4♥ can't be 'choice of games'"? The whole point of the beginning of the thread was "so, what systemically would 4♥ mean if 3♦ was diamonds" (or after 3♣-showing-diamonds)? You can't determine LAs until you decide what the bid should (or could) mean.

Quote

I suspect I might get shot down in flames here.

Not from here (after all, my investigation agreed with you!) Just pointing out that you're not showing your work (or jumping the gun, or begging the question, depending), and the reasoning for "passing is not an LA to rebidding my 6-card suit, contracting to take 11 tricks with 16-opposite-5/7 and unknown support (and a weak doubleton in 'partner's suit', that's two likely losers right there) as opposed to letting partner try for 10 tricks with a doubleton, when I know from UI that this isn't 'partner's suit'") is in fact the important part of the whole discussion.

So, what do you think 4♥ would mean in the "3♦ is natural" auction, and why does that mean that pass is not something "a significant proportion of the class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and some might select" (definition of LA, Law 16B1b)?