[Cyberyeti]

Indeed the EBU do cover this, quoting OB 3D8 that Campboy references:

Quote

If as a result of partner’s explanation a player realises he has forgotten the partnership
agreement and has therefore misbid, he must continue to call as if in ignorance of the
correct meaning of the call, until it is obvious from the auction that something is amiss.
(Law 73C)

So yes you bid correctly for what you thought you were playing, not the methods of the partnership. This however gets murky if you thought you were playing a 2+ card club and the alert was not unexpected, and nobody asked, I presume you can do what you like in that situation as there is no UI.

I also presume that if you're woken up by an unexpected alert with no explanation asked for, it's treated the same way as being woken up by an explanation, and law 73C that Campboy quotes and the OB references seems to suggest it is.

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2012-August-17, 00:19, said:

Why are you willing to accept case law in respect of one's obligations under 16B1a, but not in respect of the definition in 16B1b?

It is not for me to decide whether the WBFLC is right to interpret "among logical alternatives" as meaning that if the player chooses a bid that is not a logical alternative, but is demonstrably suggested, he is still committing an infraction. I would prefer this part of the Law to be worded correctly as well, and would have no problem with a TD that ruled in strict accordance with this wording. This means, of course, that a previously cited example of someone opening 3NT (corrected typo) with Axx Axx Axx Axxx after a BIT from partner would get away with it, and the answer might be applying 73C in such cases. However, in the current example, following 16B exactly can hardly be said to taking any advantage from the UI. The Laws are badly worded, but we should follow them when they can be interpreted logically.

[lamford]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-17, 15:34, said:

Indeed the EBU do cover this, quoting OB 3D8 that Campboy references:

So yes you bid correctly for what you thought you were playing, not the methods of the partnership. This however gets murky if you thought you were playing a 2+ card club and the alert was not unexpected, and nobody asked, I presume you can do what you like in that situation as there is no UI.

I also presume that if you're woken up by an unexpected alert with no explanation asked for, it's treated the same way as being woken up by an explanation, and law 73C that Campboy quotes and the OB references seems to suggest it is.

The EBU should not overrule the Laws of Bridge (except in the cases where the RA is given such powers).

[pran]

 lamford, on 2012-August-17, 20:41, said:

It is not for me to decide whether the WBFLC is right to interpret "among logical alternatives" as meaning that if the player chooses a bid that is not a logical alternative, but is demonstrably suggested, he is still committing an infraction. I would prefer this part of the Law to be worded correctly as well, and would have no problem with a TD that ruled in strict accordance with this wording. This means, of course, that a previously cited example of someone opening 1NT with Axx Axx Axx Axxx after a BIT from partner would get away with it, and the answer might be applying 73C in such cases. However, in the current example, following 16B exactly can hardly be said to taking any advantage from the UI. The Laws are badly worded, but we should follow them when they can be interpreted logically.

If a particular action is "demonstrably suggested" it is certainly one of the available "logical aternatives" that may not be selected even if it would definitely not have been an alternative without the irregularity.

Extreme example: A player "ends the auction" with a quite normal bid of 3NT. During the auction he and his partner have shown fairly flat hands with around 26 HCP between them (13 HCP each).

Now, before partner makes his final PASS he suddenly exclaims: "OH, I have miscounted my hand, I have 27 HCP!".

This remark demonstrably suggests that partner shall bid 7NT. Would anybody allow anything but PASS from the partner?

[Cyberyeti]

 lamford, on 2012-August-17, 20:43, said:

The EBU should not overrule the Laws of Bridge (except in the cases where the RA is given such powers).

Now you get heavily into semantics as to whether it's an interpretation or a rewrite.

[gnasher]

 lamford, on 2012-August-17, 20:43, said:

The EBU should not overrule the Laws of Bridge (except in the cases where the RA is given such powers).

Or where a literal interpretation of the rules is silly, which occurs in about 20 different places (or 19 from your point of view).

[campboy]

 lamford, on 2012-August-17, 20:43, said:

The EBU should not overrule the Laws of Bridge (except in the cases where the RA is given such powers).

They aren't, they're pointing out that any call which caters to your actual agreements and which you would not have made had you not been woken up by UI (such as pass in this case) is a flagrant breach of 73C.

[Trinidad]

 barmar, on 2012-August-17, 14:58, said:

Except that the definition of LA is not based on what the player in question was planning, but what others like him would consider and possibly choose. That's why "I was always going to..." is not a valid way to get around UI restrictions.

I suppose what you may be saying is that in the case of a system forget, there are no peers that can be considered, so we can only go by what this player was thinking.

No, I am saying that I just want to establish what system South thought he was playing when he opened 1♣, since it is UI that he is playing strong club (and as a result he will have to bid the rest of the hand with the system that made him open 1♣). Once we have established what system South thought he was playing, I would think that the question about what the LAs are in that system is relatively easy, since this hand won't make it into the MSC. Suppose, for example, that South says that he wanted to rebid 1NT since he thought he was playing SAYC, then I think it is relatively simple to say that 1NT is the only LA. To be sure, we would ask a couple of SAYC players what their rebid would be and what they would seriously consider.

Rik

[blackshoe]

 Trinidad, on 2012-August-18, 15:11, said:

No, I am saying that I just want to establish what system South thought he was playing when he opened 1♣, since it is UI that he is playing strong club (and as a result he will have to bid the rest of the hand with the system that made him open 1♣). Once we have established what system South thought he was playing, I would think that the question about what the LAs are in that system is relatively easy, since this hand won't make it into the MSC. Suppose, for example, that South says that he wanted to rebid 1NT since he thought he was playing SAYC, then I think it is relatively simple to say that 1NT is the only LA. To be sure, we would ask a couple of SAYC players what their rebid would be and what they would seriously consider.

Rik

It seems to me that "South though he was playing some other system" is an assumption with not a lot of evidence to back it up, save for the one bit that he opened 1♣ with insufficient values for Precision. If you want to ask him what system he thought he was playing, the answer might be interesting, but it seems quite likely to me that South had a non-specific (in that he didn't actually think anything in particular) brain fart, and wasn't actually thinking that he was playing some other system. If that's the case, this line of inquiry goes nowhere.

[barmar]

From the limited evidence we have, he seems to have thought he was playing Martian Precision, where 1♣ shows either 16+ HCP and any shape or exactly 12 HCP, precisely 3=2=3=5 shape, and exactly 9 HCP in clubs. Unfortunately, this system is flawed, because all rebids are as in normal Precision -- there's no way to show the second option, because the designer of the system didn't think it would come up often enough to be a problem. That's why no pairs actually agree to play it; however, this player had recently read about it, and the Martian Rover landing put it in his mind so he thought he was playing it. Since the system doesn't prescribe a rebid, there are no LAs. Therefore, he can do anything he wants, including passing 1♦.

[Cyberyeti]

 barmar, on 2012-August-18, 18:22, said:

From the limited evidence we have, he seems to have thought he was playing Martian Precision, where 1♣ shows either 16+ HCP and any shape or exactly 12 HCP, precisely 3=2=3=5 shape, and exactly 9 HCP in clubs. Unfortunately, this system is flawed, because all rebids are as in normal Precision -- there's no way to show the second option, because the designer of the system didn't think it would come up often enough to be a problem. That's why no pairs actually agree to play it; however, this player had recently read about it, and the Martian Rover landing put it in his mind so he thought he was playing it. Since the system doesn't prescribe a rebid, there are no LAs. Therefore, he can do anything he wants, including passing 1♦.

Unfortunately the rule in the UK that used to prohibit a negative 1♦ being NF by agreement has gone, otherwise pass could not be the system bid on the hand so there would have to be a LA.

[aguahombre]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-18, 18:58, said:

Unfortunately the rule in the UK that used to prohibit a negative 1♦ being NF by agreement has gone, otherwise pass could not be the system bid on the hand so there would have to be a LA.

Unfortunately??? When the 1D responder is a passed hand and can only have 0-7 (no strong 3-suited alternative) opener with a bare 16 and diamond length should certainly be able to pass 1D if he wants to do that and not run afoul of something the bidding police dreamed up.

Whether doing so is advisable from the standpoint of letting the opponents in cheaply is not subject for litigation either.

[Trinidad]

 blackshoe, on 2012-August-18, 17:50, said:

It seems to me that "South though he was playing some other system" is an assumption with not a lot of evidence to back it up, save for the one bit that he opened 1♣ with insufficient values for Precision. If you want to ask him what system he thought he was playing, the answer might be interesting, but it seems quite likely to me that South had a non-specific (in that he didn't actually think anything in particular) brain fart, and wasn't actually thinking that he was playing some other system. If that's the case, this line of inquiry goes nowhere.

I agree somewhat with your last sentence (I disagree since I think it is a good idea to just ask South why he was opening 1♣), but completely disagree with your first. There is evidence to back up that South was not playing Precision when he opened 1♣. The original post starts with:

 lamford, on 2012-August-15, 19:21, said:

North-South were inveterate precision players and this was the last board of a close match. South could not explain how he came to open a strong club, but was awake enough to alert North's 1D reply and explain it as 0-7.

If South was fully aware that he was playing Precision, why did he need to be "awake enough" to alert North's 1♦ reply? If he was fully aware that he was playing Precision, he would alert 1♦ in his sleep, since he has done it a million times before. (Assume for example that South was aware he played Precision and that he thought that one of the x's was an ace, giving him 16 HCP. Now read the OP again. Why would South need to be particularly awake to alert 1♦? It is the natural, instinctive reflex of any Precision player to alert 1♦. If South would have been aware all along that he was playing Precision, the phrase about being awake enough to alert 1♦ doesn't make any sense.)

I think it is entirely reasonable to interpret the OP as "North's mind wandered, he forgot that they were playing Precision, he opened 1♣ (because it was the opening bid in whatever system he would otherwise play) and realized his gaffe by the time partner responded 1♦."

Yes, it is an interpretation, but it is consistent with the OP. IMO, assuming that South was aware that he played Precision is less consistent with the OP.

Rik

[blackshoe]

I did not say there was no evidence.

South "could not explain how he came to open a strong club". If he thought he was playing (for example) Acol, would he not have said so? As for "awake enough", that, it seems to me, is not a statement by south, but a comment the OP, based presumably on the evidence that South alerted 1♦ and properly explained it.

I'm not saying one should assume that South was aware he was playing Precision at the instant he bid 1♣, I'm saying one should not assume he thought he was playing some other system. If one does so assume, which system does one assume South thought he was playing? After all, there can't be more than a thousand or two possibilities.

[Cyberyeti]

The fun one is where opener is rules aware enough not to show any reaction when partner produces the 1♦ response and realise he must have opened 1♣ when he thought he opened a (0/1/2+ card hence alertable) 1♦, but now partner's bid there is nothing he can do about it. Now he's allowed to know he's playing precision and all the agreements so I presume he has a free hand.

To Aquahombre - the unfortunately was not general, but for the implications of this in this thread as I thought it would be more amusing if the restriction still applied.

[barmar]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-18, 18:58, said:

Unfortunately the rule in the UK that used to prohibit a negative 1♦ being NF by agreement has gone, otherwise pass could not be the system bid on the hand so there would have to be a LA.

I never said pass was the system bid, I said there's NO system bid in this situation. Whatever he does, he can't be accused of choosing from among the LAs the one that's suggested by the UI, because there are no LAs to choose from.

But maybe my hypothetical is flawed because Martian Precision is a prohibited agreement. But I think system regulations apply to actual agreements, not what you think you're playing when you misbid.

[aguahombre]

 barmar, on 2012-August-19, 19:29, said:

Whatever he does, he can't be accused of choosing from among the LAs the one that's suggested by the UI, because there are no LAs to choose from.

I believe others have pointed out that this is not true. He must choose a LA from those available in a system where 1C is not strong, forcing, and artificial. Any LA other than 1NT or 2C, such as pass, might well have been suggested by the UI that he had misbid the opening call.

[blackshoe]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-18, 18:58, said:

Unfortunately the rule in the UK that used to prohibit a negative 1♦ being NF by agreement has gone, otherwise pass could not be the system bid on the hand so there would have to be a LA.

Would there? Have you never run across a situation where there is no correct bid in your system? If so, you must have a perfect system, and you could make a fortune marketing it.

 barmar, on 2012-August-19, 19:29, said:

I never said pass was the system bid, I said there's NO system bid in this situation. Whatever he does, he can't be accused of choosing from among the LAs the one that's suggested by the UI, because there are no LAs to choose from.

 aguahombre, on 2012-August-19, 21:11, said:

I believe others have pointed out that this is not true. He must choose a LA from those available in a system where 1C is not strong, forcing, and artificial.

Which law says so? Certainly not Law 16.

[Cyberyeti]

 blackshoe, on 2012-August-20, 09:04, said:

Would there? Have you never run across a situation where there is no correct bid in your system? If so, you must have a perfect system, and you could make a fortune marketing it.

Missing the point, there is no situation where a hole in my system requires me to make a bid specifically prohibited as an agreement by the RA. There can also be systems with no holes, you just have to make some bids wider range than you want to so you make "correct" system bids to bad contracts as you lose some of your precision.

[aguahombre]

 aguahombre, on 2012-August-19, 21:11, said:

He must choose a LA from those available in a system where 1C is not strong, forcing, and artificial.

 blackshoe, on 2012-August-20, 09:04, said:

Which law says so? Certainly not Law 16.

I don't know. But, back at you (and Barry) What law says that we can consider whether there are logical alternatives from a Strong Club system when it is unauthorized information to opener that he was playing that system?

To repeat, I don't know the exact legal basis for your stance ---nor for the stance of the others who disagree with you. But, common sense to me would be LA's from a natural opening system should be considered in this case.