[blml] Insufficient rebid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Richard Hills:

>>WEST      NORTH     EAST      SOUTH
>>---       ---       ---       1NT
>>1H        1S        Pass      ?

Matthias Berghaus:

>Hello Richard,
>
>if all these things happen to you... never a dull moment, eh?

Richard Hills:

These things do not just happen to me; I create them, since I
was the North who chose to accept West's insufficient bid.

:-)

Matthias Berghaus:

>It seems to me that I may be under different sets of UI
>restrictions if
>
>a) partner bids 1S without a care in the world or
>
>b) the TD is summoned, the options and the consequences are
>explained and partner now bids 1S.
>
>If partner seems to have missed (or misread, written bidding?)
>my 1NT, I may have UI because of systemic information from 1
>minor - 1H - 1S showing 5+ (for example).

Richard Hills:

Another example is that pard may have thought that West was
dealer, so pard's 1S was intended as an overcall, thus showing
higher minimum values than a mere response of 1S promises.

Matthias Berghaus:

>If, on the other hand, partner knew what he was dealing with
>he may well have only 4 spades (John's two-suiter is a
>different logical explanation), since this is the hand type he
>cannot get across if no negative double of 2H is available (if
>he has limited values, with a stronger hand he has a cue
>available). Since partner will have a 4+card minor most of the
>time (if holding only 4 spades) a bid of 2C seems suggested
>(certainly debatable whether 2C is a LA at matchpoints). Is
>this AI or UI? I think it is AI, but I am not completely sure.

Richard Hills:

The fact that a player summoned the director is extraneous
information, but if that player is a non-offending player does
that necessarily mean that that summoning is authorised
information to their partner?  Indeed, is that summoning
authorised information to the offending side?

Matthias Berghaus:

>At matchpoints I would always bid 2S.

Richard Hills:

As Eric Landau has noted, in the ACBL a pair is not allowed to
change its methods after the acceptance of an insufficient bid.

This rule does not apply in Australia, but neither had my
partner and I come to a specific agreement about this sequence,
despite decades of system discussion.

:-)

Therefore my partner assumed that since we had a general
agreement to use lebensohl after an overcall of 1NT, lebensohl
also applied after an undercall of 1NT, so pard passed.

The complete deal:

                          AK97
                          Q62
                          AT92
                          J2
JT                                            8542
AKJ85                                         T74
876                                           Q4
QT3                                           9654
                          Q63
                          93
                          KJ53
                          AK87

Karapet the Free Armenian (who was sitting West) chose to
follow the advice of the best experts, who opine that at
matchpoints pairs it is compulsory to balance against low-
level partscores. So, Karapet now sufficiently rebid 2H.

I completed the description of my hand with a penalty double
for +800 and a top.

:-)


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch
02 6225 6285