[blml] Two UI/AI cases

[Tim West-Meads]

> *From:* Alain Gottcheiner <agot at ulb.ac.be>
> *To:* blml at rtflb.org
> *Date:* Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:20:49 +0200
> 
> Dear blmlists,
> 
> Here are two cases from last saturday's tournament.
> 
> 1.	pass	1C	pass	pass
> 	1S	1NT	...pass	pass
> 	?
> 
> Would you allow : a) a double  b) a new-suit bid  c) a 2S bid, each 
> time on a well-textured
> 9-count?  In other words, what is suggested by the slow pass ?

The slow pass really doesn't suggest anything.  Holding a 9 count and 
hearing the auction one already knows that partner has 7+ points 
(probably more) and the fact that he thinks about 1N gives no further 
info.

 
> 2.	1NT	p	2D	p
> 	$$$	p	4D	p
> 	...4H	p	4S etc.
> 
> East put on the table "stop-4D", only to be told that he shan't do 
> that, as 4D isn't a skip bid : now he realizes partner had bid 3D.
> 
> May East bid again, assuming that he had told about everything with 
> his "splinter" ?
> Would you admit the following arguments ?
> a) The slow pass isn't related to West's hand, but to the unusual 
> situation created by the alert, and West was wondering what would be 
> ethcical and what wouldn't.

I assume you mean UI provided "by the stop".  And yes, an ethical 
partner is going to have to stop and think before bidding 4H.
I'd also doubt than passing 4H can be an LA for a hand with slam 
interest (splintered) over a normal accept given there was actually a 
superaccept.

One would hope a veil could be drawn over any Hillsian flights of fancy 
about the legal auction being UI to a player.

Tim