[blackshoe]

I'm beginning to suspect that breathing passes UI.

[barmar]

For most people, sighing before making a bid or play would pass UI. But there's a LOL at my club who seems to sigh before just about everything she does, so I have to force myself not to take inference from it.

[barmar]

UI is like carcinogens or radiation -- you can't eliminate them completely, but you can live with the small amounts that are always present.

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2011-October-01, 22:04, said:

But it's not enough to have a rule that says that you always ask when some condition is true -- you also have to NEVER ask when it's false

I don't think you have to make it perfect. I generally ask about any potentially conventional bid where it's moderately likely that I'd want to act, and live with the UI on the rare occasions that I ask about some other call. However, I'm not exact about this - I ask fewer questions if we're in time trouble, or if I think the opponents are uncertain of their methods, because I don't want to inflict a UI problem on them.

Opinions may vary about where to draw the line between asking and not asking, but any such strategy is better than only asking when you actually do want to know.

[shintaro]

blackshoe, on 2011-October-01, 22:29, said:

I'm beginning to suspect that breathing passes UI.

it might indeed Ed or at least show that someone is still alive

[mycroft]

1. If I play a system where my fourth-in-hand calls are different from my eighth-in-hand calls to 1NT-X-p, I need to know if the call is 100% forcing. All I'm telling you is the truth - that it makes a difference to my potential action with certain hands - which I may or may not have. At least if I'm consistent about asking, which I would be in that case, as I was when playing non-lead-directing *and* one-under-splinter doubles, and they jump cue-bid our suit.

Given that I play a runout system that does not involve pass-forces-redouble, *expressly because* I don't want fourth-in-hand to have two shots at explaining themselves either when we have them or when we're continuing the preempt (i.e. running), I think this (differentiating between pass-and-bid and direct bid) is a useful strategy, if you'll allow me to play it.

Were I in a world where more than half the people used a runout system of some sort, I'd learn one of these counter-defences.

2. I think that if you're going to sniff out whether to sit for 1NTx based on how interested the opponents are in getting another chance to call, then you're likely to fall prey to this, whether or not it's on purpose. In fact, if your agreement is "forcing a redouble, unless I think I can pull off +380 by my table feel", then describing it as "forcing redouble" is probably incomplete.

Having said that, as East in the original scenario, I'd have said - whether or not I was trying something on - "Well, you see, Director, this same auction came up the last time we played against these guys (or "the last time this auction came up against these guys"), and the explanation was the same, and he passed anyway. I just wanted to check if their agreement had been clarified since then. Obviously, it either hasn't, or they're not explaining correctly."

Of course, *I* wouldn't be trying something on - much as I'd like to be allowed to - but I *might* just check to make sure, and not bother to check if I had a balanced 7 or a balanced zero.

And I would describe this pass as "either wanting to play 1NTxx, or the start of a (whatever-suited) runout", as I'd describe lebensohl 2NT as "shows a variety of hands, either weak in <suits>, invitational in <suits>, or game forcing with a stopper in <suit>". In neither case do I tell partner what I'm going to bid - even if they know; even if it's 100% forced. For a non-standard explanation why, 1♣-1♦; 1♥ "forces 1♠" in my Precision system. It almost never has spades. The worst case, in fact, is when it does have (hearts and) spades. But it does force 1♠ from partner. Is that useful information? Is that not, in fact, misleading information, even if you get the real explanation that it shows "either hearts, or 20-21 or 24-25 balanced" as well?