Xiaolongnu

Result stands for me. Reasoning is that partner could not possibly have the ace by virtue of the 1NT bid. Seconded to all rulings along the line of how East should have known. Since East is gunning for promotion to the next division, he better know. He was indeed given an accurate description of the NS system. Whatever happens after that by 40 is not given an adjusted score. I further sense, I would not formally rule as I have no proof, but my intuition tells me that EW are trying to play punk and trying to be funny. I would keep a mental note of them, where it matters in the future. I am not entitled to accuse groundlessly, but I am entitled to guess and suspect.

I rule that the result stands in all probability. This is an unusual case of MI and possibly UI associated with MI. The classical MI case is one of the following outline. Opp bids something, his partner explains it as something else, the explanation is grossly different from the bidder's hand, and it is the explanation that is wrong, which in turn affected your judgment and made a losing decision (damage, in our terms), whether or not it was intentional. Where, trivially, failure to alert an alertable bid is MI because not alerting is logically equivalent to alerting the bid and explaining it as natural (without being asked, so UI could result as well). At least this is how I remember the logic behind it. In this situation, however, the explanation is actually "correct" in a warped sense, in that the west hand does qualify as a 1♣ (X) 3♣ hand. As the OP mentioned, by hand evaluation, this hand is not exactly strong enough to GF immediately.

Am I being oversensitive or does the English wording of the law suggest some things that I think it does? My English is decent by Singaporean standards and generally fluent but not as good as many of you. 1. 81B2: The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws. It does not say the Director MUST apply the laws or anything isomorphic to that. It is specifically stated in the first page of the red book that the prefixes to the verbs are important in emphasizing the severity and extremity of the sentence. Does this mean that the Director does not ALWAYS MUST apply the laws, but (presumably when he judges so) may break the law and rule by his pure judgment and discretion? Such a ruling should ideally be done in consultation of course. 2. 90 and 91, essentially, penalties. The list given in 90 is explicitly stated to be not exhaustive. 91 is "worse" in that a list is not even given. It occurs to me that we are on our own and it is up to our experience, tolerance level and common sense to decide what "deserves" a penalty and what does not. Any general guidelines? My intuition is that an offence generally deserves a PP if boards are scrapped. A DP on the other hand is more extreme and should only happen to really bad behaviour or poor ethics. Having said that, what could we and should we do for those in between situations like the occasional not so nice remark or the occasional outburst of vulgarities or slamming the table after a -1100 (which we are all guilty of that once in a blue moon, but yeah, you guys get what I mean). We are only human, to what extent should we be a disciplinarian (or an ass)? Not forgetting that scolding and penalizing makes (older, weaker) club players go even further off the tangent that Directors are the policemen's incarnate on the table and that calling the Director "on them" (the obviously wrong way that they see it) is a direct insult and act of violence. 3. 12B2. The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side. In what situation would the Director even be "tempted" to adjust the score in this sense that the law so fears he will?

Totally agree with Frances and those who agree with her. Agreements, implicit agreements, partnership experience and styles are all important in evaluating such situations. Having said that, assuming (theoretically) that agreements are neutral, I am inclined to bid 1NT intending to rebid 2NT or 3NT opposite 2S rebid. 1. The hand has soft values and good spots in other words so called quacks that are better off in NT than in suit. 2. Since 1NT is forcing, I would consider 2♣ to be indicative of those hands where the club suit is better quality, like a good 5 carder. A somewhat isomorphic argument. Is the club suit good enough for an overcall, assuming you have enough side suit values to back you up? I do not think so, or at least, I would think twice about it. 3. Also, by bidding 1NT partner might be more inclined to play you for a flattish hand rather than a distributional hand, which is the case here. 4. The AQ of ♥ and QJ9 of ♦ makes it more advantageous to hog the contract in 3NT, which is most likely the final contract unless partner is really strong.

Agree with Pass, and all those arguments along the line of partner having too few key cards and possibly still having a spade loser, maybe even two. Agree also with the views that the 4♠ bid was unscientific to begin with. Finally, if passing misses a slam, then there is nothing that I could do about it anyway. #Not a fan of scolding partner, what I mean is that partner has spoken and not given me a choice, I have no choice but to trust him. The straightforward thought that comes to my mind is that partner has desperately forced me to pass, even though he knows I am strong. This is an extreme case of fast arrival, and since it is unscientific, I have to do some second guessing. Partner did not preempt, but he is the weakest among those hands that are too strong to preempt. So I would imagine a solid or semisolid spade suit and some secondary honours scattered around. Outside aces are unlikely. With AKQ of ♠ and ace of ♥ and / or ♣, would partner have jumped like a bunny to the 4 level knowing you are strong? No chance! He would rather fake a 3 carded suit if he does not have a systematically correct rebid. Even with AQ of ♠ ace of ♣ he might still have refrained from bidding so fast. The conclusion is that partner must not have 3.5 key cards (where "half a key card" means things like a trump queen or some useful top honour) and slam is not possible. Of course I still have an unscientific view that specifically in pairs, 6NT might have a case hoping for some misdefence or something like that. But that is of course something that is not theory.

I second 3♣ rebid 4♣. I also foresee an impossible bid sequence. What does 3♠ mean in this sequence. It would be best in the agreement that it means NOTHING, an impossible bid. Partner would probably bid 3NT, then bid 4♣. Now (a reliable) partner would think why did you insert a random looking bid in the middle and realize that this is real clubs instead of aces. Which of the two methods to use depends on your exact agreements. The point is to choose the line that you do not have an agreement with and which is illogical to pass prematurely. Continue with cue bids. Of course, this really depends on whether you know your partner well enough. My partner and I are deep fans of impossible bids, we both like it naturally, we have an affinity with it, and we love to use it for those none of the above situations.

bluejak, on 2012-January-05, 10:59, said: I do not see what the UI suggests. That partner has an opening bid? You know that. In answer to the OP no, it is not a blatant use of UI, it is doubtful as to whether there is any use of UI whatever, and a PP is wildly inappropriate. Well, I guess the UI tells you partner probably doesn't have a flat 10 count, which would not otherwise be impossible if, for example, opener had a fairly heavy vulnerable pre-empt with a 10-count and responder passed with a non-fitting 15-count. bluejak, on 2012-January-05, 10:52, said: There is a problem with getting things right when you have both AI and UI telling you what to do. Of course you may be in a situation where you can work out what to do from point-count, inferences, or whatever, but think how often people go wrong in such situations. Now they get UI and they do not go wrong. I am always sceptical about the "I could work it out" argument. Am I alone in seeing a certain tension between these two views? ###End of quote### Sorry but first of all could someone please advise me on how to quote things properly? (: I believe I understand what WellSpyder is trying to say about tension. In the sense that the first post by bluejak seems to imply that bidding on in the presence of UI is reasonable and the second contradicts it. However, I think there is no contradiction. The first post by bluejak talks about whether or not the UI implies or in layman terms "inspires" any (profitable) action. The second post talks about whether or not there are LA's. Both must be present for the UI case to stand, that is, for the score to be adjusted by 16 and 12. If the UI does not imply any action over another, then there is no sense in investigating whether or not the OS could have gotten it wrong out of a multitude of LA's, they are just as likely to get it right or wrong as before. I mean, in the strict sense of the word, all of partner's actions and non actions are UI to you. Every word that partner says, even if it is to make small talk with the opponents (flirting socializing and discussing business in real life included here, don't tell me you have never seen it happen before) all this is UI. Partner going to the pantry and offering to make you or opponents a drink to get biscuits is also UI. In the strictest sense, even the fact that partner is sitting right in front of you is also UI, the fact that partner is not giving you any UI is also UI to you. But do any of these UI suggest anything? Whether or not you noticed this, you are still just as likely to get your judgment whether or not to raise on a singleton blank just as right or just as wrong. But with suggesting UI that is a different story. This is a logical problem, some elements here are redundant. This is how I read it anyway. Happy to be advised if you think I am wrong.

Location: Singapore, subset of Zone 6, the PABF or APBF region. Rank: Club Director. Objective: Give my views and asking for opinions. Conditions: Any views whether compliments or criticisms are welcome, most of you are more experienced than I am and I am happy to take pointers. I could take strong views so there is no need to be politically correct with me (: Views about the OP: I would rule that a pair who failed to stay for the late board, if without a valid reason, will get A-, if with a valid reason "bigger than bridge" (someone here said this but I forgot who :P), he gets A+. An A might be given if the reason is somewhere between acceptable and not, I can't think of one offhand, at the discretion of the Director. A slow play penalty might be imposed to anyone whose slow play caused this situation. For example EW could not stay without a good reason. Under neutral conditions, 60/40 NS, ok, I mean A6040. If NS was guilty of slow play, (in the opinion of the Director), I rule 50/40. Note that the second variation does not really involve a PP, it is more of acknowledging NS as partly at fault, and the result could have been diff from a PP, for example if NS session average is more than 60%. The rationale, logic and intuition behind it is that the Director had "already managed to salvage the situation, but it is the player who failed to cooperate with the Director's plan" so the refusal is sort of an infraction making the refuser an offending side and therefore at least partly at fault. Views about late boards in general: I believe that late boards and the AWOL of them should be solely the discretion of the Director, who will take into account all the situational and operational implications instead of stereotyping it as a standard operating procedure. Yes this assumes that the Director could be trusted, but isn't that an unwritten underlying assumption of our code of conduct? That we have full control of the field at all times. Views about slow play and tactics to prevent them: Is it justifiable to assign the sitting pairs to the faster players and delegate to them the task of maintaining the tempo, ready to rule 40/60 against them in the event of any slow play? I would like to know some views about this. There is a lot of dispute here about sitting pairs, who "should" be the sitting pairs, who "deserves" them, to what extent does this "privilege" comes with "responsibility" and what type. There is no hard and fast rule, and justifications by the laws are trivial, not only are sitting pairs primarily responsible (in other words, offending = A-) for maintaining the conditions of play, but the Director could always bring in 81 and "delegate his duties to assistants" while supervising them. I just would like to know what is a more efficient way of approaching this. I came across a similar case recently. North went toilet because he had a stomachache or something along that line, only returned half a round later. While North was away, East on her own accord went to find a substitute player for North, without the permission of North nor the Director. (This is of course illegal in bridge, but socially acceptable in Singapore, we try to keep things informal.) South stated that he does not wish to play with the substitute, as he was preparing and training for a serious game with his partner. When the round was called, the Director ruled a late board. At the end of the session, East refused to play the late board, claiming that South's refusal to play with the substitute was being rude to him, and she wanted to teach him a lesson, so she purposely don't want to play the late board. It occurs to me that this is an extreme case of the OP. I was not on duty then, but had I been, it seemed a clear cut 60/40 to NS, probably with a disciplinary penalty to East. What do you all think?

Comments on the ruling itself: I see no infraction, or rather, no damage associated with the infraction, whether or not 6♠ makes. It would have been very different and indeed very complicated if the comment was made BEFORE the 5♠ was bid. The comment, and the associated fact that the number of key cards may have and very likely have been stated wrongly, is UI to West and West must pretend that East has exactly the bid number of key cards. In that situation, West, would have to sign off 5♠ and miss a slam because he is "not supposed" to know that (maybe) partner actually has got 1 when in fact he has none. This is NOT true for East by 16, because East has no UI and therefore no moral obligation to do anything. He does know, however, that partner's judgment might be because partner was misled by his wrongly stated number of key cards. This isn't UI, it is just, sort of, reevaluation, in an admittedly rather twisted sense. It might even have been done on purpose, since 5♣ is forcing to 5♠ anyway. So maybe the partnership could even define that in a specific sequence where one first pretends to not have any key cards, then raise to slam, to show interest in a grand slam, but this is a side issue and has nothing directly to do with ruling. The thing that has got to do with ruling is that this is definitely ethically correct. I now comment on the more general situation itself. This type of situation resonates very much with me. On the nights that I am on duty at my club, I deal primarily with youth players who are aspiring but not very strong in skill, or older club players who have a general sense of ettiquette and responsibility in their play (there are exceptions, naturally, of really good and really bad players, but those are a minority), the consequence of which is that they mostly do not really know how to keep their calm during the game. It is therefore very common (regrettably) to have a player misbid, and then out of sheer panic, give a comment like "Oh no I bid wrongly", sometimes even with swear words attached to it (!) in a time that is "before" the "first legal opportunity" as defined by 20F5b. Of course by the strict interpretation of 20F5a, the use of the word "may not" suggests that failure to comply with this justifies a PP. However, it is my opinion and personal style that as a Director I avoid giving penalties unless in aggravated situations like there is some possibility of wrongful intent or deliberate defiance. In this case, it appears that this is more of a matter of natural reaction. It is only human to panic. I am generally especially lenient towards infractions that are made because we are only human. This is what I believe, anyway.

A Howell movement or some subset of it sounds good. My club practises it, never had any problems with it. You get to play all boards.

I do not see a clear cut convincing ruling in this situation. I am however, more inclined to rule that it is defender who revoked. As long as we assume that declarer did indeed mean to play a heart from dummy in the first hand, I think it is definite. And I agree with blackshoe that it seems to be likely the case so. As for the defender, it seems to me that it is "his own fault" that he did not carefully listen to or ask what declarer called. I suppose we all have been in situations where dummy holds the A10xx, for example, and when declarer's call is not that clear, we have all asked him "Excuse me, did you say 10 of diamonds?" before deciding whether or not to cover with a secondary honour in diamond. It is perfectly clear that dummy does not play cards, he mechanically touches, lifts and turns them for declarer. Dummy does not technically exist, hence the name dummy. As to how to rectify and salvage the mistake, I mildly suggest (not very convinced though) a possibility of bringing in 12A2, impossible result. However, as to what the "correct" result "should" be by "equity" is another difficult to say thing. So much has to be taken into consideration, the line of play has to be taken into consideration but only where it is valid and legal. It might be easier to just give back 2 tricks, although I am still not convinced completely. And yes, "Bog off" by defender sounds like a disciplinary penalty to me. I don't know what it means in the local context or how severe it is locally (as, for example, the F word is more severe in Asian countries than in American states but the opposite is true for calling someone animal names) but according to Urban Dictionary it is generally as bad as a vulgarity, I would penalize him more heavily if it could be the case that he could have known the offensive connotations that the phrase could have, as, for example, if it is known that he is a player who knows modern contemporary language to a great effect. Merry Christmas everyone (:

It occurs to me that this exact situation is covered in the Orange Book under 7B10 that a skip bid warning in particular pulling out a Stop card (accidentally) is not considered BOOT although any information associated with it is UI. Not that I really needed to comment honestly, seeing as Mr Stevenson the chief editor of the book has made a similar explanation above here, but just to reiterate and highlight that this is a generally established agreement among Directors.

Confusion and equity are the key words here, which inspired my discussion. Which is the real equity? On one hand, it is clear, at least by my understanding, which I see several agreements here, that 16B1a clearly states that action suggested is illegal, which in turn, implies that 12 forbids the consequently illegal result from being tabulated. However, the Director is primarily meant to restore equity, not to penalize people, at least, not primarily. Suppose most people would have bid 4♥, then wouldn't 4♥ be the "equity"? I think that a weighted score that includes 4♥ in this situation would have been already rectification for the infraction, as without the infraction it is judged that the OS would land in this contract most of the time anyway, so in some sense the NOS have already gotten "a little bit more than equity", using sympathetic weighting, and if the Director is still not convinced, he could always penalize the OS further by docking their final VP score or whatever. Of course, this is assuming that the majority of the poll decided the forward going action, if the poll had been more than 60% for passing, then fair, we should give the NOS the benefit of the doubt and give the full adjustment. I am just not convinced that giving the OS a full double swing against them and a few extra VP's bonus to the NOS is the "equity", but I am probably wrong when the "correct contract" for the OS is 4♥, may I clarify this please? Then again, another view that I have heard is that the Director should just do the full adjustment and leave it to the OS to appeal for a weighted score and in that situation, leave it to the AC. Clarification. I am not posting because I am certain or even fairly certain that my view is right. I am posting because I am not an experienced Director and different Directors are telling me different views about this, so I want to ask for advice and try to determine which is "more right". It is my view, however, that the NOS should not benefit too much from the infraction, in this case, should not get a double swing that they, by equity, do not "deserve" in percentage.

When a pair "uses UI" to reach a contract (that ends in a good result for them), when is the score weighted and when is it not? I give the following simple example. 1♥ (1♠) 2♥ (3♠) BIT Pass Pass 4♥. The 4♥ makes in distribution, resulting in a (potential) double swing. A poll of 8 players show that 4 of them would pass and the other 4 would go ahead to the 4 level. How do you rule? According to 16B1a, any action that could be demonstrably suggested by the UI may not be chosen among logical alternatives. Signing off or even passing is clearly a logical alternative, which, according to the White Book 16.3, is not allowed to be part of the weighted score. However, in 12.1.4 of the White Book it is stated that a Director should only give one adjustment rather than a weighted score when he is confident that he knows the outcome without the irregularity. Finally, to make things worse, 1 in 2 is obviously clearly a logical alternative. So what does the Director do in such a situation? Which logic is correct? 1. Consider both pass and 4♥ as LA's and forbid the 4♥ bid. Then, consequently, adjust to 3♠ making whatever. 2. Give a weighted score of 75% of 3♠ making whatever and 25% of 4♥ making, that is, follow the result of the poll giving the NOS the benefit of the doubt. My view in the light of fairness (wording of the laws temporarily aside for this purpose) is that it should be option 2. This could be altered further when in the opinion of the Director, there was a greater problem, and could even have an additional disciplinary penalty in an extreme situation, for example, experienced players blatantly giving and making use of UI. That aside, however, sometimes just because partner has given UI does not always necessarily warrant penalizing the pair by "forcing" them to lose 13 imps straight. The advantage of weighted scores is that we could reflect the possibility that it is rather likely that the OS might have taken the forbidden action anyway. Some Directors call it "just bridge". I agree. UI could sometimes be a knee jerk reaction, a reflex that comes automatically to us when partner does something horribly wrong, we have all been through that. Perhaps we could consider a hypothetical term like "unintended UI" like the way we have unintended bids? Then again, Directors are not exactly supposed to adjust score based on the possibility that rectification prescribed is in his opinion too unduly severe. Many rules seem to be both working together but also in conflict here at the same time. I could even bring in 23 when the situation calls for it. Could we have a more universal and canonical way to deal with this situation, step by step, what should the Director do? For those who are not convinced, how about the result of the poll being 25% in favour of passing and 75% in favour of bidding on instead? Then passing is still an LA. But it is obvious that the "majority" would act on this board.

What colour is the following system? 1♣: 11-17 unbalanced. 1♦: 15-19 balanced. 1♥, 1♠: Same as Standard, NOT Precision. With 18-19 unbalanced open 2D, that aside, my question is, what colour is this system? It is not green, for sure. It is not yellow as the opening bids "look like opening bids", is it blue or red? Assuming I am making a ruling all on my own, I would be inclined to call it blue, since by the strict definition, blue means 1C or 1D is always strong, which in turn the strict definition of strong is more than 13 points. However, as an opinion, I do not like calling the 1D bid strong. Firstly, the word "strong" usually refers to things like the Precision 1C or the Standard 2C, where the extended rule of 25 apply. A 15 count in general might not fulfill the extended rule of 25, especially considering the hand is flat! Also, I am inclined to believe that "strong" openings should be unlimited. So should we follow the strict definition of strong as in 13 points as defined in the WBF Systems Policy, or should we use the more common sense meaning of strong as in ridiculously strong, and consider it red instead? Why?

Does the following argument have a case? I claim that this opening, is NOT weak. I have spoken to the pair in question, and they have explicitly stated that in their system, the 2C opening where it is two unknown suits, must have 9-12 points in honour strength. The player that I spoke to has specifically mentioned that the purpose of this system is constructive, to find distributional major games, not preemptive. This is different from Wilkosz, at least in philosophy. Also, is it possible to justify that this bid is fulfilling of the rule of 21 at least most of the time? There are 9 hcp at the very least, and given the explanation that I was supplied with, I am inclined to believe that they would not open on just any 9 point 5-5 hand, it probably means that the long suits were reasonably well stocked in honours. In that case the HLQT count is at least 19 without counting the top tricks. Do you guys think that this explanation is acceptable? According to the System Policy, the definition of weak is "below average" and the definition of "average" is 10 hcp, WITHOUT distributional values. Does this imply that distributional values could be adjusted accordingly? That it is, for example, ok to include as "not weak" hands that are just below 10 points but with distribution? There are definitely those among us who open on really good 9 point hands before. Are people allowed to take the meaning of "points" to a stretchy extent, at their choice and at their own risk?

A pair in my club plays the following 2C opening. 2C: Either Maxi-Roman, that is, 4441 16+, or light opening hand about 9-12 with 5-5 in at least one major (not sure about 2 majors). The point is that this opening is used to handle those 5-5's where you have two suits with working honours, but still too weak to open 1M. Is this convention considered as not Brown Sticker? My teacher, a senior director in my club, advised that this convention is okay (not Brown Sticker), as it is sufficiently similar to a multi. The key point is that it promises a 5 card major, which could be justified as "weak 2 in either major", so the weak meaning of this system is more specific than the core variation of the multi, therefore it should be allowed. But this claim involves a certain amount of judgment. I agree with her. What do you guys think?

And that is a very serious accusation, more of a disciplinary offence than a procedural one. I wouldn't make that claim unless I am reasonably sure that he has been cheating Here and Now. To what extent could we make this part of our consideration, and to what extent are we entitled to voice our suspicion? On the other hand, related to this, there was once I was playing and not on duty, and an opponent commented that my partner "was very competitive" and it was phrased in a way that implies that she might have cheated. How serious is this claim?

Thank you. Related to this, I have a supplementary point. Should the director's judgment be affected and / or based on the past and the records? Suppose now one of the players, maybe even one of the pairs, has a nasty history of being unethical, or has been caught lying or cheating before, or is just generally known to be dishonest in character. (Note that this does not necessarily justify it as accusing them of cheating NOW.) Should the director be more inclined to rule against them as a result? Should he or should he not take this into consideration? On one hand, this seems to be like being biased. On the other hand however, 85 says that in disputes we (as directors) should take into account the "balance of probabilities" and well, this is after all a probabilistic approach. Either way it does not seem right to me.

That was very clear. Thank you very much (:

Suppose one side insists that the contract was doubled and the other insists that the contract was not doubled, or anything along this line. How should we rule? An easy, violence for violence, penalty oriented approach is to tell them that since both sides cannot agree, they will both get an Ave- or bottom board or etc for it, then see whether they dare to still not own up. But that is obviously crude and unprofessional. Is there a more efficient and canonical way to deal with it? One that really serves justice instead of simply making a lose lose situation?

Which is the highest authority and law out of the following? 1. WBF GCC. 2. WBF SCC. 3. Event GCC. 4. Event SCC. That is, where they do not agree or are in conflict, which overwrites which? They are rarely in conflict, most of the time they more of supplement each other or are a subset of each other, sometimes a rather poorly drawn subset too. But in the event that they do, which overwrites which?

Excuse me seniors, have a question here. I say seniors cos I just started directing recently, so regardless of age all of you are my seniors (: The question is, isn't it a little dubious that this should happen in the first place? That is, imagine, the 1S bidder, saw a green card on the table, without seeing the opponent taking it out of the bidding box and putting it there. I'm assuming there are no screens and trays, otherwise dealer would certainly have objected to pushing the tray across the screen. Therefore, everyone should be able to see clearly everyone else's actions and reactions. I can't imagine how the 1S bidder could have taken the pass to be a call made, when he did not see the card come out of the bidding box, especially when dealer is still arranging his cards (although that is not a very sound argument, sometimes people do pass before arranging their cards when they see no honours). It seems more likely to me that it was simply a BOOT. Otherwise, he might even have known or suspected what happened, and deliberately taken advantage of it, which would have been 23. I know that this is a potentially "groundless accusation", but I could not picture how 1S bidder could have logically believed the pass to be intended. Just for discussion purposes. I am not implying any kind of attempt to cheat or anything.

I understand that transfer preempts, where 2NT, 3C, 3D and 3H implies the suit one step higher, either weak, strong or 2 suited, this convention is essentially green sticker. Does this mean that transfers in general are technically considered natural? The consequence of this that I am interested in is this. Suppose North opens 2NT, South did not notice and thought it was 1NT, and bids a "transfer" of 2D, making it insufficient. Is he allowed to make it 3D without penalty? We assume, of course, that the Director has interviewed the offender in private and is sufficiently convinced that he really meant to bid a transfer. And personally I think that the UI involved in this infraction is minimal. Ok UI is not the correct word, what I meant is that the upset of equity is minimal.

Another humble club director's opinion. 1. I really don't know. The information clearly came from partner, and the list of potential sources of UI given in 16B1a is not exhaustive, but it seems unreasonable to penalize someone for something that partner did not do. If we assume that there is an invisible screen, then indeed one would not have known whether partner asked a question, so it seems indeed true that you are "not supposed" to know that partner had not asked the question. I am inclined to not rule it as UI, though, in view of for example in the following. Suppose partner makes a bid that is in tempo, with no particular haste or hesitation. Is the fact that partner did not hesitate nor bid quickly UI to you? It could theoretically suggest loads, perhaps it suggests that the bid was sound or the pass was 4-5 hcp since with 0 partner would pass quickly while with a maximum partner would probably hesitate at least a bit. All these are things that partner is not supposed to know if we assume that there is a screen between u and him. So if the scenario in the OP is UI, then we are facing UI with every bid that is in tempo, and every bid that is out of tempo. Wrong, every call that is in tempo and out of tempo. Then doesn't 16 break down? 2. I don't think so. For more or less the same reasons as given here. In particular, with the fact that it is my entitlement to know my opponents' system.