UI, lucky or crazy?

[jtfanclub]

North made a 5 heart bid.  South knew, with the hesitation, that if he bid 7 hearts, that it would get rolled back.  So he made an invitiation of 6 clubs, and then when his partner declined it, still bid 7 hearts.

How can you be sure south is devious and not just suicidal or needing a top board and feeling lucky that day?

I don't have to know what he's thinking. I have to know 3 things:

 

1. The six clubs is more likely to be good with a hesitation than with a fast 5 heart bid.

 

2. That 6 hearts was a logical alternative to 6 clubs.

 

3. That the result likely following 6 hearts (pass) is worse than the auction that actually occurred.

 

It is absolutely true that the motives I ascribe to South's 6 club bid could be wrong. It is my personal belief only. However, I don't need a motive to make the adjustment. Only those three things I listed.

[Echognome]

Ok sorry. I'm with you now. You're saying that 6♥ is a logical alternative to 6♣ AND that pass is not a logical alternative. That's fine. We will not be able to resolve that question without polling and without finding out what their agreements really are.

[TimG]

I can understand ruling:

 

4♥ making 13 based on BIT of 4♥ bid. Arguing that Pass is a logical alternative to bidding on.

5♥ making 13 based on BIT of 5♥ bid. Arguing that Pass is a logical alternative to bidding on.

7♥ making 13 saying that Pass is not a logical alternative to bidding on over 4♥ or 5♥.

 

I cannot understand any other rulings.

How about 6♥ making 13 tricks? Arguing that 6♥ is a logical alternative to 6♣ (6♣ being suggested by the UI resulting from the BIT before the 5♥ bid).

[TimG]

I think it's clear that a hesitation *is* unauthorised information.

But, sometimes the BIT gives us no information. Let's go back to the case of the slow limit raise, 1♠-Pass-3♠, where the 3♠ bid is slow. What information has been conveyed by the BIT?

[jtfanclub]

I think it's clear that a hesitation *is* unauthorised information.

But, sometimes the BIT gives us no information. Let's go back to the case of the slow limit raise, 1♠-Pass-3♠, where the 3♠ bid is slow. What information has been conveyed by the BIT?

Well, lots of information has been passed by the BIT, just not anything that indicates one plan of action over another.

 

There are certainly BITs that pass no information, like late-returning-to-the table.

[Guest Jlall]

Passing 5H is definitely an LA imo. 5H+2. Only if a poll of south peers showed that a vast majority was forcing it to slam would I change this opinion.

[blackshoe]

The fact that there is a BIT does not necessarily mean that there is UI. The BIT itself is not UI; UI would exist if an inference could be drawn from the BIT. So what inference can be drawn from this BIT?

I think you need to re-read the laws as you're mixing things up. A BIT is clearly unauthorised information.

 

C. Player Receives Unauthorised Information from Partner

 

When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side.

(bold added by myself)

 

It is not illegal per se to posses unauthorised information, but only to act upon it.

 

I believe what you are trying to say about inference is whether the unauthorised information suggests one logical alternative over another. I gave my judgment on that and you may have your own. But let's argue the correct points of the law and not make up our own.

I don't make up laws. and I am insulted that you would libel me so. You go back and read it. It says from a BIT. I stand by my statement, and I ask again what inference can be drawn from this BIT. It is that inference that is UI, and it is basing one's action on such an inference that is an infraction of law.

 

I also note that Law 73C doesn't say a damn thing about logical alternatives. Neither did I. So don't put words in my mouth.

[Echognome]

I think it's kind of silly to argue whether a BIT is information! I say it *is* information and that it's unauthorised. You say it is not information, but the inferences from it are information. The point is that you cannot use any information surrounding a BIT, whether it is the BIT itself or the inferences drawn from it. I don't care if you say there are no inferences one can draw from a BIT, you still are not allowed to *use* the fact that there was a BIT in your decision. Why is this is so difficult?

[jtfanclub]

The point is that you cannot use any information surrounding a BIT, whether it is the BIT itself or the inferences drawn from it.

I think it's kind of silly to argue whether a BIT is information!  I say it *is* information and that it's unauthorised.  You say it is not information, but the inferences from it are information.

 

If a BIT does not contain information (coming back late from the bathroom, arguing about the last hand, etc. etc.) then by definition it cannot have any inferences. It also doesn't make any sense to talk about using the fact there was a BIT in your decision when there is no information in the BIT. If you could 'use' it, then there was information there to be used.

 

I don't care if you say there are no inferences one can draw from a BIT, you still are not allowed to *use* the fact that there was a BIT in your decision.  Why is this is so difficult?

 

The problem is that according to the rules, Directors are REQUIRED to assume that the player used the inference if, in making the choices, that the choice made was more likely to succeed if the player had made the inference and there was another, less successful action that he could have made instead that people of his level would make.

[Echognome]

What I think is missing here is that the director must first rule that there was a Break In Tempo. If you think any TD will rule that when someone has gone to the bathroom between hands, then you have some crazy TDs.

 

Furthermore, in the discussion of this problem, the BIT was agreed.

[jillybean]

Correct, 2 BIT occured during this auction.

The first one occured when the opps would not answer a query. Surely this, if anything is AI

 

The second BIT was after the 4♠ bid. And this is what I am trying to understand, what information, if any, can be taken from this pause?

[jtfanclub]

Correct, 2 BIT occured during this auction.

The first one occured when the opps would not answer a query. Surely this, if anything is AI

 

Right. A break in tempo is anything that is unusually fast or slow, for ANY reason, including this.

 

The second BIT was after the 4♠ bid. And this is what I am trying to understand, what information, if any, can be taken from this pause?

 

A slow 5♥ has to be stronger than a fast 5♥. If responder had a weaker than normal 4♥ bid, what would there be to think about? Passing?

 

Is passing 5♥ a LA? I dunno. It's too dependent upon the agreements for the 4♥ bid.

[jillybean]

A slow 5♥ has to be stronger than a fast 5♥.  If responder had a weaker than normal 4♥ bid, what would there be to think about? 

 

 

Passing?

His partner bid 4♠ and here we are looking at 6 in our hand; are we cueing A,K, stiff and void or A, void? When are we permitted to think?

 

I'll just ignore the sarcasm

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

A "slow" 5 Heart does not include any message I can read, compared to a quick 5 HEart. Like Robert pointed out, 5 Heart denies controls in the minors, so North must have at least the ace of Heart- (QJx,Axx,QJx,QJxx) is a very ugly hand. And maybe it is  the worst possible hand I can imagine for 4 Heart and still 6 is possible.

<snip>

With the given vulneranility, double is sure

a better option than 4H.

 

In the end it comes down to the question, do

they have agreements how to handle the 2NT

interference, given the auction, I would say no,

but one should at least ask.

This would also clarify, if 4H was indeed a sign off,

or if it did show some life.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: Oppossite my regular partner I would surely not

force to slam.

[hotShot]

Correct, 2 BIT occured during this auction.

The first one occured when the opps would not answer a query. Surely this, if anything is AI

 

The second BIT was after the 4♠ bid. And this is what I am trying to understand, what information, if any, can be taken from this pause?

First of all, let us assume this is an established expert f2f partnership with written system-notes.

 

In this partnership 4♠ is a well defined bid and north is well aware how further bidding is agreed. In this case you can assume that north was looking for a better bit than a discouraging 5♥, so partner will expect a hand that is better than minimum.

 

Seems to me that this actually happened in an online tourney probably with a pickup "BBO expert" partnership or even weaker players. We can expect that north has no idea what 4♠ means: ace, shortage, should he bid blackwood, what type of blackwood do we actually play or is 4NT a trump cue lots of stuff to think about, not to mention incoming phone calls, doorbells or other distractions. I don't think that a hesitation is as meaningful as in the first case.

But pass over 5♥ is no LA with south 2. suited 4 looser monster. North jumped to game over a possibly minimum 1♥opening and west promised to hold the minors. A major doublefit is very likely and ♥ is a 9+ card fit. Just calculate the ZAR-Points. South is void in ♣ and if north does not have wasted values there, a grand seems possible, something you want to be in playing IMPs.

So 6♣ seems an obvious choice, since you can force to 6♥ anyway.

And after that wasted values in ♣ and ♦ are highly unlikely.

[jtfanclub]

His partner bid 4♠ and here we are looking at 6 in our hand; are we cueing A,K, stiff and void or A, void? When are we permitted to think?

When there's something to think about.

 

QJT9

AT654

QJ

QJ

 

Nothing to think about, right? Looks like a quick 5♥ call to me. I couldn't care less if the cue bid shows the K, the A, a void, or the AK. I'm always calling 5 hearts.

 

KJT9

AT654

K3

K8

 

Now there's a lot to think about, right? Is the spade an Ace (good) or a void (bad)? You're awfully strong for your 4 heart bid, so maybe 4NT is a good call, or should it be 5NT? And so forth.

 

What it comes down to is, a kingless hand is going to be able to bid the hand quickly. The more kings, the slower the response might get. A slow bid here tends to indicate a hand more appropriate for 7. And that's what her partner bid, regardless of whether the information was used or not.

[TimG]

I think it's kind of silly to argue whether a BIT is information! I say it *is* information and that it's unauthorised. You say it is not information, but the inferences from it are information. The point is that you cannot use any information surrounding a BIT, whether it is the BIT itself or the inferences drawn from it. I don't care if you say there are no inferences one can draw from a BIT, you still are not allowed to *use* the fact that there was a BIT in your decision. Why is this is so difficult?

I don't think you've answered my limit raise questions: when there is a BIT before a limit raise, what unauthorized information has been passed? It either shows a bare minimum or a super maximum, I agree. But, does that mean that whenever opener gets the pass v 4M decision right he will lose his result? No. Neither pass nor bidding on was suggested by the information conveyed through the BIT.

[Echognome]

I don't think you've answered my limit raise questions: when there is a BIT before a limit raise, what unauthorized information has been passed? It either shows a bare minimum or a super maximum, I agree. But, does that mean that whenever opener gets the pass v 4M decision right he will lose his result? No. Neither pass nor bidding on was suggested by the information conveyed through the BIT.

It's an easy question to answer: the information is unauthorised!

 

Let's give your example of a slow limit raise. You go there because the non-offenders complained. So you ask the guy why he bid on over the limit raise and he said "because he bid it slowly, I knew he must have extras." Does it matter if he was right or wrong? Are you going to adjust? You are certainly going to tell him he is not allowed to use the tempo of the bid in making his decision. To me that makes it simple.

 

By the way, I would tend to assume that the slow limit raise shows extras. Of course the reason for the break in tempo could be anything. It could be that I've forgotten our agreements. Whatever the reason, if I break the tempo, it still puts restrictions on what my partner can do.

[jillybean]

His partner bid 4♠ and here we are looking at 6 in our hand; are we cueing A,K, stiff and void or A, void?  When are we permitted to think?

When there's something to think about.

 

QJT9

AT654

QJ

QJ

 

Nothing to think about, right? Looks like a quick 5♥ call to me. I couldn't care less if the cue bid shows the K, the A, a void, or the AK. I'm always calling 5 hearts.

Where did you pluck this hand from? The hand in question is:

 

KQJT9x

Axx

xx

xx

 

Partner cue'd ♠'s, quite strong for a 4♥ bid don't you think?

[jtfanclub]

Where did you pluck this hand from? The hand in question is:

 

KQJT9x

Axx

xx

xx

 

Partner cue'd ♠'s, quite strong for a 4♥ bid don't you think?

Arrrgh.

 

That's the POINT.

 

A quite strong hand for a 4♥ bid tends to bid 5 hearts SLOWLY.

A weak hand for a 4 ♥ bid tends to bid 5 hearts QUICKLY.

 

When you bid 5 hearts slowly, you're showing partner a stronger hand than if you'd bid 5 hearts quickly. So by slow bidding the 5 hearts, you've passed partner unauthorized information- that you have a stronger hand than you'd have if you'd done it in tempo. And it appears that your partner used that information to get to 7.

 

As for WHY a weak hand tends to bid it faster than a strong hand, well, see the two examples I made up.

[jillybean]

here we go...

 

You said in your reply

 

His partner bid 4♠ and here we are looking at 6 in our hand; are we cueing A,K, stiff and void or A, void?  When are we permitted to think?

When there's something to think about.

 

You are also saying if you do think about it your partner is restricted in what he can bid.

[jtfanclub]

here we go...

 

You said in your reply

 

His partner bid 4♠ and here we are looking at 6 in our hand; are we cueing A,K, stiff and void or A, void?  When are we permitted to think?

When there's something to think about.

 

You are also saying if you do think about it your partner is restricted in what he can bid.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

 

You're allowed to think about it. You're allowed to have a break in tempo. But your partner can't use that extra information that you had think about your bid, or make a bid that could have been influenced by the break (within the three rules I listed above).

 

If you let your partner know that you have a problem, it's very likely that your partner will be restricted. So yes,if you want your partner to not be restricted, you have to bid in tempo.

[Codo]

So we all agree that there was a BIT before 4 Heart which has no UI because the opps did not answer a query.

And we agree that there was a BIT before 5 Heart, which at least contains the message: At least PD has something to think about. Maybe you can read that he has a minimum 4 Heart call in this.

 

But we disagree whether South used this UI.

 

Echos psoition is quite easy to understand: There was an UI and he made a smelly bid, so we reset the score.

 

But I still don´t buy it.

1. 4 Heart shows a good hand, it was not preemting.

2.South knew this, else there is no way to bid 7 Heart.

3. If North has a good hand but no minor control, there is no way to stay out of slam. I would judge a pass of 5 Heart as IWG. There is simply no hand consistent with North bidding that makes pass for South plausible.

4.7 Heart was a gambling. Which message did North send that make 7 Heart a better bet then 6 Heart?

 

To rule against South, he had to use an UI. But he did not. He knew as AI that North has a hand good enough for game (so about 12 HCP and/or some shape) and he knew that pd has no A/K /Shortness in the minors. He used these AIs to bid Slam.

I understand Jans idea to rule 6 HEart +1. But I don´t see the information South used to bid 7. I still belive that this was a gambling.

[Echognome]

So we all agree that there was a BIT before 4 Heart which has no UI because the opps did not answer a query.

 

Nope. I disagree. If North's tempo was varied because his opponent would not answer a question, I wouldn't have ruled it as a break in tempo. I would have ruled it as normal tempo for someone not getting an answer to their question!

 

And we agree that there was a BIT before 5 Heart, which at least contains the message: At least  PD has something to think about. Maybe you can read that he has a minimum 4 Heart call in this.

 

Why would we read that? If he had a minimum 4♥ call, then he had an easy 3♥ call.

 

1. 4 Heart shows a good hand, it was not preemting.

Wow! So, without even checking what their agreements actually were you came to the conclusion that they were playing that 4♥ shows a good hand, despite it being fairly non-standard.

 

2.South knew this, else there is no way to bid 7 Heart.

There is no way to bid 7♥ even if it does show a good hand. How can South know if North holds, e.g. KQxx Axxxx Qx Qx, which is a good hand. By the way, there is another way to bid 7♥... but I'm not going to start accusing the offenders of that!

 

3. If North has a good hand but no minor control, there is no way to stay out of slam. I would judge a pass of 5 Heart as IWG. There is simply no hand consistent with North bidding that makes pass for South plausible.

That is beyond ridiculous. So what are you bidding with, say xxx xxxxxx xx xx? Feel free to add quacks throughout, or if you desire, a few Ks.

 

4.7 Heart was a gambling. Which message did North send that make 7 Heart a better bet then 6 Heart?

He didn't. But if South was always driving to 7♥, then why didn't South bid it directly over 4♥? Was he looking to play in 7NT?

 

To rule against South, he had to use an UI. But he did not. He knew as AI that North has a hand good enough for game (so about 12 HCP and/or some shape) and he knew that pd has no A/K /Shortness in the minors. He used these AIs to bid Slam.

Again, this is assuming way more than we know about their agreements.

[hotShot]

Echognome,

 

the LAWS are aware of the fact, that BIT does not automatically mean UI.

As one example:

Every time you exercise your right to request full disclosure from your opps, you break the tempo. Since this is allowed and clearly not every BIT leads to UI.

 

You seem to argue that BIT is automatically UI, and I'm sure that you are wrong about this.

A BIT is no violation of the laws, giving an UI is no violation of he laws only, even using opponents UI is no violation of the laws. Only using partners UI is a violation of the laws.

If partner produced an UI you don't have to make the worst possible bid.

The laws require you to pick the bid, that among the logical alternatives is least likely to be suggested by the UI.

 

1) The BIT prior to the 4♥ bid, did not carry an UI. Even if it did, we would have to think about LA's. 2NT (unalerted!) is a preemptive bid, and it is common bridge knowledge that you don't preempt over a preempt. So 4♥ should be a sound game try, opposite openers minimum 1♥ bid.

Since openers hand is much stronger than that (extra trump, a void, good controls) pass is not a LA here.

 

South can't jump to 7 something right know, because north can have lots of wasted values in the minors, he needs to investigate about that. And he does that by starting a cue bid sequence.

 

2) Asuming there was a BIT with UI prior to the 5♥ bid, what are south LAs? North did not show any control in the minors, maybe north indended this as a sign off, but to south this is good news! So passing 5♥ is not among the LAs to choose from.

South intended to investigate the slam/grand optinons all the time, why should south stop this plan, after getting a positive signal (little minor wastage) from north?

So now south is continuing his cue bids with 6♣.

 

You ask how can south know that north is not holding: KQxx Axxxx Qx Qx?

He does not know, but south has 5♠ tricks (if the ♠ are not 4-0) and he can drop one of north ♦ on his 5th ♠. So south won't loose a trick in ♠,♥,♦ or ♣, guess what, he makes 7.