UI, lucky or crazy?

[jtfanclub]

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!

Where do you get this stuff?

 

You want to show me a rule that says that a delay is not a break in tempo if you asked a question?

[jtfanclub]

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.

How do you know he has the spade king at all?

 

Most people would bid 4♥ on

 

QJ9x

ATxxx

Qx

Qx

 

How do I know he had the spade king?

 

Because he hesitated before bidding 5♥. The hand I just listed doesn't hesitate.

[Codo]

Echognome,Jul 11 2007, 03:58 PM]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!

 

Okay, but you are aware that others disagree and say that any BIT is a BIT, but that it sometimes does not contain an information?

 

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.

 

 

He did bid 4 Heart, didn´t he? So why quarrel about a 3 Heart bid?

 

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.

 

You did see North hand, didn´t you?

I would judge a hand with ♠ KQJT92 ♥ AT4 ♦ 63 ♣ T8 as strong. So at least North plays this non-standard way.

And South bid according to this non standard way. So yes, I think they have this agreement. Maybe they never talked about it but they handled it identically.

 

 

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!

 

No, there is no way a sane player can bid 7 Heart with convidence. But South did it despite the possibility that north may hold the hand you showed. So this was gambling but not suggested by the BIT before 5 Heart. Or do you think that North will think with the actual hand but pass quick with your example hand?

 

 

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.

 

This hand is not in the picture for these N/S, so why shoud I think about it?

That you (or anybody) will bid 4 Heart with a weak 3622 hand is no point. They had not done it. If we can check, that these hands and the given hands are both possible for a 4 Heart bid, you have a point. But you cannot proofe this, can you?

 

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?

 

Why do you belive that South wanted to play 7 after he heard 4 Heart from pd?

He got a message that Pd has no minor suit controls by the 5 Heart bid from pd.

 

So he bids slam because pd must have something in the majors. I cannot see a reason why he did not pass 6 Heart, but I can see no UI that makes 7 Heart more acctractive then 6. Maybe 6 Clubs asked for second round control and when North denied it, he hoped for pure suits and gambled 7?

 

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.

 

Funy, I can see it in their cards that they have this agreement. North bid 4 Heart to make, didn´t he?

And south belived in more then Qxx,xxxx,qJxx, QJxx, in pds hand, else he had not driven to slam.

 

 

So we obviously disgree about the meaning of a 4 Heart bid for this pair.

You belive that North may well have a very weak hand, despite the fact that he bid 4 Heart with a strong one. I think it is you, who follows his own agreements for this particular bid and rules from that point of view. But I cannot see why you do it.

 

If you accept (maybe just for the discussion) that 4 Heart is strong and that 5 Heart denies minor cuebids. Can you construct just one hand where north would not hesitate and which makes a bad slam? I can´t.

[jtfanclub]

You did see North hand, didn´t you?

I would judge a hand with  ♠ KQJT92  ♥ AT4  ♦ 63  ♣ T8  as strong. So at least North plays this non-standard way.

And South bid according to this non standard way. So yes, I think they have this agreement. Maybe they never talked about it but they handled it identically.

 

Maybe if North bids 5♥ quickly they play it the same as everybody else, but when he bids it slowly he has a strong hand.

 

This hand is not in the picture for these N/S, so why shoud I think about it?

That you (or anybody) will bid 4 Heart with a weak 3622 hand is no point. They had not done it. If we can check, that these hands and the given hands are both possible for a 4 Heart bid, you have a point. But you cannot proofe this, can you?

 

Proof goes the other other way. The pair with the UI have to provide evidence that they DON'T play something standard. It's the same with mistaken bid vs. mistaken explanation. The director doesn't have to prove it was a mistaken explanation, the offending pair has to prove mistaken bid.

 

So he bids slam because pd must have something in the majors. I cannot see a reason why he did not pass 6 Heart, but I can see no UI that makes 7 Heart more acctractive then 6. Maybe 6 Clubs asked for second round control and when North denied it, he hoped for pure suits and gambled 7?

 

And you honestly don't see how a slow 5 heart bid would influence that call?

 

Funy, I can see it in their cards that they have this agreement. North bid 4 Heart  to make, didn´t he? And south belived in more then Qxx,xxxx,qJxx, QJxx, in pds hand, else he had not driven to slam.

 

Well, I doubt part had 15 cards, but even Qxx xxxx QJx QJx is about 50% to make 5. QJT xxxx QJx QJx is over 75%. So sure, South could have thought North had that hand and still gone to 5. After the long thought before the 5 heart bid, he knows North doesn't have that hand.

 

If you accept (maybe just for the discussion) that 4 Heart is strong and that 5 Heart denies minor cuebids. Can you construct just one hand where  north would not hesitate and which makes a bad slam? I can´t.

 

Can you design a hand that bids 6 hearts after a quick 5 heart bid and bids 7 hearts after a slow 5 heart bid? I can. In fact, it looks an awful lot like the South hand.

[TimG]

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.

After 1M-(2N), without any agreement as to what minor suit cue-bids would mean, wouldn't it be standard that 4M is stronger than 3M?

 

Similar to the auction 1♠-(3♥) where 4♠ would now be stronger than 3♠ (but not as strong as 4♥). In this auction, I would expect 3♠ to be competitive, 4♠ to look about like a limit raise (that has been denied an invitational call by the preempt) and 4♥ to look like a GF raise.

[Echognome]

1. I'm so not concerned with any of the BIT tempo discussion. Bottom line, if your partner varies their tempo for whatever reason, you are not allowed to use that information. If you think there's no information, then there's no worry about it.

 

2. It is wrong to use actual hands to determine agreements. Plain and simple. You determine agreements by... asking the players or looking at their cc or system notes.

 

3. In regards to 3♥ or 4♥, it again depends on agreements. Some may bid them with the same hand strength with varied trump length. Again, we cannot tell without an agreement.

 

Now, in regards to the ruling, my own personal view is that you believe South's story, you are one big sucker. His partner bid a slow 5♥, he bid on to grand. His partner turned up with great values for him. Amazing!

 

Finally, note that you could also simply ask South why he bid the way he did. If he tells this convincing story how the 5♥ bid denied any minor suit cue and at the same time showed the ♥A, etc etc, you might get a lot more sympathy. In the end, we're all speculating without more information.

[barmar]

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.

In judging UI situations, you're not expected to ask the player whether he based his action on the UI -- it's often unconscious, and even when not we rarely expect players to admit that they did it. The TD is supposed to determine independently (perhaps by polling other players) what the LAs are, and whether the the UI demonstrably suggests some over others. If the player admits that he used the UI you should assign a procedural penalty, but the judgement of the legality of the action itself should be based on this independent analysis.

 

I agree with TimG here. If the inferences from the UI could go either way (stretching versus extras), you shouldn't be constrained. The alternative is that the opponents have a legal double-shot: if you happen to make the successful decision, all they have to do is convince the TD that the UI suggested that action, and the other result will be assigned.

[hotShot]

Well, I doubt part had 15 cards, but even Qxx xxxx QJx QJx is about 50% to make 5.  QJT xxxx QJx QJx is over 75%.  So sure, South could have thought North had that hand and still gone to 5.  After the long thought before the 5 heart bid, he knows North doesn't have that hand. 

Well I don't know about you, but most player I know would not jump to game holding QJT xxxx QJx QJx (9 HCP no distribution, no quick tricks) after partner simply opened 1♥. EW are vul, so it much better to double or play then for -2 than to sacrifice in a hopeless 4♥. It's IMPs and opps red, so north has to be quite confident that playing 4♥ is the best choice.

[jtfanclub]

Well I don't know about you, but most player I know would not jump to game holding QJT xxxx QJx QJx (9 HCP no distribution, no quick tricks) after partner simply opened 1♥.

That was the hand you suggested, not me. I was pointing out that no matter how bad you thought the 4♥ bid was, 5♥ should have play.

 

My sample hand was:

 

QJ9x

ATxxx

Qx

Qx

 

 

11 hcp, 5 card support, developable spades.

 

Would you agree that most people would bid 4 hearts with this over 2NT?

[hotShot]

Well don't mix me up with Codo, it was derived from his suggestion.

 

I agree that with your sample hand many people would bid 4♥.

I think it's not good enough, but this an individual decision.

(Qx should be downgraded, as many evaluation systems suggest.)

I would need more information on the involved players to decide if they are aggressive enough to risk that.

[Codo]

This hand is not in the picture for these N/S, so why shoud I think about it?

That you (or anybody) will bid 4 Heart with a weak 3622 hand is no point. They had not done it. If we can check, that these hands and the given hands are both possible for a 4 Heart bid, you have a point. But you cannot proofe this, can you?

 

Proof goes the other other way. The pair with the UI have to provide evidence that they DON'T play something standard. It's the same with mistaken bid vs. mistaken explanation. The director doesn't have to prove it was a mistaken explanation, the offending pair has to prove mistaken bid.

Well to bid 4 Heart to make is not so unusual that you have to prove it. This is no situation which cries for a weak jump at all.

 

 

 

And you honestly don't see how a slow 5 heart bid would influence that call?

 

 

Yes hoenstly this 7 HEart bid is so silly that I can see no reason at all to bid it. :(

 

Can you design a hand that bids 6 hearts after a quick 5 heart bid and bids 7 hearts after a slow 5 heart bid?  I can.  In fact, it looks an awful lot like the South hand.

 

Matt gave at least one hand ( from a million) where 7 HEart is down 1 and North had the same to think about...

 

And we all agree that all sympathies go with the E/W pair and that the TD may had ask a little bit more.

But we all had been there before too and forgeot to ask all questions.

[Echognome]

<snip>So you ask the guy why he bid on over the limit raise<snip>

In judging UI situations, you're not expected to ask the player whether he based his action on the UI<snip>

So you've twisted my words nicely there. I said you ask him why be bid on. I did NOT say you ask him whether he based his action on the UI. Why shouldn't we ask a player why he bid the way he bid?

 

See, for example:

 

http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=2915

[Echognome]

Where do you get this stuff?

 

You want to show me a rule that says that a delay is not a break in tempo if you asked a question?

I'll tell you what, you show me the rule that says that asking a question is considered a break in tempo first.

[jtfanclub]

I'll tell you what, you show me the rule that says that asking a question is considered a break in tempo first.

That's what the words mean without any extra definition. If the tempo is, say, one bid every seven seconds, and you take 18 seconds or 1 second, that's a break in the tempo. Ask any musician.

 

You've added an extra meaning, that a break in tempo has to convey information, or that it's not a break in tempo if you asked questions, or something. There's nothing in the phrase 'break in tempo' that implies that to me. So I think the onus is on you, to explain why the phrase doesn't mean what it literally means.

[Echognome]

I'll tell you what, you show me the rule that says that asking a question is considered a break in tempo first.

That's what the words mean without any extra definition. If the tempo is, say, one bid every seven seconds, and you take 18 seconds or 1 second, that's a break in the tempo. Ask any musician.

 

You've added an extra meaning, that a break in tempo has to convey information, or that it's not a break in tempo if you asked questions, or something. There's nothing in the phrase 'break in tempo' that implies that to me. So I think the onus is on you, to explain why the phrase doesn't mean what it literally means.

The reason I disagree is because I think you are missing the whole practical point of directing. It's not like we're sitting their with timers counting every bid and play. You have to make a judgment on whether there was an infraction. If there were some extenuating circumstances, then you take those into account. So if I were to see this case written up, I wouldn't expect it to have a BIT marked next to the 4♥ bid (if it was the case that I felt the delay was due to West being uncooperative), whereas I would expect there to be a BIT marked next to the 5♥ bid. That is the practical part of it. Do you disagree?

[jtfanclub]

No, I don't disagree.

 

I got kind of wrapped up in terminology here, which on the one hand can help explain where we're coming from, but in other cases confuses things, sorry.

 

At any rate, I would not assume that a Break In Tempo by your definition occurred before the 4♥ bid. Remember, the person gets to ask about the bid in question, get an answer, and can STILL take 8-10 seconds to bid to 'think over a jump bid'. Whether he's REQUIRED to take 8-10 seconds after receiving an answer is a good question, and not answered by the rules.

 

My (theoretical) ruling is based on the idea that there was only Break In Tempo that caused any inferences, which is the 5♥ bid.

[Echognome]

I actually agree with you on that. The way I read it now (upon reading JB's follow-up comments), is that the only delay in bidding 4♥ came from the failure to receive a response as to the meaning of the 2NT bid.

 

As per what we think the LAs are over 5♥, it really is a matter of judgment. I think pass is a logical alternative. Others do not. That's fine. It is certainly fine to disagree. I did post the bidding problem on another forum, but unfortunately have not received an ample amount of replies yet to determine. Maybe someone can post it on rgb.

[Rossoneri]

I find that this case has so many loopholes.

 

Ok, there was a hesitation. How long? This was a BBO tournament I believe, and as such, I would hesitate to rule on hesitations, due to the fact that one player could easily leave his seat and the other 3 at the table would be none the wiser. Given the fact that he also could have just came back to the bridge game from whatever he was doing, he might have hesitated in getting his mind to re-focus back on the game.

 

If I was the TD, I would most likely let the table result stand.

[Echognome]

I find that this case has so many loopholes.

 

Ok, there was a hesitation. How long? This was a BBO tournament I believe, and as such, I would hesitate to rule on hesitations, due to the fact that one player could easily leave his seat and the other 3 at the table would be none the wiser. Given the fact that he also could have just came back to the bridge game from whatever he was doing, he might have hesitated in getting his mind to re-focus back on the game.

 

If I was the TD, I would most likely let the table result stand.

Except for the fact that the player agreed to the hesitation. Wouldn't it be remiss to ignore it?

[jillybean]

I believe any TD call following a break in tempo must be addressed. It is the TD's job to look at the use of the BIT, the cause is irrelevant, impossible to rule on.

[hotShot]

I believe any TD call following a break in tempo must be addressed. It is the TD's job to look at the use of the BIT, the cause is irrelevant, impossible to rule on.

Jilly please be precise here:

 

1) A BIT might cause an UI.

=> If a waiter spills hot coffee on you, you will break tempo, but it carries no bridge information.

=> If you ask opps to explain an alerted bid, you break your tempo, but this does not create an UI.

=> Even calling the TD, causes a BIT.

=> At least it seams as if you broke your tempo, if opp forgot to use the STOP-card and you waited the usual 10 seconds prior to your bid.

 

So BIT is not equal to UI.

 

So even if a player admits there was a break in tempo, this does not mean there was UI.

 

So you can't "use a BIT", you could use an UI created by a BIT.

 

2) An UI may not be used by its creators partner, and if you think a player acted on partners UI the TD is required to act.

But the TD must make sure:

- That the UI carried information, that was not already AI to the player.

- Which bids where available to the player using his methods.

(e.g. If a pair is e.g. in an 2/1 GF sequence, pass below game is no LA.)

- Among the possible LA's, which are suggested by the UI.

- If a suggested LA was used and an un- /less suggested LA was available, correct the the score.

[jtfanclub]

1) A BIT might cause an UI.

=> If a waiter spills hot coffee on you, you will break tempo, but it carries no bridge information.

 

We just discussed this for a week.

 

Can we assume she read the earlier discussion and move on? Or should I assume the conversation is in an infinite loop and get out now while I still can?

[jillybean]

There is no way for an online TD to tell if BIT was caused by a tank, spilt coffee, a brain freeze or found another card and imo in the abscence of any other information, all BIT should be treated equaly, as BIT. It is not the BIT that is illegal, what could be illegal is how your partner uses any information received.

 

In this hand for instance, WEST created by the first BIT by refusing to reply to questions about the 2nt bid. I think this could create UI for EW, West has perhaps forgotten their agreement, misbid, psyched. And so any information available is AI for N/S and UI for EW.

 

The second BIT, caused by NS is UI for NS and AI fort EW. I am not convinced that there was any relevant information passed by this BIT. Others maintain that a slow pass guarantees extra values.

 

I find this area of BIT,UI,AI very interesting, I am trying to understand it better and appreciate the sincere replies.

 

 

edit

I believe any TD call following a break in tempo must be addressed. It is the TD's job to look at the use of the BIT, the cause is irrelevant, impossible to rule on.

Jilly please be precise here:

 

1) A BIT might cause an UI.

=> If a waiter spills hot coffee on you, you will break tempo, but it carries no bridge information.

=> If you ask opps to explain an alerted bid, you break your tempo, but this does not create an UI.

=> Even calling the TD, causes a BIT.

=> At least it seams as if you broke your tempo, if opp forgot to use the STOP-card and you waited the usual 10 seconds prior to your bid.

 

So BIT is not equal to UI.

 

Im not the one saying all BIT = UI, others are. I am only saying all BIT should be treated equaly, as BIT. If, for example you spill hot coffee at the exact same moment in an auction where a BIT does create UI. I say tough luck, the TD must simply rule that UI was passed and your partner is then restricted. If some BITs are ignored, we can throw out laws 16/73C for online bridge.

Edited July 14, 2007 by jillybean2