UI!

[jillybean]

The auction:

 

1♣ (X) XX (1♠)

2♣ (2♦) X (P)

2♥ (3♦) 3♠ (P)

3N (P) *

 

* the player had been animated all auction, making a show of reviewing the bidding, pondering his bid and now leans back in is chair, laughs and says "you're not really bidding 3nt there are you?" - before bidding 4♠

 

The director is called and the above explained, the player is concerned about the UI given. The TD says continue,

 

3N (P) 4♠ (P)

5♣ (P) 5♠ (AP)

 

Dummy comes down 1336 (I cant remember the honors)

 

As TD how do you handle this?

[Old York]

I imagine that everyone in the room is hoping that 5♠ scores a big fat zero, this player certainly deserves it.

Please don't tell us that it makes :)

 

I do not think that the opening bidder has acted unusually, so the question of UI does not realy concern me too much, but this guy needs to be taken to one side...

 

Tony

[olegru]

At first TD must get full explanation of all bids.

After it TD must take a look at Dummy to make sure all his bids after receiving UI did not have the LA became less favourite because of UI.

Without this information nothing can be said here.

[blackshoe]

The first thing is that the TD should do nothing until the hand is played out. If 5♠ "scores a big fat zero", there was no damage, and shall be no score adjustment. I agree with Tony that the declarer needs to be reminded about the laws regarding extraneous comments.

[jillybean]

5♠ did make. The ruling given was 'no damage, south bid on after 4♠'

[jdonn]

5♠ did make. The ruling given was 'no damage, south bid on after 4♠'

While that's a lazy way to state it, it seems like the right ruling to me. In other words that is a way of saying south chose a LA (in fact it might not even be one!) that was not suggested by the UI, so there was no infraction other than his partner's big mouth.

[blackshoe]

damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see c1{b} below.

 

c1{b} has to do with the possibility of some or all of the damage to the NOS being self-inflicted. It will not apply here.

 

There was an extraneous comment by responder, not to mention other mannerisms. These things may have conveyed UI. The TD needs to determine if they did so, and if they did so what that UI "could demonstrably have suggested".

 

The fact that opener bid on over 4♠ does not mean there was no damage from use of UI - it may or may not mean that opener made (illegal) use of UI.

 

I suspect that the "demonstrably suggested" LA from the UI is "pass", so it would seem opener is in compliance with the laws requiring not using UI. So that, it seems to me, should have been the basis of the TD's ruling.

 

Responder, having no UI, can do what he likes.

 

As the table TD, I would want a poll of the opener's peers in order to see if my assessment of the LAs is valid.

[blackshoe]

Seems Josh and I are in agreement, in principle. I would say, however, that technically a ruling includes the legal basis for itself, and if that basis is wrong, so is the ruling, even if the outcome is right. :P

[Finch]

Yeah, responder should be told to keep his mouth shut during the auction.

 

But I really struggle to know what the comment actually suggests either about responder's hand, or (more relevantly) it suggests that opener do. I honestly can't see what it tells me.

[jillybean]

I suspect that the "demonstrably suggested" LA from the UI is "pass", so it would seem opener is in compliance with the laws requiring not using UI. So that, it seems to me, should have been the basis of the TD's ruling.

 

The first pass over 4♠ yes but what about the second pass over 5♠? If the UI demonstrably suggested passing over 4♠ isnt it also true over 5♠?

 

Doesnt the UI followed by the 5♠ bid suggest that the 5♠ bidder has a solid ♠ suit?

 

If opener could have used this UI in his decision to pass 5♠ has there been an infraction, must a LA exist?

[jdonn]

I suspect that the "demonstrably suggested" LA from the UI is "pass", so it would seem opener is in compliance with the laws requiring not using UI. So that, it seems to me, should have been the basis of the TD's ruling.

 

The first pass over 4♠ yes but what about the second pass over 5♠? If the UI demonstrably suggested passing over 4♠ isnt it also true over 5♠?

 

Doesnt the UI followed by the 5♠ bid suggest that the 5♠ bidder has a solid ♠ suit?

 

If opener could have used this UI in his decision to pass 5♠ has there been an infraction, must a LA exist?

We would have to see the hand, but I would wager there was no logical alternative to passing 5♠. In fact I strongly suspect there was no logical alternative to passing 4♠ but that the player was either not so good at bridge or exceedingly ethical.

[jillybean]

This does not seem entirely right to me. If a player gives his partner UI that demonstrably suggests a certain action, then if there are no LA’s the player is free to use that action? The benefit of doubt seems to be in favor of the offending side rather than the non-offenders.

 

Im not just being a bitch, these guys were experienced players and would (should) have known their behavior was illegal.

[barmar]

The only implication I can think of from the comment is that NT is not the right strain. This suggests that if a natural NT bid is a LA, you must select it. But 4NT would probably not be natural in this sequence, so it's not an LA, and 6NT is not an LA simply because bidding slam isn't an LA. It's not clear to me that the UI suggests anything in particular among other LAs.

 

The entire auction has me totally confused. Partner makes a penalty double of 2♦, and you take it out when you have 3 cards in the suit and ruffing possibilities? And why is partner suddenly bidding ♠ on the 3rd round when he could have bid them right on the first round? Are these beginners who don't know how to bid, or are there undisclosed meanings to the redouble and 2nd round double? There was a time when redouble was used with all strong hands, but these days just about everyone plays that a new suit on the 1 level is forcing, so it's not necessary to start with a redouble.

 

Considering how totally confused these players are about how to bid, I'm not sure how they would interpret the extraneous comment.

[Old York]

I was highly confused by the defensive bidding, maybe opener was too

 

Defender1 made a take-out double and later bid again. This shows extra strength

Defender2 made a "free-bid" of 1♠ which shows real values

 

So 5♠ just seems impossible, so how were defenders damaged? If Spades were solid, then 3NT is the higher scoring contract?

 

It looks to me as though the bidding should be 1♣-(1♦)-4♠-ppp

 

Tony

[olegru]

The only implication I can think of from the comment is that NT is not the right strain.

Yes, but this one can be big. One of possible reading of 3 ♠ bid is the two way bid - request to bid 3NT with spades stoper or spades cuebid is slam bidding on agreed clubs. Bid 4♠ after 3NT now is the first class spades control and clubs slam invitaion, probably even grand slam. In this case 5♣ bid, which allows responder to repeat spades and clear confusion, can be suggested by partners remark with LA 6 clubs.

Sure all this easily can be out, but without verification about meaning of redbl, dbl on 2♦ and so on we are not in the possition to make iltellegent comments. :)

[jillybean]

I was highly confused by the defensive bidding, maybe opener was too

 

Defender1 made a take-out double and later bid again. This shows extra strength

Defender2 made a "free-bid" of 1♠ which shows real values

 

So 5♠ just seems impossible, so how were defenders damaged? If Spades were solid, then 3NT is the higher scoring contract?

 

It looks to me as though the bidding should be 1♣-(1♦)-4♠-ppp

 

Tony

It is of no relevance if the opening bidder is confused by the opps bidding, we need to look at the use of the UI. The infraction was caused by the mannerisms and comments of playerB. I wanted to understand how this restricts, if at all playerA's next and subsequent bids.

 

Sorry I dont remember all the details. This was a rather bizzarre board but as some say, it was only a club game so I shouldnt be worrying about it. Next!

[barmar]

I was highly confused by the defensive bidding, maybe opener was too

 

Defender1 made a take-out double and later bid again. This shows extra strength

Defender2 made a "free-bid" of 1♠ which shows real values

No, Defender2 didn't show any values, all it showed was ♠ preference. Unless someone is psyching, after Bid-X-XX, the 4th player can't have much more than 6 HCP. This is NOT a free-bid, it's still practically forced by the takeout double. Advancer can generally only pass with a flat hand, passing the buck to the doubler to choose the best suit.

[jillybean]

I was defender#2 and of course, we had no agreements regarding this type of auction. I had nothing except 4♠'s, Im glad someone else see's this as a forced bid but this type of bidding without agreements is always a gamble.

[barmar]

It's simple bridge logic, hardly anyone would make a point of discussing this. There are much more important things for a new partnership to discuss. Anyone who thinks it's a "free bid" that shows values is simply wrong unless you HAVE agreed to this unusual treatment. In fact, for the most part the traditional notion of free bids hardly exists these days -- competitive bidding has gotten much more aggressive in the past couple of decades.

 

There have occasionally been discussions about what passing the redouble means (passing the buck back to the doubler vs a desire to defend), but there's little controversy over what bidding shows.

[Old York]

Just a thought...

 

Opener had 3 Hearts and long Clubs, Defender1 had long Diamonds, responder had solid Spades

I was surprised that Defender2 had an "active" preference for Spades

 

So who had the long Hearts?

 

I agree that the 1♠ bid need not show extra values, but it was hard to see a strong preference for Spades in this sequence

 

Responder's 3♠ bid sounds like stopper-asking, so how can opener rebid 3NT with a small singleton? This is my interpretation of responder's comment.

 

What was the "par" contract on this hand and were you actually damaged?

If 5♠ is making (undeserved) then I would expect 4♠+1 or 3NT+2 at all other tables

 

Tony

[jillybean]

What was the "par" contract on this hand and were you actually damaged?

If 5♠ is making (undeserved) then I would expect 4♠+1 or 3NT+2 at all other tables

It is irrelevant what happened at the other tables - we were possibly damaged by the UI helping the ops find a contract that they otherwise may not have found.

[Lobowolf]

This does not seem entirely right to me. If a player gives his partner UI that demonstrably suggests a certain action, then if there are no LA’s the player is free to use that action? The benefit of doubt seems to be in favor of the offending side rather than the non-offenders.

The absense of logical alternatives sort of removes the "doubt" to give you the benefit of. Example:

 

Let's say 4th seat gets to the table later than everyone else, so is sorting his hand, and the auction goes: P-P-P. Now his partner says something, "Oh my God, I didn't mean to pass."

 

4th seat then opens an 11-count with 4-spades, and says, "I always open when I have 15 Pearson points (HCP + # of spades)." Not everyone opens all 11-counts with 4 spades; there's doubt, and the UI suggested a logical alternative -- pass. So if the Non-Offending Side is damaged by the fact that pass was not chosen, they're entitled to protection.

 

Same situation, same comment, but now 4th seat has a 13 HCP hand with 5-1-3-4 distribution, and opens a spade. Not really a logical alternative to opening a spade, so when he does so, there's not really any "doubt" to give the opponents the benefit of. If they get to a good contract and make it, they're entitled (assuming that 4th seat's subsequent bids are above reproach, as well).

[Lobowolf]

It is irrelevant what happened at the other tables - we were possibly damaged by the UI

What happened at the other tables is relevant (if not necessary, even) to the determination of whether there was damage.

[blackshoe]

It is irrelevant what happened at the other tables - we were possibly damaged by the UI

What happened at the other tables is relevant (if not necessary, even) to the determination of whether there was damage.

No it isn't.

... Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred...

 

The actual and expected results at the table where the infraction occurred have absolutely nothing to do with what happened at other tables, and everything to do with the lie of the cards in the four hands and the level of expertise of the players at this table.

[Lobowolf]

It is irrelevant what happened at the other tables - we were possibly damaged by the UI

What happened at the other tables is relevant (if not necessary, even) to the determination of whether there was damage.

No it isn't.

... Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred...

 

The actual and expected results at the table where the infraction occurred have absolutely nothing to do with what happened at other tables, and everything to do with the lie of the cards in the four hands and the level of expertise of the players at this table.

I didn't say that the actual or the expected result have anything to do with what happens at the other tables; I said that the determination of whether there was damage does. As you yourself pointed out (check back one page):

 

"If 5♠ "scores a big fat zero", there was no damage, and shall be no score adjustment. "

 

Results score "big fat zeroes" when compared to the other tables.