BITten

[LH2650]

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sk962ha72daq52ct9&w=sqj74h64d964caj73&e=st8hkqt953dj87cq8&s=sa53hj8dkt3ck6542]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

ACBL

 

East opens 2♥, South passes after the required 10 seconds, West thinks for about 30 seconds before passing, and North passes. When the dummy hits, North calls the director and objects to the (agreed) BIT. When asked, he states that he would have made a flawed takeout double without the BIT. Lebensohl applies, so a 3♣ response to the TO double would show values.

 

How would you handle this? West is a very experienced player. When asked why he hesitated, he answers that he was considering a psychic 2 notrump.

 

2♥ went down 1.

 

East said he might have competed to 3♥. Would you consider that in your ruling?

[bluejak]

The only easy part of this ruling is answering your final question: the answer is Yes, I consider everything I am told when ruling.

 

Burt there is no doubt that West is in breach of Law 73D1 [2nd sentence]. What is more, I bet he knows it: once you have thought for a while, you do not need to bid! B)

 

It is much more difficult to ascertain damage.

[jdonn]

North's claim seems plausible, and since east admitted he might have bid 3 the very least the director should do is adjust to 3♥ -2. In fact north might even double on that weird auction after his partner showed values and bid his doubleton, but not sure if I think it's likely enough.

 

Also a very experienced player should know better than to try the ridiculous stunt west pulled. Thinking of psyching is not a valid bridge reason for a huge tank then pass (or else what's the point since everyone could always claim that). If he is experienced he should know what he wants to do in these situations with little thought anyway. He should be shot, figuratively speaking.

[axman]

North's claim seems plausible, and since east admitted he might have bid 3 the very least the director should do is adjust to 3♥ -2. In fact north might even double on that weird auction after his partner showed values and bid his doubleton, but not sure if I think it's likely enough.

 

Also a very experienced player should know better than to try the ridiculous stunt west pulled. Thinking of psyching is not a valid bridge reason for a huge tank then pass (or else what's the point since everyone could always claim that). If he is experienced he should know what he wants to do in these situations with little thought anyway. He should be shot, figuratively speaking.

I consider W's pause for considering deception to be improper deception.

 

However, N is not in a position to be deceived out of a profitable action. Because his hand is not conducive to an action- lacking strength to handle unsuitable responses from partner. And as it happens, any 'sensible' action if you could conjure one by N will propel the partnership to the 4 or 5 level because of S's forward going strength. As such, I fail to visualize the perpertration of damage.

[jdonn]

North's claim seems plausible, and since east admitted he might have bid 3 the very least the director should do is adjust to 3♥ -2. In fact north might even double on that weird auction after his partner showed values and bid his doubleton, but not sure if I think it's likely enough.

 

Also a very experienced player should know better than to try the ridiculous stunt west pulled. Thinking of psyching is not a valid bridge reason for a huge tank then pass (or else what's the point since everyone could always claim that). If he is experienced he should know what he wants to do in these situations with little thought anyway. He should be shot, figuratively speaking.

I consider W's pause for considering deception to be improper deception.

 

However, N is not in a position to be deceived out of a profitable action. Because his hand is not conducive to an action- lacking strength to handle unsuitable responses from partner. And as it happens, any 'sensible' action if you could conjure one by N will propel the partnership to the 4 or 5 level because of S's forward going strength. As such, I fail to visualize the perpertration of damage.

Huh? North has a borderline double that for some people would be normal (I would double!) and south has a normal 3♣ response showing values. Why would they get any higher? And since east says he might compete to 3♥.... what am I missing?

[aguahombre]

let em play in 3c down one. why did east open his mouth and say he would bid the same hand twice?

[jeremy69]

I think North might have doubled. It is far from clear, however, that NS are damaged as it is tough for them to get a plus score. Possible I suppose that EW might play 3H-2 if East did bid his hand twice. IMO if West is an experienced player and said that he was considering a pyschic 2NT as his reason for the BIT I would hit him with a PP because I t think this is a gross breach of the etiquette required. If less experienced I would give a warning to the player.

[axman]

North's claim seems plausible, and since east admitted he might have bid 3 the very least the director should do is adjust to 3♥ -2. In fact north might even double on that weird auction after his partner showed values and bid his doubleton, but not sure if I think it's likely enough.

 

Also a very experienced player should know better than to try the ridiculous stunt west pulled. Thinking of psyching is not a valid bridge reason for a huge tank then pass (or else what's the point since everyone could always claim that). If he is experienced he should know what he wants to do in these situations with little thought anyway. He should be shot, figuratively speaking.

I consider W's pause for considering deception to be improper deception.

 

However, N is not in a position to be deceived out of a profitable action. Because his hand is not conducive to an action- lacking strength to handle unsuitable responses from partner. And as it happens, any 'sensible' action if you could conjure one by N will propel the partnership to the 4 or 5 level because of S's forward going strength. As such, I fail to visualize the perpertration of damage.

Huh? North has a borderline double that for some people would be normal (I would double!) and south has a normal 3♣ response showing values. Why would they get any higher? And since east says he might compete to 3♥.... what am I missing?

S has a normal 4C response, 3C is not a normal response to a TOX.

 

In a different thread on rgb are sentiments that are aptly expressed:

 

On Jan 20, 4:57 pm, "Richard Pavlicek" <rich...@rpbridge.net> wrote:

 

> Norman wrote:

> > I am curious whether you would bid or pass with this hand.

> > RHO deals at equal vulnerability and bids 2H. You hold:

 

> > AQ98xx

> > xxx

> > Kx

> > Jx

 

> On the cusp, but with a six-bagger the reward/risk quotient

> seems higher for bidding -- and I'm stickin' to that story

> in the postmortem to explain minus 800.

 

> Richard Pavlicek

> Web site:http://www.rpbridge.net

 

-100 or -200 for for a 6-7 imp loss is more likely. You know your

partner is going to put you in game with Kx xx Qxxxx KQxx. With

the hand you want him to have:

KJx xxx AQx AQxx.... he is still bidding.

 

The other Rich

[campboy]

I don't see how NS can get a better score. Even if the auction does start 2♥ - p - p - dbl - 3♥, surely South is going to bid.

[CamHenry]

... North calls the director and objects to the (agreed) BIT. When asked, he states that he would have made a flawed takeout double without the BIT.

I don't have time to look up the reference right now, but "... inferences drawn from a variation in tempo, inter alia, may be used at the player's own risk". There's no rectification for N being put off acting by the hesitation.

 

As to the BIT by W, there's the potential of "... may not attempt to deceive ... by variations in tempo, mannerism, etc. ", and some PP or other rectification (Law 12, "no rectification specified"?).

[jdonn]

How can I have this discussion with someone who didn't read the original post?

 

Lebensohl applies, so a 3♣ response to the TO double would show values.

[MFA]

W has illegally misled N. But I would probably rule 'no damage' since it doesn't seem like NS would have got a better result after a balancing double. 3♣ would most likely fail, and I don't want to rule 100% 3♥-2 since it would be very strange to bid again as east in spite of his claim. For me it would have had to be a weighted score between 3♣-1 and 3♥-2.

So NS seem better off with +50 in 2♥.

 

I would warn west that his actions were in conflict of the laws, and that it was pure luck that NS weren't damaged.

 

I would warn east that competing with 3♥ if a 3♣-bid in south had come back to him would almost certainly have been an illegal bid after his partner's tank.

[RMB1]

As to the BIT by W, there's the potential of "... may not attempt to deceive ... by variations in tempo, mannerism, etc. ", and some PP or other rectification (Law 12, "no rectification specified"?).

But there is a rectification specified. The quote you give is from Law 73D2, the rectification is given in Law 73F.

When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C).

So an adjusted score is appropriate, if NS have been damaged.

 

Robin

[mycroft]

Someone who bids 2H, then 3H opposite nothing from partner had better be a beginner (or playing EHAA). Someone who bids 2H, then 3H after partner's massive tank had better be a *real* beginner.

 

West's tank thinking about a psychic is something we Just Can't Allow. As many have said, tanking and passing does exactly the same thing as a psychic 2NT (I mean, it even convinced East that West had stuff), just not legally. It's a "safe" psychic, and as such needs to be stepped on. With more force as the experience of the psychic player increases.

 

Unfortunately, 3C does go down; despite considering East's statement, I don't think we can put it into our judgement (primarily because if the auction went 2H-p-p(H)-X; p-3C!-p-p; 3H and it was right, we'd roll it back). So, I don't think there is damage here. However, a "very experienced" player would know that tank-and-pass is as much a (fake) show of strength as a psychic 2NT, a significant PP will convince him that next time she needs to take her minus score the legit way, by making the psychic call. East should be warned about controlling his impulses to bid again when in possession of UI in auctions that are (to 95% of players) "preempt-to-the-limit and leave the rest to partner".

[jallerton]

Exactly. After West's slow pass, a 3♥ bid by East would be illegal (breaching Law 73C) so cannot be considered in any rectification adjustment.

[duschek]

Obviously, West's pause is illegal. Making it legal would mean that you could always claim that you were thinking of psyching, or trying to remember your system, when a hesitation is likely to deter the opponents from bidding.

 

Playing Lebensohl, South has a clear 3♣ bid opposite a balancing double, and North probably has an equally clear pass. It seems to me that the defenders must break the spades before all the clubs are gone, or South will only lose three clubs and a heart. Therefore, if we think that North would have doubled, given no BIT by West, we must adjust the score.

 

You could go for a one-sided 3♣ making, or you could mix in some weighting for 3♣ down one and the table result. I would probably prefer something like 25% of 3♣ making and 75% of the table result.

[barmar]

Don't forget that South took his required 10 seconds before passing. That should have been plenty of time for West to decide whether to bid the psychic 2NT. There's simply no excuse for him taking another 30 seconds. Any player good enough to think about psyching here should be good enough to do it in tempo, and realize that the hesitation would mislead the opponents.

[bluejak]

You could go for a one-sided 3♣ making, or you could mix in some weighting for 3♣ down one and the table result. I would probably prefer something like 25% of 3♣ making and 75% of the table result.

ACBL, remember, no weighting allowed.

[bluejak]

I don't have time to look up the reference right now, but "... inferences drawn from a variation in tempo, inter alia, may be used at the player's own risk".  There's no rectification for N being put off acting by the hesitation.

No, fifty years of case Law say otherwise. Ok, maybe I exaggerated!

 

This only applies to misreading why an opponent varied his tempo if he has not done so illegally: if it is an illegal variation then you adjust.

[duschek]

You could go for a one-sided 3♣ making, or you could mix in some weighting for 3♣ down one and the table result. I would probably prefer something like 25% of 3♣ making and 75% of the table result.

ACBL, remember, no weighting allowed.

3♣ making, then :)