Hypothetical BIT situation

[Cyberyeti]

So, partner uses Blackwood, you show some aces then realise almost immediately you've shown one less than you have. Partner hesitates then signs off. Can you bid the slam with impunity ? Are the precise details of the hand important ?

 

There was no hesitation at the table, but I was wondering how it would be viewed if there was. We felt there was no justice anyway after opps bid blackwood with a void, showed the wrong number of aces and then bid a bad slam that made when they felt they had to catch up :)

[Finch]

So, partner uses Blackwood, you show some aces then realise almost immediately you've shown one less than you have. Partner hesitates then signs off. Can you bid the slam with impunity ? Are the precise details of the hand important ?

 

There was no hesitation at the table, but I was wondering how it would be viewed if there was. We felt there was no justice anyway after opps bid blackwood with a void, showed the wrong number of aces and then bid a bad slam that made when they felt they had to catch up :)

You can sometimes bid slam here with impunity. But not always. If it is the UI that tells you that you have miscounted, you cannot bid on.

 

It might be difficult for the TD to distinguish between all the following cases, because the difference is going to be in your head, but here are some examples:

 

1. You sometimes play 1430, sometimes 3041. You have shown a very strong hand earlier in the auction (you can't really have fewer than 2 keycards). You hold 4 keycards and bids 5D. Partner looks so surprised and thinks for so long that you remember that discussion you had earlier that daywhen you agreed to play 1430 and realise that you've shown only 3. Now it's illegal to bid on, because it was the UI that reminded you what you had agreed.

 

2. You think hearts are trumps. You show 1 keycard. Partner signs off in 5S, now you realise spades are trumps. You can raise.

[lamford]

2. You think hearts are trumps. You show 1 keycard.  Partner signs off in 5S, now you realise spades are trumps. You can raise.

I would be reluctant to believe the player here if there were a BIT. Surely, the only question in all such cases is whether Pass is an LA for someone of that style and ability, so polling people with the authorised auction is the only way. It seems that bidding on will always be demonstrably suggested.

[aguahombre]

1. You sometimes play 1430, sometimes 3041. You have shown a very strong hand earlier in the auction (you can't really have fewer than 2 keycards). You hold 4 keycards and bids 5D. Partner looks so surprised and thinks for so long that you remember that discussion you had earlier that daywhen you agreed to play 1430 and realise that you've shown only 3. Now it's illegal to bid on, because it was the UI that reminded you what you had agreed.

I would have a problem with that ruling. There are five key cards, and you have four of them. Partner was interested in key cards. You are in slam with or without a BIT. If partner needed all five to make a small slam, WTF?

[MBV53]

I feel the bidder has not taken any advantage by partner's hesitation,Infact he had one extra keycard than shown,so his bid was not influenced by BIT.

MBVSubrahmanyam

India.

[peachy]

I feel the bidder has not taken any advantage by partner's hesitation

Feelings should not be a reason why a TD rules one way or another. Investigate, establish the necessary facts, then make a ruling in accordance with the laws.

[MBV53]

yes. agree. ruling starts after verifying the facts.

[mrdct]

Are the precise details of the hand important ?

Yes. Every hand needs to be evaluated on its own merits. It is always going to be a case of working out what the hesitation suggested and whether or not the partner of the hesitator had any logical alternatives.

[Cyberyeti]

Are the precise details of the hand important ?

Yes. Every hand needs to be evaluated on its own merits. It is always going to be a case of working out what the hesitation suggested and whether or not the partner of the hesitator had any logical alternatives.

[hv=d=w&w=sa543haj54da10caq10&e=sqj10876hdqj9c7543]266|100|Scoring: IMP

Say the auction was unopposed:

 

2N-3H-4H-4N-5C(0/3)-5S(slow)-?[/hv]

 

Unsure of exact auction as it was at the other table.

[CamHenry]

The slow signoff suggests that partner is considering some stronger action. That demonstrably suggests bidding on, so we've established the first condition for adjustment. Whether passing is an LA is interesting: the W hand is far above a minimum, but surely E has shown "not enough to go to slam opposite 1/4 keycards" (according to the AI). Let's look at how good the W hand could be, while still being something E wouldn't want to go slamming opposite:

 

AKxx

KQJx

Ax

Axx

 

and E still doesn't want to play in slam? Maybe E suspects W has just one keycard:

 

Axxx

KQJx

KT

KQx

 

The actual hand is sufficiently more control-rich than this that I don't think passing is an LA; I'd have to make a poll to see what people think (phrasing it carefully, so it wasn't obvious that they'd shown 0 or 3 aces). My guess is that I'd rule no adjustment, but I'd be particularly careful to explain about the right to appeal.

[bluejak]

In my view the actual hand is important because sometimes one can legally progress, sometimes one cannot.

 

I opened 1♥ in the ACBL with a British partner who lived in New York. He bid 2NT very slowly, raise to 3♥ or better. Now I had a problem because 3♦ says I cannot make a slam try opposite a raise to 3, but want to play in game, other bids apart from 3♥ are slam tries opposite a raise to 3. I had two aces, a nice hand, and felt I was borderline.

 

I bid 3♦, the weaker action, partner made a cue bid, now I am good enough to go to slam. His cue bid was very slow. I cued, and he slowed own further, finally emerging with 4NT. I bid 5♦, 1 or 4, in tempo - then realised I had two aces!

 

He now took forever to sign off in 5♥ and I bid 6♥! Not unreasonably our opponents asked for a ruling.

 

The TD ruled against us, but suggested this was because of case Law and my actual arguments made a lot of sense. We appealed, and the AC basically agreed I was always going to slam after the slam try over 3♦ so reinstated 6♥. They felt passing 5♥ was not an LA.

 

I have not seen it, but I understand the AC was heavily criticised in the case book!