Partner did not use the BIT. Can the offender bid again?

[twcho]

[hv=pc=n&s=sjhq7dkq972ca9754&w=skt875ha6dt84cq83&n=sht953da653ckjt62&e=saq96432hkj842djc&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=3c(55+%20minors%2C%2011-15)p3h(Ask%20for%20no.%20of%20!H)d(both%20majors)p(2+%20!H)3s5c5spp6cp(long%20hesitation%20before%20pass)pd(timely%20double)p6sdppp]399|300[/hv]

This is a MP event and the result is 6♠X just made

 

Director's ruling:

Both sides agreed that a total of 2 minutes had elapsed before East passed 6♣. Although the hesitation might suggest a further action after 6♣, pass was not a logical alternative in a good MP game. As West knows that South have at least 2 cards in Hearts, what he requires is only K of Heart from his partner, who has emphasized Majors after 3♥. Even if East does not contain K of Heart, there still have a chance that both Ace and King of Club are in South hand; the action of bidding had a very high upside and a low downside. Unauthorized information may be passed to West from the hesitation, West has still duly made a Double of the 6♣ bid according to his hand.

 

As West made the Double just in a normal tempo, no unauthorized information should be passed from the Double, East bid 6♠ is just at his own risk.

 

As both East / West does not use any unauthorized information, table result is stand.

 

NS appeals:

1. 
    
   
2. West pass 6C seems to be a logical alternative
   
3. East pass 6C(X) seems to be a logical alternative
   
4. Director ruled result stand immediately without consulting 5 other players, and after the last round, we did suggest director to consult 5 players about the case in order to make the ruling more convincing to us. However, the director was refused to do so and claimed that the result stood.
   

 

Summary on the Appeal Committee's ruling:

 

In the course of bidding, East passed 6♣after a long pause (unmistakable hesitation) in a competitive auction. Afterwards, East converted his partner’s ‘double’ to 6♠. The final contract [6♠] by E-W was doubled and made. The TD was summoned by N-S, who claimed damage on UI. The TD adjudicated that there was no infraction and the table result stood. The Appellants strongly suspected that Unauthorized Information (UI) was utilized as a result of the obvious break-in-tempo (BIT) and they requested the TD to go through the consultation process but was refused.

 

The Decision of the TD

 

The TD was in the opinion that West’s double of 6♣ was justified based both on his card holding and also the format of the game (match-point Pairs). The UI arisen from East’s BIT was NOT utilized. As a result, East was free to take whatever action at his own risk. Nothing is mentioned on the Appeals Form that the TD has inquired E-W about the meanings of the their respective calls in order to clarify their intention behind.

 

Decision of the Appeals Committee

 

The opinion of the four members on the panel is not unanimous. The majority of the panel agree with the TD that West’s double of 6♣is justified and ‘Pass’ is not a logical alternative. However, such ‘Double’, which must have been based on ‘sound’ value after the BIT, constitutes extraneous information to East. As a result, East’s actions are restricted. ‘Pass’ over 6♣X by East is considered a logical alternative. Any advantage gained by E-W has to be removed. The verdict is (3) to (1) that East is suspected of making use of the UI for bidding 6♠. Such bid has to be removed and the table score is therefore adjusted to 6♣X by N-S: down (1). Deposit refunded.

 

One of the committe member does have some sympathy with E-W because they had to deal with an unfamiliar sequence and the bidding had suddenly escalated to a high level. Besides, the panelists are in the opinion that had the TD made a more detailed inquiry of E-W’s intention of their respective bids, the Appeals Committee would have gained more useful information in making the adjudication.

 

If you are the appeal committee, how will you rule?

[blackshoe]

Not as this one did. For one thing, the write up mentions "the UI" that East allegedly has, but never explains what that UI is or where it comes from. AFAICS, East has no UI.

[pran]

Not as this one did. For one thing, the write up mentions "the UI" that East allegedly has, but never explains what that UI is or where it comes from. AFAICS, East has no UI.

 

The way I read the writeup they did explain: However, such ‘Double’, which must have been based on ‘sound’ value after the BIT, constitutes extraneous information to East.

 

Whether this was a valid reason for ruling extraneous information is a different question, I am not sure I agree that it is, expecially not as they stated pass was no LA for West.

[blackshoe]

Aside from the fact that I disagree with the committee's determination that the fact that West doubled is UI to East, their argument seems to make no sense.

[mr1303]

This ruling is a shocker, and I would recommend appealing this to a higher authority if possible. Let's give the appeals committee some credence and say that East does have UI that West's double is sound. This point is highly debatable in itself, but for the sake of argument lets go with it.

 

What does this UI suggest? That this contract is going off, so therefore East will do better to pass. So the UI suggests a pass.

The laws state that a player may not choose from a number of possible options one which is suggested by the UI. East has not done this. By bidding 6S, he has made a call that is NOT SUGGESTED BY THE UI.

[nige1]

Fascinating case, twcho. I agree with Sven: After East's tank, West can't take action unless he has a strong enough hand to defend his action to a director and committee. East's pass and pull is hard to explain unless he used the information that West holds the nuts. (For example it seems unlikely East was trying for a grand). The committee deem that information to be unauthorised and believe East used it. The committee's argument accords with common sense but their ruling may still be unlawful.

[bluejak]

While it may be recommended practice for TDs to consult with players, it is the TD's decision how to go about his duties, not the players. If he thought further consultation was unnecessary, it is not the player's job to tell him to do otherwise. Though, of course, they can mention that to the AC [or write it on the form].

 

Besides, the panelists are in the opinion that had the TD made a more detailed inquiry of E-W’s intention of their respective bids, the Appeals Committee would have gained more useful information in making the adjudication.

Does this mean that the AC did not get to talk to the players? This is hardly best practice either.

 

Now, the decision was made that West who had UI did not have an LA of pass. So be it. The arguments seem to be about East's action.

 

The suggestion made by N/S and some of the AC seems to be that East had UI. Well, you are not allowed to act on UI from partner. What UI had West given East? None.

 

I am afraid that N/S and three of the AC have made up a Law. Sorry, fellas, there is no Law forbidding you from using information provided by yourself to yourself.

[barmar]

So was the committee's logic that East knew he'd transmitted UI to West by his hesitation, therefore he knew that West had to avoid taking advantage of this UI, whch implies that West needs extra values for his double, and this becomes UI to East? So when you transmit UI, you're not only constraining partner, but constraining yourself as well if you can infer what partner's constraints would be?

 

That's gross, IMHO.

[blackshoe]

Ridiculous.

[Free]

I would let the result stand.

 

I disagree with the fact that East has a LA to pass. He has a 7-5 distribution and his partner preferred to bid his longest suit! East has 0 tricks in defense, maybe 1. But offensively he's huge.

West only needs 1 trick to Dbl, since he can assume his partner has a constructive hand. He doesn't need to be extra sound in this situation imo.

[Free]

So was the committee's logic that East knew he'd transmitted UI to West by his hesitation, therefore he knew that West had to avoid taking advantage of this UI, whch implies that West needs extra values for his double, and this becomes UI to East? So when you transmit UI, you're not only constraining partner, but constraining yourself as well if you can infer what partner's constraints would be?

 

That's gross, IMHO.

Indeed. Also, if West used the UI the auction would be turned back anyway. West can bid freely, using or not using UI, and let the TD and commitee decide afterwards if it's legitimate or not. So any action by West shouldn't transmit any UI back.

[ggwhiz]

I've seen beginners and intermediates that think any hesitation automatically bars the partner from bidding. What level of player thinks a hesitation bars the hesitator?

 

This ruling caused me to look up the lyrics to How Bizarre.

[pran]

I've seen beginners and intermediates that think any hesitation automatically bars the partner from bidding.

 

And very incorrectly that is.

 

I have even once adjusted 5M= to 6M-1 because the 5M bid was passed out in a situation where I ruled pass to having been suggested by BIT.

[mgoetze]

And noone bothered to ask East and West whether either of them thought that pass of 6♣ was forcing? Well, I suppose given the level of the ruling, it's not surprising that noone involved has heard of a forcing pass...

[bluejak]

We do not know whether anyone 'bothered' [that's quite a suggestive word, is it not?] to ask, or more reasonably asked.

 

But why would they? If it was a forcing pass they would be clamouring, saying so at the top of their voices. If it had been a forcing pass, we would know. So it wasn't.

[mycroft]

GGWhiz - well the person I'm thinking of has 2200 (ACBL) masterpoints. Of course, he also thinks that that rule doesn't apply to him because "he would always bid" - only to the opponents.

 

Blinkers and a certain sense of entitlement can keep you ignorant of the laws for a very long time.