UI Ruling

[aguahombre]

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1dp2hpp2s3hp4hppp]133|100[/hv]

 

2♥ was explained by South as weak, sometime before the 2♠ balance.

 

North actually had an 11-count with 6 hearts (somehow deemed inappropriate to open one or two the first time).

 

Director asks for advice, and the person says that 3♥ is AI to South that North has a hand invitational to game, but that the 3♥ call is based on UI and should not have occurred ---since the authorized information is that South was rejecting a game invite and might not even have heart support.

 

I thought this was correct advice. Was it?

[mycroft]

You hold JTxx KJT9xxx x x. Your agreements bar an initial preempt because of the utility of this hand for spades. Partner opens 1D in third, so you make a WJS (because now your spades are more likely to be useless). Partner passes and they balance in with 2S. Your call? I bet a bunch of people would bid 3H.

 

Or, you're playing 2/3 3 bids and 7-11 2 bids. You pick up HQJT9xxx and out - maybe even another x if vul. Stiff spade. Your call to 1D and to 2S?

 

It is nowhere near AI that North has an invite hand as opposed to one of my above situations. But that's okay, there's nothing in the post that says that South has any UI, so South is entitled to try to work out what 3H shows, and if she gets it right, power to her (unless she's using information that she hasn't shared with the opponents, like "he's forgotten WJS before" or "We used to play fit JS by a passed hand", of course).

 

But North, now North has UI, and it says "bid, you've got a much stronger hand than partner's going to play you for" (by the way, how many diamonds went with those 6 hearts?) Is pass reasonable, given that you showed a max pass and partner's third seat opening said "whoa up"? Would you at least think about it, and would somebody at North's level do it? Almost certainly, sure - and the better North is, the more likely.

 

So, what do we expect would happen after 2S-p? And if South bids 3H, can North bid 4? We'd have to see the hands.

[aguahombre]

tks Edited March 4, 2011 by aguahombre

[Fluffy]

with the info you gave, I think the advice was correct

[AlexJonson]

Mm

 

So oppo alerts a weak jump, explains, and passes, fine.

 

His pard bids 3H, fine, and he decides to go to four.

 

I don't see that South can bid 4H with impunity. I very rarely call a TD and almost never appeal, but I would do both on this hand.

[blackshoe]

What law has South violated?

[AlexJonson]

What law has South violated?

 

When I tell partner he has a weak hand, and then he bids on, do you really believe we don't both have UI? You may be right, but I'm lodging an appeal.

[paulg]

What law has South violated?

 

When I tell partner he has a weak hand, and then he bids on, do you really believe we don't both have UI? You may be right, but I'm lodging an appeal.

I note that we still cannot give negative votes.

[blackshoe]

When I tell partner he has a weak hand, and then he bids on, do you really believe we don't both have UI? You may be right, but I'm lodging an appeal.

 

"South has done something I don't like. I can't point to a law he's violated, but I'm going to shoot him anyway."

 

Good luck with your appeal. :rolleyes:

[aguahombre]

Rather than worry about negative votes, I will try to recap for Alex (who might have missed something).

 

See the third paragraph of Mycroft (#2), combined with Blackshoe's rhetorical question. South doesn't know which North is doing, but he also has no UI. If North is bidding again with the weak hand as described by South, South can do what he wants. If North has the invitational hand, 3♥ by North will probably be disallowed.

 

If South reopens on (2S) p (P), North still has to pass assuming his hand has been described, and not using the UI.

 

P.S., I am not answering my own post, but rather using the information Mycroft, Fluff, and Black provided.

Edited March 6, 2011 by aguahombre

[blackshoe]

My question wasn't rhetorical. You can't make a ruling if you don't know which law has been violated.

[aguahombre]

My question wasn't rhetorical. You can't make a ruling if you don't know which law has been violated.

 

OK. Sounded rhetorical, since you are thoroughly familiar with the laws.

[blackshoe]

Well, yes, but others aren't, and if they're going to "make rulings" (even here) they need to know that being able to specify which law they're ruling under is part of the process.

[hotShot]

North has the legal information that his partner has opening strength and that his hand has 11 HCP and a 6 card suit. Since the actual North hand is not given, it is difficult to decide, but the questions are:

 

1) is pass a LA

2) if pass is not a LA, is a specific bid of the remaining bids suggested over the others.

 

Since West did not bid over South 1♦ in the first round, I think it is reasonable to assume, that South opening though in 3rd seat should be about usual minimum strength.

I don't think that pass is an LA, because North knows his side has more HCP and if they don't have a ♦ or ♥ fit, than EW have less HCP and most likely no ♠ fit. So unless North unknown shape suggests something else, North will at least have to dbl.

[barmar]

I agree with blackshoe that South hasn't violated any law.

 

However, would he have been in the position to bid game if North hadn't rebid 3♥? If we judge that bid to be suggested by the UI, everything after it is also a consequence of this infraction (unless the other side makes a SEWoG call).

[blackshoe]

If 3♥ is an infraction, and the NOS were damaged thereby, then we adjust the score under Laws 16B3 and 12C1{c} or 12C1{e}, depending on the jurisdiction (the latter, in the ACBL). If we're adjusting, then whatever South bid is relevant only to the question whether there was damage. IOW, the infraction is entirely North's.

[AlexJonson]

If 3♥ is an infraction, and the NOS were damaged thereby, then we adjust the score under Laws 16B3 and 12C1{c} or 12C1{e}, depending on the jurisdiction (the latter, in the ACBL). If we're adjusting, then whatever South bid is relevant only to the question whether there was damage. IOW, the infraction is entirely North's.

 

Such certainty.

 

In this thread it is said that:

 

A

1. North definitely can't bid 3H with an invitational hand (OP advice)

 

2. North almost certainly can bid 3H with an invitational hand (Hotshot)

 

B

 

1. South definitely has AI that North has an invitational hand (OP advice)

 

2. South doesn't have AI that North has an invitational hand (Mycroft)

 

A/B the OP advice is correct (Fluffy)

 

C

 

1. South doesn't have any UI (large majority)

 

2 South might have UI though not stated in the OP (Mycroft) - happens to be my personal view.

 

Blackshoe, the reason I don't like what South did is that I believe it was affected by UI when his partner bid 3H. My evidence is scant - just that South bid 4H in this auction, which I think needs investigation.

[aguahombre]

Such certainty.

 

In this thread it is said that:

 

 

 

B

 

1. South definitely has AI that North has an invitational hand (OP advice)

 

2. South doesn't have AI that North has an invitational hand (Mycroft)

 

A/B the OP advice is correct (Fluffy)

 

 

Not exactly. B2 is correct because North might have had the weak hand and chosen to bid again. This caused OP (me) to change his opinion about B1.

 

But none of that creates UI for South or negates the fact that South was free to do whatever he wanted.

[blackshoe]

Blackshoe, the reason I don't like what South did is that I believe it was affected by UI when his partner bid 3H. My evidence is scant - just that South bid 4H in this auction, which I think needs investigation.

 

What is the source of this alleged UI?

[mycroft]

Such certainty.

In this thread it is said that:

 

A

1. North definitely can't bid 3H with an invitational hand (OP advice)

2. North almost certainly can bid 3H with an invitational hand (Hotshot)

I do not know - it is a judgement call that must be made. Clearly the UI suggests bidding (partner thinks I have a 0-5-count, and I have 11); also, North showed an invitational hand last time (I assume - question: what did North think 2H showed? We've never really asked), and she doesn't have anything more than that (does she? we still haven't seen the hand). Clearly again, making the call suggested by the UI led to a more successful result than passing (the call *not* suggested by the UI). So, is passing 2S (in a live auction, remember; partner gets to call) a logical alternative (the question HotShot asks, and attempts to answer)?

 

I disagree with HotShot that it is not, because *my* opponents are idiots (except when they're brilliant, of course), and *my* partner is the best player in the room (besides myself, of course) - if he wasn't, why am I playing with him (and frankly, after I mastermind Yet Another Hand, implying that partner can't bid, why is he playing with me)? *If* North thought 2H showed this hand (maximum pass with hearts, whether or not it also showed diamonds (fit J/S by PH)), then assuming that South both decided not to even try for game with a real opener, knowing he's facing a maximum pass and good hearts, *and* that we can trust E-W bidding to be at all sane (and not, say, a "they don't play at the 2-level" balance with 4=4=3=2, hoping this is their fit), seems like a huge breach of partnership trust, especially since partner actually gets another call.

 

Of course, if North mispulled and meant to bid 1H, maybe that's different. I haven't analysed that.

 

That's why it's a "judgement call" - because we should use bridge judgement. Some people's bridge judgement is different from others'. It does strongly depend on what North thought 2H meant/why North bid 2H, I will admit.

B

1. South definitely has AI that North has an invitational hand (OP advice)

2. South doesn't have AI that North has an invitational hand (Mycroft)

Well, it is possible that my example hands may not be reasonable for this North/South - notice how in both cases, I had to impose something on their system that made the hands unsuitable for an opening bid. If nothing like those are the case, then of course South would know that North can't have a long zero-count or the like. We have to check. But so many people have limits on what their 2 or 3M openings look like that it is quite likely that North could have a weak hand suitable for 2H WJS and 3H "please don't double 2S, partner".

 

But, of course, what AI anyone has is *irrelevant*, in the face of "has no UI" - which is what OP has implied by not providing any. Even in the face of "has UI", AI means little, except to make illogical alternatives that would otherwise be logical (and less successful than 3H). Please note, this is the key that many people do not understand, and therefore try to argue "I have this information and this that is authorized to me; from that, <call suggested by the UI> is reasonable". That doesn't matter; what matters is whether all the not suggested ones are *not* reasonable.

C

1. South doesn't have any UI (large majority)

2 South might have UI though not stated in the OP (Mycroft) - happens to be my personal view.

It is quite possible; it frequently is. But without evidence of it (and trust me, the opponents are *going to tell me* about hitches, gasps, hesitations, or whatever from North that provide UI to South), *the TD must rule as if there is no UI*.

Blackshoe, the reason I don't like what South did is that I believe it was affected by UI when his partner bid 3H. My evidence is scant - just that South bid 4H in this auction, which I think needs investigation.

Believe what you will; but the Rule of Coincidence doesn't exist, and we've spent the last 20 years stamping out the belief that it does. Without any UI (or unexpressed relevant non-"just bridge" partnership knowledge, of course - that is worth investigating, as I said before), you Just Can't rule it back because "there had to have been UI" or "there might have been UI". Which is what Ed is saying with "so, what law did South infract?" - it's not rhetorical, unless you believe that the answer is guaranteed to be "no"; in which case, even then, the law denies restitution for non-infractions.

[blackshoe]

Believe what you will; but the Rule of Coincidence doesn't exist, and we've spent the last 20 years stamping out the belief that it does. Without any UI (or unexpressed relevant non-"just bridge" partnership knowledge, of course - that is worth investigating, as I said before), you Just Can't rule it back because "there had to have been UI" or "there might have been UI". Which is what Ed is saying with "so, what law did South infract?" - it's not rhetorical, unless you believe that the answer is guaranteed to be "no"; in which case, even then, the law denies restitution for non-infractions.

 

This.

[AlexJonson]

This.

 

I don't recall mentioning coincidence.

 

Would it be so strange to ask North why he bid two hearts, and ask South why he bid four hearts?

 

What would you think if North said it was 'just Bridge' to extend the range opposite a 3rd hand opening?

[bluejak]

Believe what you will; but the Rule of Coincidence doesn't exist, and we've spent the last 20 years stamping out the belief that it does.

I do not think that is quite right! The way it was applied, if there were two coincidental events, that proved something was wrong, and that certainly needed stamping out.

 

But if there are two strangenesses then you have evidence - not proof - suggesting something, and further investigation is reasonable.

[mycroft]

Investigation, yes. But "I believe it was affected by UI when his partner bid 3H. My evidence is scant - just that South bid 4H in this auction" is, in other words, "I think this call was affected by UI (because it's suspicious). My evidence of UI? He made this call, and it's suspicious" - is strictly coincidence. Sure, find out if there was something there (as I said, if the opponents don't say anything about what North did, it's likely there is no UI; I'd be investigating if there was partnership history that made it more likely for South to "get it right" than the opponents (unless that history was disclosed at the right time).

 

Having said that, in this case (and I know you're speaking in general, David), it's *so much more likely* that the point at which we need to rule is at 2S that any potential UI pushing South's raise to game is not going to be relevant.

[mycroft]

Specifically to Alex, if I was told that North "knew" it was weak, but it's obvious to stretch the range, then I'd ask first "what hands bid 1H, then?" and it goes into "you made your decision last time" territory (this isn't an 8-count after all; it's an absolute max pass); and, of course "it's not obvious to everybody; if it's your agreement you have to explain it. 'Weak' just doesn't cut it."

 

Now, if the auction had gone: p-p-1D-p;2H-2S-p-p; now I'd be much more likely to listen to "I decided to throw a spanner in and WJS, but the point was to hit them in game, and defending 2S is silly."

 

But Partner Gets Another Chance; bidding now, even with a "spanner throw", is masterminding (assuming no UI). Masterminding when you know you've masterminded before is incredibly insulting to partner; masterminding when you have UI becomes legally difficult; masterminding when you *know* you're going to get information that will be considered unauthorized, and that if you intend to continue to bid all 52 cards that the TD is likely to rule against you, is just stupid.

 

I also bring up the repeated discussions on "self-serving testimony", and the "could have known" theory (which is explicit in some laws, and implicit in general) - "I decided to stretch the range, because partner's a passed hand" definitely falls into both cases (treated with less (but not no) weight because it's self-serving, and "someone trying to break the rules would do exactly the same thing, therefore we can't allow you, who *I am sure is doing things completely innocently*, to do the same thing" (please note - that construction usually works very well; those who did do whatever, completely innocently, believe me; those who might, in their secret heart of hearts, be trying one on, believe me as well - and they hear the sarcasm).