UI

[mr1303]

[hv=pc=n&s=sk63hat952dqj5cq2&w=sj98742hkjdcak963&n=sathq864dkt8632c7&e=sq5h73da974cjt854&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1h1s4cp4h5cppdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Bidding proceeded as follows. After the 4C bid East asked a number of questions about the 4C bid. South calls you to the table after the 5C bid comes round to him. After telling the table to continue, South calls you back and claims damage. How do you rule?

[blackshoe]

It appears there was damage (NS can make 5♥ for +650 and can defeat 5♣X only one or two for +500 at most). It also appears that West has taken advantage of UI, so I would adjust the score to +650 for NS, -650 for EW (in the US, I would use Law 12C1{e} for this, in the UK there is the possibility of weighted scores (12C1{c} although I don't see much need for that here). I'm going out on a limb here, basing the ruling on such sparse evidence. If it turns out there's some other pertinent evidence, that might change my ruling.

[jallerton]

How do N/S make 650 in 5♥? If you are "disallowing" the 5♣ bid, shouldn't you be considering the play in 4♥?

 

As a TD I would start by:

 

(i) ascertaining how many tricks were made in 5♣x; and

(ii) polling peers of West over 4♥.

 

What was the form of scoring?

Edited January 11, 2012 by jallerton

[blackshoe]

How do N/S make 650 in 5♥? If you are "disallowing" the 5♥ bid, shouldn't you be considering the play in 4♥?

 

As a TD I would start by:

 

(i) ascertaining how many tricks were made in 5♣x; and

(ii) polling peers of West over 4♥.

 

What was the form of scoring?

 

1. I was suggesting they might make an overtrick in 4♥.

2. I did say there was sparse information in the OP and that I was going solely on that information.

3. What 5♥ bid?

[jallerton]

OK then, how does 4♥ make an overtrick? I don't think the TD should consider a low club opening lead from West, as apart from being of dubious merit, such a lead would appear to be a breach of Law 73C.

[blackshoe]

Apparently I misread it. Okay, 4♥ makes 4.

[barmar]

What jurisdiction, do they require an alert for the 4♣ bid, and was it alerted if so?

 

Assuming the explanation given was something like "singleton or void in ♣", what "number of questions" could East possibly have?

[schulken]

Certainly, in the US, the 4♣ bid should be alerted (I'm assuming it is a splinter, even though I believe the N hand is a bit weak for that call), E can ask what it means, which is a simple explanation, and then E may pass in tempo. Proper use of the stop card by N would allow E another 10 seconds or so to mull overe the auction. I can't believe that W would bid a new suit with a 5-card holding at the 5 level without UI. W must know that E can't have much - both opponents have shown opening hands - and nothing from the auction would tell W that S doesn't have a ♣ suit. What would E be expected to do with little ♣ support? Correct to ♠'? I'd be inclined to award a score of +620 to NS. To be sure, I would check the other scores first and check with other directors present in the room, even if they were not there in a directing capacity. I think proper due diligence can help avoid an unnecessary appeals process.

[mr1303]

Sorry, this was EBU land. 4C was not alerted as per local regulations, that state that all bids over 3NT do not require an alert.

 

It was explained as a splinter upon an enquiry, and led to East showing significant interest, by asking the strength of the bid etc. It took longer than the 10 seconds as stipulated by the stop card procedure.

[blackshoe]

The stop card procedure has nothing to do with questions. In effect, the ten second clock starts after all the questions are answered.

[bluejak]

To be sure, I would check the other scores first and ...

I don't think you should check other scores which have no relevance unless details of bidding and bidding agreements was the same.

[gnasher]

The stop card procedure has nothing to do with questions. In effect, the ten second clock starts after all the questions are answered.

Is that what you think the [EBU] regulations mean?

[blackshoe]

That's what I think all the stop card/skip bid regulations with which I'm (more or less) familiar mean. If you disagree, please explain.

[gnasher]

I don't have any particular opinion about it. The EBU regulations require you to pause, but don't make it clear whether time spent asking questions can constitute part of the pause.

[blackshoe]

You're right, they don't. It just seems to me that it makes no sense to tell a player who is supposed to act as if he needs to think for ten seconds that if he spends some time asking and getting answers to questions, he can no longer have that ten seconds when he does need to think.

[RMB1]

I don't have any particular opinion about it. The EBU regulations require you to pause, but don't make it clear whether time spent asking questions can constitute part of the pause.

 

At least one player believes the EBU regulations require him to ask about a skip bid that was alerted or potentially unusual (e.g. above 3NT), as part of using up the ten seconds. To do otherwise would "show indifference when pausing" (EBU Orange Book 7B6). Although perhaps not strictly relevant, it matches my perception that players attempting to comply with the EBU regulation ask questions during the ten second pause not before the ten second pause.

[schulken]

Just to clarify, I can envision a scenario where I would let 5♣X stand. Had W overcalled 2♥, showing ♠ and and unknown minor, followed by N's 4♣ splinter, E could make a case for a double to show ♣ or support for either minor or just raising ♣. A double by E allows W to retreat to 4♦ if he/she is weak or if that's his/her suit. Having seen opening strength to his/her left and right, E could logically conclude that -500 against -620/650 would be a good result. Knowing they have a 9 or 10 card fit in a minor suit would make for a good sacrifice. That's why I'd check the scores and see how any other -500s got there.

[pran]

For what it is worth:

The Norwegian regulation on STOP explicitly specifies that "the STOP pause begins after opponents have received answers to possible questions on the call".

 

I have a strong impression that our regulations in general have been derived and translated from WBF and EBL recommendations.

[mjj29]

You're right, they don't. It just seems to me that it makes no sense to tell a player who is supposed to act as if he needs to think for ten seconds that if he spends some time asking and getting answers to questions, he can no longer have that ten seconds when he does need to think.

I've known some people who dutifully wait 10 seconds, then ask questions, then think about their bid

[blackshoe]

I've known some people who dutifully wait 10 seconds, then ask questions, then think about their bid

 

I would say those people don't understand the purpose of the regulation.

[Zelandakh]

The OP has used some statements "East asked a number of questions" and "led to East showing considerable interest" which certainly would need to be investigated. Do E-W accept these characterisations? In particular, let's get a clear time line.

1. North bids 4♣

2. East asks what this means

3. North responds "splinter" but (presumably) does not give full disclosure

4. East asks for the point range. What additional mannerisms represent the "considerable interest"?

5. North ?

6. East ?

 

What were the remaining questions. If this is all then the questions do not (to me) demonstrably suggest a club holding so much as, for example, quite possibly holding spade support without the values to raise. Or perhaps East was just peeved at having to ask more than once for disclosure. Perhaps East knows North has a history of limited disclosure and has been bitten before. Who knows unless the Director finds out why they were asking. If the Director does find out that East passed information about clubs then the ruling is obvious of course.

 

Finally, the last set of regulations I read regarding stop procedures (I think German) said specifically that questions were to be asked during the 10 second pause time. They did not say that the pause time should be extended thereafter. So it is clear there is not unanimity in how this regulation is to be adjudicated.

[barmar]

The OP has used some statements "East asked a number of questions" and "led to East showing considerable interest" which certainly would need to be investigated. Do E-W accept these characterisations? In particular, let's get a clear time line.

1. North bids 4♣

2. East asks what this means

3. North responds "splinter" but (presumably) does not give full disclosure

I hope it was South who responded.

 

What were the remaining questions. If this is all then the questions do not (to me) demonstrably suggest a club holding so much as, for example, quite possibly holding spade support without the values to raise. Or perhaps East was just peeved at having to ask more than once for disclosure. Perhaps East knows North has a history of limited disclosure and has been bitten before. Who knows unless the Director finds out why they were asking. If the Director does find out that East passed information about clubs then the ruling is obvious of course.

Asking questions about hand strength doesn't seem to express special interest in the club suit. But maybe asking these questions suggests that East has some values. This gives West some safety in bidding his 2-suiter.

 

Finally, the last set of regulations I read regarding stop procedures (I think German) said specifically that questions were to be asked during the 10 second pause time. They did not say that the pause time should be extended thereafter. So it is clear there is not unanimity in how this regulation is to be adjudicated.

The purpose of the Stop card rule is to hide whether or not you were taking time to decide on an action. I'm with blackshoe in thinking that you usually wouldn't even start your consideration until after the answer to your question. What if it takes 10+ seconds for the opponent to answer the question, does that really mean there's no UI from a fast call after the answer?