another UI ruling

[ypiper]

[hv=pc=n&s=sk984hq3da632cqj3&w=saj75h92dq974ck95&n=sqt632hjt865dk5ct&e=shak74djt8ca87642&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1dp1sd2sp(BIT)p3cp3n4sdppp]399|300[/hv]

West broke temp for a second or two after 2♠, W has a slow tempo in normal circumstance.

 

Result: down 3, -500. 3NT would have gone -2.

 

1. Does E have a 3C bid?

2. If N/S are seeking a ruling for their damage, will you grant it?

 

Thanks

Edited May 2, 2013 by barmar
added hand diagram

[barmar]

In answer to #2, some pedantics will say that of course you have to grant a ruling, but the ruling could be "result stands". Now that I've gotten that out of the way, I hope people will answer the question she meant, not what she wrote.

[barmar]

When you say that West broke tempo for a second or two, do you mean that he took a second or two (which could be his normal, slow tempo) or it was in addition to his normal slow tempo. The strict definition of "break in tempo" is a change from your normal tempo -- it can even be faster than normal. But if this was his normal tempo, there's no UI and no restrictions on East.

[ArtK78]

Assume, for the sake of argument, that West made a noticeable break in tempo (meaning that the pause was longer than West's normal slow tempo). What does this suggest to East? That West has values? Certainly. That West has spades? Probably.

 

Given the foregoing, what action is suggested by the break in tempo? Clearly that East should not pass, and the BIT would push one more towards a double rather than bidding on if there were any real choice. Without the break in tempo, what would East have done? I don't believe that anyone would pass on the East cards. His opponents have stopped bidding at 2♠ with a (presumed) 8 or 9 card fit. Certainly a second double or a 3♣ bid seem reasonable.

 

The bottom line is that I don't believe that anyone would pass out 2♠ undoubled on the East cards, so his 3♣ bid does not seem out of line. West is certainly under no restrictions, so he can bid what he wants, and his 3NT bid (probably made in the belief that East had a better hand) was going to earn a very poor score until North rescued him. The score should stand. North-South have been damaged, but it was North that did the damaging, not East.

[billw55]

North-South have been damaged, but it was North that did the damaging, not East.

Agree.

 

And, really? North was ready to pass out 2♠, but now will bid 4♠ over a freely bid 3NT? I call double shot.

[MickyB]

Agree.

 

And, really? North was ready to pass out 2♠, but now will bid 4♠ over a freely bid 3NT? I call double shot.

 

It seems likely to me that North bid 4S as a save. I think there's a better case for arguing that pass is a double shot - if it doesn't drift a couple off we'll get our 140 back. Obviously, double would be more of a double-shot than either pass or 4S.

[ypiper]

When you say that West broke tempo for a second or two, do you mean that he took a second or two (which could be his normal, slow tempo) or it was in addition to his normal slow tempo. The strict definition of "break in tempo" is a change from your normal tempo -- it can even be faster than normal. But if this was his normal tempo, there's no UI and no restrictions on East.

 

 

Yes partner's normal tempo is one or two seconds (slower than normal tempo). E thought regardless partner's break of tempo, she will bid on, and she chose 3C.

 

Thanks for editing the diagram, really appreciate it.

[ggwhiz]

I think East did their duty by choosing the at risk 3♣ bid instead of the more flexible double knowing that pard has something, we just don't know what.

 

Suggesting a pass of 2♠ on those cards is insulting. Imo the 4♠ dive was a really poor gamble and not well thought out if you think about the AI from Wests tank and lack of a 2nt bid or other action initially. I'll take the last guess and call the police if I'm wrong?

 

I'll challenge the 3♣ bid if appropriate but this is more like a triple shot.

[CSGibson]

the UI from the break in tempo matches the AI from the auction - partner is marked with enough values to consider a call when the opps pass 2♠

[blackshoe]

"The UI matches the AI" is not, in itself, sufficient to override the proscription in Law 16. Only if there is no logical alternative to the call chosen can a player with UI bid on.

[aguahombre]

the UI from the break in tempo matches the AI from the auction - partner is marked with enough values to consider a call when the opps pass 2♠

"The UI matches the AI" is not, in itself, sufficient to override the proscription in Law 16. Only if there is no logical alternative to the call chosen can a player with UI bid on.

Chris was referring to this hand. The UI cannot create a logical alternative where none existed. If somehow that could happen, then it was suggested by the UI and can't be chosen anyway.

[CSGibson]

"The UI matches the AI" is not, in itself, sufficient to override the proscription in Law 16. Only if there is no logical alternative to the call chosen can a player with UI bid on.

 

 

The UI matches the AI has won many appeals in the NABC casebooks; the precedent indicates it is a valid line of reasoning.

[gnasher]

In practice "The UI matches the AI" has to be sufficient justification for an action, because otherwise the game would be unplayable without screens or computers.

 

Suppose that I open 1NT on a 13-count, showing 12-14 and knowing that it shows 12-14. Partner announces it as 12-14 and raises to 2NT. I have a hand where I would normally bid 3NT, but pass is a logical alternative. I have the UI that partner is playing the same notrump range as me, and will therefore have an 11-count rather than an 8-count. This UI suggests bidding over passing. Am I therefore obliged to pass?

[campboy]

When "the UI matches the AI" is used it is normally shorthand for "the UI doesn't demonstrably suggest anything because it gives us no new information". But it is shorthand and therefore we need to check that the longhand actually applies in this instance.

 

Here (in the OP) the longhand is patently false: there is certainly a range of hands which partner could have on this auction (using the AI), and the UI additionally suggests he is near the top of that range.

 

In gnasher's example it is true that the UI tells us nothing we didn't already believe.

[ypiper]

if UI occurs, when should it be drawn attention to? Immediately or by the end of auction?

It may create disputes over a long sequences of auction.

[Zelandakh]

In order to answer a question about LAs, we surely have to know the level of the players involved. If E-W are normal club players then I would be surprised if Pass was not a LA and in this case I think action is demonstrably suggested over it given the vulnerability. We had a similar thread recently where Double was the call most suggested by UI but action was suggested over passing more generally. This case does not appear to be any different.

 

If E-W are of a higher level than this then it may well be that Pass is not a LA. In that case the choice is between 3♣ and X and now East has done the ethical thing by choosing 3♣. We simply do not know which of these 2 scenarios is the correct one without further information. Naturally a player poll would also be helpful.

[ypiper]

In order to answer a question about LAs, we surely have to know the level of the players involved. If E-W are normal club players then I would be surprised if Pass was not a LA and in this case I think action is demonstrably suggested over it given the vulnerability. We had a similar thread recently where Double was the call most suggested by UI but action was suggested over passing more generally. This case does not appear to be any different.

 

If E-W are of a higher level than this then it may well be that Pass is not a LA. In that case the choice is between 3♣ and X and now East has done the ethical thing by choosing 3♣. We simply do not know which of these 2 scenarios is the correct one without further information. Naturally a player poll would also be helpful.

 

E/W are good standards of bridge skills (they are national trialists).

[billw55]

It seems likely to me that North bid 4S as a save. I think there's a better case for arguing that pass is a double shot - if it doesn't drift a couple off we'll get our 140 back. Obviously, double would be more of a double-shot than either pass or 4S.

Saving over 3NT, in direct seat, holding a good 6 count, when partner has opened the bidding? I guess there could be players that bad. Perhaps Hanlon's razor applies?

 

But yeah, I guess double would be a better double shot.

[aguahombre]

The player who had a logical alternative and chose the call which could not have been demonstrably suggested by UI was West.

 

The offender here is North. The punishment is the result. Don't look for cite; unless he plays bad Bridge on purpose, you won't find one.

[barmar]

In practice "The UI matches the AI" has to be sufficient justification for an action, because otherwise the game would be unplayable without screens or computers.

 

Suppose that I open 1NT on a 13-count, showing 12-14 and knowing that it shows 12-14. Partner announces it as 12-14 and raises to 2NT. I have a hand where I would normally bid 3NT, but pass is a logical alternative. I have the UI that partner is playing the same notrump range as me, and will therefore have an 11-count rather than an 8-count. This UI suggests bidding over passing. Am I therefore obliged to pass?

The definition of "extraneous information" includes an unexpected alert or non-alert. Announcing your actual NT range is not unexpected, and isn't considered UI. The actual methods of the partnership don't become UI just because you overhear partner describing them to the opponents (unless you had misbid, and this would be correcting your misunderstanding).

[blackshoe]

if UI occurs, when should it be drawn attention to? Immediately or by the end of auction?

It may create disputes over a long sequences of auction.

Law 16B2: When a player considers that an opponent has made such (unauthorized - ER) information available and that damage could well result, he may announce, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that the Director be called), that he reserves the right to summon the Director later. The opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed.

This law is somewhat controversial, in that some people consider the stated procedure to be rude. Those people (and they are many) would prefer that you say something like "do you agree that your partner's <action or mannerism or comment or whatever> may have conveyed unauthorized information?" I don't have a problem with that, and in fact it is what I do.

 

There is a problem with either procedure though — players asked the question, or whose opponent has reserved their right, do not call the director themselves. This is usually through ignorance of the law, I think. IAC, if they don't agree they have UI, and don't call the TD, you should call him. The TD will establish the presence of UI and remind the player in receipt of it of his obligation not to take advantage of it (Law 73C), in other words not to "choose from amongst logical alternatives…" (Law 16B1).

 

AFAIK, no RA currently prohibits the reserving of rights under this law.

 

If, after all this, later in the hand you believe UI was used, then you call the director at the end of play (Law 16B3).

[pran]

The definition of "extraneous information" includes an unexpected alert or non-alert. Announcing your actual NT range is not unexpected, and isn't considered UI. The actual methods of the partnership don't become UI just because you overhear partner describing them to the opponents (unless you had misbid, and this would be correcting your misunderstanding).

At least in Norway an announcement of (for instance) 1NT opening bid HCP range shall be made by the opener's partner.

 

The fact that partner legally announces some call is of course AI to the opener, but the actual contents of the announcement is equally of course extraneous and therefore UI. If it matches the opener's own understanding this doesn't matter, but if not then the opener has the UI that there is a discrepancy in the understandings within the partnership.

 

(The example list of extraneous information in Law 16B1{a} is preceded by the words "as for example by", making it clear that the list is not exhaustive.)

[blackshoe]

The point is that you cannot rule that a player has UI if the source of that UI is an expected alert or announcement. Now if the announcement were "15-17" and the player who opened 1NT has 13, that's evidence that the announcement might be UI. But I'm not going to have that evidence during a live auction.

 

At the table, I would say something like "if you did not expect the announcement your partner made, either because you expected an alert, or no announcement or alert, or a different announcement, then the information conveyed by partner's announcement is unauthorized to you. You must make every effort to avoid taking advantage of it. In particular, if you are later found to have chosen from among logical alternatives one which demonstrably could have been suggested by UI, and if your opponents are damaged thereby, I will adjust the score." Quite a mouthful, and all four players will no doubt be fidgeting in their chairs, but I don't see a way to shorten it without making it an incorrect ruling.

[pran]

The point is that you cannot rule that a player has UI if the source of that UI is an expected alert or announcement. Now if the announcement were "15-17" and the player who opened 1NT has 13, that's evidence that the announcement might be UI. But I'm not going to have that evidence during a live auction.

 

At the table, I would say something like "if you did not expect the announcement your partner made, either because you expected an alert, or no announcement or alert, or a different announcement, then the information conveyed by partner's announcement is unauthorized to you. You must make every effort to avoid taking advantage of it. In particular, if you are later found to have chosen from among logical alternatives one which demonstrably could have been suggested by UI, and if your opponents are damaged thereby, I will adjust the score." Quite a mouthful, and all four players will no doubt be fidgeting in their chairs, but I don't see a way to shorten it without making it an incorrect ruling.

Excuse me, but isn't that exactly what I expressed?

[blackshoe]

No. You said the content of the announcement (or whatever) is UI, willy-nilly. That's not what the law says.