Yet another UI - amusingly low standard club game

[Bbradley62]

I think 2NT or 3NT are possible. Or a double if that is for penalties. If I expect to be replaced by the original player after I make this call, I would bid 2NT since he obviously didn't think it was worth 3NT.

Agreed. (Someone above said the final contract should be 2♥ undoubled, which most others seem to agree is not a logical alternative.) We might say that 3N is the action suggested by the hesitation and disallow it. If South is allowed to bid 2N, I think North should be allowed to bid 3N with his clearly-better-than-minimum hand. As a lifetime ACBLer, I'm not at all used to thinking in terms of a weighted score, but it might be right to weight contracts of 3N, 2N and 2♥x, one-third each.

[ggwhiz]

So South made an error on the first round of the bidding. He is allowed to correct that error later as long as he is not influenced by UI.

 

We are reading the situation differently is all and without being there it's natural.

 

You think South made a mistake that is now being corrected? I think they really are this bad to bid 1nt on these cards and probably learned the game in the kitchen. I also doubt it's the first time they (or anyone else in this game) has used UI and by rolling it back I'm making a point to the whole table.

[aguahombre]

So South made an error on the first round of the bidding. He is allowed to correct that error later as long as he is not influenced by UI. The hand was worth a game bid earlier and it is still worth a game bid, hesitation by partner or not.

Your opinion of what the hand was worth earlier is not relevant; South's opinion is relevant, and it was stated by the 1NT bid -- nowhere near inviting game. A self-serving statement that he was not influenced by the UI and now has a clear 3NT bid is just that.

[ArtK78]

Your opinion of what the hand was worth earlier is not relevant; South's opinion is relevant, and it was stated by the 1NT bid -- nowhere near inviting game. A self-serving statement that he was not influenced by the UI and now has a clear 3NT bid is just that.

The cards speak for themselves.

 

In my opinion, there is a significant tendency in these Fora to adjust scores and hand out procedural penalties which directors and committees would not do in real life situations. This is especially true at the club level. I would be loathe to adjust a score in a club game unless I had a very reasonable belief that the offiending side should have known better.

 

Here, it is clear that the South player does not know better. I would let the result stand and attempt to teach South why his opponents are upset with what happened at the table. I am not confident that South will understand what I am telling him given the degree of unsophistication demonstrated in the auction. But I would not roll back the score to 2NT or 2♥ undoubled.

[helene_t]

The simple solution, particularly at a club game, might well be to simply ask South why bid 3NT, and why he bid 1NT. You may get an honest answer that solves the problem.

This.

But assuming that we don't get a useful answer I agree with a weighted ruling.

[Cascade]

The cards speak for themselves.

 

In my opinion, there is a significant tendency in these Fora to adjust scores and hand out procedural penalties which directors and committees would not do in real life situations. This is especially true at the club level. I would be loathe to adjust a score in a club game unless I had a very reasonable belief that the offiending side should have known better.

 

Here, it is clear that the South player does not know better. I would let the result stand and attempt to teach South why his opponents are upset with what happened at the table. I am not confident that South will understand what I am telling him given the degree of unsophistication demonstrated in the auction. But I would not roll back the score to 2NT or 2♥ undoubled.

 

I think this attitude is completely wrong. It is what contributes to a very poor standard of play according to the rules in the wider game.

 

Penalties are sanctioned in part so that players will learn to play by the rules. If you allow players to not play according to the rules then you simply encourage law breaking.

 

The wording in law 73 is strong - players "must" carefully avoid taking advantage of UI. The consequence of not is that procedural penalties should be imposed. The fact that they are not IMHO simply shows a complete lack of understanding of the rules by directors and administrators.

[Trinidad]

The simple solution, particularly at a club game, might well be to simply ask South why bid 3NT, and why he bid 1NT. You may get an honest answer that solves the problem.

This.

But assuming that we don't get a useful answer I agree with a weighted ruling.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the answer was: "Before partner passed, I found that there still was a card stuck in the board. It turned out that I only had 12 cards. So when I added the ♠K, I suddenly had 12 HCP instead of 9."

 

It may even be that there wasn't a BIT by North. That was just the time it took to figure out whom that card belonged to. ;)

 

When directing, at any level but much more so at a club game, never assume that the players will give you the relevant facts unprompted. The players know the facts, but they don't know which ones are relevant. You need to ask them everything.

 

Rik

[barmar]

Even competent players sometimes misbid.

 

Last night, my partner and I had the uncontested auction 1♣-1♠-4♠-AllPass. Responder passed holding a 4=1=4=4 12 count, and we missed a good slam. Why? She had a brain fart and thought she'd opened the bidding, not just responded.

[aguahombre]

Even competent players sometimes misbid.

 

Last night, my partner and I had the uncontested auction 1♣-1♠-4♠-AllPass. Responder passed holding a 4=1=4=4 12 count, and we missed a good slam. Why? She had a brain fart and thought she'd opened the bidding, not just responded.

Your anecdote would be relevant to this case if the auction had gone:

 

P-1C

1S-4S

4N-etc and on to slam.

 

Your Partner did not recognize her error in time to compensate for it, so whether you hesitated before bidding 4S, and whether you as the real opener had extra values above your rebid, just doesn't matter.

[barmar]

My point is that you can't judge a players intent just by looking at their bids; there can be a number of reasons why they didn't consider their hand worth a game-force on the first round, like Trinidad's example of a missing card (although it would be better if the card were simply hidden behind another card in their hand -- if it's still in the board, it means they forgot to count their cards). It doesn't have to be that they changed their judgement, which could have been influenced by the hesitation.

[aguahombre]

And we don't buy the self-serving (even if possibly true) excuses when there is UI which might have been used.

[vigfus]

I think 2NT or 3NT are possible. Or a double if that is for penalties. If I expect to be replaced by the original player after I make this call, I would bid 2NT since he obviously didn't think it was worth 3NT.

 

Hello Gordon

Let's play Bridge. Table score stands.

Maybe South miscouted his HCP at first. I give South all my benefits of doubt. I would always bid 3NT here. But I am not sure if I would have Passed the 1H bid. It depends of the parthership agreement or if I trust my partner to keep on bidding if I pass.

[nige1]

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the answer was: "Before partner passed, I found that there still was a card stuck in the board. It turned out that I only had 12 cards. So when I added the ♠K, I suddenly had 12 HCP instead of 9."

It may even be that there wasn't a BIT by North. That was just the time it took to figure out whom that card belonged to. ;)

When directing, at any level but much more so at a club game, never assume that the players will give you the relevant facts unprompted. The players know the facts, but they don't know which ones are relevant. You need to ask them everything.

My point is that you can't judge a players intent just by looking at their bids; there can be a number of reasons why they didn't consider their hand worth a game-force on the first round, like Trinidad's example of a missing card (although it would be better if the card were simply hidden behind another card in their hand -- if it's still in the board, it means they forgot to count their cards). It doesn't have to be that they changed their judgement, which could have been influenced by the hesitation.

Hello Gordon Let's play Bridge. Table score stands. Maybe South miscouted his HCP at first. I give South all my benefits of doubt. I would always bid 3NT here. But I am not sure if I would have Passed the 1H bid. It depends of the partnership agreement or if I trust my partner to keep on bidding if I pass.

South didn't pass East's 1♥ overcall. He bid 1N.

 

The director should take into account all relevant evidence that he can garner. Manifestly, player's claims, however self-serving and unlikely, are still evidence. The problem is that most humans are expert rationalisers. Current law rewards a convincing untruth but punishes a truthful admission. Of course it's possible that South misread his hand when he earlier decided that 1N was the correct contract. If that is the case, North's tank might not now suggest double/2N/3N over pass. Unfortunately, under current law, the director is forced to judge how likely it is that South is telling the truth. Unless the director adopts a hard line (taking such claims with a pinch of salt) or he is an expert telepath, he will be taken in too often. Understandably, most directors are reluctant to bite this bullet. Hence, standards are in free-fall.

[aguahombre]

O.K. Let's take the contention that South had a King hidden. It is not an infraction for North to break tempo (in and of itself); so let's even say South discovered his extra King during the huddle --- all just dandy.

 

IMO, a good non-invite plus a King = an invite. So, regardless of the UI South when given a chance at redemption could bid 2NT inviting game. He still has UI that North will probably be accepting game; but, he is not using that information. He would be using it if (as he actually did) he took his invite and bid 3NT instead of inviting.

 

Now, here is the interesting part: Turn our focus to NORTH who has authorized information --- a good guess that South found an extra good card and has an invitational hand. North had better bid 3NT, and all is well. But, North has a chance to be unethical. He can think that the UI from his BIT is what caused South's incongruous 2NT bid, and PASS. If he did that, here, it would probably never come to the director's attention; but nevertheless North would have committed a serious ethical violation.

[Vampyr]

My point is that you can't judge a players intent just by looking at their bids; there can be a number of reasons why they didn't consider their hand worth a game-force on the first round, like Trinidad's example of a missing card

 

LOL I suggested this in post#9 -- I guess I would be surprised if I knew how many people had me on their ignore list!

[StevenG]

Having read this thread, I am no wiser as to why people think pass is an LA for South. Surely the LAs are 2NT and 3NT - 3NT is suggested by the hesitation, so 2NT is the legal bid amd North will raise to 3NT. So result stands, but a word in South's ear.

 

I don't know why South bid 1NT on his first round, but there is no way to judge without asking him. (A probably stupid question from an Acol-only player - isn't 1NT forcing in some strains of "standard"?) When dealing with weak players, I don't think the logic "this bid means this to me" therefore "this bid means the same thing to him" holds. In particular, I don't see really weak players understanding the concept of forcing and non-forcing bids; they just make a seemingly descriptive bid and shrug their shoulders when it is passed out.

[gnasher]

Having read this thread, I am no wiser as to why people think pass is an LA for South. Surely the LAs are 2NT and 3NT

LAs are actions which are logical for the class of player involved. We have evidence from the auction that this South thought that the hand should be played in a partscore, If that's what he did think, and he knew what his hand was when he bid 1NT, we should probably conclude that pass is an LA and 3NT is not.

 

If, on the other hand, he bid 1NT thinking it was forcing, or thinking he had a weaker hand, or not thinking at all, we might conclude that pass is not an LA and 3NT is.

 

Since the LAs are a function of what South was thinking when he bid 1NT, obviously we should obtain evidence about what he was thinking. I'm surprised that anyone thinks they can determine the LAs without having done this.

[chrism]

(A probably stupid question from an Acol-only player - isn't 1NT forcing in some strains of "standard"?)

Not in competition in anything that I have heard described as "standard", though quite a few players seem to use that description for whatever they happen to play.

[barmar]

LOL I suggested this in post#9 -- I guess I would be surprised if I knew how many people had me on their ignore list!

I'm not ignoring you (or anyone -- it would be inappropriate given my role as a forum admin). I just noticed the most recent one.

[Trinidad]

My point is that you can't judge a players intent just by looking at their bids; there can be a number of reasons why they didn't consider their hand worth a game-force on the first round, like Trinidad's example of a missing card (although it would be better if the card were simply hidden behind another card in their hand -- if it's still in the board, it means they forgot to count their cards). It doesn't have to be that they changed their judgement, which could have been influenced by the hesitation.

I used the example of a card stuck in the board on purpose. Some very significant events may have been going on at the table that you, as a TD, do not know and that the players will not tell you (e.g. because they don't want to make the situation more complicated than it is, or don't want to get a PP for not counting their cards)... Unless, of course, you ask fairly specifically.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

O.K. Let's take the contention that South had a King hidden. It is not an infraction for North to break tempo (in and of itself); so let's even say South discovered his extra King during the huddle --- all just dandy.

 

IMO, a good non-invite plus a King = an invite.

 

That may be true by itself, but your argument doesn't hold when you add the condition that you have just told your partner that you cannot hold an invite anymore. If South replaced his 3NT bid by 2NT, this would -in principle- be merely to play with a 9-10 count, instead of the 6-8 he could have held and with which he would pass. (I write "in principle" since in this case North, with his borderline non-invitation, will raise to 3NT anyway.)

 

South cannot show his 12 HCP hand with an invitational bid anymore, so he will need to bite the bullet and simply bid game. That is at least what any half decent player -who through a brain fart had lost an ace earlier in the auction- would do. (But note that "any half decent player" does not apply here.)

 

Rik

[lamford]

I wouldn't allow the 3NT bid, and in a club context I'd welcome it as a good opportunity to explain how these things work.

Would you allow South to substitute a penalty double instead of 3NT? And I agree with gnasher that South must first be asked what he thought his hand was when he bid 1NT, as even beginners would not choose that call.

[gordontd]

Would you allow South to substitute a penalty double instead of 3NT? And I agree with gnasher that South must first be asked what he thought his hand was when he bid 1NT, as even beginners would not choose that call.

Yes, I would allow a penalty double. Of course I agree with finding out what the player thought was going on, but I don't think the likelihood is great that there is no LA to bidding 3NT. Even if he thought he was bidding a forcing NT, that, for almost all players, means he had already judged it not to be strong enough to force to game.

[axman]

 

 

Since the LAs are a function of what South was thinking when he bid 1NT, obviously we should obtain evidence about what he was thinking. I'm surprised that anyone thinks they can determine the LAs without having done this.

 

I think that this is a dubious assertion. L1612b has the specification for LA: “..among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership,..”

 

which to me specifies that it does not rely upon what THE player 'thought' but what OTHER players would consider based upon the Method.

[lamford]

Yes, I would allow a penalty double. Of course I agree with finding out what the player thought was going on, but I don't think the likelihood is great that there is no LA to bidding 3NT. Even if he thought he was bidding a forcing NT, that, for almost all players, means he had already judged it not to be strong enough to force to game.

Then I do not see how you can adjust the score, as the alternative 2Hx-4 is worse for EW than 3NT, reached either via 2NT raised to 3, or 3NT immediately.