Bid allowed after UI?

[nop98]

[hv=pc=n&s=s3h632dkqjt987c93&w=sq964hq9875d2ck84&n=sthjtda643cat7652&e=sakj8752hak4d5cqj&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1c(16%2B%2C%20any)3d(Alerted%20as%20majors)d(Values)3h3sp4sdrpp]399|300[/hv]

 

I have two questions:

 

1) Is North allowed to "change his mind" and, after the XX, remove to 5♦ (assuming no UI available) ?

2) In reality, North thought for several minutes in the diagrammed situation. So much so, that South got confused and thought it was his turn, and he reached in his bidding box (clearly visible to everyone) and removed the 5♦ card - having passed the XX previously. South was told that it was not his turn, whereupon North eventually bids 5♦. EW call the director who asks the players to proceed, and EW reach 5♥, and collect an overtrick once NS don't cash their two aces. EW ask if the 5♦ call is acceptable, arguing that the UI of the attempted bid-out-of-turn clearly suggests to bid on. North claims he would have never passed out the redoubled contract and that the UI was irrelevant.

 

Your opinion would be much appreciated!

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=s3h632dkqjt987c93&w=sq964hq9875d2ck84&n=sthjtda643cat7652&e=sakj8752hak4d5cqj&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1c(16%2B%2C%20any)3d(Alerted%20as%20majors)d(Values)3h3sp4sdrpp]399|300|

I have two questions:

1) Is North allowed to "change his mind" and, after the XX, remove to 5♦ (assuming no UI available) ?

2) In reality, North thought for several minutes in the diagrammed situation. So much so, that South got confused and thought it was his turn, and he reached in his bidding box (clearly visible to everyone) and removed the 5♦ card - having passed the XX previously. South was told that it was not his turn, whereupon North eventually bids 5♦. EW call the director who asks the players to proceed, and EW reach 5♥, and collect an overtrick once NS don't cash their two aces. EW ask if the 5♦ call is acceptable, arguing that the UI of the attempted bid-out-of-turn clearly suggests to bid on. North claims he would have never passed out the redoubled contract and that the UI was irrelevant.

Your opinion would be much appreciated![/hv]

As is usual in UI cases, the law is clear.

Without UI, North is free to do what he likes.

 

South''s 5♦ bid out of turn is UI to North that strongly suggests 5♦ over the LA of Pass. Hence the director should roll back the auction to 5♠XX and impose a swingeing PP on North.

 

Unfortunately, however, BBF equity buffs might judge East's redouble to be wild and gambling, or something equally ludicrous.

[sfi]

As is usual in UI cases, the law is clear.

Without UI, North is free to do what he likes.

 

South''s 5♦ bid out of turn is UI to North that strongly suggests 5♦ over the LA of Pass. Hence the director should roll back the auction to 5♠XX and impose a swingeing PP on North.

 

Unfortunately, however, BBF equity buffs might judge East's redouble to be wild and gambling, or something equally ludicrous.

 

Spot on (although you meant 4Sxx). I have a hard time constructing a hand where South's 3D bid is consistent with the E-W bidding, so North suspects something is odd. But it could easily be E-W in trouble (maybe 3S was meant as a stopper ask for 3NT or similar) and the only reason North knows who stuffed up is the UI.

 

North's claim about never passing out the redoubled contract is farfetched, to say the least. A PP certainly seems in order.

 

Not sure what argument could be made for the redouble being wild or gambling. It seems perfectly reasonable to me. I'd rule 4Sxx +2, given their failure to cash the aces on the actual hand. Let them argue about the second overtrick in committee if they like.

[aguahombre]

And furthermore if you believe:

1) North was going to pull anyway (Why would he wait 2 minutes if it was that clear to him?)

2) South was confused.

 

I have a deal for you on a sure-fire investment in a suspension bridge.

[RMB1]

South bid 5♦ out of turn at partner's turn to call? Why isn't North forced to Pass throughout, Law 31B?

[sanst]

South bid 5♦ out of turn at partner's turn to call? Why isn't North forced to Pass throughout, Law 31B?

Because N made his call after S was told that it was not his turn to call. Obviously there was no director at the table at that moment. And it doesn't make any difference, the TD should give a score of 4♠XX+2. If N fails to make both aces in 5♥ I have no reason to believe that he would do so in 4♠XX. NS also deserve a PP.

[sfi]

South bid 5♦ out of turn at partner's turn to call? Why isn't North forced to Pass throughout, Law 31B?

 

That may depend on jurisdiction. In Australia, for example, South's actions do not constitute a bid.

[ggwhiz]

And furthermore if you believe:

1) North was going to pull anyway (Why would he wait 2 minutes if it was that clear to him?)

 

North gets a serious slap upside the head for that gambit.

[Cyberyeti]

And furthermore if you believe:

1) North was going to pull anyway (Why would he wait 2 minutes if it was that clear to him?)

2) South was confused.

 

I have a deal for you on a sure-fire investment in a suspension bridge.

 

TBF I've been in situations where I feel I have an obvious action, but there's UI. I then have to think about "Is there any point in doing this or is it going to be rolled back by the director if it works", causing me to think when I would not have done otherwise.

[aguahombre]

TBF I've been in situations where I feel I have an obvious action, but there's UI. I then have to think about "Is there any point in doing this or is it going to be rolled back by the director if it works", causing me to think when I would not have done otherwise.

Well, there are -- if you call it that -- two schools of thought about what you ask.

 

1) We should ignore unauthorized information and proceed with what we were always going to do.

2) We must take the UI into account and decide if our intended call has a logical alternative. If it does, and our intended call could have been suggested (over the logical alternative), we should choose the logical alternative.

 

Since #2 is pretty much how the laws are worded regarding UI, it seems to me that ignoring the UI is ignoring the laws. Anyway, that is how I look at it when it is my turn to act in these situations. How can I 'carefully avoid' taking advantage of UI if I don't acknowledge its existence?

 

The sticklers/pedants might challenge my paraphrasing of the exact laws which apply, but I stand by the thoughts.

[chrism]

Not sure what argument could be made for the redouble being wild or gambling. It seems perfectly reasonable to me.

The redouble occurred prior to the infraction, so it isn't relevant whether or not it is wild or gambling.

[blackshoe]

To OP's question one, I answer yes.

 

Not sure I see a question in #2, but ... OP appears to be in Ireland. Was a call made under Irish bidding box regulations? If not, south has not committed an infraction and Laws 29 and 31B do not apply. However, North does have UI from South's action. Under the circumstances I'm not sure what the "I" is. The auction, which is AI to North, shows South willing to defer to North on the question what to do about the redouble. What is the "I" in the UI? That south is confused? Surely that's not relevant. That south has changed his mind? I don't think his action says that. IAC, assuming there really is UI the usual rules apply: What are the LAs? Could bidding 5♦ demonstrably have been suggested over an LA? Is there an LA to pulling? There seems a lot of sympathy for a score adjustment on the basis of a violation of Law 16. I'm not so sure.

 

If South made a bid out of turn, then we apply the appropriate Laws, in particular 31B, and North is required to pass. However, apparently no one called the director after south's irregularity. I'm tempted to say "you didn't call me, your 'table ruling' stands, North can bid what he wants" just to make the point that you should call the director when there's an irregularity. In law, though, I think the TD has to rule on North's alleged used of UI, and if he want to make the point I just mentioned, he should do so via a PP.

[ahydra]

With regards to the BOOT (if South's actions did constitute a bid), ideally the TD should have been called at that point rather than later, and North would have to pass giving EW the wonderful 4SXX+2. But nobody did call the TD... I would apply Law 11A and deny EW the right to rectification - this seems a sensible approach given that North has now bid where he was otherwise supposed to have passed ("making a bit of a mess of things" one might say).

 

Whether or not South's actions did constitute a bid, North has UI. Still, I think North should be allowed to pull this after the XX. What's more likely, that opps have decided to play 4SXX in a 7-card fit knowing of a minimum 5-1 split plus other bad breaks, or that there's been a system mixup? Compare the classic "unauthorized panic" situation, where the offending side are meant to keep bidding on until it's clear something's wrong, which would normally be when opponents start producing red (or here, blue) cards.

 

But it could easily be E-W in trouble (maybe 3S was meant as a stopper ask for 3NT or similar) and the only reason North knows who stuffed up is the UI.

 

3S was not alerted, so North has no reason to assume it's anything other than natural. Also, aside from the fact that pass of XX doesn't necessarily insist that partner passes too, consider that South may be reluctant to bid 5D due to UI considerations - he has UI from the explanation.

 

There is a bit of a question mark over the long pause before North's eventual pull. It might be worth asking him why he thought so long. It could be to consider UI implications as Cyber suggested, or it could be to consider whether there's any chance the auction could be real / whether to play it safe anyway, and so on, where his remark that he would have always ran simply means he would have reached the same conclusion eventually (but still thought for a similar time without the UI). Indeed given the long pause one might argue that North did give the matter some bridge thought and not simply use South's attempted bid as the reason to bid 5D.

 

If this feels too generous to NS, feel free to give everyone at the table a PP for failure to call the TD after the BOOT. :ph34r:

 

ahydra

[barmar]

TBF I've been in situations where I feel I have an obvious action, but there's UI. I then have to think about "Is there any point in doing this or is it going to be rolled back by the director if it works", causing me to think when I would not have done otherwise.

This might be true, but it's not really relevant to the current scenario. He didn't have UI at the time of his hesitation. After he went into the tank his partner transmitted UI, and now he's claiming that his desired action is clear. If it was so clear, he wouldn't have hesitated in the first place, and that wouldn't have caused his partner to think it was his turn to bid.

[weejonnie]

Answer to question 1: If there is no UI North can do whatever he wants. Bridge players, like wives, are allowed to change their minds

 

Answer to Question 2: I doesn't matter what bidding box regulations are in force. South's action of withdrawing the 5♦ call from the box is UI.

 

To check:

South makes a call alerted as showing the majors. Obviously no matter what the partnership agreement he has UI.

North sees South make a 5♦ call. This is UI to North. North has 2 Aces, his partner has values in the majors, so there is a bad distribution, there is no indication that South actually has diamonds - and North runs to 5♦ on 4 diamonds to the Ace! Obviously east was spoofing with the XX card hoping the opponents would run. North is obviously wondering whether the South call was a mis-bid and the 5♦ call has cleared it up for him.

 

FWIW I don't see Easts XX as 'wild or gambling'. Partner has given spade support and he has a 5-loser hand. You are allowed to suspect a bidding misunderstanding (at your own risk) and from his hand it is pretty obvious that South meant the diamond call to be natural.

 

In any case - irrespective of law 16, I might rule under law 23 to get the 4♠XX contract.

[blackshoe]

It is not the action, but the inference from the action, that is UI. It does matter what bidding box regulations are in force, because if what South did is by regulation to make a bid, then the BOOT rules apply, and if they're applied properly, the UI question will be rendered moot.