A lot of UI

[Rossoneri]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa9haj9843dj86ckq&w=sq87432hq7daqt9c8&n=st5ht62dk43cj6432&e=skj6hk5d752cat975&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p1c1h1s(E%20alerted%20as%20%22denying%20spades%22)p1np2s(Hesitation)p3s(Hesitation)p4sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

NS called the director at the end of the auction to reserve their rights. The hesitations were undisputed, East even admitted that he thought for quite a while before bidding 3♠ as the auction made no sense to him. EW have no convention cards, but purportedly are playing 2/1.

 

[Edit: forgot to add the table result]

At the end of play, 4 Spades made exactly. NS now calls director back and say they might have been damaged.

 

How would you rule? How would you set up a poll?

 

 

Would you change your ruling if earlier in the same round, you were already called to the same table with EW already showing signs of misunderstanding their system/UI being transmitted through unexpexcted alerts?

 

[sanst]

These are unfamiliar waters for me, but that seems to be the case for EW as well. Firstly I should like to know what the actual agreements are. Is E making up something or has W forgotten the meaning of 1♠? What helps me in a case like this, is to assume that screens are in use. W, who thinks to have bid spades, doesn’t know what E has said and sees the tray returned with 1NT and puts 2♠ down. Looks probable to me and will even allow E to come to the conclusion that W has forgotten the agreement, for what else can 2♠ mean?

Now I come to the hesitation of W, which is UI to E. I would think that pass is a LA with the minimum values in this hand. If I have to organize a poll, I would ask what to do with east’s hand without the “denying spades” bit. Without a poll the AS will be 2♠+2.

If have have been called before about EW messing up and not knowing their system, I would seriously consider a PP and oblige them to use a very basic system for the rest of the tournament.

[blackshoe]

If have have been called before about EW messing up and not knowing their system, I would seriously consider a PP and oblige them to use a very basic system for the rest of the tournament.

Do you know of a law that gives you the authority to do that? Or a regulation?

 

How would you rule?

I wouldn't. Not without a lot more information than you've given.

[Vampyr]

Reluctant to drag out the “c” word. I would just suggest that West’s ethics are very dodgy.

[Rossoneri]

Do you know of a law that gives you the authority to do that? Or a regulation?

 

 

I wouldn't. Not without a lot more information than you've given.

 

So what other information would you ask for?

[sfi]

Reluctant to drag out the “c” word. I would just suggest that West’s ethics are very dodgy.

 

Why? West's actions look obvious to me.

[sfi]

How would you rule? How would you set up a poll?

 

If we assume the E-W agreement is that double denies spades, then West has UI from the explanation. However, 2S looks like a normal continuation for someone who thinks they have shown 4+ spades and heard partner bid 1NT. So no issues there.

 

Next is West's hesitation, which suggests doubt about what to do. I would like to investigate whether this type of auction has some meaning for E-W, and use this information to poll players about possible actions over 2S. If 1S denies spades, then logically 2S must be forcing and the question is what should East bid. If it exposes the misbid, then pass must be a logical alternative. But more investigation is required to work out how to rule at this stage.

 

West now has UI due to the hesitation before 3S, but I can't imagine doing anything but raising to game. So no issues here either.

 

 

Would you change your ruling if earlier in the same round, you were already called to the same table with EW already showing signs of misunderstanding their system/UI being transmitted through unexpexcted alerts?

No, although I would have a quiet word with them later about being more familiar with their system. I'm not a fan of getting in the way of people trying new things, which they can easily get wrong.

 

[blackshoe]

Well, re-reading, it looks like I can rule on the question of UI. "Okay. Play on."

 

They had no system card? Is that legal in your jurisdiction? Can't rule on the question, as I don't know.

 

If you're asking whether I would adjust the score, first I'd have to know the table result.

[Vampyr]

Why? West's actions look obvious to me.

 

LOL

Let’s look at it according to both agreements,

 

First, 1♠ denies spades. West’s hesitation reveals that something has gone wrong. And was Checkback available? If so West might well have thought that rebidding spades would send a clearer message that he really did have spades. Of course the hand may have been considered too weak for Checkback. Anyway the hesitation and the 2♠ bid sends thnecessary message, especially as many players would bid 2♦, describing the hand better and eliciting secondary spade support if partner has it.

 

And of course East’s fielding is red. Why is 2♠ after denying spades not a notrump probe?

 

Suppose though that 1♠ shows spades. West’s hesitation sends a similar message, ie that partner’s explanation was incorrect. Still a reason not to try Checkback or 2, and I ask again, why is 2♠ after denying spades anything but a notrump probe? I understand that it could have some other meaning, either artificial or suggesting a Moysian if partner has 4 spades. Or something else. Not 6 spades.

 

Making a seemingly straightforward rebid following a break in tempo is very suspect, and here the message is extremely clear playing either agreement.

[sfi]

Sorry, I'm confused. Which action by West do you have an ethical issue with?

 

1. 1S? West clearly thought it showed spades.

2. 2S? West doesn't have an invitation in this auction. Poor spots, wasted heart queen, singleton in partner's suit. Equally, West isn't sitting for 1NT with a 6-4 hand.

3. West's hesitation before 2S? West is allowed to think through the implications of the UI . Sure, the hesitation creates an issue for partner, but that's East's problem rather than West's.

4. 4S? If partner can move opposite a sign-off, it's obvious to bid game.

[Vampyr]

Sorry, I'm confused. Which action by West do you have an ethical issue with?

 

1. 1S? West clearly thought it showed spades.

2. 2S? West doesn't have an invitation in this auction. Poor spots, wasted heart queen, singleton in partner's suit. Equally, West isn't sitting for 1NT with a 6-4 hand.

3. West's hesitation before 2S? West is allowed to think through the implications of the UI . Sure, the hesitation creates an issue for partner, but that's East's problem rather than West's.

4. 4S? If partner can move opposite a sign-off, it's obvious to bid game.

 

If you want to put all of the ethical blame on East, ii am OK with that. Well, mostly. Look at your 3 above. West does not have an invitation, has a sixth spade, so 2♠ is totally obvious. So what can he possibly be thinking about? You said it yourself, the UI. He is thinking about how to create some so partner knows a wheel has come off.

[Rossoneri]

They had no system card? Is that legal in your jurisdiction? Can't rule on the question, as I don't know.

 

Sadly yes.

 

 

If you're asking whether I would adjust the score, first I'd have to know the table result.

 

My bad. Table result was 4S making exactly. NS feels they might have been damaged.

[sfi]

If you want to put all of the ethical blame on East, ii am OK with that. Well, mostly. Look at your 3 above. West does not have an invitation, has a sixth spade, so 2♠ is totally obvious. So what can he possibly be thinking about? You said it yourself, the UI. He is thinking about how to create some so partner knows a wheel has come off.

 

Maybe he's just thinking about what his obligations are given the UI he's received. People take time to process unusual situations. Besides, you can't really win by providing obvious UI to partner - it just constrains their legal actions.

 

Take this case for instance. The UI tells West that partner may have four spades and game may be on. By hesitating, West created a situation where partner may easily be ruled against if East works out what is going on and invites. If West had bid 2S in tempo, I don't think there would be any case for an adjustment to the table score achieved - it was that break in tempo that created a situation where their score may be adjusted. What does West gain by doing this deliberately?

[sanst]

Do you know of a law that gives you the authority to do that? Or a regulation?

The Dutch Bridge Union (NBB) delegates the power of the RA to the organizer or the club in case of internal tournaments. You can prohibit the use of all partnership understandings indicated by the WBF, EBL and NBB. Law 40B gives you the right to forbid all special partnership understandings or allow just a few common ones.

[weejonnie]

I suppose the original explanation should be "Denies spades but partner has been known to forget certain aspects of the system" - but we'll leave it as "Denies spades".

 

After the 1NT response we would have to poll to see if there is any logical alternative to 2 Spades (that being the 'aunauthorised panic' response). Why not 2 Diamonds, for instance? However it is quite plausible for a weak hand with a long suit to want to play in that suit rather than No trumps. So lets move on from there.

 

As East, partner's 2 Spade bid is presumably anti system. (West is also unlimited remember - so this bid is presumably forcing). The question is: what could it mean? The UI (West's original long pause) suggests that West doesn't have a clear bid of 1 Spade. Again we are going to have to find out. If there is no indication as to what the bid means, or everyone says that it means West has forgotton the system then we allow 3 Spades.

 

Finally we have to find out whether there is any alternative to the raise to 4 Spades and if East's pause suggests that 4 spades is going to be better than 3 spades, given West's hand.

 

"In a contemplative fashion,

And a tranquil frame of mind,

Free from every kind of passion,

Some solution let us find.

Let us grasp the situation,

Solve the complicated plot —

Quiet, calm deliberation

Disentangles every knot." WSG

[lamford]

I am trying to "carefully avoid" reading the other posts before responding, so apologies if I duplicate any of the points made.

 

West has UI from the (presumed) answer to the explanation of the alert of 1♠ as denying spades and from the slow 3♠. However, without the UI, he would have a normal 2♠ - he might even bid 3♠ - and a trivial accept of the 3♠ raise. So he is in the clear.

 

East has UI from the speed of both 1♠ and 2♠. Mainly the latter, as the former BIT will be West trying to remember the methods, perhaps. The latter suggests that West was thinking of making a stronger bid, and therefore Pass is an LA for East. To set up a poll, you would just give pollees the untainted auction 1♣-(1♥)-1♠*-(Pass)-1NT-(Pass)-2♠ and ask what they would bid. You would tell the pollees that you believe that 1♠ denies four or more spades, and that there was no partnership agreement over 2♠. Most would conclude that your belief that 1♠ denies spades was not shared by partner, and Pass would certainly be an LA, and less successful than the "catchall" 3♠. If 1♠ genuinely denies spades, then 2♠ is probably an artificial game force, when Pass is not an LA for East, but I think some of those polled would not conclude that. I would poll, but expect the adjusted score to be 2♠+2 for EW.

[lamford]

everyone says that it means West has forgotton the system then we allow 3 Spades.

No, if you think that it shows West has forgotten the system, as I would also conclude, then you impose Pass, as a less successful LA.

[lamford]

And of course East’s fielding is red. Why is 2♠ after denying spades not a notrump probe?

If East thinks that 2S is a no-trump probe, having denied spades, then 3S showing a spade stopper looks reasonable. You might bid 3NT, but that will be pulled to 4S anyway. We don't know whether the actual agreement was that 1S showed or denied spades (they have no card) so East cannot field a "no-agreement" 2S! You can't get UI from a bid, only from the speed of it, which does not seem that relevant here.

[blackshoe]

If you want to put all of the ethical blame on East, ii am OK with that. Well, mostly. Look at your 3 above. West does not have an invitation, has a sixth spade, so 2♠ is totally obvious. So what can he possibly be thinking about? You said it yourself, the UI. He is thinking about how to create some so partner knows a wheel has come off.

I didn't know you were a telepath.

[Vampyr]

If East thinks that 2S is a no-trump probe, having denied spades, then 3S showing a spade stopper looks reasonable. You might bid 3NT, but that will be pulled to 4S anyway.

 

No, normally with a stopper you would bid NT to protect the stopper.

 

We don't know whether the actual agreement was that 1S showed or denied spades (they have no card) so East cannot field a "no-agreement" 2S! You can't get UI from a bid, only from the speed of it, which does not seem that relevant here.

 

OK, well, you are wrong.

 

I didn't know you were a telepath.

 

I knew you were going to say that.

[lamford]

No, normally with a stopper you would bid NT to protect the stopper.

3♠ would normally say that you don't have diamonds stopped as you have shown a heart stop with 1NT, and the concept of protecting the stopper is ridiculous when you have already bid 1NT yourself. However it does not matter what it says; for you to disallow it you would have to say that it is demonstrably suggested over other calls by the UI. I think that bidding on IS suggested over Pass which is an LA, and that is why I would disallow 3♠, and that is because a slow 2♠ normally suggests that you would not mind hearing from partner again. I think if you poll Easts with the methods that you have no CC, and think that 1S denies spades, then many Easts would now pass an in-tempo 2♠.

[Vampyr]

3♠ would normally say that you don't have diamonds stopped as you have shown a heart stop with 1NT, and the concept of protecting the stopper is ridiculous when you have already bid 1NT yourself. However it does not matter what it says; for you to disallow it you would have to say that it is demonstrably suggested over other calls by the UI. I think that bidding on IS suggested over Pass which is an LA, and that is why I would disallow 3♠, and that is because a slow 2♠ normally suggests that you would not mind hearing from partner again. I think if you poll Easts with the methods that you have no CC, and think that 1S denies spades, then many Easts would now pass an in-tempo 2♠.

 

LOL, yes, he had bid 1NT. Your interpretation is very sensible.