[bluejak]

Scoring: IMP

---

          3♥    3♠   4♣
 6♠   Pass Pass 7♥
Dbl   Pass  7♠  Pass
Pass Pass

It was agreed that West's double was slow, there was a break in tempo, it took about 5 to ten seconds to be made.

TD [Vigfus Palsson] ruled:
The BIT makes it more likely for 7♠ to make from East's point of view. Ruled as 7♥ doubled -3, that East will not find a diamond lead at trick 1.

East argued:
After partner's 6♠ bid, and my void in hearts, then I have a good hand for gambling 7♠, because I know partner has diamonds and almost certainly the club ace.

AC:
David Stevenson, Boye Brogelund, and an Icelander whose name I did not catch [someone let me know, please] decided ....

Ok, what do you think?

[gwnn]

hey I saw you discuss this hand

I think East's pull is completely based on UI. I know they think 5-10 seconds is normal but he has an absolute subminimum and gambling on grand like this is not a good bargain except if he now knows that W was not gambling (5.5♠ bid) but was a 6.5♠ bid. My 0.02$.

[Echognome]

As the BIT was agreed, seems an easy ruling back to 7♥X. I also agree with the TD that East will not find the diamond lead. Why would east lead from shortness with no trumps?

[campboy]

Agree that it seems clear that 7♠ is suggested and pass is an LA. Diamond lead seems unlikely but not impossible. Is a weighted score permitted? If so I'd do a lead poll; if not director's ruling looks right.

[CamHenry]

campboy, on Jan 27 2010, 08:49 PM, said:

Agree that it seems clear that 7♠ is suggested and pass is an LA. Diamond lead seems unlikely but not impossible. Is a weighted score permitted? If so I'd do a lead poll; if not director's ruling looks right.

Even on a diamond lead, declarer can ruff clubs good and only lose two diamonds. He has to be careful with entries (overtake a heart with the K) but that shouldn't be too hard. Just don't put the king up at trick one, and even I'd get that right!

[campboy]

Oh, yes, I forgot that East couldn't ruff the third round

[bluejak]

Ok, fairly simple, no?

But the AC had one problem: was there a BIT?

[mich-b]

bluejak, on Jan 28 2010, 06:03 AM, said:

Ok, fairly simple, no?

But the AC had one problem: was there a BIT?

If it was agreed there was a BIT , then there was a BIT.
The guidelines about how many seconds of thinking constitute a BIT should, imo, be applied only when there is no agreement about whether a BIT occured or not.

[hotShot]

Why do you have to wait 10 seconds after a stop card?
Obviously this is a time span that is considered necessary to make a bid in a non trivial contested auction.

I would consider a 7♥ sacrifice over my 6♠ a non trivial contested auction.
Taking 5 to 10 seconds for such a complicated decision does not seem long.

Who of you knows the break even percentage when to risk a vul. grand opposite opps non vul. sacrifice? This could be a match winning or losing decision.

How many IMPs are 6♠= versus 7♠-1 and how does this compare to
6♠= versus 7♥-2X or 7♠-1 versus 7♥-2X does it make a difference at all?

Considering that the bid was made within 5-10 seconds, I don't think it's that obvious that there was a BIT and even if there was a BIT, if it is suggesting anything.

Do we really want to enforce that a first round pass takes 10+ seconds, just to make sure that we have exactly the same time for a slam decision whenever it may come up?

[Pict]

There is a view that thinking for a few seconds in difficult high-level competitive auctions should not be treated as a BIT conveying UI.

So I think that there was a decision for the AC to make about whether there was a BIT.

However, East's statements seem to lend weight to his having drawn conclusions from partners actions. While I might be worried that partner was relying on me for cards I didn't have when he doubled, I would not be thinking we were making seven.

So on balance I would support the TD's position but it is an interesting problem. If West can't think about his decision in this auction, it raises the question, when can he.

[hotShot]

bluejak, on Jan 28 2010, 02:25 AM, said:

East argued:
After partner's 6♠ bid, and my void in hearts, then I have a good hand for gambling 7♠, because I know partner has diamonds and almost certainly the club ace.

Can anyone elaborate which part of the explanation suggests he used the BIT?

When West volunteered to jump to 6♠ (he could have stayed in 4 or 5 ♠) one could expect him to believe that not more than 2 of 5 keycards are missing.
=>East can expect 3 keycards/aces.
North showed long ♥, South showed ♣ + ♥ and East has ♠. Someone should have ♦ length.
=> East can expect ♦ length.
North and South seem to have a lot of ♥, so the chance of West holding the ♥A is smaller than that of the other aces.
=>East ♥ void is (most likely) useful.
=>West has (most likely) ♠A, ♦A and ♣A.
East has 4♣'s and short ♦.
=> Easts ♣ can be ruffed by West or dropped on Wests♦.
=>7♠ is a good gambling

[campboy]

Well, you did say in the first post it was agreed there was a break in tempo. Had the original post merely said "it was agreed that the double took 5-10 seconds", I would have questioned whether that constituted a break in tempo.

How quick was the 7♥ bid?

[paulg]

I watched Brogeland during this match and it struck me that certain auctions have a tempo of their own, more so than the individual players. When he played the hand, Boye took a long time to bid 5♥ after 3♥ (Pass), and then quite a long time to bid 7♥ (after Dbl-6♠). In the context of the auction, the next hand doubled in about 5-10 seconds but it did not seem like a break in tempo (and this was passed out).

So if ALL the players agreed that there was a break in tempo, rather than just saying that it took 5-10 seconds, then I'd believe them.

[TylerE]

If it was no more than 10 seconds I don't think a BIT actually occurred. Ignoring that, I'm not sure I can find a real LA...

Basically I expect 6♠ to be almost always making, don't feel that bullish about beating 7♥ a ton (Beat it yes, but how many?), I think the long term equity posistion might actually be to bid 7♠, even if it's fairly frequently down.

[axman]

Pict, on Jan 28 2010, 07:40 AM, said:

There is a view that thinking for a few seconds in difficult high-level competitive auctions should not be treated as a BIT conveying UI.

So I think that there was a decision for the AC to make about whether there was a BIT.

However, East's statements seem to lend weight to his having drawn conclusions from partners actions. While I might be worried that partner was relying on me for cards I didn't have when he doubled, I would not be thinking we were making seven.

So on balance I would support the TD's position but it is an interesting problem. If West can't think about his decision in this auction, it raises the question, when can he.

I should think that W should know [S had indicaated the intention bidding on once he changed suits so 7H could be foreseen and anticipated] at the time he chose 6S what he will do after 7H. As such, W ought to have been in a position to act in his normal tempo.

If W's tempo has been consistent then there is no question of a L16 infraction.

bluejack has asserted that there is still the question ' was there a BIT? ' even though it had been established that W was slow.

<personally, if W had a consistent tempo of 3s but this time he took five it would never occur to me as an opponent to assert he broke tempo even though I might be unhappy with E's action>

But if there is actually a question as to the accuracy of the established fact that 5s created UI, I believe that the answer lies solely with the existence of mitigating factors. The mitigating factors I am refering to consistent of the behaviors of the opponents [a] how long did N pause after 6S? [b] what are N & S tempo and did they vary it during this auction so as to deprive W of time he would have expected? [c] did N & S vary their routine such as do they often play with the bidding cards after putting them on the table- but not this time.

Such things are 'always overlooked' when gathering evidence as being unimportant. But my opinion is that when fair play is an issue that such matters can shed a light differently.

So, while I am told that the fact of a BIT has been established, all I can say is that if I had investigated I may have come to different conclusions.

As for this so-called principle that in difficult auctions players should take longer than consistent tempo to act makes a difference as to whether 5s [or whatever] creates UI or not, I hope it is clear that my view is that the principle is bogus: skip bids are easily recognized; 'difficult auctions ' are not readily recognized. FOr instance, it would never occur to me to consider 7H to be something to think over more than 2 milliseconds- 6S was a tremendous risk and 7S is foolhardy without adequate information. So, is my partnership to be subject to penalty for my doubling lightning fast [my normal tempo]?

As for E's 7S. After 6S what sensible action is there? There are so many losers and no information as to what or how many are covered. E apparently came to that conclusion when he passed. And what is different after 7H? Nothing, other than if 6S is the field contract then 7HX is likely to not be a high score but probably the best available. And even if W has a source of tricks [it is likely that it's not enough to cover all the losers] it is far from clear that NS can't cash a minor suit winner.

However, given the sparse nature of E's honors it is unlikely that E has what W needs to make 7S a decent contract. As such, without UI 7S is extremely dubious; and with UI from W's tempo still dubious. But clearly, the tempo suggests controls and a long side suit and thus is the only factor that motivates 7S.

[hotShot]

axman, on Jan 28 2010, 05:23 PM, said:

I should think that W should know [S had indicaated the intention bidding on once he changed suits so 7H could be foreseen and anticipated] at the time he chose 6S what he will do after 7H.  As such, W ought to have been in a position to act in his normal tempo.

Well I am impressed that you would have foreseen and anticipated that RHO would not be stopped by the 3 level jump to 6♠ to compete at 7♥. And all that without breaking the tempo of the 6♠ bid.

axman, on Jan 28 2010, 05:23 PM, said:

...
As for E's 7S.  After 6S what sensible action is there?  There are so many losers and no information as to what or how many are covered.  E apparently came to that conclusion when he passed.  And what is different after 7H?  Nothing,

I don't agree bidding 7♥ makes South ♥ much longer, reducing the chance of possible wasted values in ♥ West might have. It also suggests that the few ♠ left for N/S split with a void in South hand. It also suggests that more honors are located with South, in the right position to finesse.

axman, on Jan 28 2010, 05:23 PM, said:

other than if 6S is the field contract then 7HX is likely to not be a high score but probably the best available.  And even if W has a source of tricks [it is likely that it's not enough to cover all the losers] it is far from clear that NS can't cash a minor suit winner.

However, given the sparse nature of E's honors it is unlikely that E has what W needs to make 7S a decent contract.

If 6♠= is the referece score, that 7♠-1 with or without X will lose 17 IMPS, Setting 7♥X nonvul. will still lose 15 IMPs. Making 7♠ can win about 13 IMPs. So even with odds 6:1 against making 7♠ you only risk losing 2 more IMPS (to the 15 you will have lost anyway) but you gan gain 13 if it works. And this has nothing to do with West BIT.

axman, on Jan 28 2010, 05:23 PM, said:

As such, without UI 7S is extremely dubious; and with UI from W's tempo still dubious.  But clearly, the tempo suggests controls and a long side suit and thus is the only factor that motivates 7S.

So I think you should reconsider.

[axman]

hotShot, on Jan 28 2010, 01:42 PM, said:

axman, on Jan 28 2010, 05:23 PM, said:

I should think that W should know [S had indicaated the intention bidding on once he changed suits so 7H could be foreseen and anticipated] at the time he chose 6S what he will do after 7H.  As such, W ought to have been in a position to act in his normal tempo.

Well I am impressed that you would have foreseen and anticipated that RHO would not be stopped by the 3 level jump to 6♠ to compete at 7♥. And all that without breaking the tempo of the 6♠ bid.

axman, on Jan 28 2010, 05:23 PM, said:

...
As for E's 7S.  After 6S what sensible action is there?  There are so many losers and no information as to what or how many are covered.  E apparently came to that conclusion when he passed.  And what is different after 7H?  Nothing,

I don't agree bidding 7♥ makes South ♥ much longer, reducing the chance of possible wasted values in ♥ West might have. It also suggests that the few ♠ left for N/S split with a void in South hand. It also suggests that more honors are located with South, in the right position to finesse.

axman, on Jan 28 2010, 05:23 PM, said:

other than if 6S is the field contract then 7HX is likely to not be a high score but probably the best available.  And even if W has a source of tricks [it is likely that it's not enough to cover all the losers] it is far from clear that NS can't cash a minor suit winner.

However, given the sparse nature of E's honors it is unlikely that E has what W needs to make 7S a decent contract.

If 6♠= is the referece score, that 7♠-1 with or without X will lose 17 IMPS, Setting 7♥X nonvul. will still lose 15 IMPs. Making 7♠ can win about 13 IMPs. So even with odds 6:1 against making 7♠ you only risk losing 2 more IMPS (to the 15 you will have lost anyway) but you gan gain 13 if it works. And this has nothing to do with West BIT.

axman, on Jan 28 2010, 05:23 PM, said:

As such, without UI 7S is extremely dubious; and with UI from W's tempo still dubious.  But clearly, the tempo suggests controls and a long side suit and thus is the only factor that motivates 7S.

So I think you should reconsider.

Having thought over your suggestions the following occur to me-
a. 3S might have put the partnership in a -1100 or -1400 position, so it's better to be lucky than good
b. as such W's expectation for values should have started at 6 good spades and close to 3+QT and some push cards
c. it is probable for W to be counting on some semblance of those QTs for basing his choice of 6S- iow he would expect enough of his holes to be solidified somewhere
d. therefore there is an expectation that W has some holes
e. and E has nothing to fill them with
f. it is unknown what the indicated capacity of the hand is, including that even 5S may be too high
g. the hand belongs to EW and it is imperative to bring back a plus
h. W's 7HX indicates that he does have holes
i. I think 10% rate of success for 7S is overly optimistic yielding an average expected outcome of 10%(+13) + 90%(-17)= -14
while the ave expectation for 7HX is 20%(-15) + 40%(-14) + 40%(-12)=-13.4 [20% dn 2, 40% dn 3, 40% dn 4]

j. it is possible if not probable that 6S when successful will be difficult to reach without an unusual aggressive action by E [such as here]

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Jan 27 2010, 08:25 PM, said:

It was agreed that West's double was slow, there was a break in tempo, it took about 5 to ten seconds to be made.

Was "there was a break in tempo" part of "it was agreed", or was it just an extra comment? If it was agreed, case closed. Otherwise, I don't see how in the world 5-10 seconds could be considered a break in tempo on a competitive auction at the 7 level like this.

[Pict]

I guess we all know that the reason for the official guidance on high level competitive auctions is that we can often assume a player is thinking through the auction rather than considering different actions and therefore giving UI. So the player has unusual latitude to take time.

The opponents and the TD in this case judged that this was not such a typical situation.

I'm not sure, but on an AC I would have backed the TD, because

-East had an earlier chance to bid seven,

-and (possibly) a hesitation double to subconsciously influence his evaluation of poor cards but heart void,

-and the players thought there was a BIT (not conclusive in itself)

[campboy]

Sorry, post was wrong because I misread cardsharp as saying he watched these players. (deleted)