[pran]

Scoring: IMP

Pass - 1♥ - Pass - 1♠
Pass - 3♥ - Pass - ??4♥
Pass - 6♥ - AP

---

TD was summoned when East bid 6♥ and again after the play was completed. There was no dispute about the pause before the 4♥ bid. All calls were natural.

He ruled that the pause before bidding 4♥ did not "demonstrably suggest an action of going towards slam" over other logical alternative actions (e.g. Pass). Partner could as well be considering for instance passing out 3♥ rather than bidding 4.

Table result (6♥ made) stands.

The case went to appeal - how would you rule?

[StevenG]

I agree with the TD.

[helene_t]

I don't think the slow 4♥ bid could, from E's pov, be based on a hand that considered passing 3♥. If E realized that 3♥ was NF he would hardly bid on after the sign off.

So I would adjust to 4♥+2.

[VixTD]

helene_t, on May 10 2010, 07:56 AM, said:

If E realized that 3♥ was NF he would hardly bid on after the sign off.

I don't understand this.

East could easily have a clear pass of the (non-forcing) 3♥, or a clear raise to 4♥, or a clear cue-bid or Blackwood bid, or a clear 3NT bid, or a clear anything else.
On the other hand, he could easily have a hand that is not clearly any of these, but rather one which only after much consideration is resolved by a 4♥ bid. Surely the unauthorized information tells partner it is in this last category rather than the second?

[Codo]

I would rule 4 ♥ + 2 too.

The passing of the opps make it more likely that partner has a descission between slam and game and not a descission between game and part score. I am not in a position to rule how much more likely it is that partner has the stronger hand, but I guess it is enough to justify a correction.

My guess would be around 70/30, so I would give a weighted score with these numbers if I have to.

[Trinidad]

Codo, on May 10 2010, 03:35 PM, said:

My guess would be around 70/30, so I would give a weighted score with these numbers if I have to.

You cannot give a weighted score in a case like this:

o Either 6♥ is an infraction and you give an AS of 4♥+2. (Pass is ruled as an LA and 6♥ is forbidden.)
o Or 6♥ is no infraction and you do nothing.

Rik

[shyams]

Can we see all 4 hands? Or at least both E/W hands?

e.g. ♠Kxxxx ♥Qx ♦xxx ♣xxx with West where he/she was thinking of passing. This time ♠Q was onside and spades were 3-2, so E/W made 12 tricks.

[peachy]

This BIT suggests that responder has extras, sometimes it is not easy to determine what the BIT suggests but in this case, I think it is clear. Pass by opener is a LA so if in AC, I would overturn TD ruling. Even if the BIT "did not demonstrably suggest going to slam", the threshold for ruling is lower: "it could have demonstrably suggested"

[gwnn]

I think bad hands will pass quickly in this position. In my experience it very rarely happens that someone thinks very long about a borderline game decision. People tend to just bid game whenever it is possible to make. With slam tries it's more complicated, especially as you need to know what agrees trumps/what shows what/etc, it takes up more time to decide whether to try for slam and all. I would say 90+% of players can tell if their partners were thinking of slam or thinking of passing in situations like this, consciously or otherwise.

[hotShot]

I think it's more likely that partner was unsure if 4♥ is enough than that 4♥ is a stretch.
But I'm not sure it's demonstrably.

[iviehoff]

It's one of those terrible "how ethical do you have to be" cases. Clearly the least ethical thing to do is invite slam and see if there really is enthusiasm. Arguably, that is the action most strongly suggested by the UI. Blasting 6H is a bit more ethical, but is it ethical enough?

[Phil]

This is a strange one.

Normally I would say, East has no idea what is going through partner's mind, but as Josh might say the auction alone suggests some monkey business.

All we know is that East knows that West has 'something else in mind' when 4♥ is bid. It might be a slam try, or it might be a pass or 3N. I don't know the hesitation suggests bidding, but it certainly suggests something.

[StevenG]

In my partnerships, I would expect the pause to mean either:-
1) I wouldn't normally bid this but this is IMPs not MPs so I'll stretch for a game contract, or
2) I've got game values but my heart void is a problem. Don't much fancy 3NT either. What on earth do I do?

Neither suggests bidding on. I can't imagine it showing extra values. It's not as though a slam try wouldn't rule out stopping in 5♥.

Clearly others have different expectations. Since 6♥ does make, I'd like to know what East had, and why West thought 6♥ was a realistic bid.

[kenrexford]

This seems rather simple. East made a call that was non-forcing. Partner accepted game. Then, East magically finds a 6♥ call. Nothing about the hand suggests that this is a 3-or-6 deal. So, East is either a lunatic or he picked up on something about his partner's hesitation, probably from experience. This, therefore, seems like clear UA to me.

[jdonn]

Phil, on May 10 2010, 12:16 PM, said:

Normally I would say, East has no idea what is going through partner's mind, but as Josh might say the auction alone suggests some monkey business.

Bingo. If there was no UI suggesting bidding on then where did west find this "impossible" auction?

I do not agree with the TDs reasoning even though it sounds logical. This is just one of those cases where in the abstract the UI could suggest either weakness or strength but where a partnership will be much better at interpreting its own 'black magic' than any director arguing in theory could.

[pran]

shyams, on May 10 2010, 03:56 PM, said:

Can we see all 4 hands? Or at least both E/W hands?

e.g. ♠Kxxxx ♥Qx ♦xxx ♣xxx with West where he/she was thinking of passing. This time ♠Q was onside and spades were 3-2, so E/W made 12 tricks.

Sure.

I shall eventually post all four hands, but for a ruling only East's hand is relevant.

[bluejak]

jdonn, on May 10 2010, 08:11 PM, said:

Phil, on May 10 2010, 12:16 PM, said:

Normally I would say, East has no idea what is going through partner's mind, but as Josh might say the auction alone suggests some monkey business.

Bingo. If there was no UI suggesting bidding on then where did west find this "impossible" auction?

I have just played a four day teams in South Africa. The number of "impossible" auctions perpetrated at my table in this time cannot be counted on my fingers. Players often make "impossible" calls without any UI, so the fact that a call is "impossible" might suggest the possibility of UI, but is nowhere near compelling evidence that there was UI.

peachy, on May 10 2010, 04:34 PM, said:

This BIT suggests that responder has extras, sometimes it is not easy to determine what the BIT suggests but in this case, I think it is clear.  Pass by opener is a LA so if in AC, I would overturn TD ruling.  Even if the BIT "did not demonstrably suggest going to slam", the threshold for ruling is lower: "it could have demonstrably suggested"

I do not agree. This is a case where the BIT suggests either that he has extras or he has a borderline accept. I do agree that extras is more likely than a borderline pass but that does not mean that the UI suggests going on: you could also argue it suggests not going on.

I agree with the original ruling.

gwnn, on May 10 2010, 04:43 PM, said:

I think bad hands will pass quickly in this position. In my experience it very rarely happens that someone thinks very long about a borderline game decision. People tend to just bid game whenever it is possible to make.

I just do not think this is true. Over the last four days there have been several pauses for thought over an encouraging 3♥ or 3♠ bid by partner, followed by pass, or a game with no thought of slam.

kenrexford, on May 10 2010, 06:29 PM, said:

So, East is either a lunatic or he picked up on something about his partner's hesitation, probably from experience.

jdonn, on May 10 2010, 08:11 PM, said:

This is just one of those cases where in the abstract the UI could suggest either weakness or strength but where a partnership will be much better at interpreting its own 'black magic' than any director arguing in theory could.

These are strong arguments, but not really ones that a TD can use for ruling. While my experience of opponents is that this is not a case where the BIT suggests going on, in a specific partnership their experience may suggest it.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on May 10 2010, 05:36 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 10 2010, 08:11 PM, said:

Phil, on May 10 2010, 12:16 PM, said:

Normally I would say, East has no idea what is going through partner's mind, but as Josh might say the auction alone suggests some monkey business.

Bingo. If there was no UI suggesting bidding on then where did west find this "impossible" auction?

I have just played a four day teams in South Africa. The number of "impossible" auctions perpetrated at my table in this time cannot be counted on my fingers. Players often make "impossible" calls without any UI, so the fact that a call is "impossible" might suggest the possibility of UI, but is nowhere near compelling evidence that there was UI.

I agree, an "impossible" auction is not compelling evidence of UI. However I believe the combination of
- a break in tempo, followed by
- an "impossible" auction, then dummy comes showing
- the hand that broke tempo having exactly what makes the "impossible" auction work
is pretty compelling evidence that the break in tempo passed along the type of UI that the hand would suggest. Did that sort of thing happen to you many times over the weekend?

Quote

jdonn, on May 10 2010, 08:11 PM, said:

This is just one of those cases where in the abstract the UI could suggest either weakness or strength but where a partnership will be much better at interpreting its own 'black magic' than any director arguing in theory could.

These are strong arguments, but not really ones that a TD can use for ruling. While my experience of opponents is that this is not a case where the BIT suggests going on, in a specific partnership their experience may suggest it.

So why can't the director use that argument for ruling? I thought he could use anything he wants, it's his judgment.

[pran]

Scoring: IMP

--- Pass 1♥ Pass
1♠ Pass 3♥ Pass
??4♥ Pass 6♥ AP

---

OK, here are all four hands, and for convenience I repeat:

TD was summoned when East bid 6♥ and again after the play was completed. There was no dispute about the pause before the 4♥ bid. All calls were natural.

He ruled that the pause before bidding 4♥ did not "demonstrably suggest an action of going towards slam" over other logical alternative actions (e.g. Pass). Partner could as well be considering for instance passing out 3♥ rather than bidding 4.

Table result (6♥ made) stands.

On the AC we were initially split, but after a short discussion on the wording "demonstrably suggested" we unanimously agreed that the BIT did not demonstrably suggest any particular action over another alternative action.

We let the Director's ruling stand.

[jdonn]

This is a common mistake committees make (I'm not saying it was a mistake here, just that it might have been.) Even if the tank is a stretch to game sometimes and a slam try sometimes it can demonstrably suggest going toward slam because the gain when partner has extras and slam makes is so much bigger than the loss when partner stretched and game goes down. Many don't realize that even if the tank can be either of two opposite types of hands, it can demonstrably suggest assuming one of them due to the scoring table and imp scale.

To me that's moot in this case. They got off (and maybe even correctly by the committee) due to a legal technicality when anyone who is reasonable knows that in reality they probably took advantage. Would west not have bid 4♥ quickly with less? Does anyone think east would have bid on if west bid 4♥ quickly? I will never be able to get past directors and committees arguing that UI didn't show the type of hand that one player had AND his partner (impossibly!) played him for. Sometimes it really is that easy.