[Fluffy]

IMHO an ultra fast 4NT suggest to play much more than a slow one

[bluejak]

 Phil, on 2012-October-23, 08:57, said:

Of course. A slow 4N is 'illegal communication'.

No doubt. But the "If it hesitates, shoot it" method of ruling has been accepted as totally inappropriate everywhere now. You need more than UI to adjust.

 Phil, on 2012-October-23, 08:57, said:

North precisely got it right because of the break in tempo.

You don't know that. He says he plays it as natural, his partner does. No-one I know plays it as natural, but perhaps this pair do.

 Phil, on 2012-October-23, 08:57, said:

QED

Let's just look at your logical argument. A player opens 1♠. His partner thinks for over two minutes, then bids 4♣. He says it is splinter, his partner says it is splinter. And you? As far as I can see, you would argue that since it is so slow, he only got it right because of the tank, so we adjust as though it is Gerber, or natural, or Exclusion, or transfer to diamonds or something else.

They got it right, they tanked, it was intended as a splinter, QED.

I don't think so!

[Phil]

 bluejak, on 2012-October-29, 17:57, said:

You don't know that. He says he plays it as natural, his partner does. No-one I know plays it as natural, but perhaps this pair do.

Upthread I already said this pair has played all of five times together. I also said she 'intended it as natural'. Top pairs that have hundreds of sessions under their belt might have problem with the definition of 4N; why would we expect a pair that seldom plays together would?

Oh wait, let me see. I can bid a slow 4N and hope my partner reads it as natural?? Cool.

Quote

Let's just look at your logical argument. A player opens 1♠. His partner thinks for over two minutes, then bids 4♣. He says it is splinter, his partner says it is splinter. And you? As far as I can see, you would argue that since it is so slow, he only got it right because of the tank, so we adjust as though it is Gerber, or natural, or Exclusion, or transfer to diamonds or something else.

Surely you can come up with a more ridiculous comparison. Or maybe not.

[the hog]

Phil, I have to agree with David on this one. Your ruling was wrong and for the wrong reasons.

[CSGibson]

 Phil, on 2012-October-23, 08:57, said:

Of course. A slow 4N is 'illegal communication'.

North precisely got it right because of the break in tempo.

QED

Remember this before the next time you think about lambasting someone for both posting a problem and then advocating for a solution after disagreeing with the feedback he is getting.

[Phil]

 CSGibson, on 2012-October-30, 19:44, said:

Remember this before the next time you think about lambasting someone for both posting a problem and then advocating for a solution after disagreeing with the feedback he is getting.

Um, is this a bad habit of mine or something that happens on a regular basis Chris? You make it sound like its a common occurrence.

By the way, even though I am in the vast minority on this, I just remain unconvinced.

Poll players about what they would do with the 5233 hand. If you get a bunch of passers then come back and report. I'm 8 for 8 with people responding to RKC and no one passes 4N. There's some difference of opinion about what the pollees do after the response but roughly half land in 6♠.

[CSGibson]

 Phil, on 2012-October-30, 20:34, said:

Um, is this a bad habit of mine or something that happens on a regular basis Chris? You make it sound like its a common occurrence.

By the way, even though I am in the vast minority on this, I just remain unconvinced.

Poll players about what they would do with the 5233 hand. If you get a bunch of passers then come back and report. I'm 8 for 8 with people responding to RKC and no one passes 4N. There's some difference of opinion about what the pollees do after the response but roughly half land in 6♠.

More tongue in cheek. I've seen it a few times, but I've also agreed most of the time when you've spoken up about it, except one time when it was directed at me - not that I hold a grudge.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that passing 4N is something they would do, or at least not the majority of responders - I just think that everyone is saying that a slow 4N does not suggest passing rather than bidding on/answering keycards, because the hesitation could be a number of different things, including deciding what the best method of exploring slam is, or determining whether your hand is worth going on, neither of which would suggest passing with the north cards. In order for you to adjust for UI, you have to demonstrate that the "illegal" action taken was suggested by the UI. In this case, I don't see it. You have essentially argued that correlation implies causation, and that is a fundamentally flawed, though often attractive, argument.

[Trinidad]

There are two ways of looking at this case.

I) Considering UI
It is simple. The BIT doesnot demonstrably suggest passing, in fact it doesn't suggest pass at all. And as for LA's: Pass may have been the only one, at least for this pair. No infraction. Result stands.

II) Considering illegal communication
Phil seems to suspect this pair is playing Weasel. A slow 4NT is to play, a fast 4NT is Blackwood. Probably a slow double is takeout whereas a fast one is penalty. There is no Laws forum that can help Phil on that one. But if Phil suspects this, he should start collecting evidence (and counterevidence!!) to prove or disprove his idea. If he proves that the pair plays Weasel, adjusting scores or giving PPs is NOT the way to deal with that.

No matter how you look at it, there is no reason to adjust the score on this board.

Rik

[bluejak]

 Phil, on 2012-October-30, 14:11, said:

Upthread I already said this pair has played all of five times together. I also said she 'intended it as natural'. Top pairs that have hundreds of sessions under their belt might have problem with the definition of 4N; why would we expect a pair that seldom plays together would?

Perhaps it has turned up before. Perhaps they have discussed this type of sequence. Perhaps they come from a group of people who have general agreements of this sort.

People make presumptions, often on pretty flimsy evidence. About one post in twenty on RGB assumes that everyone in the world is an American and plays American methods. Such people are always surprised that other things are possible.

If a pair plays together for the first time and have no time to discuss matters, and one opens 1♣ then it is likely to show 3+ in much of the ACBL and the London area, it is likely to show 4+ in most of the rest of England, and it is likely to show a strong hand or a variety of medium hands [probably clubs or balanced] in Poland.

 Phil, on 2012-October-30, 14:11, said:

Oh wait, let me see. I can bid a slow 4N and hope my partner reads it as natural?? Cool.

Oh, silly me, and I took you seriously. Do you know, I actually thought you were trying to argue sensibly?

 Phil, on 2012-October-30, 14:11, said:

Surely you can come up with a more ridiculous comparison. Or maybe not.

Silly me: I really must be more careful which posts are worth replying to.

[TimG]

 Phil, on 2012-October-30, 14:11, said:

Upthread I already said this pair has played all of five times together. I also said she 'intended it as natural'. Top pairs that have hundreds of sessions under their belt might have problem with the definition of 4N; why would we expect a pair that seldom plays together would?

Using this argument, there is no way this pair could get the auction right after a hesitation. Suppose South had intended it as KC for diamonds and north responded as such and they ended in 6D. Now you would say "top pairs have hundreds if sessions under their belts and might have a problem with this 4N, how can we expect this pair to get it right without use of UI?"

You've said it's natural with one of your partners, other Phil thinks it is normal for it to be natural. I think it should be natural (though I'm surely not as on top of bidding theory as either of you) second choice would be KC for diamonds, it would not occur to me that it was KC for spades. Even though I think it should be natural, I understand 4NT is seldom natural in today's bridge world, so I would consider it for a few moments before making a 4NT call I intended as natural almost regardless of sequence. I would also consider it a few moments if I intended it to be KC for either spades or diamonds since I want to make sure I can handle the responses and have a plan so that I don't break tempo over a KC response.

Anyway, put me in the camp of this appearing to be a case of "if it hesitates, shoot it".