[biggerclub]

---

South's PASS was preceeded by a long pause . . . not 90 seconds long or anything, but longer than normal even given the huge pre-emptive action by E

As West, I called the director immediately after North's 5♦ call. (I was advised by another player after the game that I should call immediately upon the pause.) The director came back after the hand, and I stated that I was not accusing anyone of cheating and that I simply believed that PASS was a plausible call in the balancing seat after 4S. I thought this was/is the standard. (Director told me it's not, FWIW.)

When my partner's do this, I PASS unless bidding on is mandatory with my holding. One example where I did bid on was where I had passed a bad AK, A (honors in short suits) hand in first seat. My partner emerged with 1S in 3rd seat, RHO overcalled 2Hs, I x'd, LHO bid 4Hs, partner paused and passed, RHO passed and I x'd with 3 QTs opposite a partner who opened.

Short of something that clear, I generally feel ethically obligated to pass.

Am I being too strict myself?

[inquiry]

Is the hand shown South as labelled or is it north who overcalled 2 hearts?

[blackshoe]

biggerclub, on 2015-February-13, 21:28, said:

Am I being too strict myself?

Possibly.

Proper procedure in these cases is, at the time some action may have passed UI (in this case, a break in tempo) is to establish agreement that indeed UI may have been passed. If the opponents do not agree, they are supposed to call the director immediately, but they won't. So you'll have to do it. Then, if you believe UI may have been used, you call the director back after then play is completed.

It doesn't really matter, but was a skip bid warning issued before the 4♠ bid?

The standard established in the law is basically that a player in receipt of UI may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested by UI. That's in Law 16. Alternatively, says Law 73C, the player must "carefully avoid taking advantage" of the UI. Without seeing North's hand, it's hard to say he's violated either law. He may legitimately have had no logical alternative to 5♦.

There's also the question of damage. You won't get a score adjustment if 5♠ made, for example, because there was no damage. I suppose NS might get a warning about using UI, if it looks like North might have passed.

[Trinidad]

There are a few things to consider:
1) What are the logical alternatives (LA)?
Assuming that the hand shown is the North hand that bid 5♦, one might wonder whether pass is a LA.

2) Which of the LAs is made more attractive by the UI?
If South was considering bidding 5♥ then competing will work well. But if South was considering doubling 4♠ (or bidding 5♣) then bidding 5♦ will not work well. The UI says that South was considering something besides pass, but did not give a clue as to what South was considering. As a result, it did not make one LA more attractive than another, and North is free to chose as he wishes.

North's 5♦ bid is only an infraction if pass is considered an LA (doubtful) and the UI suggested 5♦ over pass (it didn't). Therefore, there is nothing wrong with 5♦.

Only when 5♦ has been ruled an infraction, we can think about a score adjustment. This will only happen when the infraction damaged EW (consideration 3).

Rik

[biggerclub]

I did get the hands mixed up when posting because . . . N on this hand was actually S at the table (and I East) because the board was flipped and the cards were out before we discovered it.

If South is considering something, it strongly suggests that PASS is forcing. If the hesitation needs to suggest a particular action among x, bidding and PASS, then I don't see that hesitations are an actionable problem at all.

[biggerclub]

inquiry, on 2015-February-13, 21:48, said:

Is the hand shown South as labelled or is it north who overcalled 2 hearts?

My fault. The board was flipped. The hand shown is actually the N hand, held in this instance by the player who ordinarily was sitting S. I went back through and fixed the description but didn't change the diagram.

[blackshoe]

The wording of the law is "may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information". So the BIT doesn't need to suggest a particular action. It is enough that it could have suggested it (so long as it can be demonstrated how it did so).

It is often the case that either X or some bid(s) could demonstrably have been suggested over pass. In such a case, one may not legally choose to double or to make that bid or any of those bids.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2015-February-14, 00:24, said:

The wording of the law is "may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information". So the BIT doesn't need to suggest a particular action. It is enough that it could have suggested it (so long as it can be demonstrated how it did so).

It is often the case that either X or some bid(s) could demonstrably have been suggested over pass. In such a case, one may not legally choose to double or to make that bid or any of those bids.

We have been over the "could have been" many times on this forum. Fact is that in this case, 5♦ it is impossible to demonstrate that the BIT could have suggested 5♦ over pass.

On the other hand, it would be very easy to demonstrate that the BIT suggests double over pass (but double was not chosen, so we don't need to deal with that).

In fact, if you want to reason the wrong way, it is clear that the BIT did not suggest that partner was considering 5♥ (otherwise he would have corrected 5♦ to 5 (or 6)♥ and neither did the BIT suggest pass, since then partner would have doubled 5♠, so I am very curious about the BIT, probably a lot of clubs).

Rik

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2015-February-14, 01:04, said:

We have been over the "could have been" many times on this forum.

Yeah, well, it seemed to me that the post to which I was replying demonstrated that it needed to be said again.

Trinidad, on 2015-February-14, 01:04, said:

Fact is that in this case, 5♦ it is impossible to demonstrate that the BIT could have suggested 5♦ over pass.

"Impossible", eh? Let's see you prove that.

Trinidad, on 2015-February-14, 01:04, said:

In fact, if you want to reason the wrong way, it is clear that the BIT did not suggest that partner was considering 5♥ (otherwise he would have corrected 5♦ to 5 (or 6)♥ and neither did the BIT suggest pass, since then partner would have doubled 5♠, so I am very curious about the BIT, probably a lot of clubs).

Why is this reasoning "the wrong way"?

The hand that broke tempo is apparently, based on the OP's corrections, the hand shown: hearts and diamonds, not a lot of clubs.

[helene_t]

biggerclub, on 2015-February-14, 00:21, said:

My fault. The board was flipped. The hand shown is actually the N hand, held in this instance by the player who ordinarily was sitting S. I went back through and fixed the description but didn't change the diagram.

I am confused. Is the hand shown the one that bid 5♦?

Assuming it is, I think it depends if dbl by partner would have been agreed as responsive, penalty, or just "card showing" or some such.

If it would have been penalty then the fact that p didn't double arguably makes pass a non-LA. I am not sure what to make of the BIT in that case but it might not matter.

If it would have been responsive then the fact that p didn't double makes pass an LA.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2015-February-14, 01:47, said:

The hand that broke tempo is apparently, based on the OP's corrections, the hand shown: hearts and diamonds, not a lot of clubs.

Yes, it can be confusing when an OP contains mistakes. But the following post made it clear that the diagram is still wrong.

biggerclub, on 2015-February-14, 00:21, said:

My fault. The board was flipped. The hand shown is actually the N hand, held in this instance by the player who ordinarily was sitting S. I went back through and fixed the description but didn't change the diagram.

So, the hand shown was the hand that bid 5♦, not the hand that broke tempo. (And, obviously, that is the only hand that is relevant to show.)

Rik

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2015-February-14, 01:47, said:

"Impossible", eh? Let's see you prove that.

The burden of proof is on your side: The TD is supposed to demonstrate that the BIT could suggest that 5♦ is made more attractive than pass.

Note that this is something entirely different from demonstrating that there are hands that would produce a BIT opposite which 5♦ would work better than pass. The fact that the BITter could have such a hand is not the same as that the BIT could suggest he has such a hand. The requirement is that the BIT could suggest it (with the additional requirement that you need to demonstrate that).

Note also how easy it is to demonstrate that the BIT could suggest that double (though not an LA here) is made more attractive.

Rik

[blackshoe]

You made the claim, not I.

[nige1]

biggerclub, on 2015-February-13, 21:28, said:

South's PASS was preceeded by a long pause . . . not 90 seconds long or anything, but longer than normal even given the huge pre-emptive action by E. As West, I called the director immediately after North's 5♦ call. (I was advised by another player after the game that I should call immediately upon the pause.) The director came back after the hand, and I stated that I was not accusing anyone of cheating and that I simply believed that PASS was a plausible call in the balancing seat after 4S. I thought this was/is the standard. (Director told me it's not, FWIW.). When my partner's do this, I PASS unless bidding on is mandatory with my holding. One example where I did bid on was where I had passed a bad AK, A (honors in short suits) hand in first seat. My partner emerged with 1S in 3rd seat, RHO overcalled 2Hs, I x'd, LHO bid 4Hs, partner paused and passed, RHO passed and I x'd with 3 QTs opposite a partner who opened. Short of something that clear, I generally feel ethically obligated to pass. Am I being too strict myself?

---

I assume Biggerclub's deal is as above. A poll might confirm that North's LAs are Pass, Double, and 5♦. Trinidad's experience of those, who hesitate and pass, differs from mine. Admittedly, sophisticated hesitaters sometimes appear to be trying to inhibit partner from action but less sophisticated players, who hesitate and pass, usually hold high-cards and attacking rather than defensive hands. Hence, IMO, their hesitation suggests calls other than pass. Here, for example, South's hesitation suggests that North double or bid 5♦, rather than pass.

[Vampyr]

I'd be interested to know the form of scoring, and some opinions on whether this has an effect on the LAs.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2015-February-14, 11:09, said:

You made the claim, not I.

You mean to say that your post #7 had no bearing on this actual case? I, perhaps wrongfully, assumed that your comment was intended as relevant to the actual case, and, hence, interpreted it as a claim that 5♦ could be suggested by the BIT. Then it is up to you to demonstrate... not because I say so, but because that is what the laws require of you.

Of course, it is possible that you intended your post #7 as a statement that is true (like "The capital of France is Paris") but irrelevant to this case. In that case you have my apologies for wrongfully assuming a link between your comment in post #7 and the actual case.

Rik

[sanst]

nige1, on 2015-February-14, 11:34, said:

A poll might confirm that North's LAs are Pass, Double, and 5♦

So you should poll, not philosophize about what N might or might not do.

[blackshoe]

The laws don't require anything of me - I'm neither the table director, the DIC of the event, nor a member of an appeals committee.

My post number seven was a general statement, applicable to all UI cases.

You made an assertion you cannot prove, so when I called you on it, you told me the burden of proof is on me. Nope. Not even a little bit. Your assertion, your burden.

[Vampyr]

sanst, on 2015-February-14, 16:58, said:

So you should poll, not philosophize about what N might or might not do.

Well, yes, but then there is no purpose in posting a case like this at all, and a lot appear on these forums. The thread is I tended as a substitute poll.

[RMB1]

North does not have the luxury of conducting a poll before deciding what to do.

It might be relevant to consider Law 73C as well as Law 16B. Partner's hesitation suggests he want to do something, or he wants me to do something. If I Pass then that seems to avoid either of us doing anything. That seems to "avoid taking any advantage", so I Pass.