[mikeh]

Our club has started using a relatively inexperienced player as a director. He is a good guy, and has a good attitude when running his game, but I played against him last night (not his directing night) and a hand came up over which we disagreed.

He held AQxx x AKQx AQ9x and opened 1♦ with an avid but intermediate player, who responded 1♠. He made the unfortunate call of 4♥, probably not realizing both that 3♥ would be a splinter and that the 4♥ call might handcuff his partner. Sure enough, his partner made a distinct break in tempo before bidding 4♠.

He then used keycard and, upon finding a keycard in partner's hand, bid 6♠. It needed a ♣ finesse, but it worked, so he chalked up 980.

It was a club swiss event and we rated to win the match handily (plus we had hyper-agressive teammates so this rated to be a push) and I hate calling the director in club games except where unavoidable.. mechanical errors, etc.

But, knowing that he was a budding director, I told him that he was in error, altho innocently so, in bidding over 4♠... that he was forbidden to do so once his partner broke tempo and that at a tournament, the result would be rolled back if I had called at the appropriate time.

He adamantly denied this, stating that the decision to bid on over the 4♠ was 'clear': that passing was not a LA. In other words, he 'knows' the language of the law but strongly disagreed that pass was a logical alternative.. even tho I suggested to him that catching partner with xxxx KQx Jxx xxx might lead to an embarrassing minus at the 5-level.

I spoke to him again after the game, but by this time he was raising the new defence of 'I didn't notice any break in tempo'... an unfortunate development given that he seemed to acknowledge the break at the time and defended his bid on the lack of any LA.

Now, I am comfortable that my view was correct... but I can see that I may be biased. The main reason for posting this is that I want to ask him to log onto the forum and read the answers. As I say, he is a good guy, and new blood in our local directing community is always welcome, but this is a tough conceptual issue for many players to grasp, and exposure to more points of view may help.... me as well as him

[hrothgar]

Hi Mike

Couple quick comments:

1. As usual, I am going to suggest that it would have been best to present this as a bidding problem absent UI. The crux of your opponent's argument is that passing partner's 4♠ is not a logical alternative. I would have liked to see the results of a poll.

2. From my perspective, its unclear whether the hesitation suggested extra values. As you note, most people would use 3♥ as a splinter. Its entirely possible that the hesitation indicated that partner had no clue what the 4♥ bid would showed.

I don't think that this case is as clear cut as you are suggesting

[jdonn]

I agree with Mike. In fact, I very strongly suspect this director would have made the correct ruling if called to the table where another player had done the exact same thing. But time and time and time again, it has been shown that people are blind to the merits of their own appeals (there was no appeal in this case but you know what I mean.) He gets it in his head at the first sign that his partner has a problem that HE would always have bid, and every justification in the world comes into his head right after.

You are right Richard that a poll is probably the right way to present a problem like this, but it seems unnecessary in this case since pass is so obviously a logical alternative. It doesn't even take a totally hopeless hand like Mike's example, any minimum with a heart honor is in terrible danger on the 5 level. KJxx Kxx xx xxxx for one. You will note Mike's example, with which most eager beginners would indeed have bid 1♠ (but passed 4♥ far more quickly) is not even safe on the 4 level.

[Echognome]

I think the common mistake is to say something like "I was always going to bid over 4♠." The laws say that we have to go out of our way not to choose an action which is suggested by the hesitation. The key point is that we have to be proactively careful in the choice we make.

I also think pass is a pretty clear logical alternative, although I imagine the problem with a poll is going to be to find 10 people that would have bid 4♥ initially. But, the logical argument is if you are going to bid 4NT over a signoff after 4♥, why didn't you bid 4NT initially?

[mike777]

It might help to actually post what the law says? I assume even if partner takes one minute to bid 4s we can still bid our hand. What limitations are placed on us? We can only make a bid 80% of our peers would make?

[inquiry]

After the BIT over 4♥, south has to pass... Book it, case closed.

[barmar]

If he was always going to ask for key cards, what was the point of the splinter in the first place? Either you're describing your hand, in which case partner is captain, or you assume captaincy and make asking bids. While sometimes you're unsure, and change ships in mid-course, it's improper to do so when there's UI that suggests it.

[the hog]

Firstly I don't like the splinter as I think this hand is too strong.
However, having splintered and having heard pd sign off in 4S, it is a doubtful move to bid again even without a hesitation. With the hesitation it is unconsionable. So "yes" I totally agree with Mikeh here. As this was a budding director, it is important that he know why it is not correct to bid on, and I don't mean in hand evaluation terms either.

[jillybean]

Isn't 4♥ an unexpected call, I can imagine his intermediate partner thinking is this natural, cue, splinter or ..? I don't know if the BIT suggests bidding on, when are you allowed to think and not convey UI?

Was the stop card used?

[Echognome]

mike777, on Mar 30 2007, 05:17 PM, said:

It might help to actually post what the law says?  I assume even if partner takes one minute to bid 4s we can still bid our hand. What limitations are placed on us? We can only make a bid 80% of our peers would make?

The relevant laws are:

Law 16 - Unauthorised Information said:

Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and or plays, and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law.

A. Extraneous Information from Partner

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

Law73 - Communication said:

C. Player Receives Unauthorised Information from Partner

When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side.

[mike777]

So as usual I am back to my basic...simplistic question.. can i make a bid 80% of my peers would make without the one minute hesitation by partner? I already explained why 4h and not 4nt rebid.

[blackshoe]

mike777, on Mar 31 2007, 12:32 AM, said:

So as usual I am back to my basic...simplistic question.. can i make a bid 80% of my peers would make without the one minute hesitation by partner?  I already explained why 4h and not 4nt rebid.

I dunno about the "already explained" part - I looked back up the thread and didn't see it. But yes, if 80% of your peers would make the call, then pass is not a logical alternative, and you can bid on.

One could argue that responder's initial one spade bid shows at least one cover card, and that opener, having only three losers is justified in moving further toward slam even in the face of the hesitation, particularly given that the hesitation doesn't necessarily show extra values; it may simply show confusion over the meaning of 4♥.

I don't care about the stop card - I do wonder if the 4♥ bidder's LHO paused the required 10 seconds or so before passing. If not, I'd want to explore further whether I agree with the idea there was a BIT.

On another note, and in reply to the OP, it's rarely a good idea to start trying to teach someone by adamantly telling him he's completely wrong - especially when the question is one of judgement, and you might well be wrong yourself.

[jdonn]

I dispute several things you said.

What is this one cover card nonsense?? And anyway, what if that one cover card (which was never promised by any definition of 1♠ that I have ever heard) was the king of hearts? Isn't that why we play splinters after all? And even if partner DID promise 1 cover card that wouldn't mean passing is not an LA, a 4-1 break in either black suit could set you. 4-1's occur about 1/3 of the time, people don't go around playing on the 5 level willy nilly without a good reason.

If the hesitation showed confusion over the meaning of 4♥ that is even more reason to disallow further bidding. It means partner wouldn't have evaluated his hand correctly and might have been worth a stronger move. The UI suggests bidding on no matter how you slice it.

The point about LHO pausing 10 seconds or the use of the stop card was never brought up, you are opening something that wasn't even an issue. Apparently the hesitation was not denied at the table, it was denied later when the player was clearly just being defensive and his memory was not as fresh. If someone said you took advantage of partner's hesitation, your immediate reaction would be to deny the hesitation if you believe it didn't take place. It would not be an argument that would escape a player until later.

[mike777]

but no one is saying what the law is...no wonder confusion......saying BIT does not help....heck what the heck is that for most of us? As usual understood by 1% (250,000)or less of 25 million bridge players. Do you guys understand bridge is played by 99% or more not 1% or less?


If you want to make rules understood by ...1% or .1% or .01% ok///

just say so

[paulg]

Echognome, on Mar 31 2007, 01:44 AM, said:

I think the common mistake is to say something like "I was always going to bid over 4♠." The laws say that we have to go out of our way not to choose an action which is suggested by the hesitation. The key point is that we have to be proactively careful in the choice we make.

I also think pass is a pretty clear logical alternative, although I imagine the problem with a poll is going to be to find 10 people that would have bid 4♥ initially. But, the logical argument is if you are going to bid 4NT over a signoff after 4♥, why didn't you bid 4NT initially?

I agree with Richard that this may not be as trivial as the good players suggest.

Firstly many beginners/intermediates love showing their singletons prior to using Blackwood. It makes no sense but is the reason that there are experienced beginners. It is just another form of the Rabbit's "expression of joy" (originally the description when the Rabbit used Blackwood with a void).

I can also see a lot of them being very worried by the 4♥ bid and taking their time. Could it be natural? Hence the UI does not give as much information as it would with a stronger player.

[Echognome]

Whether or not pass is a logical alternative is a judgment issue. I agree that it doesn't matter what I think, or better players like Mike and Josh think, it matters what players of this class think. What a director should do is consult peers of this player and determine what the logical alternatives are. The best way to go about this is to give it as a bidding problem at *every* turn. Once you find enough people that opened 1♦ and bid 4♥ over 1♠, you will have a good idea about what the logical alternatives are. It can often prove to be very difficult to do this and I'm sure TDs don't like having to ask a whole lot of people. I think this is one issue.

The other issue is simply to educate on what the law says and how it is our duty to make sure we go out of our way not to choose actions suggested by the UI. I don't understand Mike777s point at all. Did I not paste the relevant laws? Is there some part of it you don't understand? I mean we can discuss what the phrase "may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information" means if that is your question. I just can't figure out what you're asking.

[david_c]

I'm surprised at some of the answers: I think the decision is sufficiently close that I wouldn't be sure whether pass is a LA without taking a poll. I think there must be plenty of people who would bid on routinely - just as there are plenty of people who would not realise that 3♥ is a splinter. Added to that, it is always much easier to work out LAs for other people than for your own problems at the table.

So I believe that telling this TD that he is wrong is, well, wrong. He seems to understand what the issue is, which is that he can bid 4NT only if it is "clear" not to pass. This seems like a good start for a club TD. The only thing is, we may disagree with the judgement of whether pass is a LA. Certainly in an expert game it would be, but in a normal club I think it's close, and I wouldn't criticise anyone who bid 4NT even if I might rule against them.

[badderzboy]

Echognome, on Mar 31 2007, 06:13 AM, said:

mike777, on Mar 30 2007, 05:17 PM, said:

It might help to actually post what the law says?  I assume even if partner takes one minute to bid 4s we can still bid our hand. What limitations are placed on us? We can only make a bid 80% of our peers would make?

The relevant laws are:

Law 16 - Unauthorised Information said:

Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and or plays, and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law.

A. Extraneous Information from Partner

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

Law73 - Communication said:

C. Player Receives Unauthorised Information from Partner

When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side.

Law 16 - Unauthorised Information said:

Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and or plays, and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law.

A. Extraneous Information from Partner

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

The first issue is what extraneous information was passed apart from wtf was 4♥s.
Does the hesitation demonstrably show extra values ?

You could argue passing 4♠ used UI as bidding on is a LA if everyone else would bid 6 and go down on a bad split or unexpected ruff.

Law73 - Communication said:

C. Player Receives Unauthorised Information from Partner

When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side.

As above what UI was passed? I would also ask his partner (a) did u hestitate and ( why?

I am a director and I'm not convinced I would disallow the 4NT bid with the information but u need to poll his peers here which I suspect they are not as good as you all are lol. With an expert partner I would be more likely to roll it backas they understood the 4♥ bid.

The argument I was always going on has a little merit u would like ptr to take control and bid 4NT with the right hand as u've denied AK♥s surely... and they can accurately paint a fuller picture. I guess he thought his ptr might take over

[mikeh]

[quote name='david_c' date='Mar 31 2007, 05:36 AM']I'm surprised at some of the answers: I think the decision is sufficiently close that I wouldn't be sure whether pass is a LA without taking a poll. I think there must be plenty of people who would bid on routinely - just as there are plenty of people who would not realise that 3♥ is a splinter. Added to that, it is always much easier to work out LAs for other people than for your own problems at the table.

So I believe that telling this TD that he is wrong is, well, wrong. He seems to understand what the issue is, which is that he can bid 4NT only if it is "clear" not to pass. This seems like a good start for a club TD. The only thing is, we may disagree with the judgement of whether pass is a LA. Certainly in an expert game it would be, but in a normal club I think it's close, and I wouldn't criticise anyone who bid 4NT even if I might rule against them.


QUOTE]
Let me stress that I made it very clear to the player/director that I was not at all accusing him of any intentional wrong-doing: any conscious use of the UI flowing from the BIT. So I am puzzled by the comment that you would not criticize the player but you might rule against them.

My whole point was that such a ruling is NOT a criticism of the bidder, even tho it is so (mis) interpreted by 90% or more of the field.... and surely, surely a director, even if only a club level director, ought to be in the 10%?.

I confess I am not aware of the precise guidelines for determining how to judge whether a call is a LA, but it seems to me that it doesnt help to have a poll that finds that 80% of the bidders, wo a BIT, would bid. Surely the question should be whether any significant percentage of players considered that it was close between bid and pass...even if the large majority chose to bid... the 'fact' that most considered the alternatives to include pass renders it a logical alternative, and once it is a LA, then it is mandated by the BIT.

Fo Mike777, I do know that when I took my director's exam 30 years ago, the test was 75%...you could make a bid despite a BIT if 75% of your peers would make the bid absent the BIT, but the law was changed and I always understood that the new law was intended to be far more restrictive.

[david_c]

mikeh, on Mar 31 2007, 03:28 PM, said:

Let me stress that I made it very clear to the player/director that I was not at all accusing him of any intentional wrong-doing: any conscious use of the UI flowing from the BIT. So I am puzzled by the comment that you would not criticize the player but you might rule against them.

Hi Mike, what I was trying to say (not very effectively, I agree) was that I think you should wait for a more clear-cut case than this one before telling the TD that you think they are wrong. I believe that the view that pass is not a LA is defensible here.