[jonottawa]

My initial reaction was 'of course you have to pass' but after reading some comments here I agree that you can do anything but double (unless your system notes are explicitly detailed enough to prove that it is your agreement to always double with a hand of this shape/strength under these conditions.)

Partner needs a serious talking-to. Her behavior is unacceptable. I'd be unlikely to play with this person again absent a 'come to Jesus' moment on her part.

What was partner's hand?

[mycroft]

The problem is, Winston, that with a boring flat 12, and most 11s, 1NTer's partner will pass without thinking. If they have 23-25, partner has 4-6, and you are going for 5 or 8 into a partscore. Of course, since 1NTer's partner will pass with a boring 4, you might have 23-25, too, and you're taking 50s into +600. It's a matter of which is more likely. Of course, with the UI, you know the latter is much more likely than the former.

Unfortunately, opposite a weak NT, responder knows when to drop the axe more often than against any other opening bid - the key is to get the 200s and 300s into partscores and 5,8,11 into games. The 500s+ into partscores are just gravy. So in defending, you have to balance "want to get to game" with "Have I just hung myself". No matter what you do, you'll always guess wrong sometimes. Just hope to get them back when they're -90 against a room full of -110s.

One of the good things about Lionel is that it does kind of force you, and you get to double with this hand - provided you don't cheat and pass 11s with spades any other time.

[PeterGill]

Non vul at Matchpoints, bidding 2S or some systemic bid seems fairly reasonable to me, even with the UI. I think it's one of those touch-and-go decisions where
one simply accepts the ruling, whichever way the officials decide to go, since there's no clear right and wrong.

Peter Gill.

[mtvesuvius]

PeterGill, on May 30 2009, 10:36 AM, said:

Non vul at Matchpoints, bidding 2S or some systemic bid seems fairly reasonable to me, even with the UI. I think it's one of those touch-and-go decisions where
one simply accepts the ruling, whichever way the officials decide to go, since there's no clear right and wrong.

Peter Gill.

Actually posted by Andy Hung?

[JoAnneM]

In UI caused by a hesitation you bid only if passing is not a logical alternative. When you have UI caused by mannerisms or other actions from partner you have to make your bid as if you did not see or hear whatever happened.

So, in this case it seems that you should do whatever you would normally do with this hand, and if the opponents have a problem with it they should call the director. You can then convince the director that you acted ethically and in good faith.

Then, as others suggested, I would have that conversation with partner. It makes me wonder if partner is inexperienced and not used to playing against weak or variable nt's. Or is partner hard of hearing? Is there more to this story?

[jdonn]

JoAnneM, on May 30 2009, 11:39 PM, said:

In UI caused by a hesitation you bid only if passing is not a logical alternative. When you have UI caused by mannerisms or other actions from partner you have to make your bid as if you did not see or hear whatever happened.

That is simply untrue, what gives you that idea? The source of UI is irrelevant, all that matters is which (if any) logical alternatives UI suggests is more or less likely to work.

[the hog]

I would certainly bid here. This is what I would do without the heitation, so I take my normal action.

[JoAnneM]

jdonn, on May 31 2009, 05:59 AM, said:

JoAnneM, on May 30 2009, 11:39 PM, said:

In UI caused by a hesitation you bid only if passing is not a logical alternative.  When you have UI caused by mannerisms or other actions from partner you have to make your bid as if you did not see or hear whatever happened.

That is simply untrue, what gives you that idea? The source of UI is irrelevant, all that matters is which (if any) logical alternatives UI suggests is more or less likely to work.

I was think of the differences between an auction where the two sides are already in competition, and this one where one side has not yet entered the auction. Asking the range question doesn't carry quite the weight, for me, as going into the tank and then passing. You don't know why partner asked, but you would certainly know why partner hesitated.

[blackshoe]

The_Hog, on May 31 2009, 01:09 AM, said:

I would certainly bid here. This is what I would do without the heitation, so I take my normal action.

If a significant percentage of your peers would consider some other action, and if of that percentage some would take it, then bidding is illegal, and you would (should, anyway) see the score adjusted if your bid damages your opponents.

[blackshoe]

JoAnneM, on May 31 2009, 03:34 PM, said:

I was think of the differences between an auction where the two sides are already in competition, and this one where one side has not yet entered the auction. Asking the range question doesn't carry quite the weight, for me, as going into the tank and then passing. You don't know why partner asked, but you would certainly know why partner hesitated.

"Know" is not the criterion. If partner's extraneous action causes you to infer something (anything) about his hand, you may not use that inference unless you have no logical alternative to doing whatever it suggests you do.

Different actions may convey different information. The same action, in two different auctions, may convey different information. The principle remains the same, however.

[the hog]

blackshoe, on Jun 1 2009, 03:41 AM, said:

The_Hog, on May 31 2009, 01:09 AM, said:

I would certainly bid here. This is what I would do without the heitation, so I take my normal action.

If a significant percentage of your peers would consider some other action, and if of that percentage some would take it, then bidding is illegal, and you would (should, anyway) see the score adjusted if your bid damages your opponents.

Bidding IS NOT and CANNOT BE illegal.

The problem is that I do not know what a large percentage of my peers would do without asking them. As I am not allowed to go around the room saying, "Partner hesitated, you hold....will you bid?", I am going to take the action I would normally take. If the director or a committee rolls it back, that is their prerogative. - see Peter Gill's comment above.

[JoAnneM]

So, if your partner asks, you can't bid. And if your partner doesn't ask, you can't bid, because she has a bad hand and isn't interested (from another thread).

[cherdanno]

JoAnneM, on May 31 2009, 10:36 PM, said:

So, if your partner asks, you can't bid. And if your partner doesn't ask, you can't bid, because she has a bad hand and isn't interested (from another thread).

Did you read the original post?

[helene_t]

So partner has a hand that might have bid over a strong NT but not over this NT. Most likely a shapy hand that is too weak to bid over a weak NT.

Dunno which direction that points to. It increases the likelihood that she is short in spades.

[blackshoe]

The_Hog, on May 31 2009, 09:23 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Jun 1 2009, 03:41 AM, said:

The_Hog, on May 31 2009, 01:09 AM, said:

I would certainly bid here. This is what I would do without the heitation, so I take my normal action.

If a significant percentage of your peers would consider some other action, and if of that percentage some would take it, then bidding is illegal, and you would (should, anyway) see the score adjusted if your bid damages your opponents.

Bidding IS NOT and CANNOT BE illegal.

The problem is that I do not know what a large percentage of my peers would do without asking them. As I am not allowed to go around the room saying, "Partner hesitated, you hold....will you bid?", I am going to take the action I would normally take. If the director or a committee rolls it back, that is their prerogative. - see Peter Gill's comment above.

Law 16 said:

...A3. No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous).
4. if there is a violation of this law causing damage, the director adjusts the score in accordance with Law 12c.
B. Extraneous information from Partner
1. (a) After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest
a call or play, ... the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.
... 3. When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative
has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon
the director when play ends*. The director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12c) if he
considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender.[/B]

More to the point for players:

Law 73C said:

When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information.

If you don't "carefully avoid, etc." then you have violated Law 73C. So if bidding what you "were always going to bid" is a violation of this law (because it doesn't "carefully avoid, etc.") then it's illegal. If you insist on doing it repeatedly, in spite of having had this law explained to you, then you should get a procedural penalty as well as a score adjustment (see the discussion of the use of the word "must" in the introduction to the laws).

NB: The emphasis in the law quotes is mine.

[NickRW]

blackshoe, on Jun 1 2009, 01:20 PM, said:

If you don't "carefully avoid, etc." ....

That's all very well, but it isn't clear to me whether the hesitation suggests strength, shape or what the hell over there in partner's hand - therefore I don't see that I have any UI worth talking about.

That opps may well think I have UI is also obvious unfortunately - but as far as I can see, whatever action I take is potentially open to criticism.

Nick

[Oof Arted]

Nick your answer is contained in Law 16 B1

If your bid MAY have been suggested

If you would always make the bid you are going to then you do it and let the poor poor harassed Director decide

[babalu1997]

The_Hog, on May 31 2009, 01:09 AM, said:

I would certainly bid here. This is what I would do without the heitation, so I take my normal action.

well i recently took the normal bid over opps strong no trump in another hand this week.

i bid 2clubs, dont-- club and higher, with 4-4 shape and 3-11 hcp-- hapenned to have 4.

then the opps claimed damage, because my partner took 31 seconds to bid(the partivular software tracks that)

i was completely taken aback, fts i fif not even notice that my partner had hesitated-- some times he takes long to bid-- because of local distractions or phone calls or whatever.

director rukles it was not a clear bid-- for me it was-- would have made it anyways.

but i find it a bit ridiculous that a 31 second in an online game constitutes sufficient enough time to verify hesitation.

but no matter, thay aind getting my $1 anymore.

[JoAnneM]

cherdanno, on Jun 1 2009, 06:40 AM, said:

JoAnneM, on May 31 2009, 10:36 PM, said:

So, if your partner asks, you can't bid.  And if your partner doesn't ask, you can't bid, because she has a bad hand and isn't interested (from another thread).

Did you read the original post?

Of course I read the original post. Many here are saying that because partner asked the nt range that you now have UI and shouldn't bid. Yet in another thread in this same forum there was an alerted bid, the opp did not ask and many said that now his partner could not bid because he had the UI that he had a weak hand and wasn't interested in knowing what the alert was. I just find it contradictory. It's kind of like if the opps use an alertable bid you are screwed.

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on May 31 2009, 09:23 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Jun 1 2009, 03:41 AM, said:

The_Hog, on May 31 2009, 01:09 AM, said:

I would certainly bid here. This is what I would do without the heitation, so I take my normal action.

If a significant percentage of your peers would consider some other action, and if of that percentage some would take it, then bidding is illegal, and you would (should, anyway) see the score adjusted if your bid damages your opponents.

Bidding IS NOT and CANNOT BE illegal.

The problem is that I do not know what a large percentage of my peers would do without asking them. As I am not allowed to go around the room saying, "Partner hesitated, you hold....will you bid?", I am going to take the action I would normally take. If the director or a committee rolls it back, that is their prerogative. - see Peter Gill's comment above.

Perhaps it is not illegal, but I don't know what you mean by bidding cannot be illegal. If bidding is suggested by any UI you have, and passing is a logical alternative, then bidding is illegal. Sure you may misjudge (in the opinion of the director) what is a logical alternative, but in that case you have done something illegal which is why the director can change the result. Asking yourself what so many of your peers would do is the wrong question, it's a judgment tool for those who make rulings. What you have to ask yourself is whether an action that was not suggested is a logical alternative.

If the speedometer on my car is broken and I get a speeding ticket, it doesn't matter that I made a misjudgment even if doing so was reasonable. I broke the law, and whatever punishment I suffer is my responsibility. Likewise for misjudging logical alternatives.