[bluejak]

At Brighton I usually act as a TD consultant, ie other TDs come to consult with me. They will give the ruling, and they can ignore my advice if they want. However, this evening we had several interesting rulings. This was probably the least interesting.

Scoring: Swiss Pairs

---------------P
--P--1♠-1NT-P
--2♦--P--3♥-P
--P---3♠--P--P
--P---P

---

2♦ was alerted as a transfer. After 3♥ South asked several questions about the auction before passing.

E/W asked the TD to look at North's 3♠ bid after the questions.

[jillybean]

Souths questions indicate values, he's considering taking action over 3♥, double or bid.
The UI suggests north should bid on, pass is a logical alternative.

[Echognome]

How did E/W say they were damaged? (I assume 3♠ made?)

I think the UI does suggest South has some values, but it's not clear they were offensive values. North will probably argue that the opponent's failure to bid game means South has some values. I think that Pass is an LA, but I'm not sure if 3♠ is suggested by the UI.

[McBruce]

I'm a bit uncomfortable by the idea that we can glom together "double" and "bid on" as being enough together to force a Pass on North. South may have spade support and distribution, or he may have hearts and some values. The former suggests bidding on, the latter suggests doubling for penalties -- as long as North has more than a bare minimum. If North chooses to go on and has no way of knowing which hand South has, and the risk in guessing wrong (doubling a makeable partscore, or getting doubled in 3♠) is as much as the potential gain over passing, where is he getting an advantage?

Unless there is something in the questions asked by South that gives North a clue as to which hand South has. If that's the case, it's an easy ruling. But surely South is entitled to ask for "a review with full explanations" without giving the game away to North. We need to know more about what was asked and whether the question itself demonstrably suggested one action over another.

[helene_t]

I think it is clear that South considered a penalty double. With spade support he would have raised. Maybe heart shortness would make him revaluate his hand to now being worth a 3♠ bid, but given North's void that is unlikely,

So if anything, I think pass is suggested by the questions (although it probably depends on the kind of questions ) I would say North is still allowed to pass as he doesn't really have an alternative, but if he wants to bid on he is certainly allowed to do that.

[Cascade]

I very much doubt that any UI could demonstrably suggest rebidding a five-card suit at the three-level.

Nevertheless my experience is that for regular partners who act in this way - unnecessary questions with values etc - surprisingly often partner takes a winning action.

In other words I need some more information to make a serious ruling.

[TimG]

IMO, the questions (and resulting UI) do not suggest bidding 3♠ over passing. If north had come up with a takeout double over 3♥, I would consider that to have been suggested over passing. It's questionable whether 3♠ was even a LA.

[peachy]

I would question a Dbl by North (which caters to all hands South could have, *if* there was UI). However, South is allowed to ask about opponents' bidding and it is not UI that he asks but it COULD be UI if his questions were phrased in some leading manner. I would think there is not enough information so 3S bid stands and there is no infraction, unless the form of South's question presented some UI.

[jillybean]

peachy, on Aug 15 2009, 09:55 AM, said:

I would question a Dbl by North (which caters to all hands South could have, *if* there was UI).  However, South is allowed to ask about opponents' bidding and it is not UI that he asks but it COULD be UI if his questions were phrased in some leading manner.  I would think there is not enough information so 3S bid stands and there is no infraction, unless the form of South's question presented some UI.

If souths questions came after the final pass I would agree with you 100% but as the questions were made it the middle of the auction and doesnt that indicate values, distribution, creating UI for his partner? Or perhaps south needs to be reminded when to ask questions.

[Cascade]

peachy, on Aug 16 2009, 04:55 AM, said:

I would question a Dbl by North (which caters to all hands South could have, *if* there was UI). However, South is allowed to ask about opponents' bidding and it is not UI that he asks but it COULD be UI if his questions were phrased in some leading manner. I would think there is not enough information so 3S bid stands and there is no infraction, unless the form of South's question presented some UI.

I disagree. This is what the law says:

"After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information
that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a
reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by
unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture,
movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical
alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another
by the extraneous information."

A question in and of itself can be extraneous information. If you ask a question however it is phrased you are in danger of telling your partner (and the table) something about your hand.

[awm]

The exact nature of south's questions may be relevant here.

It seems like north has UI that south has some values and is considering taking some action in this auction. However, south's most likely hand is a penalty double of 3♥, with some sort of minor suit oriented hand being perhaps possible. Spade support is quite unlikely considering south had many opportunities to raise.

I don't think rebidding 3♠ here is even a LA, but that's not really important. The UI suggests that north double, not make this crazy-seeming call. Result stands.

[blackshoe]

Asking a question is certainly an extraneous action. Whether the action contains or conveys any extraneous information is another question entirely.

[bluejak]

As has been discussed fairly extensively - and if you wish to discuss it again, feel free, but in a new thread please - it is generally accepted that UI Laws forbid a player from choosing an alternative whcih is not logical but is suggested over an LA by the UI.

So whether 3♠ is an LA does not really affect the ruling.

[bluejak]

The TD decided that partner's interest in the hand had shown strength, and strength suggested taking action rather than passing. She decided to disallow the 3♠ bid.

Assuming that, how should she adjust it?

[bluejak]

No takers? Ok, well, she adjusted it to something like 50/50 3♥ making seven or eight tricks.

[ahydra]

I wouldn't be happy with that result as North-South. Assuming 1NT was 15-17 then West holds no more than 7 points (probably no more than 6 given a super-accept), giving South at least 3 points and likely more. So give South e.g. the ♥Q and ♦J and trumps similar to what he actually held and North may well make 3♠. Give South ♠98x ♦KJ ♣J and he may even make four.

Do the UI laws really mean that if a player would take an action anyway if his partner hadn't messed things up by asking lots of questions or whatever, he now can't if a logical alternative exists? I don't think one should assume North took notice of the questions just because South asked them. North may not care, planning to bid 3♠ anyway. However L16B seems to make this assumption.

ahydra

[bluejak]

No-one assumes that North took notice of the questions. But in bridge the Laws would be unworkable if TDs basically had to decide what went on in a person's mind the whole time. So the UI Laws are deliberately worded to say that if a player makes information available to his partner his partner is then constrained in his actions whether he has noticed th UI or not, and whether he has acted on the UI or not. It does make the game considerably better, because the alternative would be a free-for-all, with lots of unethical players taking advantage of everything their partner does or says - and soon they would be deliberately doing or saying things for their partner's benefit. Far better to have Laws to be followed which occasionally lead to a position where a player feels an injustice might have happened: you must look at the overall picture.

Of course, sensible players just accept such Laws and expect every so often to fall foul of them without getting upset about it.