[karen4]

The sequence (uninterrupted) went 2♠-3♥ passed out. the 2♠ bid was described as weak, about 5-10 and the 3♥ bid, which was very slow was described as invitational and natural. The pair do not open 2♠ with 4 hearts on the side.

When dummy went down it had

---

We asked for a ruling as we felt the hesitation gave unauthorised information and the director ruled result stands. This was at the very end of the last match and we did not want to delay getting the results out so we did not question the basis for the ruling.

Does this seem reasonable?

[MFA]

I agree with the TD.
The hesitation doesn't really encourage passing 3♥. So pass is legal regardsless of his hand.

[bluejak]

There is the traditional problem that the UI does not really say what is happening: the player could be wondering whether to bid 3♥ or raise spades with 6/2: he could be wondering whether to pass or bid 3♥ with a borderline game try: he could be wondering whether to bid 3♥ or 4♥ with a borderline game hand. So the UI does not suggest passing 3♥ particular: it could be read as the opposite.

Nevertheless, as the TD, I would ask some questions, such as 'Why did you pass 3♥?'. While I do not think I can adjust for the above reasons I would keep a written copy of this hand.

One of the worries to which there is no sensible solution is that while in some situations like the above you do not know what the UI shows, perhaps you would if you were the player's partner. You might know from experience that a slow 3♥ means a very minimum 3♥ bid. Now the pass of 3♥ is illegal because the UI suggests passing, but it is impossible to demonstrate unless the TD has experience of this pair. A written record helps this sort of thing, of course.

But my instinct tells me that opener passed 3♥ illegally. A distinct aroma of fish.

[Cyberyeti]

bluejak, on Sep 20 2009, 08:03 PM, said:

There is the traditional problem that the UI does not really say what is happening: the player could be wondering whether to bid 3♥ or raise spades with 6/2: he could be wondering whether to pass or bid 3♥ with a borderline game try: he could be wondering whether to bid 3♥ or 4♥ with a borderline game hand.  So the UI does not suggest passing 3♥ particular: it could be read as the opposite.

Nevertheless, as the TD, I would ask some questions, such as 'Why did you pass 3♥?'.  While I do not think I can adjust for the above reasons I would keep a written copy of this hand.

One of the worries to which there is no sensible solution is that while in some situations like the above you do not know what the UI shows, perhaps you would if you were the player's partner.  You might know from experience that a slow 3♥ means a very minimum 3♥ bid.  Now the pass of 3♥ is illegal because the UI suggests passing, but it is impossible to demonstrate unless the TD has experience of this pair.  A written record helps this sort of thing, of course.

But my instinct tells me that opener passed 3♥ illegally.  A distinct aroma of fish.

Bluejak's reply says most of what I would have said, but I think the tightening up of BIT rules has prompted 2 forms of cheating which are quite prevalent now.

1. Don't admit there was any hesitation unless it runs into minutes.

2. Only hesitate when you don't really have your invite to make sure partner really has his when he raises.

This looks like number 2, I agree about the aroma of fish, with overtones of rat.

I cannot think of a much clearer 4H raise than the hand possessed, a very near maximum with 3 trumps and an ace and a king, if I raised to 4 after a hesitation and partner had a really good invite and made 5, I would not expect it to come back on appeal, so it is difficult to justify not bidding 4H unless you know it's a really poor invite.

[peachy]

I would like to find out the reasons why the opener did not accept the invite. He has a maximum, his values are A/K, and he has three card support for partner. If he does not consider this an acceptance of the invite, then I need to know what more he would need to accept, and if more was needed, then why is the range described as 5-10.

It could well be as Cyberyeti's example 2), but lacking similar other examples by this pair, no substantiated evidence. It could also be MI about the opening range (they actually play it up to say 12HCP), it could be MI about the nature of the 3H call (they actually play it as non-invitational). Something is stinking, for sure, and I don't think a TD can do anything other than record the case for future reference.

[karen4]

peachy, on Sep 21 2009, 01:26 PM, said:

I would like to find out the reasons why the opener did not accept the invite.

The director did try to get this information out of the player but he was fighting a losing battle in trying to get a straight answer. He just kept saying that he felt like it.

[jdonn]

I would adjust. I totally disagree with saying "it's not clear what the break in tempo suggests so the result stands" since the pass of 3♥ makes it clear to me what the hesitation suggests for this player. He is welcome to try and explain why he passed to convince me it wasn't due to the hesitation, but he would have to do quite a bit better than "I felt like it".

In fact, this may be controversial, but I think it's perfectly fine to judge that for one player this break in tempo suggests a minimum and for another player it suggests something else. Suppose tomorrow a different player holds a totally minimum 2 bid and hears this same auction (complete with long hesitation before the invitational 3♥) and bids game and makes when his partner has extras. When I ask why he bid game he says "I felt like it." I would adjust the player back to a partscore even though today I adjusted this player to a game. A highly unusual action with no real justification is proof enough for me that the BIT suggested the action, other than making the usual allowances for the skill level and experience of the player involved.

[cherdanno]

I think I agree with Josh.
I have had a (reasonably good but not so experienced) partner where I certainly got a lot more information from UI than a panel who were just told about a hesitation would realize.
I would think at the table it might be quite possible to guess whether responder was quite unhappy and just trying to escape into a better partscore (hoping that partner would pass), or just had an evaluation problem between an invite and a game force.

[aguahombre]

Adjust for "contempt of court" for the "I felt like it" answer.

In the 5-10 Range, with 3 card support and an outside bullet, I would accept game. but my questionable judgement is not the issue, their judgement is. And you can't get a straight answer out of the passer, so adjust. Let them take "I felt like it" to committee. Best guess, IMHO, was Cher's --that passer judged from the hesitation a weak runout with perhaps a spade void, making the Spade KJ worthless.

[Cyberyeti]

aguahombre, on Sep 21 2009, 06:23 PM, said:

Adjust for "contempt of court" for the "I felt like it" answer. 

In the 5-10 Range, with 3 card support and an outside bullet, I would accept game. but my questionable judgement is not the issue, their judgement is.  And you can't get a straight answer out of the passer, so adjust.  Let them take "I felt like it" to committee. Best guess, IMHO, was Cher's --that passer judged from the hesitation a weak runout with perhaps a spade void, making the Spade KJ worthless.

If it is the weak runout, then you can nail them for a fielded psyche/misbid.

The issue is in the case of the minimal invite.

[karen4]

aguahombre, on Sep 21 2009, 06:23 PM, said:

Best guess, IMHO, was Cher's --that passer judged from the hesitation a weak runout with perhaps a spade void, making the Spade KJ worthless.

That's actually a pretty good guess

He had

---

Not a game invite in my view, though as it lies 4♥ is actually cold

[FrancesHinden]

It's not just cold, it makes 11 tricks. This doesn't require particularly careful play given the very favourable diamond position (Kx under the AJ), hearts 3-2 and the queen of spades onside to prevent a force.

While the player at the table may only have made 9 tricks in 3H*, that's not to say how many tricks he or she might make in 4H.

*I assume this is the case as I doubt you would have asked for a ruling had they made 10 or more!