[bd71]

Playing in a club pairs game in the US. They are vul, we are not.

I am dealer and open 2H (weak).

LHO pauses, thinks, closes her eyes, touches her cards to her forehead as if in thought, etc., and finally passes. (Later, opponents agree there was an obvious pause and that it was clear to all she had a problem.)

Partner bids 3H. RHO bids 3S; and for what it's worth, RHO is well-known as an INCREDIBLY aggressive bidder. LHO raises to 4S. End of bidding.

My partner called director after the 4S bid from LHO to establish that there was an earlier pause. Director looks at RHO cards and says something like "he has a clear spade bid."

We play the hand, they make 5S. LHO has something like 18 points with a 2344 shape. RHO has something like KT9xxxx Kx xx xx. (I am certain of the honors and trump spots, less certain of minor spots if that matters).

Several questions:

1. Is there any way to look at the RHO cards and say that pass is NOT a logical alternative?

2. In addressing this issue, is it relevant at all that RHO is an aggressive bidder?

3. Didn't the director handle the process improperly by not simply noting initially that there had been a bidding pause and to call her back after the hand to see if there was anything to consider or adjust?

[pran]

bd71, on May 6 2010, 10:25 PM, said:

Playing in a club pairs game in the US.  They are vul, we are not.

I am dealer and open 2H (weak). 

LHO pauses, thinks, closes her eyes, touches her cards to her forehead as if in thought, etc., and finally passes.  (Later, opponents agree there was an obvious pause and that it was clear to all she had a problem.)

Partner bids 3H.  RHO bids 3S; and for what it's worth, RHO is well-known as an INCREDIBLY aggressive bidder.  LHO raises to 4S.  End of bidding.

My partner called director after the 4S bid from LHO to establish that there was an earlier pause.  Director looks at RHO cards and says something like "he has a clear spade bid."

We play the hand, they make 5S.  LHO has something like 18 points with a 2344 shape.  RHO has something like KT9xxxx Kx xx xx.  (I am certain of the honors and trump spots, less certain of minor spots if that matters).

Several questions:

1. Is there any way to look at the RHO cards and say that pass is NOT a logical alternative?

2. In addressing this issue, is it relevant at all that RHO is an aggressive bidder? 

3. Didn't the director handle the process improperly by not simply noting initially that there had been a bidding pause and to call her back after the hand to see if there was anything to consider or adjust?

This is awful!

1: NO! - absolutely not. The Director has given away a tremendous amount of UI about RHO to the other players.

2: In my opinion: NO.
RHO may swear on the Holy Bible that he would always bid 3♠ with this hand; that doesn't help him. The UI conveyed from LHO clearly and demonstrably suggests some action by RHO so every player I know to be the least ethical will PASS with this hand and then tell LHO a lesson afterwards. An agressive player might very well bid 3♠ even when red with his hand, but an ethical player would definitely not in this situation.

3: The Director's activity was unforgivable - period. Your suggestion on how he should have acted is correct.

Better luck with competent Directors!

regards Sven

PS.: I would have adjusted the result to 3♥ with whatever number of tricks reasonable.

[blackshoe]

Aggressive or not, it seems clear that RHO's bid was influenced by his partner's histrionics. A poll would establish if there's any possibility that RHO had no LA. I don't believe it, but I could be wrong. If there's any evidence this pair should know better, I'd give them a PP for the histrionics, at least. And I'd adjust the score as Sven suggests, assuming the NOS were damaged. And I'd suggest the TD needs a refresher course.

BTW, the best time to establish that there may have been UI is when it happens (Law 16B2).

[karen4]

They must miss a lot of slams if LHO passes with that huge hand. Even if RHO may have a weak hand, surely he will sometimes have a decent hand. Why didn't LHO make a move....

[mjj29]

karen4, on May 7 2010, 06:24 AM, said:

They must miss a lot of slams if LHO passes with that huge hand. Even if RHO may have a weak hand, surely he will sometimes have a decent hand. Why didn't LHO make a move....

They don't, because RHO will always bid again with a better than weak hand because LHO took so long to pass

[Free]

I find it awful that TD tells you your RHO has his normal ♠ bid. Now your defense may give away tricks because you trust the TD too much and give RHO a much stronger hand.

He should just let you play, and if you feel damaged you can call him again. In the mean time he can investigate if a 3♠ bid is really normal, so he's prepared when he gets called back.

I'm not sure if RHO's style is really relevant.

[bd71]

Free, on May 7 2010, 09:11 AM, said:

I'm not sure if RHO's style is really relevant.

Thanks for the comment on this aspect, because this is maybe most interesting piece of this to me.

Is there anything in the laws that suggests you should or should not consider a player's style when considering logical alternatives in a UI situation? If so, does that mean director polls to establish logical alternatives should be shaded based on a player's aggressive/conservative tendencies?

I have no idea what the law says, but my "fairness" instinct believes that you should consider the player tendencies. That's one reason I was NOT really upset with this ruling...RHO really is nice-but-super-crazy in bidding and I completely believe he would bid 3S normally. LHO is another story...her behavior was annoying, but I just don't know her well enough to know she's intentionally playing games or not.

[barmar]

bd71, on May 7 2010, 04:41 PM, said:

Is there anything in the laws that suggests you should or should not consider a player's style when considering logical alternatives in a UI situation?  If so, does that mean director polls to establish logical alternatives should be shaded based on a player's aggressive/conservative tendencies?

The Laws say:

L16B1b said:

A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

So I guess we have to decide whether the player's style and aggressiveness contributes to the "class of player" he is. I think this is usually interpreted to mean the level of expertise, so the TD may poll players of similar experience. If we start including style and aggressiveness, it seems like many players would be in a class by themselves, making it nearly impossible to apply the definition of LA.

[bluejak]

bd71, on May 7 2010, 09:41 PM, said:

Is there anything in the laws that suggests you should or should not consider a player's style when considering logical alternatives in a UI situation?  If so, does that mean director polls to establish logical alternatives should be shaded based on a player's aggressive/conservative tendencies?

Yes, for preference you want to poll players playing a similar system and style. I know this is often impractical but in the present case I would poll people by giving them the hand, and saying "You are an aggressive bider, and the bidding goes ...". Not perfect, certainly.

The definition of an LA is

Quote

A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

and "class of players" is understood to mean players of same style.

[CamHenry]

pran, on May 6 2010, 05:46 PM, said:

bd71, on May 6 2010, 10:25 PM, said:

2. In addressing this issue, is it relevant at all that RHO is an aggressive bidder? 

2: In my opinion: NO.
RHO may swear on the Holy Bible that he would always bid 3♠ with this hand; that doesn't help him. The UI conveyed from LHO clearly and demonstrably suggests some action by RHO so every player I know to be the least ethical will PASS with this hand and then tell LHO a lesson afterwards. An agressive player might very well bid 3♠ even when red with his hand, but an ethical player would definitely not in this situation.

This is the only part of Sven's answer I'd question. It's clear that action other than pass is demonstrably suggested, of course, so we have to assess whether pass is an LA. For my class of player, aggressive but not very aggressive, pass is an LA even if I'm desperate for a swing. For someone known to bid on tram tickets, maybe it isn't.

The difficulty the director should have (if he were ruling properly) is finding people whose bidding is comparably aggressive. I doubt you'd find many people who are truly "peers" of this RHO, given his bidding aggression; that means that you should poll as best you can and give the benefit of the doubt to the NOS. I'm inclined to roll it back to 3H, as I suspect that even aggressive bidders would consider/select Pass with that hand.