[jillybean]

I have a partner who is notorious for her extended tanks during both bidding and play.
We had a competitive auction where I was 'always going to raise to 3S if the opponents competed to 3D'.
3D on my left, partner tanks, pass to me. I bid 3S and the opponents didn't bat an eye.
I must pass, it doesn't matter that I was going to compete to 3S without the hesitation does it ?
I don't remember the hand (teams so no hand records) but pass was definitely an alternative.

After the hesitation I could only bid on with a game forcing hand, where pass would not be a LA?

We always talk about LA in regards to an auction. What if any, restrictions apply after a BIT in play?

[blackshoe]

When you have UI, as from a break in tempo, a question, an answer to a question, an alert given or not given, or whatever, you must make every effort to avoid taking advantage of it. So say to yourself "I have UI, what does it suggest I do?" And then don't do that. That's Law 73C, which could be described as a law for players, while the more complicated Law 16, which talks about logical alternatives, and "demonstrably could have been suggested" is a law for directors. In the case you mention, your partner's hesitation tells you he has a little something, so bidding on is safer than it might be. Bidding on is thus not "carefully avoiding taking advantage", so you should pass.

The same principles apply after a BIT in the play. If the BIT suggests that partner has a particular holding, but absent the BIT you might have played him for a different holding, you shouldn't play him for the particular holding the BIT suggested.

[Fluffy]

if taking a while to pass is not a BIT then you have no UI, but I doubt that a long hesitation is not a UI for any player.

[Cascade]

 jillybean, on 2012-January-30, 21:55, said:

I have a partner who is notorious for her extended tanks during both bidding and play.
We had a competitive auction where I was 'always going to raise to 3S if the opponents competed to 3D'.
3D on my left, partner tanks, pass to me. I bid 3S and the opponents didn't bat an eye.
I must pass, it doesn't matter that I was going to compete to 3S without the hesitation does it ?
I don't remember the hand (teams so no hand records) but pass was definitely an alternative.

After the hesitation I could only bid on with a game forcing hand, where pass would not be a LA?

We always talk about LA in regards to an auction. What if any, restrictions apply after a BIT in play?

These situations are never clear without seeing the hand.

If you were always going to bid something without the break in tempo then that is not sufficient for you to be able to bid. However in some circumstances it is still ok for you to bid. You named one - when you have game forcing values. Even with more modest values it can be clear to bid on - extra trump(s), extra distribution, extra offensive values. The standard for bidding on however has little to do with what you would always do but rather what a significant number of your peers would seriously consider doing. Also before we get to a constraint on your action we need the break in tempo to demonstrably suggest one alternative over another. Sometimes this is clear other times this is not clear in competitive auctions where partner might have been considering doubling rather than bidding. Indeed if the break in tempo suggested partner was thinking of doubling then it may be that doubling (or even passing) are the illegal alternatives and with a marginal hand you need to be bidding on.

Clearly this judgement can become fairly difficult.

Personally I find that the better I know my partner or the more established the partnership is the more often or rather more likely I am constrained when she breaks tempo. Since I am more likely to know what her tempo break suggests.

I feel constrained in these situations to bend over backwards to not take advantage which in practice means deliberately taking the 'wrong' action. Mostly getting bad results but occasionally being spectacularly successful. There are others who, wrongly in my view, think that you should just do what you would always have done and if necessary let the director sort out the problem. This is wrong in my view because sometimes your opponents for whatever reason (they didn't notice, they are not doing well, they are inexperienced) will not get the director involved (even when they have been damaged) and therefore your side will benefit from your infraction. This does not seem right and fair to me.

Yes the same issues can occur in the play.

You lead an ace and partner plays slowly to the first trick. You know she doesn't have a singleton from the tempo. You may be constrained in law to try and give her a ruff anyway.

Conversely a fast lead might be might be more likely to be a singleton.

If you play attitude (or odd/even signals) a slow encourage (or discourage) conveys the additional information that the signal is not that strong and some alternative defense may be better. Therefore if partner encourages slowly then you maybe constrained to continue even when you have an alternative or if partner discourages slowly you may be compelled to switch.

I saw a more complex situation recently when kibitzing where I believe the player did not take the proper action. I don't have the whole hand but partner had shown five spades and led another suit against a suit contract. The other defender won and switched to partner's spades low from Kxx around to Qxx in dummy. The spade bidder, who actually had six spades should have been able to work out immediately from the spots that partner or declarer had a singleton and played the ace. Actually he took a considerable amount of time before playing the ace rather than the ten (from AJTxxx) trying to trap declarer's king. He switched back tot he original suit. Later declarer pulled a spade off dummy away from the queen. Now the defender with Kx left had additional information that it was correct to play low and I felt obliged to play the king. He did not.

[mgoetze]

 Cascade, on 2012-January-31, 23:48, said:

There are others who, wrongly in my view, think that you should just do what you would always have done and if necessary let the director sort out the problem. This is wrong in my view because sometimes your opponents for whatever reason (they didn't notice, they are not doing well, they are inexperienced) will not get the director involved (even when they have been damaged) and therefore your side will benefit from your infraction. This does not seem right and fair to me.

If you are actually capable of deciding very quickly "if partner bids A, I will bid X, if partner bids B I will bid Y, etc." before partner breaks tempo, then you are not really benefitting. The reason that this is not a valid defense when the director is called is merely that you can't prove you came to these conclusions when you did.

[aguahombre]

If truly convinced that my action is the correct one, I will take that action after a B.I.T, make my case based on our methods and my hand later if necessary, and let whatever happens happen.

If I think it is close between the action I want to take and a different L.A., then I will take the one I believe is not suggested by UI. If that judgement is deemed wrong by the TD and/or an AC, oh well.

In the OP case, I have no way of knowing whether 3S is a close decision which I would always make absent the UI, or an obvious bid which I would make with or without the BIT.

[barmar]

If the reason you were "always going to bid 3♠" is because you think hardly anyone in your class of player would pass (in an auction without the BIT), then Pass is not an LA. Obviously a GF hand fits that criteria, but there may be lesser hands as well. If this is the case, go ahead and bid 3♠.

If the opponents complain and call the TD, he may disagree with your judgement and rule against you. If you still think he's wrong, you could appeal. This is why player polls are often used: it removes some effect of the TD's personal judgement.

[gwnn]

 aguahombre, on 2012-February-01, 01:04, said:

If truly convinced that my action is the correct one, I will take that action after a B.I.T, make my case based on our methods and my hand later if necessary, and let whatever happens happen.

That is a nice stoical attitude but I hope you know that it's not fully legal. You must think of what other players, of similar skills as you, would do. Sometimes you are truly convinced that a particular decision is the correct one, but you know that there are many people who would do otherwise, i.e. style issues.

[sasioc]

If I had already decided to bid without the BIT I would probably bid with it unless I felt there was a clear LA that was not suggested. In such cases I usually talk to my oppo at the end of the auction or the hand and draw their attention to the irregularity, inviting them to call the director. If appropriate, I would also call the director on their behalf (if, for example, I thought they were too inexperienced with rulings to understand what I was drawing their attention to). I'm aware that this is not an ideal response but often feel that I'm too inexperienced myself to fully understand all the implications of a BIT or know what bids are and aren't ok, so at least this way I am not screwing opponents and not automatically hanging partner whenever she thinks.

[aguahombre]

 gwnn, on 2012-February-01, 11:03, said:

That is a nice stoical attitude but I hope you know that it's not fully legal. You must think of what other players, of similar skills as you, would do. Sometimes you are truly convinced that a particular decision is the correct one, but you know that there are many people who would do otherwise, i.e. style issues.

Probably not, but it is the best I know how to act. Like I said, if it seems like given MY style (I cannot get into other people's methods and bidding inferences), I believe there is more than one reasonable alternative ---then of course I must select what I believe is not suggested by UI. When I am truly convinced, however, that one action is by far the correct one, I will select it and gracefully accept the consequences if other people who are deemed to be peers and/or don't really comprehend the inferences from our style decide to give an adverse ruling.