[inquiry]

An odd little post caught my attention on rec.games.bridge. You may have seen it there, but here it is again.

1♠ - (Pass)- Pass - 2♣
PASS* - (Pass)   -2♦ - 3♣
?

For the premise of this post, you are the 1♠ bidder, and you could not help yourself, you had a significant break in tempo over your RHO 2♣ reopening bid. Futher, it is assumed your partner is a highly ethical player and would only bid 2♦ if it was clear that essentially everyone with his hand would do so on this auction (without the break in tempo).. the original post quoted 75% or more wold bid 2♦.

The question posed is given that you know your partner would have passed unless 2♦ was extremely clear, are you in possession of UI. The UI, if it exist, caused by your own initial break in tempo and your knowledge of your partners absolute ethical standard when deciding to bid or pass?

[pbleighton]

"The question posed is given that you know your partner would have passed unless 2D was extremely clear, are you in possession of UI."

No.

Peter

[hrothgar]

This is a weird one:

My gut says the following:

1. I am in possession of UI
2. I am having a hard time figuring out just what this UI suggests

Can one convince a plausible set of hands where less than ethical player would advance 2♦ but a completely ethical player would not?

[jillybean]

Yes I have UI, Im not sure what, if anything it suggests.

[inquiry]

hrothgar, on Mar 2 2007, 09:56 AM, said:

Can one convince a plausible set of hands where less than ethical player would advance 2♦ but a completely ethical player would not?

I think Justin is on the right track. An ethical player would never bid 2♦ on a five card suit on this auction. So while 2♦ here would most often be made on a six card suit with or without the huddle, it will sometimes be bid on five bagger. With the huddle, to bid on a five card suit would not be LA.

In addition, the quality of the diamond suit maybe at issue. Some might balance 2♦ with six or seven ratty diamonds, but after the huddle, the ethical player will have fairly good diamond intermediates and probably at least two of the QJT.

Suit quality, legnth, make apply "LOTT" much easier after an "ethically sound" bid of 2♦. So I find myself oddly agreeing with the ccncept that the 1♠ opener will be in possession of UI. To jilly, what this suggest is that a raise to 3♦ would work out ok for your side should you have some modest ♦ fit.

[Gerben42]

Let's look at a hand:

♠A76432
♥AK
♦K5
♣K43

1♠ Pass Pass 2♣

You ponder for a while, after all they are 17 prime HCP, but decide that you don't want to Double, and don't want to rebid your not-quite-solid ♠ suit either, so you...

... Pass after about 30 seconds...

Pass 2♦ 3♣

If you can count on partner having ♦QJxxxx and out bidding 3♦ here is a good bet. If he can have worse ♦, it is not.

[FrancesHinden]

Jlall, on Mar 2 2007, 03:28 PM, said:

yes I have UI, and I'm pretty sure it suggests that if I wanted to bid 3D that would be a great idea. Partner is very likely to have 6 diamonds.

I agree.

Unusually, the UI is my creation rather than my partner's.

A similar auction is something like this:

1D - 1S
4C - 4S (very slow)
5C - ?

The 4S bidder knows that partner will have a very very strong slam try, because partner is confident that passing 4S was not a LA.

[jikl]

I think p has something like QJxxxx or QTxxxx, I can never imagine a reason for doing it on a 5 bagger.

Yes I have UI, but I must trust my partner and therefore act accordingly with his/her bid. If I take into account my tank in some ways I am failing. What would I bid if the whole auction was in tempo?

Sean

[mink]

I do not have an UI. The laws require my partner to bid only if most other players would bid with his hand, too. Therefore, I will always assume that he follows the law, and I expect opps to assume the same. There is no merit in assuming him not to care about my hesitation and bidding with a 5 card ♦ suit, because in this case the TD will adjust to 2♣ whatever, taking away partner's bid, so what I do would not matter in this case.

Karl

[blackshoe]

Law 16 said:

Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents.

Partner's 2♦ call is legal, and hence AI. That he had UI when he made the call is extraneous information, but that doesn't necessarily make it unauthorized. And even if it is UI, there is the question of whether it suggests anything, and whether there is a LA to the suggestion.

[inquiry]

blackshoe, on Mar 2 2007, 07:16 PM, said:

Law 16 said:

Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents.

Partner's 2♦ call is legal, and hence AI. That he had UI when he made the call is extraneous information, but that doesn't necessarily make it unauthorized. And even if it is UI, there is the question of whether it suggests anything, and whether there is a LA to the suggestion.

But don't you think that the "authorized information" that your partner did not stretch to bid 2♦ becomes unathorized in light of you break in tempo? That is, you know, beyond a doubt, that your partner did not stretch to bid 2♦ is some wild hope to nudge them higher. You know he actually really has his bid.And the reason you know this is because of your own break in tempo. Thus making this AI now UI. I don't know how the bridge lawyers would rule this, but it seems fairy clear to me.

[blackshoe]

I don't know either, but it seems to me we can get wrapped around this crap to the point the game is unplayable. I think if the lawmakers want to make inferences from the fact that partner, having UI, called unauthorized to me, they better damn well say so explicitly. They didn't. I'm a pretty competent TD, I think. I've read the laws, and the interpretations, where I can find them, of the WBFLC and the ACBLLC. Based on all that, I will not rule that a hesitating player whose partner bids is constrained by UI absent specific guidance to do so from either the ACBLLC or the WBFLC - and I don't have that.

[Elianna]

So I was curious about this, and emailed Jeff Goldsmith. He referred me to Law 73D1, which he said clearly says that any inference drawn from your own hesitation is UI. Now that I see that law, I agree. For those of you who don't have a law book in front of you:

Law73D1 said:

It is desireable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner.  However, players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side.  Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety, but inferences from such variation may apporopriately be drawn only be an opponent, and at his own risk.

(I added the emphasis)

[blackshoe]

With all due respect to Mr. Goldsmith, there are, I think, more authoritative sources of opinion. I'll see what I can dig up.

[pclayton]

blackshoe, on Mar 3 2007, 06:13 PM, said:

With all due respect to Mr. Goldsmith, there are, I think, more authoritative sources of opinion. I'll see what I can dig up.

Well he's co-chair of one of the National Appeals Teams, so Jeff rates to know what he's talking about.

[blackshoe]

He may well be right, but it seems to me a rather stringent interpretation. As I said, I'll ask around.

[LH2650]

The premise in the original problem statement is flawed.

From The Bridge World Editorial of November, 2004:

"Any law or implementation that encourages taking notice of UI from partner is irredeemably horrible."

The Editorial goes on to detail the correct interpretation of this area of law, and addresses a common but incorrect interpretation suggested in the original post.

My lawful and ethical partner must do exactly what he would have done without my hesitation. Anything else would be illegal. Therefore, I have no UI from his action after my hesitation.

[MickyB]

That editorial was based on Jeff Rubens' opinions, not the way that the laws are (currently) interpreted.

The original statement was correct, IMO, and I'm yet to be convinced either way on it.

[helene_t]

Yes I have UI but I voted no anyway. Maybe I needed a 4th option. Basically, I aggree with Richard and Kathryn (I think).

A fast pass would have suggested a balanced hand. This would make it relatively safe for p to bid his 5-card diamonds.

A slow pass suggests something to say. I'm quite likely to have a 6-card spades. Or maybe four hearts. These possibilities might make it more risky for p to bid his diamonds. It's quite possible that he didn't like to bid his diamonds but thought he had to because his UI suggested he shouldn't.

Then again, I'm sure other lines of thought would lead to the opposite conclusion. It may depend on our notrump range, whether we always open 1NT with a 5M332 in range, and what a double by me (or by partner) would have meant.