[jillybean]

Here is a TD call from one of my tourneys.
East calls after South bids 7♥ complaining that 7 is not biddable without UI.
According to East UI has been given by North 1. Repeatedly clicking on 2nt and saying to table opps wont explain 2nt and 2.hesitation before 4♥ and 5♥ bids. North does not deny hesitation, West did not initialy respond to query of 2nt

South claims 5♥ showed ♥ Ace
North: 4♥, 5♥, 6♥ all signoff

How would you rule? Do you think South took advantage of any UI? North forgot their agreement that 5♥ shows Ace, or South took a gamble?

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     -     -     1♥
 2NT   4♥    Pass  4♠
 Pass  5♥    Pass  6♣
 Pass  6♥    Pass  7♥
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

[Echognome]

Note that this is a very difficult ruling. We have an acknowledged break in tempo (BIT). However, I would want some additional facts as the TD. Do NS have any documentation for their agreement that 5♥ shows the ♥A? It doesn't really matter if it's unusual, as long as they can back it up.

On the one hand, I would want some evidence about the agreement. On the other hand, this is online play, so how much evidence can we really expect from players? Note also that the grand slam in spades is better than the grand slam in hearts (although both obviously make). South has obviously bid like a madperson from any normal account. There is nothing wrong per se for being a bad bidder.

So after all that dragging of my feet, I would have adjusted.

Was there UI? Yes. A BIT by North was admitted to.

Was there a logical alternative to bidding on? Yes, in my view, pass is a LA to both 4♥. Note that although South claims that 5♥ shows the ♥A (and I would like to see some evidence on that), South hasn't given a reason why he bid over 4♥. (of course we could ask him, but I have severe doubts it would change my mind, unless he could convince me that they have an agreement that this shows a good hand.) Furthermore, I'm not convinced that pass isn't a LA to 5♥ as well. I won't get into that question however, since I find pass to be a LA to 4♠ and one that was suggested by the hesitation.

[helene_t]

If South was able to bid 7♥ without the BIT, he would have bid 7♥ over 5♥. 6♣ asked for North's opinion and the answer was negative (I pressume, if NS can document that 6♥ was a positive response it's a different matter). So South must pass 6♥.

Board adjusted to 6♥+1.

[hotShot]

I would not adjust score.

North did not hesitate prior to 4♥, north was waiting for an explanation of 2NT.
If the facts are as stated, this is a clear fact.
South can't see norths clicks on a bid, just the appearing explanation.
In fact stating to the table "that opps won't explain 2NT" is a hint to LHO and partner that there is no hesitation from north at all.

What legal information does south have:
South will expect that opps 2NT shows the minors.
North did not show minor stopper to reach a NT contract, but promised a hand that better to be played with trumps.
South started cue bidding 4♠, and north bid 5♥.
North did deny having a minor cue bid, so he does not have ♣A and in case of mixed cues ♣K and♦K are missing too. Even Qxx as a minor stopper is unlikely to be in north possession. Now to reach the strength necessary to bid 4♥, ♥A and ♠K are very likely.
Over 6♣ north did not show anything, so now it's definite that there are no minor wastages and it's even more likely that north holds good values in ♠ and ♥.

[Codo]

I don´t see when and which UI made South bid the Grand.

I had asked him about his reasoning for his bidding, but after the silly idea that 5 Heart shows the ace of Heart, I don´t belive, that he had been able to make such a reasonable statement as Hotshot did.

But still: There was no hesitation before the 4 Heart bid.
If a four heart bid is not weak but to make- and North had suggested that this is what he intended to bid- then South should bid on.

A "slow" 5 Heart does not include any message I can read, compared to a quick 5 HEart. Like Robert pointed out, 5 Heart denies controls in the minors, so North must have at least the ace of Heart- (QJx,Axx,QJx,QJxx) is a very ugly hand. And maybe it is the worst possible hand I can imagine for 4 Heart and still 6 is possible.

And to bid 7 Heart was just a lkucky shot. Which UI should have helped to find this grand slam?

Unlucky for the opps, sure. But N/S are allowed to win a board by horrible bidding and/or play.

[Echognome]

jillybean2, on Jul 7 2007, 11:16 PM, said:

<snip> and 2.hesitation before 4♥ and 5♥ bids. North does not deny hesitation, <snip>

I think some of you are reading a different post than I did.

[helene_t]

Oh sorry, I thought the hesitation was prior to the 6♥ bid. Hesitation prior to the 4♥ bid is irelevant, of course.

As for hesitation prior to the 5♥ bid, it is relevant. At what time was the 2NT bid explained? This is a funny situation that comes up only in online bridge (and maybe when playing with screens): North cannot help hesitating because he is waiting for explanation, yet South cannot see that and must therefore treat the BIT as an UI. So the question is if the TD should give South the benefit of the doubt because the BIT was induced by opps.

Anyway, South bidding is impossible without the UI. I find it really hard to believe that 5♥ shows the ace - I;'m not saying that South is lying, rather that his explanation is a sublimation effect and that the real reason why he thought North had the ace was the BIT. So I still think that the board should be adjusted.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

5H never showes the Ace, simply
ask South, what North should bid
with an add. heart (take away a spade)
and the King of Diamonds instead
of the Ace of hearts.

That does not mean that 7H was bid
using any UI, and South may simply
have claimed this in the heat of the
battle, trying to defend himself.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[TimG]

P_Marlowe, on Jul 9 2007, 02:55 AM, said:

5H never showes the Ace, simply
ask South, what North should bid
with an add. heart (take away a spade)
and the King of Diamonds instead
of the Ace of hearts.

Some would play that 4NT (over 4♠) is a trump cue-bid, you could probably invert these so that 4NT is the non-cue-bid and 5♥ is the trump cue-bid. But, with such an agreement there would likely be supporting documentation.

Back to the actual situation: a slow 5♥ indicates a desire to bid something more encouraging than 5♥. To me, this means that it suggests bidding more. Since both passing 6♥ and bidding 7♥ seem to be logical alternatives, I would back it up to 6♥.

[Echognome]

So no one thinks pass is a LA to bidding on over the slow 4♥ and the slow 5♥.

Does anyone know the UI laws? The OP says there was an admitted hesitation. Why do we deny that?

[TimG]

jillybean2, on Jul 8 2007, 02:16 AM, said:

According to East UI has been given by North 1. Repeatedly clicking on 2nt and saying to table opps wont explain 2nt and 2.hesitation before 4♥ and 5♥ bids.  North does not deny hesitation, West did not initially respond to query of 2nt.

I read this to mean that there were hesitations before 4♥ and 5♥, but that the hesitation before 4♥ could be explained by the attempts to get information and does not constitute a Break In Tempo. (The need to get information about the 2NT bid suggests that North was not very experienced and significantly hurts South's claim that 5♥ showed the ♥A by agreement.)

Even if 4♥ was slow, we don't know whether the hesitation shows extras, or means that 4♥ was a stretch. I don't think it suggests bidding more over passing, or passing over bidding more.

[blackshoe]

The fact that there is a BIT does not necessarily mean that there is UI. The BIT itself is not UI; UI would exist if an inference could be drawn from the BIT. So what inference can be drawn from this BIT?

[Echognome]

TimG, on Jul 9 2007, 10:07 AM, said:

jillybean2, on Jul 8 2007, 02:16 AM, said:

According to East UI has been given by North 1. Repeatedly clicking on 2nt and saying to table opps wont explain 2nt and 2.hesitation before 4♥ and 5♥ bids.  North does not deny hesitation, West did not initially respond to query of 2nt.

I read this to mean that there were hesitations before 4♥ and 5♥, but that the hesitation before 4♥ could be explained by the attempts to get information and does not constitute a Break In Tempo. (The need to get information about the 2NT bid suggests that North was not very experienced and significantly hurts South's claim that 5♥ showed the ♥A by agreement.)

Even if 4♥ was slow, we don't know whether the hesitation shows extras, or means that 4♥ was a stretch. I don't think it suggests bidding more over passing, or passing over bidding more.

So your claim is that a slow 4♥ does NOT suggest bidding on? Or is your claim that passing is not a logical alternative? Seems pretty clear to me that passing is a logical alternative to bidding on over either 4♥ or 5♥.

Again, I don't see why you are interpreting the post any more than what was written. You are reading into this clicking of 2NT. If that is the reason for the hesitation, then that's fine. You can rule that there was no break in tempo. But isn't that for the TD at the scene to determine. The point was that North does not deny a hesitation.

Anyway, even if you think that there was no BIT before the 4♥ bid, there was an agreed BIT before the 5♥ bid! So, do you think that pass wasn't a logical alternative to bidding on over 5♥?

[Echognome]

blackshoe, on Jul 9 2007, 10:19 AM, said:

The fact that there is a BIT does not necessarily mean that there is UI. The BIT itself is not UI; UI would exist if an inference could be drawn from the BIT. So what inference can be drawn from this BIT?

I think you need to re-read the laws as you're mixing things up. A BIT is clearly unauthorised information.

Law 73 - Communication said:

C. Player Receives Unauthorised Information from Partner

When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side.

(bold added by myself)

It is not illegal per se to posses unauthorised information, but only to act upon it.

I believe what you are trying to say about inference is whether the unauthorised information suggests one logical alternative over another. I gave my judgment on that and you may have your own. But let's argue the correct points of the law and not make up our own.

[TimG]

Echognome, on Jul 9 2007, 04:36 PM, said:

So your claim is that a slow 4♥ does NOT suggest bidding on?

Yes, that is my claim. Just like a slow limit raise does not suggest bidding on. The reason for the slow action could be because the bidder is stretching, or because the bidder has extras. There's no way for us to know which, so the hesitation does not suggest one way or the other.

I don't feel strongly about the action over 5♥ -- I can understand the POV that the slow 5♥ suggests bidding on and that pass is a logical alternative. But, there's also inferences available from the failure to cue-bid either minor, if the player who bid slam explained this at committee, I think he could convince me that passing 5♥ was not a logical alternative.

[TimG]

Echognome, on Jul 9 2007, 04:43 PM, said:

I think you need to re-read the laws as you're mixing things up. A BIT is clearly unauthorised information.

Law 73 - Communication said:

C. Player Receives Unauthorised Information from Partner

When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side.

(bold added by myself)

I don't think the quoted Law says that a hesitation automatically creates unauthorized information. Nor does it say that every gesture creates unauthorized information. This section of Law 73 is just listing some ways in which unauthorized information can become available.

[Echognome]

I think it's clear that a hesitation *is* unauthorised information.

Let's start with some logic here. All information from an auction must either be authorised or unauthorised. Here we are discussing a break in tempo. That is to say that the usual tempo is not being followed. I say that the information that the call was not in tempo is unauthorised and cannot be used legally. You say that it's not automatic. So I will pose it another way. When is a break in tempo authorised information? Can you give an example?

[jtfanclub]

Echognome, on Jul 9 2007, 12:57 PM, said:

So no one thinks pass is a LA to bidding on over the slow 4♥ and the slow 5♥.

Does anyone know the UI laws? The OP says there was an admitted hesitation. Why do we deny that?

Over the slow 4♥ bid? Definitely not. I wouldn't adjust if South opened 2 clubs. Points Schmoints- that's a powerhouse.

Over 5 hearts...that one's interesting. I think it depends on their general agreements on how strong 4 hearts needs to be, but I agree that not having a minor improves the South hand. I'm not sure if passing it is an LA with their style or not, but I'd tend to assume that it isn't.

Over 6 hearts...no. I think I'd negate 7♥ even directly over 5♥, because the delay after 5♥ implies, to me, a spade feature (what else could he be thinking about). In fact, I wonder if the whole 6♣-6♥-7♥ garbage (he asks, then he ignores the answer) was an attempt to keep 7 hearts, since the rollback after the hesitation for 5♥ would be more obvious.

6♥ +1.

[Echognome]

So we have at least two of you rolling back to 6♥, despite the fact that there was no UI conveyed in the 6♥ bid! So what, pray tell, are you basing your ruling on?

If you allow South to bid on over 5♥, then why aren't you allowing him to bid over 6♥ when that was bid in tempo?

I really don't understand what you are doing? Is this just making up rulings that "feel right"?

I can understand ruling:

4♥ making 13 based on BIT of 4♥ bid. Arguing that Pass is a logical alternative to bidding on.
5♥ making 13 based on BIT of 5♥ bid. Arguing that Pass is a logical alternative to bidding on.
7♥ making 13 saying that Pass is not a logical alternative to bidding on over 4♥ or 5♥.

I cannot understand any other rulings.

Also, it's a shame that we can't poll it, but I just don't believe the polls are going to back your rulings up. You will not get 7 out of 10 people bidding on over either of the auctions up to 4♥ and then a separate poll up to 5♥. However, we also need to take the step of verifying that their agreements really are that the 5♥ bid shows the ♥A.

Anyway, I've given a basis for my ruling and that's what I'm going to stick with.

[jtfanclub]

Echognome, on Jul 9 2007, 06:03 PM, said:

Let's start with some logic here. All information from an auction must either be authorised or unauthorised. Here we are discussing a break in tempo. That is to say that the usual tempo is not being followed. I say that the information that the call was not in tempo is unauthorised and cannot be used legally. You say that it's not automatic. So I will pose it another way. When is a break in tempo authorised information? Can you give an example?

Well, sure. Your opponents refuse to answer a question or take a long time answering it. My partner's about to make a bid and one of the opponents spills a cup of water, and we wait while they clean it up. My partner's about to make a bid when one of the opponents summons a director for a previous board.

Any BIT caused by an opponent is AI. Even if the BIT is during our turn.

I think your confusion in part is that you think a Break In Tempo is either Authorized Information or Unauthorized Information. But it should be obvious that there's a third possibility: that it isn't Information at all.

For example. My partner is dummy, and has to take a bathroom break. My opponents graciously turn the cards for him. On the next deal, we end up waiting 30 seconds for him to come back from the loo on his first turn to bid.

Are you going to seriously argue that this is Unauthorized Information? That I am somehow penalized, and can't make an action if their was some Logical Alternative I could have made if he had a bigger bladder?

Many breaks in tempo are not UI or AI. They're people yakking about the last hand, grabbing a glass of water, asking for explanations, talking about the weather, waiting while a TD and a player argue at the next table, etc. etc. None of these are Information, and if you tried to argue that somebody couldn't bid further because of one of these reasons I don't think you would get much sympathy.