[jtfanclub]

jillybean2, on Jul 10 2007, 03:50 PM, said:

His partner bid 4♠ and here we are looking at 6 in our hand; are we cueing A,K, stiff and void or A, void? When are we permitted to think?

When there's something to think about.

QJT9
AT654
QJ
QJ

Nothing to think about, right? Looks like a quick 5♥ call to me. I couldn't care less if the cue bid shows the K, the A, a void, or the AK. I'm always calling 5 hearts.

KJT9
AT654
K3
K8

Now there's a lot to think about, right? Is the spade an Ace (good) or a void (bad)? You're awfully strong for your 4 heart bid, so maybe 4NT is a good call, or should it be 5NT? And so forth.

What it comes down to is, a kingless hand is going to be able to bid the hand quickly. The more kings, the slower the response might get. A slow bid here tends to indicate a hand more appropriate for 7. And that's what her partner bid, regardless of whether the information was used or not.

[TimG]

Echognome, on Jul 10 2007, 12:57 PM, said:

I think it's kind of silly to argue whether a BIT is information! I say it *is* information and that it's unauthorised. You say it is not information, but the inferences from it are information. The point is that you cannot use any information surrounding a BIT, whether it is the BIT itself or the inferences drawn from it. I don't care if you say there are no inferences one can draw from a BIT, you still are not allowed to *use* the fact that there was a BIT in your decision. Why is this is so difficult?

I don't think you've answered my limit raise questions: when there is a BIT before a limit raise, what unauthorized information has been passed? It either shows a bare minimum or a super maximum, I agree. But, does that mean that whenever opener gets the pass v 4M decision right he will lose his result? No. Neither pass nor bidding on was suggested by the information conveyed through the BIT.

[Echognome]

TimG, on Jul 10 2007, 02:40 PM, said:

I don't think you've answered my limit raise questions: when there is a BIT before a limit raise, what unauthorized information has been passed? It either shows a bare minimum or a super maximum, I agree. But, does that mean that whenever opener gets the pass v 4M decision right he will lose his result? No. Neither pass nor bidding on was suggested by the information conveyed through the BIT.

It's an easy question to answer: the information is unauthorised!

Let's give your example of a slow limit raise. You go there because the non-offenders complained. So you ask the guy why he bid on over the limit raise and he said "because he bid it slowly, I knew he must have extras." Does it matter if he was right or wrong? Are you going to adjust? You are certainly going to tell him he is not allowed to use the tempo of the bid in making his decision. To me that makes it simple.

By the way, I would tend to assume that the slow limit raise shows extras. Of course the reason for the break in tempo could be anything. It could be that I've forgotten our agreements. Whatever the reason, if I break the tempo, it still puts restrictions on what my partner can do.

[jillybean]

jtfanclub, on Jul 10 2007, 02:45 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Jul 10 2007, 03:50 PM, said:

His partner bid 4♠ and here we are looking at 6 in our hand; are we cueing A,K, stiff and void or A, void?  When are we permitted to think?

When there's something to think about.

QJT9
AT654
QJ
QJ

Nothing to think about, right? Looks like a quick 5♥ call to me. I couldn't care less if the cue bid shows the K, the A, a void, or the AK. I'm always calling 5 hearts.

Where did you pluck this hand from? The hand in question is:

KQJT9x
Axx
xx
xx

Partner cue'd ♠'s, quite strong for a 4♥ bid don't you think?

[jtfanclub]

jillybean2, on Jul 10 2007, 06:58 PM, said:

Where did you pluck this hand from? The hand in question is:

KQJT9x
Axx
xx
xx

Partner cue'd ♠'s, quite strong for a 4♥ bid don't you think?

Arrrgh.

That's the POINT.

A quite strong hand for a 4♥ bid tends to bid 5 hearts SLOWLY.
A weak hand for a 4 ♥ bid tends to bid 5 hearts QUICKLY.

When you bid 5 hearts slowly, you're showing partner a stronger hand than if you'd bid 5 hearts quickly. So by slow bidding the 5 hearts, you've passed partner unauthorized information- that you have a stronger hand than you'd have if you'd done it in tempo. And it appears that your partner used that information to get to 7.

As for WHY a weak hand tends to bid it faster than a strong hand, well, see the two examples I made up.

[jillybean]

here we go...

You said in your reply

jtfanclub, on Jul 10 2007, 02:45 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Jul 10 2007, 03:50 PM, said:

His partner bid 4♠ and here we are looking at 6 in our hand; are we cueing A,K, stiff and void or A, void?  When are we permitted to think?

When there's something to think about.

You are also saying if you do think about it your partner is restricted in what he can bid.

[jtfanclub]

jillybean2, on Jul 10 2007, 08:33 PM, said:

here we go...

You said in your reply

jtfanclub, on Jul 10 2007, 02:45 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Jul 10 2007, 03:50 PM, said:

His partner bid 4♠ and here we are looking at 6 in our hand; are we cueing A,K, stiff and void or A, void?  When are we permitted to think?

When there's something to think about.

You are also saying if you do think about it your partner is restricted in what he can bid.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

You're allowed to think about it. You're allowed to have a break in tempo. But your partner can't use that extra information that you had think about your bid, or make a bid that could have been influenced by the break (within the three rules I listed above).

If you let your partner know that you have a problem, it's very likely that your partner will be restricted. So yes,if you want your partner to not be restricted, you have to bid in tempo.

[Codo]

So we all agree that there was a BIT before 4 Heart which has no UI because the opps did not answer a query.
And we agree that there was a BIT before 5 Heart, which at least contains the message: At least PD has something to think about. Maybe you can read that he has a minimum 4 Heart call in this.

But we disagree whether South used this UI.

Echos psoition is quite easy to understand: There was an UI and he made a smelly bid, so we reset the score.

But I still don´t buy it.
1. 4 Heart shows a good hand, it was not preemting.
2.South knew this, else there is no way to bid 7 Heart.
3. If North has a good hand but no minor control, there is no way to stay out of slam. I would judge a pass of 5 Heart as IWG. There is simply no hand consistent with North bidding that makes pass for South plausible.
4.7 Heart was a gambling. Which message did North send that make 7 Heart a better bet then 6 Heart?

To rule against South, he had to use an UI. But he did not. He knew as AI that North has a hand good enough for game (so about 12 HCP and/or some shape) and he knew that pd has no A/K /Shortness in the minors. He used these AIs to bid Slam.
I understand Jans idea to rule 6 HEart +1. But I don´t see the information South used to bid 7. I still belive that this was a gambling.

[Echognome]

Quote

So we all agree that there was a BIT before 4 Heart which has no UI because the opps did not answer a query.

Nope. I disagree. If North's tempo was varied because his opponent would not answer a question, I wouldn't have ruled it as a break in tempo. I would have ruled it as normal tempo for someone not getting an answer to their question!

Quote

And we agree that there was a BIT before 5 Heart, which at least contains the message: At least  PD has something to think about. Maybe you can read that he has a minimum 4 Heart call in this.

Why would we read that? If he had a minimum 4♥ call, then he had an easy 3♥ call.

Quote

1. 4 Heart shows a good hand, it was not preemting.

Wow! So, without even checking what their agreements actually were you came to the conclusion that they were playing that 4♥ shows a good hand, despite it being fairly non-standard.

Quote

2.South knew this, else there is no way to bid 7 Heart.

There is no way to bid 7♥ even if it does show a good hand. How can South know if North holds, e.g. KQxx Axxxx Qx Qx, which is a good hand. By the way, there is another way to bid 7♥... but I'm not going to start accusing the offenders of that!

Quote

3. If North has a good hand but no minor control, there is no way to stay out of slam. I would judge a pass of 5 Heart as IWG. There is simply no hand consistent with North bidding that makes pass for South plausible.

That is beyond ridiculous. So what are you bidding with, say xxx xxxxxx xx xx? Feel free to add quacks throughout, or if you desire, a few Ks.

Quote

4.7 Heart was a gambling. Which message did North send that make 7 Heart a better bet then 6 Heart?

He didn't. But if South was always driving to 7♥, then why didn't South bid it directly over 4♥? Was he looking to play in 7NT?

Quote

To rule against South, he had to use an UI. But he did not. He knew as AI that North has a hand good enough for game (so about 12 HCP and/or some shape) and he knew that pd has no A/K /Shortness in the minors. He used these AIs to bid Slam.

Again, this is assuming way more than we know about their agreements.

[hotShot]

Echognome,

the LAWS are aware of the fact, that BIT does not automatically mean UI.
As one example:
Every time you exercise your right to request full disclosure from your opps, you break the tempo. Since this is allowed and clearly not every BIT leads to UI.

You seem to argue that BIT is automatically UI, and I'm sure that you are wrong about this.
A BIT is no violation of the laws, giving an UI is no violation of he laws only, even using opponents UI is no violation of the laws. Only using partners UI is a violation of the laws.
If partner produced an UI you don't have to make the worst possible bid.
The laws require you to pick the bid, that among the logical alternatives is least likely to be suggested by the UI.

1) The BIT prior to the 4♥ bid, did not carry an UI. Even if it did, we would have to think about LA's. 2NT (unalerted!) is a preemptive bid, and it is common bridge knowledge that you don't preempt over a preempt. So 4♥ should be a sound game try, opposite openers minimum 1♥ bid.
Since openers hand is much stronger than that (extra trump, a void, good controls) pass is not a LA here.

South can't jump to 7 something right know, because north can have lots of wasted values in the minors, he needs to investigate about that. And he does that by starting a cue bid sequence.

2) Asuming there was a BIT with UI prior to the 5♥ bid, what are south LAs? North did not show any control in the minors, maybe north indended this as a sign off, but to south this is good news! So passing 5♥ is not among the LAs to choose from.
South intended to investigate the slam/grand optinons all the time, why should south stop this plan, after getting a positive signal (little minor wastage) from north?
So now south is continuing his cue bids with 6♣.

You ask how can south know that north is not holding: KQxx Axxxx Qx Qx?
He does not know, but south has 5♠ tricks (if the ♠ are not 4-0) and he can drop one of north ♦ on his 5th ♠. So south won't loose a trick in ♠,♥,♦ or ♣, guess what, he makes 7.

[jtfanclub]

Echognome, on Jul 11 2007, 01:58 AM, said:

Quote

So we all agree that there was a BIT before 4 Heart which has no UI because the opps did not answer a query.

Nope. I disagree. If North's tempo was varied because his opponent would not answer a question, I wouldn't have ruled it as a break in tempo. I would have ruled it as normal tempo for someone not getting an answer to their question!

Where do you get this stuff?

You want to show me a rule that says that a delay is not a break in tempo if you asked a question?

[jtfanclub]

hotShot, on Jul 11 2007, 06:15 AM, said:

You ask how can south know that north is not holding: KQxx Axxxx Qx Qx?
He does not know, but south has 5♠ tricks (if the ♠ are not 4-0) and he can drop one of north ♦ on his 5th ♠. So south won't loose a trick in ♠,♥,♦ or ♣, guess what, he makes 7.

How do you know he has the spade king at all?

Most people would bid 4♥ on

QJ9x
ATxxx
Qx
Qx

How do I know he had the spade king?

Because he hesitated before bidding 5♥. The hand I just listed doesn't hesitate.

[Codo]

Quote

Echognome,Jul 11 2007, 03:58 PM]Nope.  I disagree.  If North's tempo was varied because his opponent would not answer a question, I wouldn't have ruled it as a break in tempo.  I would have ruled it as normal tempo for someone not getting an answer to their question!

Okay, but you are aware that others disagree and say that any BIT is a BIT, but that it sometimes does not contain an information?

Quote

And we agree that there was a BIT before 5 Heart, which at least contains the message: At least  PD has something to think about. Maybe you can read that he has a minimum 4 Heart call in this.

Why would we read that?  If he had a minimum 4♥ call, then he had an easy 3♥ call.

He did bid 4 Heart, didn´t he? So why quarrel about a 3 Heart bid?

Quote

1. 4 Heart shows a good hand, it was not preemting.
Wow!  So, without even checking what their agreements actually were you came to the conclusion that they were playing that 4♥ shows a good hand, despite it being fairly non-standard.

You did see North hand, didn´t you?
I would judge a hand with ♠ KQJT92 ♥ AT4 ♦ 63 ♣ T8 as strong. So at least North plays this non-standard way.
And South bid according to this non standard way. So yes, I think they have this agreement. Maybe they never talked about it but they handled it identically.

Quote

2.South knew this, else there is no way to bid 7 Heart.


There is no way to bid 7♥ even if it does show a good hand. How can South know if North holds, e.g. KQxx Axxxx Qx Qx, which is a good hand. By the way, there is another way to bid 7♥... but I'm not going to start accusing the offenders of that!

No, there is no way a sane player can bid 7 Heart with convidence. But South did it despite the possibility that north may hold the hand you showed. So this was gambling but not suggested by the BIT before 5 Heart. Or do you think that North will think with the actual hand but pass quick with your example hand?

Quote

3. If North has a good hand but no minor control, there is no way to stay out of slam. I would judge a pass of 5 Heart as IWG. There is simply no hand consistent with North bidding that makes pass for South plausible.

That is beyond ridiculous. So what are you bidding with, say xxx xxxxxx xx xx? Feel free to add quacks throughout, or if you desire, a few Ks.

This hand is not in the picture for these N/S, so why shoud I think about it?
That you (or anybody) will bid 4 Heart with a weak 3622 hand is no point. They had not done it. If we can check, that these hands and the given hands are both possible for a 4 Heart bid, you have a point. But you cannot proofe this, can you?

Quote

4.7 Heart was a gambling. Which message did North send that make 7 Heart a better bet then 6 Heart?

He didn't. But if South was always driving to 7♥, then why didn't South bid it directly over 4♥? Was he looking to play in 7NT?

Why do you belive that South wanted to play 7 after he heard 4 Heart from pd?
He got a message that Pd has no minor suit controls by the 5 Heart bid from pd.

So he bids slam because pd must have something in the majors. I cannot see a reason why he did not pass 6 Heart, but I can see no UI that makes 7 Heart more acctractive then 6. Maybe 6 Clubs asked for second round control and when North denied it, he hoped for pure suits and gambled 7?

Quote

To rule against South, he had to use an UI. But he did not. He knew as AI that North has a hand good enough for game (so about 12 HCP and/or some shape) and he knew that pd has no A/K /Shortness in the minors. He used these AIs to bid Slam. 


Again, this is assuming way more than we know about their agreements.

Funy, I can see it in their cards that they have this agreement. North bid 4 Heart to make, didn´t he?
And south belived in more then Qxx,xxxx,qJxx, QJxx, in pds hand, else he had not driven to slam.


So we obviously disgree about the meaning of a 4 Heart bid for this pair.
You belive that North may well have a very weak hand, despite the fact that he bid 4 Heart with a strong one. I think it is you, who follows his own agreements for this particular bid and rules from that point of view. But I cannot see why you do it.

If you accept (maybe just for the discussion) that 4 Heart is strong and that 5 Heart denies minor cuebids. Can you construct just one hand where north would not hesitate and which makes a bad slam? I can´t.

[jtfanclub]

Quote

You did see North hand, didn´t you?
I would judge a hand with  ♠ KQJT92  ♥ AT4  ♦ 63  ♣ T8  as strong. So at least North plays this non-standard way.
And South bid according to this non standard way. So yes, I think they have this agreement. Maybe they never talked about it but they handled it identically.

Maybe if North bids 5♥ quickly they play it the same as everybody else, but when he bids it slowly he has a strong hand.

Quote

This hand is not in the picture for these N/S, so why shoud I think about it?
That you (or anybody) will bid 4 Heart with a weak 3622 hand is no point. They had not done it. If we can check, that these hands and the given hands are both possible for a 4 Heart bid, you have a point. But you cannot proofe this, can you?

Proof goes the other other way. The pair with the UI have to provide evidence that they DON'T play something standard. It's the same with mistaken bid vs. mistaken explanation. The director doesn't have to prove it was a mistaken explanation, the offending pair has to prove mistaken bid.

Quote

So he bids slam because pd must have something in the majors. I cannot see a reason why he did not pass 6 Heart, but I can see no UI that makes 7 Heart more acctractive then 6. Maybe 6 Clubs asked for second round control and when North denied it, he hoped for pure suits and gambled 7?

And you honestly don't see how a slow 5 heart bid would influence that call?

Quote

Funy, I can see it in their cards that they have this agreement. North bid 4 Heart  to make, didn´t he? And south belived in more then Qxx,xxxx,qJxx, QJxx, in pds hand, else he had not driven to slam.

Well, I doubt part had 15 cards, but even Qxx xxxx QJx QJx is about 50% to make 5. QJT xxxx QJx QJx is over 75%. So sure, South could have thought North had that hand and still gone to 5. After the long thought before the 5 heart bid, he knows North doesn't have that hand.

Quote

If you accept (maybe just for the discussion) that 4 Heart is strong and that 5 Heart denies minor cuebids. Can you construct just one hand where  north would not hesitate and which makes a bad slam? I can´t.

Can you design a hand that bids 6 hearts after a quick 5 heart bid and bids 7 hearts after a slow 5 heart bid? I can. In fact, it looks an awful lot like the South hand.

[TimG]

Echognome, on Jul 11 2007, 01:58 AM, said:

Quote

1. 4 Heart shows a good hand, it was not preemting.

Wow! So, without even checking what their agreements actually were you came to the conclusion that they were playing that 4♥ shows a good hand, despite it being fairly non-standard.

After 1M-(2N), without any agreement as to what minor suit cue-bids would mean, wouldn't it be standard that 4M is stronger than 3M?

Similar to the auction 1♠-(3♥) where 4♠ would now be stronger than 3♠ (but not as strong as 4♥). In this auction, I would expect 3♠ to be competitive, 4♠ to look about like a limit raise (that has been denied an invitational call by the preempt) and 4♥ to look like a GF raise.

[Echognome]

1. I'm so not concerned with any of the BIT tempo discussion. Bottom line, if your partner varies their tempo for whatever reason, you are not allowed to use that information. If you think there's no information, then there's no worry about it.

2. It is wrong to use actual hands to determine agreements. Plain and simple. You determine agreements by... asking the players or looking at their cc or system notes.

3. In regards to 3♥ or 4♥, it again depends on agreements. Some may bid them with the same hand strength with varied trump length. Again, we cannot tell without an agreement.

Now, in regards to the ruling, my own personal view is that you believe South's story, you are one big sucker. His partner bid a slow 5♥, he bid on to grand. His partner turned up with great values for him. Amazing!

Finally, note that you could also simply ask South why he bid the way he did. If he tells this convincing story how the 5♥ bid denied any minor suit cue and at the same time showed the ♥A, etc etc, you might get a lot more sympathy. In the end, we're all speculating without more information.

[barmar]

Echognome, on Jul 10 2007, 05:54 PM, said:

Let's give your example of a slow limit raise. You go there because the non-offenders complained. So you ask the guy why he bid on over the limit raise and he said "because he bid it slowly, I knew he must have extras." Does it matter if he was right or wrong? Are you going to adjust? You are certainly going to tell him he is not allowed to use the tempo of the bid in making his decision. To me that makes it simple.

By the way, I would tend to assume that the slow limit raise shows extras. Of course the reason for the break in tempo could be anything. It could be that I've forgotten our agreements. Whatever the reason, if I break the tempo, it still puts restrictions on what my partner can do.

In judging UI situations, you're not expected to ask the player whether he based his action on the UI -- it's often unconscious, and even when not we rarely expect players to admit that they did it. The TD is supposed to determine independently (perhaps by polling other players) what the LAs are, and whether the the UI demonstrably suggests some over others. If the player admits that he used the UI you should assign a procedural penalty, but the judgement of the legality of the action itself should be based on this independent analysis.

I agree with TimG here. If the inferences from the UI could go either way (stretching versus extras), you shouldn't be constrained. The alternative is that the opponents have a legal double-shot: if you happen to make the successful decision, all they have to do is convince the TD that the UI suggested that action, and the other result will be assigned.

[hotShot]

jtfanclub, on Jul 11 2007, 05:27 PM, said:

Well, I doubt part had 15 cards, but even Qxx xxxx QJx QJx is about 50% to make 5.  QJT xxxx QJx QJx is over 75%.  So sure, South could have thought North had that hand and still gone to 5.  After the long thought before the 5 heart bid, he knows North doesn't have that hand. 

Well I don't know about you, but most player I know would not jump to game holding QJT xxxx QJx QJx (9 HCP no distribution, no quick tricks) after partner simply opened 1♥. EW are vul, so it much better to double or play then for -2 than to sacrifice in a hopeless 4♥. It's IMPs and opps red, so north has to be quite confident that playing 4♥ is the best choice.

[jtfanclub]

hotShot, on Jul 11 2007, 12:50 PM, said:

Well I don't know about you, but most player I know would not jump to game holding QJT xxxx QJx QJx (9 HCP no distribution, no quick tricks) after partner simply opened 1♥.

That was the hand you suggested, not me. I was pointing out that no matter how bad you thought the 4♥ bid was, 5♥ should have play.

My sample hand was:

QJ9x
ATxxx
Qx
Qx


11 hcp, 5 card support, developable spades.

Would you agree that most people would bid 4 hearts with this over 2NT?

[hotShot]

Well don't mix me up with Codo, it was derived from his suggestion.

I agree that with your sample hand many people would bid 4♥.
I think it's not good enough, but this an individual decision.
(Qx should be downgraded, as many evaluation systems suggest.)
I would need more information on the involved players to decide if they are aggressive enough to risk that.