[Codo]

jtfanclub, on Jul 12 2007, 12:27 AM, said:

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.

Well to bid 4 Heart to make is not so unusual that you have to prove it. This is no situation which cries for a weak jump at all.

Quote

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

Yes hoenstly this 7 HEart bid is so silly that I can see no reason at all to bid it.

Quote

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.

Matt gave at least one hand ( from a million) where 7 HEart is down 1 and North had the same to think about...

And we all agree that all sympathies go with the E/W pair and that the TD may had ask a little bit more.
But we all had been there before too and forgeot to ask all questions.

[Echognome]

barmar, on Jul 11 2007, 09:47 AM, said:

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

<snip>So you ask the guy why he bid on over the limit raise<snip>

In judging UI situations, you're not expected to ask the player whether he based his action on the UI<snip>

So you've twisted my words nicely there. I said you ask him why be bid on. I did NOT say you ask him whether he based his action on the UI. Why shouldn't we ask a player why he bid the way he bid?

See, for example:

http://forums.bridge...?showtopic=2915

[Echognome]

jtfanclub, on Jul 11 2007, 05:20 AM, said:

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?

I'll tell you what, you show me the rule that says that asking a question is considered a break in tempo first.

[jtfanclub]

Echognome, on Jul 11 2007, 03:29 PM, said:

I'll tell you what, you show me the rule that says that asking a question is considered a break in tempo first.

That's what the words mean without any extra definition. If the tempo is, say, one bid every seven seconds, and you take 18 seconds or 1 second, that's a break in the tempo. Ask any musician.

You've added an extra meaning, that a break in tempo has to convey information, or that it's not a break in tempo if you asked questions, or something. There's nothing in the phrase 'break in tempo' that implies that to me. So I think the onus is on you, to explain why the phrase doesn't mean what it literally means.

[Echognome]

jtfanclub, on Jul 11 2007, 12:52 PM, said:

Echognome, on Jul 11 2007, 03:29 PM, said:

I'll tell you what, you show me the rule that says that asking a question is considered a break in tempo first.

That's what the words mean without any extra definition. If the tempo is, say, one bid every seven seconds, and you take 18 seconds or 1 second, that's a break in the tempo. Ask any musician.

You've added an extra meaning, that a break in tempo has to convey information, or that it's not a break in tempo if you asked questions, or something. There's nothing in the phrase 'break in tempo' that implies that to me. So I think the onus is on you, to explain why the phrase doesn't mean what it literally means.

The reason I disagree is because I think you are missing the whole practical point of directing. It's not like we're sitting their with timers counting every bid and play. You have to make a judgment on whether there was an infraction. If there were some extenuating circumstances, then you take those into account. So if I were to see this case written up, I wouldn't expect it to have a BIT marked next to the 4♥ bid (if it was the case that I felt the delay was due to West being uncooperative), whereas I would expect there to be a BIT marked next to the 5♥ bid. That is the practical part of it. Do you disagree?

[jtfanclub]

No, I don't disagree.

I got kind of wrapped up in terminology here, which on the one hand can help explain where we're coming from, but in other cases confuses things, sorry.

At any rate, I would not assume that a Break In Tempo by your definition occurred before the 4♥ bid. Remember, the person gets to ask about the bid in question, get an answer, and can STILL take 8-10 seconds to bid to 'think over a jump bid'. Whether he's REQUIRED to take 8-10 seconds after receiving an answer is a good question, and not answered by the rules.

My (theoretical) ruling is based on the idea that there was only Break In Tempo that caused any inferences, which is the 5♥ bid.

[Echognome]

I actually agree with you on that. The way I read it now (upon reading JB's follow-up comments), is that the only delay in bidding 4♥ came from the failure to receive a response as to the meaning of the 2NT bid.

As per what we think the LAs are over 5♥, it really is a matter of judgment. I think pass is a logical alternative. Others do not. That's fine. It is certainly fine to disagree. I did post the bidding problem on another forum, but unfortunately have not received an ample amount of replies yet to determine. Maybe someone can post it on rgb.

[Rossoneri]

I find that this case has so many loopholes.

Ok, there was a hesitation. How long? This was a BBO tournament I believe, and as such, I would hesitate to rule on hesitations, due to the fact that one player could easily leave his seat and the other 3 at the table would be none the wiser. Given the fact that he also could have just came back to the bridge game from whatever he was doing, he might have hesitated in getting his mind to re-focus back on the game.

If I was the TD, I would most likely let the table result stand.

[Echognome]

Rossoneri, on Jul 13 2007, 08:53 AM, said:

I find that this case has so many loopholes.

Ok, there was a hesitation. How long? This was a BBO tournament I believe, and as such, I would hesitate to rule on hesitations, due to the fact that one player could easily leave his seat and the other 3 at the table would be none the wiser. Given the fact that he also could have just came back to the bridge game from whatever he was doing, he might have hesitated in getting his mind to re-focus back on the game.

If I was the TD, I would most likely let the table result stand.

Except for the fact that the player agreed to the hesitation. Wouldn't it be remiss to ignore it?

[jillybean]

I believe any TD call following a break in tempo must be addressed. It is the TD's job to look at the use of the BIT, the cause is irrelevant, impossible to rule on.

[hotShot]

jillybean2, on Jul 13 2007, 10:03 PM, said:

I believe any TD call following a break in tempo must be addressed. It is the TD's job to look at the use of the BIT, the cause is irrelevant, impossible to rule on.

Jilly please be precise here:

1) A BIT might cause an UI.
=> If a waiter spills hot coffee on you, you will break tempo, but it carries no bridge information.
=> If you ask opps to explain an alerted bid, you break your tempo, but this does not create an UI.
=> Even calling the TD, causes a BIT.
=> At least it seams as if you broke your tempo, if opp forgot to use the STOP-card and you waited the usual 10 seconds prior to your bid.

So BIT is not equal to UI.

So even if a player admits there was a break in tempo, this does not mean there was UI.

So you can't "use a BIT", you could use an UI created by a BIT.

2) An UI may not be used by its creators partner, and if you think a player acted on partners UI the TD is required to act.
But the TD must make sure:
- That the UI carried information, that was not already AI to the player.
- Which bids where available to the player using his methods.
(e.g. If a pair is e.g. in an 2/1 GF sequence, pass below game is no LA.)
- Among the possible LA's, which are suggested by the UI.
- If a suggested LA was used and an un- /less suggested LA was available, correct the the score.

[jtfanclub]

hotShot, on Jul 13 2007, 04:17 PM, said:

1) A BIT might cause an UI.
=> If a waiter spills hot coffee on you, you will break tempo, but it carries no bridge information.

We just discussed this for a week.

Can we assume she read the earlier discussion and move on? Or should I assume the conversation is in an infinite loop and get out now while I still can?

[jillybean]

There is no way for an online TD to tell if BIT was caused by a tank, spilt coffee, a brain freeze or found another card and imo in the abscence of any other information, all BIT should be treated equaly, as BIT. It is not the BIT that is illegal, what could be illegal is how your partner uses any information received.

In this hand for instance, WEST created by the first BIT by refusing to reply to questions about the 2nt bid. I think this could create UI for EW, West has perhaps forgotten their agreement, misbid, psyched. And so any information available is AI for N/S and UI for EW.

The second BIT, caused by NS is UI for NS and AI fort EW. I am not convinced that there was any relevant information passed by this BIT. Others maintain that a slow pass guarantees extra values.

I find this area of BIT,UI,AI very interesting, I am trying to understand it better and appreciate the sincere replies.


edit

hotShot, on Jul 13 2007, 02:17 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Jul 13 2007, 10:03 PM, said:

I believe any TD call following a break in tempo must be addressed. It is the TD's job to look at the use of the BIT, the cause is irrelevant, impossible to rule on.

Jilly please be precise here:

1) A BIT might cause an UI.
=> If a waiter spills hot coffee on you, you will break tempo, but it carries no bridge information.
=> If you ask opps to explain an alerted bid, you break your tempo, but this does not create an UI.
=> Even calling the TD, causes a BIT.
=> At least it seams as if you broke your tempo, if opp forgot to use the STOP-card and you waited the usual 10 seconds prior to your bid.

So BIT is not equal to UI.

Im not the one saying all BIT = UI, others are. I am only saying all BIT should be treated equaly, as BIT. If, for example you spill hot coffee at the exact same moment in an auction where a BIT does create UI. I say tough luck, the TD must simply rule that UI was passed and your partner is then restricted. If some BITs are ignored, we can throw out laws 16/73C for online bridge.

This post has been edited by jillybean2: 2007-July-13, 22:20