[jillybean]

I disagree. BIT happens and it is the information if any, that the BIT conveys and the use of that information that must be scrutinized. If I understand your argument correctly, there was UI conveyed in the BIT before 4♥ bid and that pass was a LA. What information do you think was passed by the BIT?
If this is true and you must pass after any BIT we have a situation where, if your opps are heading towards slam, you can throw a bid in, delay responding to a query and keep your opps out of slam?

In this case, I disregarded UI from 'clicking opps bid' and BIT before 4♥'s, I am not clear on what UI was passed in the BIT before 5♥ and thought that any UI conveyed was negated by the 6♣/6♥ bid.

I let the result stand but expected an appeal.

[jtfanclub]

Echognome, on Jul 9 2007, 06:25 PM, said:

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'm not barring 7 hearts. I'm barring 6 clubs.

North made a 5 heart bid. South knew, with the hesitation, that if he bid 7 hearts, that it would get rolled back. So he made an invitiation of 6 clubs, and then when his partner declined it, still bid 7 hearts. Regardless of whether pass was an LA over 5 hearts, clearly 6 hearts was an LA. So I'm changing the 6 clubs to 6 hearts.

Furthermore, where did you get the idea that if your next bid was legal and allowed, that you were now allowed to use the UI on later bids?

LHO opens 1♥. Your partner bids a weak/strong 2NT after 3 minutes of thinking. Next player passes. You bid your better minor. Everybody agrees, that's what they would do. Now your partner bid 3♠, showing a strong hand with spade shortness.

Do you think you're allowed to use that 3 minute hesitation now? Or do you think that you still have to worry about LAs, even though the 3 spade bid was right in tempo?

[Echognome]

jtfanclub, on Jul 9 2007, 03:40 PM, said:

Echognome, on Jul 9 2007, 06:25 PM, said:

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'm not barring 7 hearts. I'm barring 6 clubs.

North made a 5 heart bid. South knew, with the hesitation, that if he bid 7 hearts, that it would get rolled back. So he made an invitiation of 6 clubs, and then when his partner declined it, still bid 7 hearts. Regardless of whether pass was an LA over 5 hearts, clearly 6 hearts was an LA. So I'm changing the 6 clubs to 6 hearts.

Furthermore, where did you get the idea that if your next bid was legal and allowed, that you were now allowed to use the UI on later bids?

LHO opens 1♥. Your partner bids a weak/strong 2NT after 3 minutes of thinking. Next player passes. You bid your better minor. Everybody agrees, that's what they would do. Now your partner bid 3♠, showing a strong hand with spade shortness.

Do you think you're allowed to use that 3 minute hesitation now? Or do you think that you still have to worry about LAs, even though the 3 spade bid was right in tempo?

Whoa!

So you are not allowing him to bid 6♣, but telling him what he has to bid?

Please tell me the law that allows you to do this.

[jtfanclub]

Echognome, on Jul 9 2007, 06:45 PM, said:

Whoa!

So you are not allowing him to bid 6♣, but telling him what he has to bid?

Please tell me the law that allows you to do this.

I'm not telling him what he has to bid. I'm telling him the adjusted result, due to his bidding 6♣ which was indicated by UI when there was an LA of 6♥ which was not indicated by the UI and would give a worse result.

Are you upset that I'm changing it to something other than pass? I think you'd better read the Laws again. There's no difference between you changing the 6 club bid to pass, and me changing the 6 club bid to 6 hearts.

As for which Laws, 16A2 says I can do it, law 12C2 says what I should adjust it to: the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. I say that was 6 hearts. You say that was 5 hearts. But if I don't have the power to make the adjustment, neither do you.

Edited to add: There is no way that I'd adjust the bid over 4♥ regardless of hesitation. I wouldn't have done it if there was no explanation issues, I wouldn't even have done it if there had been no 2NT bid in there at all. There's no reason to believe that a hesitation before the 4 heart bid shows strength. If anything, it implies weakness, as in 'can he really make 4 hearts if I bid this'. You can't doubleshot- you can't adjust back to 4 hearts when they bid slam and it makes, and then adjust up to slam when they pass and it makes exactly.

If South had PASSED the 4 hearts and then made 5 with that powerhouse, don't you think the opponents would have a legitimate gripe if there had been a considerable hesitation before the 4 heart bid?

[jillybean]

jtfanclub, on Jul 9 2007, 04:40 PM, said:

North made a 5 heart bid. South knew, with the hesitation, that if he bid 7 hearts, that it would get rolled back. So he made an invitiation of 6 clubs, and then when his partner declined it, still bid 7 hearts.

How can you be sure south is devious and not just suicidal or needing a top board and feeling lucky that day?

[jtfanclub]

jillybean2, on Jul 9 2007, 06:58 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Jul 9 2007, 04:40 PM, said:

North made a 5 heart bid.  South knew, with the hesitation, that if he bid 7 hearts, that it would get rolled back.  So he made an invitiation of 6 clubs, and then when his partner declined it, still bid 7 hearts.

How can you be sure south is devious and not just suicidal or needing a top board and feeling lucky that day?

I don't have to know what he's thinking. I have to know 3 things:

1. The six clubs is more likely to be good with a hesitation than with a fast 5 heart bid.

2. That 6 hearts was a logical alternative to 6 clubs.

3. That the result likely following 6 hearts (pass) is worse than the auction that actually occurred.

It is absolutely true that the motives I ascribe to South's 6 club bid could be wrong. It is my personal belief only. However, I don't need a motive to make the adjustment. Only those three things I listed.

[Echognome]

Ok sorry. I'm with you now. You're saying that 6♥ is a logical alternative to 6♣ AND that pass is not a logical alternative. That's fine. We will not be able to resolve that question without polling and without finding out what their agreements really are.

[TimG]

Echognome, on Jul 9 2007, 06:25 PM, said:

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.

How about 6♥ making 13 tricks? Arguing that 6♥ is a logical alternative to 6♣ (6♣ being suggested by the UI resulting from the BIT before the 5♥ bid).

[TimG]

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

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

But, sometimes the BIT gives us no information. Let's go back to the case of the slow limit raise, 1♠-Pass-3♠, where the 3♠ bid is slow. What information has been conveyed by the BIT?

[jtfanclub]

TimG, on Jul 9 2007, 08:29 PM, said:

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

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

But, sometimes the BIT gives us no information. Let's go back to the case of the slow limit raise, 1♠-Pass-3♠, where the 3♠ bid is slow. What information has been conveyed by the BIT?

Well, lots of information has been passed by the BIT, just not anything that indicates one plan of action over another.

There are certainly BITs that pass no information, like late-returning-to-the table.

[blackshoe]

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

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.

I don't make up laws. and I am insulted that you would libel me so. You go back and read it. It says from a BIT. I stand by my statement, and I ask again what inference can be drawn from this BIT. It is that inference that is UI, and it is basing one's action on such an inference that is an infraction of law.

I also note that Law 73C doesn't say a damn thing about logical alternatives. Neither did I. So don't put words in my mouth.

[Echognome]

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?

[jtfanclub]

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

The point is that you cannot use any information surrounding a BIT, whether it is the BIT itself or the inferences drawn from it.

Quote

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.

If a BIT does not contain information (coming back late from the bathroom, arguing about the last hand, etc. etc.) then by definition it cannot have any inferences. It also doesn't make any sense to talk about using the fact there was a BIT in your decision when there is no information in the BIT. If you could 'use' it, then there was information there to be used.

Quote

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?

The problem is that according to the rules, Directors are REQUIRED to assume that the player used the inference if, in making the choices, that the choice made was more likely to succeed if the player had made the inference and there was another, less successful action that he could have made instead that people of his level would make.

[Echognome]

What I think is missing here is that the director must first rule that there was a Break In Tempo. If you think any TD will rule that when someone has gone to the bathroom between hands, then you have some crazy TDs.

Furthermore, in the discussion of this problem, the BIT was agreed.

[jillybean]

Correct, 2 BIT occured during this auction.
The first one occured when the opps would not answer a query. Surely this, if anything is AI

The second BIT was after the 4♠ bid. And this is what I am trying to understand, what information, if any, can be taken from this pause?

[jtfanclub]

jillybean2, on Jul 10 2007, 02:12 PM, said:

Quote

Correct, 2 BIT occured during this auction.
The first one occured when the opps would not answer a query. Surely this, if anything is AI

Right. A break in tempo is anything that is unusually fast or slow, for ANY reason, including this.

Quote

The second BIT was after the 4♠ bid. And this is what I am trying to understand, what information, if any, can be taken from this pause?

A slow 5♥ has to be stronger than a fast 5♥. If responder had a weaker than normal 4♥ bid, what would there be to think about? Passing?

Is passing 5♥ a LA? I dunno. It's too dependent upon the agreements for the 4♥ bid.

[jillybean]

jtfanclub, on Jul 10 2007, 01:31 PM, said:

A slow 5♥ has to be stronger than a fast 5♥.  If responder had a weaker than normal 4♥ bid, what would there be to think about? 


Passing?

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?

I'll just ignore the sarcasm

[P_Marlowe]

Codo, on Jul 9 2007, 01:18 AM, said:

<snip>
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.
<snip>

With the given vulneranility, double is sure
a better option than 4H.

In the end it comes down to the question, do
they have agreements how to handle the 2NT
interference, given the auction, I would say no,
but one should at least ask.
This would also clarify, if 4H was indeed a sign off,
or if it did show some life.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: Oppossite my regular partner I would surely not
force to slam.

[hotShot]

jillybean2, on Jul 10 2007, 09:12 PM, said:

Correct, 2 BIT occured during this auction.
The first one occured when the opps would not answer a query. Surely this, if anything is AI

The second BIT was after the 4♠ bid. And this is what I am trying to understand, what information, if any, can be taken from this pause?

First of all, let us assume this is an established expert f2f partnership with written system-notes.

In this partnership 4♠ is a well defined bid and north is well aware how further bidding is agreed. In this case you can assume that north was looking for a better bit than a discouraging 5♥, so partner will expect a hand that is better than minimum.

Seems to me that this actually happened in an online tourney probably with a pickup "BBO expert" partnership or even weaker players. We can expect that north has no idea what 4♠ means: ace, shortage, should he bid blackwood, what type of blackwood do we actually play or is 4NT a trump cue lots of stuff to think about, not to mention incoming phone calls, doorbells or other distractions. I don't think that a hesitation is as meaningful as in the first case.
But pass over 5♥ is no LA with south 2. suited 4 looser monster. North jumped to game over a possibly minimum 1♥opening and west promised to hold the minors. A major doublefit is very likely and ♥ is a 9+ card fit. Just calculate the ZAR-Points. South is void in ♣ and if north does not have wasted values there, a grand seems possible, something you want to be in playing IMPs.
So 6♣ seems an obvious choice, since you can force to 6♥ anyway.
And after that wasted values in ♣ and ♦ are highly unlikely.