[ahydra]

Isn't the ethical thing to do to play according to what system you believe you're playing - so here you have to take 4S as a cue bid, partner having a supermax eg x KQJxxx Kxxx xx. In which case 6H seems the sensible bid.

I might be wrong but this is the impression I've got from other threads.

ahydra

[Cascade]

Some more information.

Written bidding was used.

The pair are a long time partnership who have many times represented the region at the National Interprovincial Championships.

South claims she has never seen north cue-bid in this auction.

North's 4♠ bid was made with special emphasis - with haste move forward write the bid and move back.

I was sitting east and it was obvious to me that north was correcting an error.

[piratepete]

Unfortunately this looks plausibly enough like RKCB for ♥ in my system, so answering the question is probably a LA. Then again, the distributional constraints for a weak-two in our multi are fairly broad, so maybe that's what it is, relying on 2NT to hold enough high-card strength to sustain 5/6♥.

[gwnn]

 ahydra, on 2011-June-06, 13:03, said:

Isn't the ethical thing to do to play according to what system you believe you're playing - so here you have to take 4S as a cue bid, partner having a supermax eg x KQJxxx Kxxx xx. In which case 6H seems the sensible bid.

I might be wrong but this is the impression I've got from other threads.

ahydra

Sure, it's the ethical thing to do, but this 4♠ bid is just impossible. 90% of the time partner was never trying for slam, but was merely interested in our range (i.e. wanted to stop low opposite a minimum) or suit (wanted to stop low opposite spades). I think it's completely absurd to bid 4♠ even on x AKQxxx Kxx xxx, or whatever you think is a maximum weak 2.

Contrast this with another common guest:

1NT-4♥*
4♠-.....oops eek 5♥
p

in this case pass from the 1NT bidder is completely illegal (by the way, it is also a very bad decision and insulting to partner).

[Cascade]

Anything is ethical if there is no UI.

If there is UI then bidding may not only be unethical it maybe illegal.

The question is how "impossible" is "impossible"?

It seems to me that there are two possibilities for 4♠:

1. Whoops I forgot the system

2. I have something extremely unusual for my 2♦ opening and I have for whatever reason decided to make a further move.

To determine the logical alternatives we need to make some judgement about the relative likelihoods of these two possibilities.

The partnership in question say they have never cue-bid on this auction. However they also admit they have never forgotten the system.

Based on this it is difficult to know what the relative probabilities are. Unless you believe the relative probability of cue-bid is much lower than that of a mistake when there is UI suggesting a mistake the player in receipt of the UI is legally not just ethically bound to treat the bid as a cue-bid.

The situation was complicated in that south denied noticing the tempo and mannerisms of the 4♠ bid. To me this is self-serving - although one could argue that the claim of UI is also self-serving. North also was not sure that she had bid out of tempo. However when I asked her how many players at the tournament having realized that they misbid would have, in their eagerness to fix things, up made the correction with their normal tempo and she said "probably none".

[gordontd]

 ahydra, on 2011-June-06, 13:03, said:

Isn't the ethical thing to do to play according to what system you believe you're playing - so here you have to take 4S as a cue bid, partner having a supermax eg x KQJxxx Kxxx xx. In which case 6H seems the sensible bid.

If I had a partner who thinks it's sensible to bid 4S on this in that auction, I might as well bid 7NT because I wouldn't have much interest in continuing the partnership.

[mgoetze]

 Cascade, on 2011-June-06, 14:58, said:

It seems to me that there are two possibilities for 4♠:

1. Whoops I forgot the system

2. I have something extremely unusual for my 2♦ opening and I have for whatever reason decided to make a further move.

Let me put it this way: if I were playing with Lt. Cmdr. Data, who never misbids and never forgets our system, I would probably come to the conclusion that I was the one who had forgotten the system, and still pass 4♠.

[Cascade]

 mgoetze, on 2011-June-06, 17:27, said:

Let me put it this way: if I were playing with Lt. Cmdr. Data, who never misbids and never forgets our system, I would probably come to the conclusion that I was the one who had forgotten the system, and still pass 4♠.

If you had forgotten the system then partner would be unlikely to bid 4♠.

There was no relevant unauthorized information earlier. The 3♣ bid nor any other bid was explained. A trusting partner when you had forgotten the system would most likely pass 4♥. As they would not know that you had forgotten and would assume that you have the relevant information and have chosen the final contract.

If it was simply a matter of a forget then its probably something like 90% or more that partner has forgotten and 10% or less that you have forgotten. And 10% maybe way to generous.

[Bad_Wolf]

As it happens I was directing in another room and was consulted on this ruling. Certainly I considered possible logical alternatives to pass and what might happen afterwards. It was my judgement that west will likely insist on spades at every turn, and it is possible that we would have considered 5s-1 had there been only 10 tricks available, but there was always 12.

[mrdct]

 Cascade, on 2011-June-06, 14:58, said:

The situation was complicated in that south denied noticing the tempo and mannerisms of the 4♠ bid. To me this is self-serving - although one could argue that the claim of UI is also self-serving. North also was not sure that she had bid out of tempo. However when I asked her how many players at the tournament having realized that they misbid would have, in their eagerness to fix things, up made the correction with their normal tempo and she said "probably none".

"He Said She Said" situations are always difficult to rule on as you basically need to call someone a liar if you are going to determine the facts.

Law 85 gives us guidance on how to determine disputed facts (essentially balance of probabilities but if the facts still can't be determined you make a ruling that allows play to continue).

I find it really surprising that south apparently opined that virtually 100% of the players in the tournament in question would flagrantly breach Law 73D. If I've misbid and realise it, the last thing I would do is act in a manner to draw attention to it.

If, on the balance of probabilities, it is determined that 4♠ was an over-emphasised insta-bid I would be inclined to issue a procedural penalty against north and probably refer him to the recorder or disciplinary committee for some reeducation.

From south's perspective I'm struggling to think of weak two in ♥ that will make a slam-try after a clear sign-off from a partner that has promised nothing more than invitational or preemptive values. Accordingly, 4♠ can only mean:

• I've stuffed up and I've actually got a weak two in ♠; or
  
• I think I've already shown a weak two in ♠ and I'm taking your 4♥ bid as some sort of slam try in ♠ for which I'm not interested.

In both cases, south has no logical alternatives other than "pass".

[gordontd]

 mrdct, on 2011-June-07, 01:37, said:

"He Said She Said" situations are always difficult to rule on as you basically need to call someone a liar if you are going to determine the facts.

No you don't: there's quite a gap between saying "I don't think what you say is correct", and "You are a liar".

I directed an event this weekend where one of the TDs issued a disciplinary penalty to a player for saying "Are you calling me a liar?" when there was a difference of view as to the facts.

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

If I had a partner who thinks it's sensible to bid 4S on this in that auction, I might as well bid 7NT because I wouldn't have much interest in continuing the partnership.

How big a penalty would you award yourself for this action? Law 74 is being tested here!

So you pass 4♠ and partner had decided to open 2♥ on

♠ -
♥ KQxxxx
♦KJ10xxx
♣x

Not the most mainstream weak two however in a (misguided?) effort to catch up he now decided to cue bid.

Assuming that the 4♠ was adjudged to have been bid with special emphasis then regardless of what the alternatives were the player should be given a sizeable penalty and the more experienced the player the larger the penalty. Personally I would approve of them having to wear a large hat with the word "Cheat" on it for the remainder of the session and all of the next one.

[mgoetze]

If

 Jeremy69A, on 2011-June-07, 03:31, said:

partner had decided to open 2♥ on

♠ -
♥ KQxxxx
♦KJ10xxx
♣x

then

 gordontd, on 2011-June-06, 15:31, said:

I might as well bid 7NT because I wouldn't have much interest in continuing the partnership.

[Cascade]

 Jeremy69A, on 2011-June-07, 03:31, said:

How big a penalty would you award yourself for this action? Law 74 is being tested here!

So you pass 4♠ and partner had decided to open 2♥ on

♠ -
♥ KQxxxx
♦KJ10xxx
♣x

Not the most mainstream weak two however in a (misguided?) effort to catch up he now decided to cue bid.

Assuming that the 4♠ was adjudged to have been bid with special emphasis then regardless of what the alternatives were the player should be given a sizeable penalty and the more experienced the player the larger the penalty. Personally I would approve of them having to wear a large hat with the word "Cheat" on it for the remainder of the session and all of the next one.

I am not sure who you are making judgement about - north or south.

It is natural for everyone at times to give unauthorized information. We need to hope that in most cases this is not deliberate and generally I would be unhappy about penalizing accidental and even careless giving of UI.

However I feel that use of such UI should be penalized.

For me it is south not north whose actions should attract a penalty.

[Cascade]

 Bad_Wolf, on 2011-June-06, 23:41, said:

As it happens I was directing in another room and was consulted on this ruling. Certainly I considered possible logical alternatives to pass and what might happen afterwards. It was my judgement that west will likely insist on spades at every turn, and it is possible that we would have considered 5s-1 had there been only 10 tricks available, but there was always 12.

There are some auctions where it might be hard to insist on spades at every turn. For example if south bids Blackwood next. In fact north has told me that if south bid Blackwood then she would pass. I am not sure if the director(s) even considered these possibilities.

When the floor director came back to me he said that there was no adjustment because there was no damage and that was the sum total of his ruling. While this is possible it is also possible that somehow the auction will go off the rails. Maybe when you weigh in the possibility of them stumbling into a making slam the net affect will be no damage.

Nevertheless I believe that south should have been penalized for blatant use of UI. That she may have survived and got to a better spot from avoiding the suggested alternative is irrelevant in the matter of a penalty.

Players in this sort of situation are unwilling to make bids that are not suggested by the UI when they judge it is likely to cause confusion. They do this out of fear for the auction going completely off the rails and because using UI is seldom punished.

When I talked with the head director on this issue he was unwilling to even talk to the south player and remind her of her responsibilities and bizarrely changed the emphasis of the ruling that was given to me by the floor director from "no damage" to "i do not believe there was UI". He apparently judged this on the basis of having talked with north-south although north later told me that she does not believe that she was asked. At the meeting with the head director before the ruling I had made the point that north had not disputed the manner - south had only said that she "didn't notice". It seems unreasonable on what appears to be flimsy evidence to come to the position that the head director argued. Further the director also admitted that my partner was never questioned on her version of the facts.

[Cascade]

 gordontd, on 2011-June-07, 02:21, said:

No you don't: there's quite a gap between saying "I don't think what you say is correct", and "You are a liar".

I directed an event this weekend where one of the TDs issued a disciplinary penalty to a player for saying "Are you calling me a liar?" when there was a difference of view as to the facts.

That seems harsh.

Who did he say that to?

While the question might be misguided it seems a natural sort of question to ask. And it doesn't seem unreasonable to simply say "no".

[bluejak]

 Cascade, on 2011-June-07, 05:23, said:

Nevertheless I believe that south should have been penalized for blatant use of UI. That she may have survived and got to a better spot from avoiding the suggested alternative is irrelevant in the matter of a penalty.

If you believe as I do and several other posters do that there is no LA to pass then such a penalty is way beyond unfair. There is no blatant [or non-blatant] use of UI if you make the only logical call available.

There are certain comments in this thread generally about penalising. I think that you penalise in UI cases for two things:

• Giving UI in an unnecessary fashion by a player who should know better, even if it is unintended
  
• Using UI in a clear situation by a player who should know better

Note that this is one of the many types of ruling whereby I feel the better the player, the more case for penalising.



MultiQuote has given up working: when I enter a smiley or bold I get it highlighted, which causes problems: my spellchekka has given up working sensibly.

But!

This is only in these forums: they all work perfectly elsewhere. So I think there is a problem with these forums and the most modern version of IE. I did the spellchecking for this article by Cut & Paste to another forum, correcting it, then Cut & Paste back.

[mrdct]

 Cascade, on 2011-June-07, 05:23, said:

When the floor director came back to me he said that there was no adjustment because there was no damage and that was the sum total of his ruling.

It's interesting that his ruling was "no damage" rather than "no infraction". I would've asked the TD to elaborate on his ruling to confirm what "facts" he has managed to establish.

If the facts are as Wayne outlined, I think north is the culprit not south. Nobody has managed as yet to come up with a hand for north which is consistent with anything other than a weak two in ♠. The top-heavy 6-6 in the reds is closer to a game-force than a weak two.

[gordontd]

 Jeremy69A, on 2011-June-07, 03:31, said:

How big a penalty would you award yourself for this action? Law 74 is being tested here!

I don't see that bidding 7NT is any more of a breach of L74 than would be bidding 6♠, which is what I was responding to.

 Jeremy69A, on 2011-June-07, 03:31, said:

So you pass 4♠ and partner had decided to open 2♥ on

♠ -
♥ KQxxxx
♦KJ10xxx
♣x

Not the most mainstream weak two however in a (misguided?) effort to catch up he now decided to cue bid.

Oh, misguided? D'you reckon?!!!

[Cascade]

 bluejak, on 2011-June-07, 05:55, said:

If you believe as I do and several other posters do that there is no LA to pass then such a penalty is way beyond unfair. There is no blatant [or non-blatant] use of UI if you make the only logical call available.

There are certain comments in this thread generally about penalising. I think that you penalise in UI cases for two things:

• Giving UI in an unnecessary fashion by a player who should know better, even if it is unintended
  
• Using UI in a clear situation by a player who should know better

Note that this is one of the many types of ruling whereby I feel the better the player, the more case for penalising.



MultiQuote has given up working: when I enter a smiley or bold I get it highlighted, which causes problems: my spellchekka has given up working sensibly.

But!

This is only in these forums: they all work perfectly elsewhere. So I think there is a problem with these forums and the most modern version of IE. I did the spellchecking for this article by Cut & Paste to another forum, correcting it, then Cut & Paste back.

Multiquote works for me. I am running IE8.

The south player actually took a long time to pass 4♠ and said she was deciding whether her partner had made a mistake or was trying to show an exceptional weak two. From that it appears for this player there were logical alternatives to pass.