[blackshoe]

lalldonn, on 2013-March-07, 12:00, said:

Because his story is stupid. Have you ever made a bid that is completely not your agreement because you had already hesitated?

No, but I'm not this North.

[lalldonn]

It sounds like the implication is you believe anything that anyone says? But I doubt that is true so I must be missing the point of why you believe this particular story.

[aguahombre]

Well, the only thing I believed in this whole thread was Justin's "It's complicated."

I got totally confused when South, asked by East about the 3NT rebid, referred East to his own (E/W) convention card which only mentions the 2NT overcall, not the 3NT continuation. It is an interesting thought, though; we could use the opponents' card for our defenses to their bids and avoid getting caught peeking at our own.

It is unknown what the N/S CC has on it, but disbelief certainly starts with South's mere 3D bid.

[jallerton]

Oh, sorry. As most readers have probably already assumed, I meant to write "N/S convention card". I have edited the original post accordingly.

[Fluffy]

With the facts as presented it is obvious to award PP to north for blatant use of UI. I would think about pursuing further for extra disciplinary action for lying to director, but I've seen people really inventing their stories and then beleivin ghtem as if they were the truth, so I would award him the benefit of the doubt.

About the ruling, nothing below 6♦ seems apropiate.

[blackshoe]

lalldonn, on 2013-March-07, 13:44, said:

It sounds like the implication is you believe anything that anyone says? But I doubt that is true so I must be missing the point of why you believe this particular story.

Generally, my first impulse is to believe what a player tells me, because I don't expect them to lie. That doesn't mean I necessarily believe every story, or this one. I just don't think the opposite approach - everybody lies, so whatever a player tells me is probably not true — is good either. I guess I was trying to be sure "this story smells like last week's fish" is a valid conclusion.

IMO a lot of the judgement involved in these kinds of cases depends on being at the table, which of course we (most of us, anyway) weren't.

[blackshoe]

Fluffy, on 2013-March-07, 16:50, said:

With the facts as presented it is obvious to award PP to north for blatant use of UI. I would think about pursuing further for extra disciplinary action for lying to director, but I've seen people really inventing their stories and then beleivin ghtem as if they were the truth, so I would award him the benefit of the doubt.

About the ruling, nothing below 6♦ seems apropiate.

Please explain why it's "obvious" to award a PP.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2013-March-08, 00:31, said:

Please explain why it's "obvious" to award a PP.

Should he have said, "It is obvious North blatantly used UI."? I think a PP would naturally follow that determination. I also think something which is obvious doesn't need further explanation, and that Fluffy is correct.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2013-March-07, 11:44, said:

It doesn't say that it didn't happen, either. As always, we have to rely on the facts we're given. At the table, of course, we would investigate. Thoroughly.

The OP doesn't say that there was a hesitation by North, so there is no reason to assume there was one. Nor did it say that South sang "God save the Queen", so there is no reason to assume South did.

The OP said that North said that he hesitated and there is every reason to believe North did say that. But North's story is bogus. There is no reason why we should believe any part of his fairy tale: not the "once upon a time", not the "and they lived happily ever after" and not the part in between those two.

Rik

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on 2013-March-07, 13:03, said:

No, but I'm not this North.

Have you ever heard of any prior incident where someone has made a bid nowhere near the agreed meaning because they have hesitated and was concerned about the effect of the hesitation on partner? I haven't.

Everyone else here disbelieves at least that much. The main disagreement is between those who disbelieve even more and think he forgot the meaning of the call, and those who think that he was perfectly aware of the meaning of 2N but bid it for a different reason than that stated.

[blackshoe]

I don't remember where I was going with my previous posts, so lets just pretend I never said anything. I certainly won't say any more.

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2013-March-08, 01:28, said:

The OP doesn't say that there was a hesitation by North, so there is no reason to assume there was one. Nor did it say that South sang "God save the Queen", so there is no reason to assume South did.

The OP said that North said that he hesitated and there is every reason to believe North did say that. But North's story is bogus. There is no reason why we should believe any part of his fairy tale: not the "once upon a time", not the "and they lived happily ever after" and not the part in between those two.

Rik

I think the reason some are giving it some credence is a preference for "guilty until proven innocent". So we start by giving him the benefit of the doubt.

No one made any comment at the table about singing "God Save the Queen", so there's no reason to consider it. But North did claim that he hesitated before his 2NT bid, so it's something that should be considered as possible. Just because a statement is self-serving doesn't mean it's false -- it would be helpful to know if the other players agreed or disagreed about this. The OP is missing useful details like this, so it's hard for us to make a ruling like the actual TD would have.

I'm also hesitant to call North's statement a "lie". Look up "cognitive dissonance" -- he may actually believe what he said.

[lalldonn]

blackshoe, on 2013-March-08, 00:27, said:

Generally, my first impulse is to believe what a player tells me, because I don't expect them to lie. That doesn't mean I necessarily believe every story, or this one. I just don't think the opposite approach - everybody lies, so whatever a player tells me is probably not true — is good either. I guess I was trying to be sure "this story smells like last week's fish" is a valid conclusion.

IMO a lot of the judgement involved in these kinds of cases depends on being at the table, which of course we (most of us, anyway) weren't.

My general instinct is to not believe them unless it sounds very plausible. I don't think people lie maliciously, rather their first instinct is to defend themselves with what they think of first, and to convince themselves reality is whatever will lead to the conclusion they want. That's why so often one side says a hesitation was five seconds and the other says it was two minutes, for example.

In this particular case that doesn't matter though. This story is just way too ridiculous to believe. "I hesitated and that led me to bid 2NT showing minors when I held a balanced hand"? What if this happened in reverse, and he bid 2NT natural with x xx AQxxx KJTxx, would you believe the same explanation that he thought he had to bid something after hesitating so he completely lied about his hand and hoped to survive? Or would you believe he thought 2NT showed the minors even if he denied it?

[jallerton]

barmar, on 2013-March-08, 10:14, said:

But North did claim that he hesitated before his 2NT bid, so it's something that should be considered as possible. Just because a statement is self-serving doesn't mean it's false -- it would be helpful to know if the other players agreed or disagreed about this. The OP is missing useful details like this, so it's hard for us to make a ruling like the actual TD would have.

Subsequent to hearing North's explanation, the TD did ask East/West if they thought there had been a hesitation.

West believes that he always holds the 'stop card' down for ten seconds (rather longer than most people tend to do). He agreed that there might have been a short hesitation between the 'stop' card being removed and the 2NT card being pulled out of the bidding box.

East did not notice the 2NT bid being particularly out of tempo.

[jallerton]

The TD's ruling was as follows:

"The result is not being allowed to stand, as we believe that NS have used UI, and we're replacing it with a weighted score as follows:

20% 4H-2 by North
+30% 5D-2 by South
+50% 5Dx-2 by South"

Edit: polarity corrected.

This post has been edited by jallerton: 2013-March-23, 17:39

[Fluffy]

you seem to have NS and EW switched in the OP,

I'd bet 5♦ goes 1 down more often than 2.

[jallerton]

5♦ is declared by the weak hand; the natural lead is the ♠Q so the defence will probably be cashing the first 4 tricks.

[Sjoerds]

Always difficult. You cannot prove North is lying. So 2NT is a psych. For now no problem with that.
Next you have to find if there is some kind of partnership agreement. 3♦ looks normal to me. But you can argue that after 3NT there should be some kind of action. Partner must Stop ♥ and ♠ for his bid and your hand is more or less in the slam zone now. Expect something like A Hx HVxxx AHVxx. 6♦ should make.
Does south trust his partner? Or have they some kind of history on this kind of bidding. "I better pas; who knows what he has". I guess all this gives you an argument for ruling fielding.

Next the bid of 2NT looks strange to me. Why not dbl? That looks a normal call to me. At what level are they playing? What kind of player is North. The TD can help here.

Considering all these elements I tend to MI and CPU

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2013-March-23, 04:23, said:

The TD's ruling was as follows:

"The result is not being allowed to stand, as we believe that NS have used UI, and we're replacing it with a weighted score as follows:

20% 4H-2 by North
+30% 5D-2 by South
+50% 5Dx-2 by South"

Edit: polarity corrected.

I agree that North used UI, but the only LA for someone whose methods were that 2NT showed the minors is to pass over 3D. I polled half a dozen players, using the methods of NS, and all passed when told "with screens you bid 2NT over 2S, showing both minors, and partner bids 3D, preference for diamonds over clubs. What do you do now?" Now, if we change Law 16B to read "the believed methods of the partnership" we might come to a different conclusion. But not under the Laws as they are. And it is completely irrelevant whether North is telling the truth; his LAs will be identical.

I would agree that 3D comes close to a fielded misbid, but weak players make this sort of underbid all the time (only seven points partner).

[bluejak]

Once upon a time .....

North is lying. He bid 2NT, bid an unauthorised panic 3NT, and then worked out a story to get him off the hook. All he needed now was a gullible TD.