[mycroft]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-November-25, 17:23, said:

I thought there was sufficient evidence that I was sure I'd picked it up by the strange bid that I made, (I felt it was a definitive BIT at the time) and wanted to see what the director did.

There was a "slight twitch", which you thought was a definite BIT, but wasn't worried about confirming it at the time, knowing that your partner doesn't notice, and you expect the TD to rule BIT because *you* thought you saw one? "but my bid makes it obvious" - why? Why does it not show someone needing a swing that decided to push, or someone who plays things differently from you and this is systemic?

Yes, there's a problem with twitches, and it's somewhat unsoluble. But I can't imagine, given what I didn't do at the table, a TD ruling that there was, in fact, a BIT. There might have been a twitch, true - but we're not proving it (even "preponderance of the evidence") after the fact.

[Cyberyeti]

mycroft, on 2013-November-26, 11:41, said:

There was a "slight twitch", which you thought was a definite BIT, but wasn't worried about confirming it at the time, knowing that your partner doesn't notice, and you expect the TD to rule BIT because *you* thought you saw one? "but my bid makes it obvious" - why? Why does it not show someone needing a swing that decided to push, or someone who plays things differently from you and this is systemic?

Yes, there's a problem with twitches, and it's somewhat unsoluble. But I can't imagine, given what I didn't do at the table, a TD ruling that there was, in fact, a BIT. There might have been a twitch, true - but we're not proving it (even "preponderance of the evidence") after the fact.

It was clear I made a bid that was not part of our system for 2 reasons (shows 5 diamonds and less than 4 hearts) all documented on the system card and I thought the twitch was more than slight, all that was agreed by the opp that did it was maybe a very slight twitch.

[gordontd]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-November-26, 11:53, said:

I thought the twitch was more than slight, all that was agreed by the opp that did it was maybe a very slight twitch.

This is not what you said in your original post.

[ArtK78]

I don't see what the problem is as far as South is concerned. East's "twitch" is AI to South but UI to West. South can do anything that he likes (at his own peril, of course). This may place pressure on West, but it, in and of itself, does not put West in an ethical dilemma. East's twitch is what puts West in an ethical dilemma. One should not put South under any scrutiny for East's possible transmission of UI to West.

This is one of those stiuations where if NS get a double shot, they are entitled to it. The problem is not of their making.

As far as the original question is concerned, I think that West has a clear pass. To say that it is a logical alternative to bidding 3♠ is an understatement.

[Cyberyeti]

gordontd, on 2013-November-26, 12:17, said:

This is not what you said in your original post.

I said that on the OP because that was what the director was probably going to have to go on as the nearest thing to agreed facts we had.

[barmar]

ArtK78, on 2013-November-26, 12:18, said:

I don't see what the problem is as far as South is concerned. East's "twitch" is AI to South but UI to West. South can do anything that he likes (at his own peril, of course). This may place pressure on West, but it, in and of itself, does not put West in an ethical dilemma. East's twitch is what puts West in an ethical dilemma. One should not put South under any scrutiny for East's possible transmission of UI to West.

I felt that South took excessive advantage of what sounded like a very minor transgression to put West in a no-win situation.

If East had gone into the tank, I could understand it, but a twitch? This isn't poker, where players have to be careful to avoid the slightest tell.

[ArtK78]

barmar, on 2013-November-26, 13:29, said:

I felt that South took excessive advantage of what sounded like a very minor transgression to put West in a no-win situation.

If East had gone into the tank, I could understand it, but a twitch? This isn't poker, where players have to be careful to avoid the slightest tell.

Whether the perceived twitch constitutes a BIT is for the TD to decide given all of the facts and circumstances. If it is determined that the twitch is not a BIT, then West is under no ethical restrictions. If the twitch is determined to constitute a BIT, then West is constrained. South is entitled to take advantage of the situation if he so chooses.

You may feel that South's attempt to take advantage of the situation is sleezy, for lack of a better term. Perhaps, but, as I stated in my prior post, South is not the one who created the problem.

By the way, one nice thing about poker is that it is each player for himself. He can give out information by "tells" or by "false tells" and there is nothing wrong with that. Other players can try to take advantage of perceived tells at their own risk. No one is going to get any redress for any UI, as there is no such thing.

Of course, in poker, there are ways of getting redress. Some of them involve physical violence.

[mycroft]

Well, that is why if you think there was a BIT, you agree it at the time, or call the TD to agree. If you don't - especially if you're pretty certain that after the fact, you're not going to be able to get agreement, even from your partner - that is your right, especially if you want to push them around; but you have to expect that getting the TD to rule BIT is going to be an uphill battle, even if it's an obvious hitch (that isn't a tank).

I know if there's one person who said "it was a slight twitch only if it were anything", one that said it was an obvious hitch, and two that didn't notice anything, it would be hard to convince me...