[Double !]

Makes sense to me. Sorry, sometimes can't see the forest through the trees.
Thank you again, Justin, and thank you LH.....sincerely appreciate the discussion, the feedback, your time, and your effort.

MORAL: never forget your agreements.

Still wondering whether some others have had situations involving and coping with UIs, and how they were resolved.

[keylime]

I don't mind the hesitation rulings nearly as much as I do the "played card" rulings - many TD's are just ignorant about Law 45.

[Double !]

will have to look up rule 45
like I said, it's been a while since I've played live tourneys

Please don't tell me that, if partner selects a card, starts to pull it out of his/her hand, replaces it and selects a different lead, even if there was no way that anyone could have seen the card, that this constitutes UI in terms of leader's partner now knowing that the opening lead wasn't "relatively" automatic or clear, i.e. that opening leader had a problem and partner better not "take advantage of" this lead "UI". I knew a fine player eons ago who sometimes spent considerable time sitting at a table playing cards over and over at the same pace in order to automate or maintain as much play and bid tempo as possible via repetition and more repetition.

[whereagles]

30 years ago tournament directors weren't as well prepared as they are nowadays. I'm sure if it were today you'd get a ruling "result stands". You have a pretty good case to bid 5D if you ask me...

By the way, if you disagree with a ruling, you can always appeal.

[Fluffy]

It seems to me there was a missinterpretation of the tempos, the ruling has been taken as if partner had thought over 4♠, not 1♠.

[mikestar]

With regard to the second hand, I think the ruling is correct. The case here is mistaken bid (assuming this is documented on the CC--the law requires the director to rule on the basis of mistaken expalntion when there is no evidence either way.)

The knowlege that partner has misinterpreted the cuebidder's bid is UI and the correction to 3D must be disallowed, as one not uncommon use of 3C over Michaels is NF with long clubs. Forcing with long clubs is also common and some few use 3C as pass or correct and use 2N as something else.

Since Michaels is not the partnership agreement, how can anyone know what 3C shows? So director must resolve the ambiguity in favor of the non-offenders.

Whether I would allow 3D over a penalty double of 3C depends on the cuebidder's cards--in general I would not, but might if he had a freak hand with a club void.

If this were a mistaken explantion case and the partnership were using Michaels, then I would require a pass only if 3C was natural and NF (or if there were no agreements about 3C, in which case I must again resolve the ambiguity in favor ot the non-offenders).

[pigpenz]

alot of times on committees when these things happen what usually determines the ruling is not so much that there was a hesitation but would 70% of the experts holding your cards do what you did. Now granted that varies from committee to committee.

And also on the committees i have been on at regionals it depends on who the particapants are even though it shouldnt and what level the competition is. I have seen committees rule that you are playing in flight A you should know that.

[Rebound]

Double !, on Apr 27 2005, 05:56 PM, said:

Justin: thank you for your response...

Just 1 clarification and one question: First of all, "I didn't do it"--the hand and accompanying UI story were told to me.

But, I am unclear about why one should be proscribed from bidding 3 diamonds after 3CX is passed back to him/her? It seems illogical that this would suggest investigation for a higher-level club contract: one would pass 3 club/3cX. I am not clear where it is written that one is not permitted to try to correct a partnership error (or at least try to) during the course of the bidding provided that it is done in a procedurally correct manner? Or, are you saying that there is no way for a partnership to escape such an error situation once it has been disclosed, even if the attempt to correct the situation is clearly indicative of a natural bid correction.

Suppose someone (T.Reese's "The Joker") decides to open/ psyche 1NT with a solid, running 7 card heart suit. If partner now raises unaware to 3NT, are you saying that opener is now not permitted to correct to 4H assuming that opener chooses to do so?

This issue of correcting a partnership misunderstanding or error happens so frequently with less than expert and/or established partnerships when it comes to transfer bids, especially in competitive situations. Please advise how, if at all, a partnership can escape from a silly contract due to partnership error within the guidelines and procedures without creating UI turmoil.


and I suspect that most players have experienced similar situations at one time or another.......

Thanks, Don

This is not the same thing as your brother's example. In his case, UI was exchanged because he was privy to the explanation his partner provided to the opposition and thereby became aware of his error. In the quoted example, i.e. 1NT-3NT-4H, no UI is exchanged. You may bid whatever you please over 3NT (please see my post on psychs) - provided, of course, your partner is not in on the joke and bid 3nt knowing you were going to bid again to keep the opps out of the auction.