[Chris3875]

I wasn't called to the table when this alleged incident occurred, and only heard about it later, so naturally only know one version of what happened.

Apparently the bidding went (no intervening bids) 1D - 1S - 2D - 2S -3D* - all pass.
The information given to me was that the 3D bid was made slowly and deliberately and with some eye contact with partner. (In other words SHUT UP PARTNER, this is where I want to play).

What would you do if you were called to the table and given that scenario by one side, but the other side totally refuted it. I guess you could look at the written bidding pad and see whether the 3D bid was written larger or more boldly than the other bids. It seems to me that it could come down to one side's word against the other and with no evidence all I could do as the Director would be to say that IF that had occurred it would be totally wrong and fix everyone with my infamous "look".

I recall playing this particular hand in 2D and I remember being surprised partner left me there because he was void in diamonds and had 5 strong spades. (I was playing with someone only a few weeks out of lessons).

[blackshoe]

I suspect that responder's second suit was clubs.

Law 85 comes into play here:

Quote

When the director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows:
A. Director’s Assessment
1. In determining the facts, the director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect.
2. If the director is then satisfied that he has ascertained the facts, he rules as in Law 84.
B. Facts not determined
If the director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he makes a ruling that will permit play to continue.

If the preponderance of the evidence leans you one way or the other, then you go to Law 84, which basically tells you to rule IAW the relevant laws. If, as seems to be the case here, you can't decide, you might just tell the players that while breach of Law 73B1 is a very serious offense, you find insufficient evidence to conclude that there was such a breach, and that they should just play on.

Law 73B1 says

Quote

Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them.

You should read this to the players.

If you get several calls over a period of time where a particular pair has been alleged to have breached Law 73B1 in this way, then about the third time, you should probably decide that the preponderance of the evidence (including previous incidents) indicates that there quite possibly was a breach of 73A1, and rule accordingly.

[bluejak]

Do not assume that when facts are in dispute that two people will strongly say one thing, and their opponents the opposite. In fact, it is important that you approach such situations with optimism. After you have asked all four people for their opinions - shutting their opponents/partner up when they try to interrupt - in my view you will usually have a good idea of what really happened.

[Chris3875]

David, you are quite correct. I was giving the worst possible case scenario where there was no physical evidence (no 3D written extra big or extra bold) and both pairs coming up with a different story. How much weight (if any) can you put on your knowledge of the players? (none, I expect).

I was quite blase when told the story by one of the opponents and said "well, it's not much good telling me now, you should have called me to the table when it happened" ... all the while thinking "thank God you didn't!!

[bluejak]

Knowledge of players helps, but not much, I fear.

[Codo]

This is simply ruling, so a simple question:

With screens and without looking at your hand:

What do you bid after 1x 1y 2x 2y 3x?

If your hand is worth the bids you made so far, IMO there is just one choice.

So I would let them play 3 Diamonds and remind anybody not to make any try to influence partner in any way like hesitating or eye contact or whatever.

[bluejak]

No, that approach is not good enough in a UI case: the player has to go further than saying it is what he would have called without the UI: he has to make a further effort to gain nothing from the UI.

The trouble with saying what a person would bid with a particular hand is that there are a lot of borderline decisions. This is clear from the amount of thinking during an auction and what happens when you poll a hand - even what looks like a fairly obvious hand - and the number of different answers.

If there is no LA to pass over 3♦ then fine, no adjustment is necessary whether there was UI or not, but if any other bid is an LA now you have to decide whether there was UI.

[barmar]

3♦ is NOT normally a forward-going bid. None of the bids in this auction have shown any extra values, just length (and misfits with partner). It hardly seems like a glare would be necessary to keep responder from bidding again unless he has a 7-card ♠ suit. So while the glare is certainly inappropriate, and players should be warned to be careful about their mannerisms, it seems unlikely that it would make a difference in this case (if responder's hand were posted we could judge whether there are any LAs).

I also find Chris's surprise at being left in 2♦ surprising. 2♠ should show a 6-card suit, and bidding a new suit over 2♦ would be forcing. While there may be a better spot than 2♦, it may be impossible to find it if responder has a minimum.

[aguahombre]

LOL. Not until barmar posted did I wake up to the fact that this was not a competitive auction (which part of "no intervening bids" did I not understand?)

Chris' "thank God I was not" (called to the table) would be my sentiment, too. Normally, I think it is bad form to approach the director later-- and not give TD and the game in general the courtesy of calling him at the time of the alleged irregularity. But in this case, the NOS probably could not conceive of any further bidding, regardless of the holdings --and decided to just let it go.

The question I have is: should people give td's information like this for future reference? If I were a director, I would want the information and trust myself to not use it inappropriately in the future.

[bluejak]

How do you know the information is correct? There is always a danger in information by a player about another player that the player informed about does not know has been given.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on Jan 7 2010, 12:23 PM, said:

LOL. Not until barmar posted did I wake up to the fact that this was not a competitive auction (which part of "no intervening bids" did I not understand?)

I also didn't realize it at first.

But, interestingly, my response would have been similar if the spade bids were by the opponents. 1X-(1Y)-2X-(2Y)-3X is just a competitive bid, not showing extras ("free bids" showing extras are a relic of days long gone). So unless you're playing with someone who's been frozen since the 80's, you don't need to glare to keep him from bidding more.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on Jan 7 2010, 11:15 AM, said:

How do you know the information is correct?  There is always a danger in information by a player about another player that the player informed about does not know has been given.

hence the qualifier about not using the information inappropriately. Of course, it is not to be treated as fact and it is not official, but might initate extra vigilance.

[Chris3875]

Scoring: MP

---

This was the hand in question.

[Chris3875]

The reason why I was surprised at being left in the 2D bid was because we open with 4+ diamonds, although my repeat of the diamond bid shows 6 - my partner was void in diamonds. However, we managed to make our 9 tricks so I was happy.

My regular partner and I often split up to "blood" new players into club duplicate so often the bidding can be quite erratic (even more erratic than normal Aussie bridge players David!). I recall that during the afternoon session my partner failed to open with 19 points because he didn't have a 5-card major suit and he had too many points to open 1NT !!!!