[bluejak]

Scoring: MP

---

 W  N   E    S
      P   1♠   P
 P 1NT 2♥ P#1
 P   3♦  P    P
 P

#1 Agreed slow

Result: 3♦/N +1, NS +130

Any adjustment?

[WellSpyder]

Well I guess I would ask N why they bid 3D. But I cannot conceive an explanation that would stop me adjusting the score, and surely if there was ever an example requiring a PP as well as an adjusted score then this is it?

[hotShot]

The hesitation suggests bidding on, and pass is a LA for North. (It would be interesting to poll the pears if anyone considers 3♦ a possible bid.)
So I will correct the score to 2♥=.

[helene_t]

Yeah, it is not clear to me how anything (baring South fizzling with the 3♦ bidding card before opting for the green card) would suggest North bidding on, but then again I am probably not a peer of North.

So back to 2♥ it is.

[mich-b]

North would have to do a great job explaining his bidding , in order to avoid a PP for blatant use of UI.

I think adjusting the score is far from being enough here.

[bluejak]

Someone like to explain to me why partner's hesitation suggests bidding a suit of J8xx?

[helene_t]

bluejak, on Jan 12 2010, 05:01 PM, said:

Someone like to explain to me why partner's hesitation suggests bidding a suit of J8xx?

I dunno but I think North must somehow have interpreted (however subconsciously) the BIT as if South considered a t/o double and then chose pass because he was afraid that double would be taken as penalty. Or that he considered a scrambling 2NT but opted for pass for some reason, maybe for fear that North would take 2NT as something else.

I could be wrong, obviously 3♦ without any UI is absurd but if it is equally absurd given whatever information North extracts from the BIT, I suppose result should stand.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Jan 12 2010, 11:01 AM, said:

Someone like to explain to me why partner's hesitation suggests bidding a suit of J8xx?

It suggests not passing. Or like to explain to me why you think north bid a suit of J8xx?

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on Jan 12 2010, 05:01 PM, said:

Someone like to explain to me why partner's hesitation suggests bidding a suit of J8xx?

The hesitation suggested action over passing, so action is illegal, even if the action you choose is an action that is not even a LA that by good fortune works out. We have argued this one much in the past, and I believe that is your position on it, and you have a good legal argument for it, though I forget the details. So the general conclusion is that if you have UI, you don't escape your responsibilities by doing something off the wall.

[peachy]

Echoing others, this is a simple ruling and probably unanimous.

[lamford]

iviehoff, on Jan 12 2010, 12:44 PM, said:

bluejak, on Jan 12 2010, 05:01 PM, said:

Someone like to explain to me why partner's hesitation suggests bidding a suit of J8xx?

The hesitation suggested action over passing, so action is illegal, even if the action you choose is an action that is not even a LA that by good fortune works out. We have argued this one much in the past, and I believe that is your position on it, and you have a good legal argument for it, though I forget the details. So the general conclusion is that if you have UI, you don't escape your responsibilities by doing something off the wall.

Yes, it is clear that North did not breach 16B1b, as 3♦ would not be given serious consideration by anyone, and is therefore not a logical alternative, so North's restriction on selecting it does not apply.

However, under 73C, a player "<snip> must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information." and this is the law you have to punish (sorry rectify) under. And that should include a double PP for flagrant misuse of UI.

[bluejak]

The TD could not believe that 3♦ on the actual hand was based on the UI so let the result stand.

I tend to agree with him. I am a little worried that the adjustment that at first sight seems so obvious is actually merely a case of "If it hesitates, shoot it."

[jdonn]

If it bids a terrible suit on a 4333 9 count when partner has done nothing and the opponents might not be in a fit, and partner has hesitated, then yes please shoot it!!!

Anything but pass on this north had is based on UI. I will state that as a fact not an opinion.

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on Jan 14 2010, 11:32 AM, said:

Anything but pass on this north had is based on UI. I will state that as a fact not an opinion.

You can call it whatever you like. It's still an opinion.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on Jan 12 2010, 04:01 PM, said:

Someone like to explain to me why partner's hesitation suggests bidding a suit of J8xx?

In traditional Acol after P-(1♠)-P-(P)-1NT-(2♥):

Without much in the way of values, pass.
With a good hand for defending, double for penalties.
With values and a reasonable 5-card minor, bid that suit.

But with values and no good suit to bid? An unbiddable hand! Quick thinking players might pass in tempo, but there are plenty of players who would take several seconds to work out that they have no convenient positive call to make before passing.

The slow pass demonstrably suggests a hand with values and no convenient bid, the sort of hand on which you or I might make a take-out double.

And what would you call as North after:

P-(1♠)-P-(P)-1NT-(2♥)-Dbl[T/O]-(P):

Would you consider bidding 3♦ perhaps?

So there's your answer: 3♦ was a response to the "take out pass".

[jallerton]

bluejak, on Jan 14 2010, 03:56 PM, said:

The TD could not believe that 3♦ on the actual hand was based on the UI so let the result stand.

Did the TD ask North why he bid 3♦? If so, what was the reply?

[MFA]

South's hesitation shows values that makes competing in north much more attractive and safe. Even if those values are alround (that is: also defensive) they will still be useful in 3♦ to avoid a disaster.
It's very unlikely that south was considering a pure penalty double of 2♥.

The score should have been corrected to 2♥ imo.

[FrancesHinden]

bluejak, on Jan 12 2010, 04:01 PM, said:

Someone like to explain to me why partner's hesitation suggests bidding a suit of J8xx?

Yes. The slow pass suggests partner was thinking of acting.

If they play double as penalties of 2H, partner is overwhelmingly likely to have a take-out double (look at our major suit lengths) which suggests acting.

If they play double as take-out (less likely*) then partner is likely to be slightly light for a take-out double, which suggests acting.

*It tends to be the better players who play double as takeout here, and I doubt any decent player would bid 3D.