[benlessard]

Is is possible to have UI in case where responder hand didnt match the information transmitted ?

For example.

---

P-1S-2S-4S (a passed hand raise to 2S slowly)

A slow 2S in this spot is very likely to be borderline –Drury – normal 2S raise –or 3S (mixed raise).

Opener bid an agressive 4S and dummy come down with 5 pts. All the cards are well placed and its a very lucky make. Even declarer (beginner) admit that he bid 4S because he tought that responder was close to a Drury hand.

1-Bit is agreed
2-The slow 2S suggest extra strenght or extra lenght.
3-Opener bid 4S with the help of the UI
4- There is damage
5- Over a 2S in tempo opener would make game try or pass (both LA) and they wouldnt reach game.

In fact all players agree with the above.

My longshot view is that since the hand didnt match the information transmitted there was no information in the first place (or the information had no value). No information = no UI = no infraction.

Another longshot view is that there is no damage since 4S was a poor contract and it made because of lucky layout. But this doesnt match our current definition of damage.(damage exists when because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.)

[Vampyr]

The deliberate use of UI should get a PP, beginner or no....

As to damage, the fact that the UI was "incorrect I" should not make a difference. It is hard for me to explain why, but I will if no one else who agrees manages to do a better job. In any case there were LAs and the suggested one was chosen. This should be enough.

[wank]

if the hesitating hand doesn't fit what his partner's actions require, it indicates that player was either intentionally ethical or that the hesitation didn't demonstrably suggest anything.

[aguahombre]

benlessard, on 2015-March-31, 15:56, said:

(damage exists when because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.)

Vampyr, on 2015-March-31, 16:10, said:

The deliberate use of UI should get a PP, beginner or no....

As to damage, the fact that the UI was "incorrect I" should not make a difference. It is hard for me to explain why, but I will if no one else who agrees manages to do a better job. In any case there were LAs and the suggested one was chosen. This should be enough.

Agree with you, Stef. It seems the OP quote does a fine job. In a thread on Bwinners, Kit and Michael Rosenberg stated the actual hand should have a bearing on UI rulings like this.

I believe their opinions are not in keeping with the laws. JDonn and many others don't seem to think so either.

[StevenG]

My problem in all these cases is the assertion than "2-The slow 2S suggest extra strenght or extra lenght."

This just isn't true in my experience. Maybe it's true in yours, but not in mine. My partners are quite capable of adding up their points, or doing LTC, or whatever they prefer. There might be a bit of a twitch if it's borderline, but it's as likely as not not be an underbid as an overbid. What a real hitch almost invariably suggests - at my level - is a misfit. The one thing I could assume, if I wanted to use the UI, is that partner does not have enough trumps.

I strongly suspect that those people who are most confident of the assertion are those who prefer rulings of the "if it hesitates, shoot it" type, and need a reason, however specious, to justify it.

In the original case, bidder admitted being influenced by the UI, but if I say, truthfully, that my partner is a rampant overbidder, and that a hesitation invariably shows a weak hand, should I be ruled against for ethically bidding up when partner has the hand suggested by the UI?

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2015-March-31, 21:30, said:

Agree with you, Stef. It seems the OP quote does a fine job. In a thread on Bwinners, Kit and Michael Rosenberg stated the actual hand should have a bearing on UI rulings like this.

I believe their opinions are not in keeping with the laws. JDonn and many others don't seem to think so either.

Also you get into strange territory like the "reverse UI" David Burn brought up some time ago. One consequence of this is that you encourage deliberate "opposite hesitations".

And it would make things unduly complex if directors had to figure out not only what was suggested by the UI, but also what was suggested by the actual hand.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2015-April-01, 06:04, said:

And it would make things unduly complex if directors had to figure out not only what was suggested by the UI, but also what was suggested by the actual hand.

I don't believe that the Director ever has to figure out what was suggested by the UI, he only needs to figure out what (in his opinion) could have been suggested by the UI.

[Trinidad]

The actual East hand has nothing to do with the ruling.

However, I fail to see why the hesitation would suggest extra values (in strength or distribution) and that responder must have been contemplating a Drury bid or a mixed raise. He might just as well have been thinking about pass or 1NT. In that case responder would have less values (strength/distribution) than expected.

So, I don't agree at all that the UI suggested 4♠ over, e.g., 3♠. The fact that -this time- responder actually held a poor hand is evidence of that, but I would have ruled the same if responder would have held a borderline Drury hand.

In addition, the fact that 4♠ made easily, even opposite this really poor dummy, suggests that there might not be an LA to 4♠.

Only if I accept the conditions in the OP that the slow 2♠ must be based on extra values and that 4♠ was in fact based on the use of UI then it would be obvious to act as a TD. But I don't understand why I would accept these conditions, because they don't follow from the auction and the BIT.

Rik

[billw55]

Vampyr, on 2015-March-31, 16:10, said:

The deliberate use of UI should get a PP, beginner or no....

I agree in principle. However, if this is a true beginner and this is his/her first encounter with a UI ruling, then I think an adjusted score and a firm explanation is enough. PP should be reserved for people who know better, in my opinion. And, beginners are a precious resource that should be carefully and gently tended.

As for the actual UI: in general, a hesitation usually means that the hand was close to some other alternative call. If there is more than one such alternative, then often no particular one is implicated above the others. Certainly that is the case here; the hesitation might equally well mean close to an invite, close to a pass, or perhaps considering 1NT. So absent declarer's admission, I would say result stands.

[aguahombre]

Trinidad, on 2015-April-01, 06:18, said:

Only if I accept the conditions in the OP that the slow 2♠ must be based on extra values and that 4♠ was in fact based on the use of UI then it would be obvious to act as a TD. But I don't understand why I would accept these conditions, because they don't follow from the auction and the BIT.

You accept those conditions, because the OP gives them to us; and we go from there. There are five conditions given.

This is not a case of "shoot it". The UI could have suggested the action taken because we are told it DID suggest the action taken.

Opener should also get some extra credit for "stupid". He says the BIT told him partner was close to a drury raise. If so, partner would have accepted a game try.

[helene_t]

aguahombre, on 2015-April-01, 07:05, said:

Opener should also get some extra credit for "stupid". He says the BIT told him partner was close to a drury raise. If so, partner would have accepted a game try.

Good point. Maybe an invite was an LA but pass was not?

As for the PP issue: The fact that he admits to have been using UI suggests that he needs some basic leson and that he is not a cheater. I would tend not to give PPs to players who admit to have used UI when they could easily have made up some self-serving explanation instead.

[campboy]

aguahombre, on 2015-April-01, 07:05, said:

You accept those conditions, because the OP gives them to us; and we go from there. There are five conditions given.

Those aren't really conditions, in the sense that "North had Kxx of diamonds" would be a condition. Some of them are opinions (of OP and/or the players involved), and opinions can be wrong.

I would normally rule that a slow 2♠ on this auction does not suggest anything in particular, because the player could easily have been considering a weaker action. The fact that in this case it appears the player was considering a weaker action only supports this view.

In the hypothetical situation where action A is demonstrably suggested over logical alternative B, the player takes action A, partner's hand is inconsistent with the suggestion, but luckily action A is still successful, then yes, you still adjust because action A is illegal. I have seen this happen, where the BIT was from a player who was still thinking about the previous hand! But if the BIT was actually caused by partner thinking for the opposite reason to the one you expected (rather than merely an irrelevant reason), you should certainly question whether your original expectation was actually justified.

[aguahombre]

helene_t, on 2015-April-01, 07:27, said:

As for the PP issue: The fact that he admits to have been using UI suggests that he needs some basic leson and that he is not a cheater. I would tend not to give PPs to players who admit to have used UI when they could easily have made up some self-serving explanation instead.

Yeh, well, you (and I) seem to agree that a warning or education is discipline but not a procedural penalty. Others have stated in these fora that the person warned is penalized because he/she is subject to negative discipline for a future repeat, while others are not.

[ggwhiz]

Should the issue not be decided by the openers hand? I assume from the o/p that it would not justify the 4♠ bid without the UI.

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2015-April-01, 07:05, said:

You accept those conditions, because the OP gives them to us; and we go from there. There are five conditions given.

If I accept these conditions, then to use the words of Louis van Gaal (for the English among us): "This is a stoopid question". UI was used, damaged was done, AS will be given and PP awarded. And to continue with Louis van Gaal: "Point out!"

In real life, we get the story from one side. The only facts that are much more reliable than all others was the actual auction. Second in the list of reliable fact is that there probably was some kind of BIT (else why this discussion?). All other "facts", rank close to "interpretations". If declarer has nodded once during the discussion, this is interpreted as "agreeing to the facts" where it could be meant as "I understand what you mean".

To anybody who thinks and reads critically, it is clear that if this declarer can see from the BIT that partner has extra's, he is psychic. And he is a particularly bad psychic since partner didn't even have extra's.

Rik

[gordontd]

Trinidad, on 2015-April-01, 09:14, said:

If I accept these conditions, then to use the words of Louis van Gaal (for the English soccer fans among us you): "This is a stoopid question".

FYP - I had to use Google

[barmar]

StevenG, on 2015-April-01, 05:35, said:

My problem in all these cases is the assertion than "2-The slow 2S suggest extra strenght or extra lenght."
...
I strongly suspect that those people who are most confident of the assertion are those who prefer rulings of the "if it hesitates, shoot it" type, and need a reason, however specious, to justify it.

Yeah, what tends to happen is that any time there's a BIT, the ruling will go against the OS if the receiver of the UI happens to guess right. The fact that he took a particular action is treated as prima facie evidence that it was demonstrably suggested. But this is putting the cart before the horse: the TD is supposed to try to determine the LAs and suggested action independently (e.g. by polling); using the player's actual actions is presuming guilt.

But getting back to the original question, what should happen if the player guesses WRONG about the reason for the hesitation, but gets lucky and his action happens to work out? If partner was light for his bid, but opener bids on, he's usually headed for a bad result, so the action should be its own punishment. But in this particular instance every card happened to be in the right place -- shouldn't he get his good result as rub of the green?

[benlessard]

I agree that

Quote

"TD is supposed to try to determine the LAs and suggested action independently

But IRL when BIT is not agree and its 2-2 director looked at the hand of the player that has done the slow bid to determine if there is a BIT or not
so when the BIT is agreed surely its sensible that director also look at south hand to to double check his decision by determining what was the reason of the slow bid.

You may not agree with my example so feel free to suggest another one as a club level director in can tell you that IRL for 99% of players will have extras for a seriously slow 2S in this spot, its almost never a case of close call between 2S vs 1NT or 2S vs pass. Of course there is a strong confirming bias since we don't get called when its a slow bid that dont have extras since the contract often fail or game is not reached anyway.

When experienced players call me right after the auction has ended "just to protect myself.." not once have I see the slow bidder not having extras. I repeat this is club level.

[Vampyr]

benlessard, on 2015-April-01, 10:48, said:

its almost never a case of close call between 2S vs 1NT or 2S vs pass.

I think it's really just 2♠ vs pass. Probably not a lot of players bid 1NT with support unless they are playing either forcing 1NT or single raise constructive.

[helene_t]

If north has shape he may reason from opps' silence that p is more likely to be max.

Anyway, North admitted to have used the ui so the discussion is moot.