[campboy]

olegru, on 2011-December-21, 19:45, said:

Absolutl agree. if there is LA suggested by partners hesitation - rule it. But if there is no LA - no punishment. what I want to say is - director should no assign the bad decission as aLA only. Because he does not like "clever" bid.

It has nothing to do with not liking a "clever" bid. The point is that we cannot tell whether 3♣ was a "clever" bid made by a player who always intended to bid game or a stupid bid made by a player who does not think his hand is as good as other people do. We have only the player's word for what he intended, and I do not see why this is different to any other situation where a player says he was always intending to bid on.

[mjj29]

campboy said:

It has nothing to do with not liking a "clever" bid. The point is that we cannot tell whether 3♣ was a "clever" bid made by a player who always intended to bid game or a stupid bid made by a player who does not think his hand is as good as other people do. We have only the player's word for what he intended, and I do not see why this is different to any other situation where a player says he was always intending to bid on.

mjj29, on 2011-December-14, 18:56, said:

If you found some people who with that hand after the 1S opening would consider any sequence not finishing in at least 4S, then I would agree with you. However, given everyone polled is saying "I'd never pass below game", then it seems more likely this player was going to game via 3C (for whatever reason) than he was bidding 3C because he wasn't sure about going to game. In this way I think the poll may still be useful.

[aguahombre]

Well, what confuses me about all this logic is:

Since this player's 3C bid would not be chosen by anyone polled, thus making his thought processes at odds with everyone else ---why should we all-of-a-sudden believe that he is in agreement with everyone else that the hand belongs in game?

Why is it not just as reasonable to believe that, for him, passing or bidding game are logical alternatives even though it might not be the case for those polled?

[campboy]

mjj29, on 2011-December-22, 06:19, said:

If you found some people who with that hand after the 1S opening would consider any sequence not finishing in at least 4S, then I would agree with you. However, given everyone polled is saying "I'd never pass below game", then it seems more likely this player was going to game via 3C (for whatever reason) than he was bidding 3C because he wasn't sure about going to game. In this way I think the poll may still be useful.

Only 8 people were polled. I am sure a sufficiently large poll would include some votes for 3♣, and I suspect that some of those would be from people who subsequently pass 3♠.

[olegru]

aguahombre, on 2011-December-22, 11:00, said:

Well, what confuses me about all this logic is:

Since this player's 3C bid would not be chosen by anyone polled, thus making his thought processes at odds with everyone else ---why should we all-of-a-sudden believe that he is in agreement with everyone else that the hand belongs in game?

Because:
a. He said so;
b. All other people of his abilities judged this hand as gameforcing.

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2011-December-22, 02:36, said:

I understand that you want to battle against the use of the word "punishment" when "rectification" is supposed to be used.

No. I want to battle against the idea that rectification is punishment. "Rectify" means "to put something right"; "punish" means "to inflict a penalty or sanction on (someone) as retribution for an offense". And I know Olegru is not a native English speaker. I wasn't trying to pick on him, or any other non-native speaker. Or anyone else, for that matter.

Trinidad, on 2011-December-22, 02:36, said:

Maybe you could also take up a battle against the idea that a BIT is an infraction, as suggested by aguahombre (and implied by you by using the word "infraction" in this thread)? After all, it is important to state every now and then that a BIT is not an infraction. And since you both are native speakers...

No where in this thread (or anywhere else) did I imply that a BIT is an infraction.

[axman]

olegru, on 2011-December-22, 15:07, said:

Because:
a. He said so;
b. All other people of his abilities judged this hand as gameforcing.

As so far the notion that the value of one’s hand necessarily feeds off the partner’s hand has escaped notice, here are a few thoughts on valuation.

For instance, there are a large number that believe that [and I have long since gotten past being amazed at the number that insist] Kxxxx-QJx-KQ-JTx is a sound minimum starting hand for 1S. and such a hand opposite the subject hand [which is evaluated as GF] suggests that GF means ‘not to make’ but ‘to sacrifice’.

Even for fuddy-duddies like me that have never opened such a hand 1S, would be quite comfortable opening xxxxx-QJx-AKx-Kx and would expect to go down in 4S opposite the subject hand over 60% of the time [against a part score.]

Yet, no one in this thread has considered relevant what the minimum holdings for the opener can be. Imo that hardly is a satisfactory foundation for justice.

[Mbodell]

axman, on 2011-December-22, 19:16, said:

As so far the notion that the value of one’s hand necessarily feeds off the partner’s hand has escaped notice, here are a few thoughts on valuation.

For instance, there are a large number that believe that [and I have long since gotten past being amazed at the number that insist] Kxxxx-QJx-KQ-JTx is a sound minimum starting hand for 1S. and such a hand opposite the subject hand [which is evaluated as GF] suggests that GF means ‘not to make’ but ‘to sacrifice’.

Even for fuddy-duddies like me that have never opened such a hand 1S, would be quite comfortable opening xxxxx-QJx-AKx-Kx and would expect to go down in 4S opposite the subject hand over 60% of the time [against a part score.]

Yet, no one in this thread has considered relevant what the minimum holdings for the opener can be. Imo that hardly is a satisfactory foundation for justice.

I wouldn't expect to go down with the OP opposite your constructed hands. I'd expect there would be a misdeal for a duplicated ♥Q. I expect 4♠ to make a very high percentage of the time. I'd expect at the table that 6♠ makes as or more often than 4♠ goes down (given just the 1♠ opening). There are a lot of people who want to say "his partner hesitated, he made some bid which if we take the literal meaning described - even though it would show gross misjudgement and undervaluation of the hand in the format and circumstances most punishing to this - shows he's misjudged the hand, I'm not creative enough to make a bid like this (or I haven't seen people do this a lot), therefore clearly he's an unethical person using the UI, let's shoot him" but I think that is clearly the wrong answer. Making an ostensible game try with a hand that will investigate/drive to slam if partner accepts and signs off in game if partner doesn't is not an unheard of move. Good bridge players (I.e., "high level of play") know to play at least game when they have a 6 LTC hand with 4 card support for partners opening 1M hand red at teams! I think the TD did the right thing. The poll helps show what is common sense: pass isn't a LA. You could ask people too you've subbed into a tournament and the bidding has gone 1♠-3♣!-3♠ in the same circumstances and meaning as the OP and then ask what are your calls and what do you consider? I don't think a poll of high level of play people will make pass an LA. I'd believe 4♦ might be an LA and 4♠, but not pass.

[Fluffy]

I saw recently a case very similar, but what actually happened is not that the player with the UI used the UI to make the clear bid he should had bid the previous round, what he used mostly is the time partner took hesitating, to realice that his previous bid was stupid to say the least and rectify his error.

I supose the extra time partner takes to think that makes you realice something is not ilegal, however I can´t think of any way in wich this time wonñt be related to an UI so it wonñt matter.

[Trinidad]

AndreSteff, on 2011-December-10, 14:37, said:

Teams, high level of play

Andre,

Maybe you could indicate what the level of the players was in Dutch terms (Meesterklasse/1st division/2nd division/hoofdklasse...)?

That would give some people (at least me) an idea of the level of the players.

Rik

[c_corgi]

axman, on 2011-December-22, 19:16, said:

Yet, no one in this thread has considered relevant what the minimum holdings for the opener can be. Imo that hardly is a satisfactory foundation for justice.

I think this is because most people feel that it is not worth trying to find out if opener's hand is so unsuitable as make game a poor proposition, but are happy to punt facing the slenderest of 1♠ openings. But most people also do not feel 3♣ is a wise choice. Those who do, such as

phil_20686, on 2011-December-14, 14:22, said:

He just wanted partner to know roughly his HCP strength either because he was worred about defending 5D or whatever reason...

present an argument that was not put forward by East and should therefore be discounted.

Or that essentially East was trying to play 3C as something along the lines of '2-way: a mixed raise OR a second tier splinter', the advocates of which, such as

FrancesHinden, on 2011-December-12, 14:01, said:

We think we can play this without UI problems for a number of reasons:

and

dburn, on 2011-December-20, 18:26, said:

Provided of course that partner is supposed to select his rebid on the basis that I can have a hand that might make slam opposite a suitable maximum.

warn against trying to introduce it without partnership agreement and the methods to procede accurately. The fact that OP does not mention such methods suggests that they don't exist, as does West's lack of wariness about making a slow signoff.

Yet OP speaks of a high level of play, so we must determine whether East has made a surprisingly negative evaluation or chosen what seems like a misguided masterminding strategy. Knowledge of East's habits might help resolve this, but it feels as though if in doubt the director should rule against East, who may be successful in appeal.

[Trinidad]

c_corgi, on 2011-December-24, 15:52, said:

but it feels as though if in doubt the director should rule against East, who may be successful in appeal.

This is something from the past. The current position is that a TD should try to make the correct ruling and not "when in doubt let the (alleged) offenders appeal".

For this case, it means that if the TD wants to rule against East, he will need some kind of evidence that Pass is an LA (otherwise there is no infraction). He looked for that evidence and couldn't find it. Therefore, he correctly ruled "no infraction".

Rik