[flytoox]

Red vs white,sitting south I was dealt the following cards:

S: --
H: ATXX
D: KJXXX
C: AXXX

I open 1D, LHO came in with 3S. After some pause from the north/east side (with a curtain), two passes followed.

It is my turn.

1) Is this a clear balancing dbl?

2) Is it clear pd broke the tempo?

3) Should my bid taking into account the answer to 2)?

[billw55]

1. No. The shape is good, but it is still a minimum count and forcing to the 4 level is pushy. In a poll I think you would get votes for double and pass.
2. No. Maybe east was thinking about raising to game. One point of screens is that UI from tempo is (mostly) ruled out, because it could be either player.
3. No. You should not consider your assumptions about partner's tempo in choosing your bid.

[CSGibson]

1) If you mean would I think twice before reopening with double, the answer is that I would not hesitate to do reopen. I think reopening is marginal, but mandatory for me. Think of it this way: What is the likelihood that they can make 9 tricks with a bad trump split when they don't think they can make 10 tricks on a normal distribution of trump?

2) Its likely partner broke tempo, but not 100% clear.

3) I would reopen with or without tempo considerations, and consider it not to be a LA for me to do otherwise, though polling may prove me wrong.

[gnasher]

(1) No, not clear. I think both pass and double are logical alternatives.

(2) No, it could be either partner or RHO

(3) Yes, you're obliged to do it by Law 16:
After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.
To comply this rule, you have to answer these questions:
(a) Has partner made extraneous information available to you?
(b) What are the logical alternatives?
(c ) Which logical alternatives are demonstrably suggested by the extraneous information?
To answer (a), plainly you have to consider the answer to (2).

[ggwhiz]

I would double on the theory that most of my peers would do the same and it would be nice if I could point to a previous hand or three that show our aggressive partnership style.

That said, if I was ruled against I'm very unlikely to appeal but the bid is clear-cut in my partnership and with most of our regular opponents.

The length of "some pause" is key too and may be within range of normal by either or both players after a pressure bid like this.

[billw55]

ggwhiz, on 2013-July-15, 09:40, said:

That said, if I was ruled against I'm very unlikely to appeal but the bid is clear-cut in my partnership and with most of our regular opponents.

Do directors really rule UI from tempo with screens in use? Any cases or anecdotes you can cite?

[ggwhiz]

billw55, on 2013-July-15, 10:04, said:

Do directors really rule UI from tempo with screens in use? Any cases or anecdotes you can cite?

How about 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♥ - 4♠ - a longer than an elastic p - p to the 2♥ bidder (it's not the 1♠ bidder thinking)

That's just made up but I have seen a couple, much more subtle in NABC casebooks and they are buried in there somewhere.

[RMB1]

billw55, on 2013-July-15, 10:04, said:

Do directors really rule UI from tempo with screens in use? Any cases or anecdotes you can cite?

Google "EBL Appeals" and goto the ecats site.
They are mainly screens rulings.
I looked at Appeals2005.pdf, Appeals2006.pdf, Appeals2007.pdf and there were 2 slow tray cases in each.

[barmar]

In long, uncontested auctions, it's most likely that any hesitation is by a player on the bidding side. Not guaranteed, but probably close enough that we can rule that way.

[billw55]

barmar, on 2013-July-16, 08:50, said:

In long, uncontested auctions, it's most likely that any hesitation is by a player on the bidding side. Not guaranteed, but probably close enough that we can rule that way.

OK, interesting. I suppose if other things were possible they would be considered, such as pondering a lead directing double, etc.

Anyway, the given auction is certainly neither long nor uncontested.

[barmar]

billw55, on 2013-July-16, 09:21, said:

Anyway, the given auction is certainly neither long nor uncontested.

True. I was addressing the general question of whether there are cases where we might rule that a BIT transmitted UI through screens. This is certainly not one of them.

[ArtK78]

I would reopen with a double. I think it is clear, but I accept that not everyone agrees that it is clear.

The other issues have been adequately addressed.