[jillybean]

---

1♣ 1♥
2♦ 2N* exlplained as a weak hand, relay to 3♣ or a slammish hand.
3♣ East squirms and bids 4♥.

The director is called and given the sequence above and told that we believe East may have acted based on the explanation of 2N.
Director tells us to play on and call him back at the end of the hand if we believe we were damaged.

This happens frequently, a "no damage" , no foul approach when clearly, to me anyway this is blantant use of UI.
If this is indeed a problem, how can I better phrase my question to the director?

[ahydra]

What's the correct explanation of 2NT? If with the correct explanation the normal resting place would be 3NT then you probably have been damaged (3NT goes 3 down and a spade lead is perfectly reasonable as it's the unbid suit).

ahydra

[RMB1]

jillybean, on 2011-November-13, 10:24, said:

If this is indeed a problem, how can I better phrase my question to the director?

If you think this is a flagrant use of UI and a procedural penalty is appropriate, you could call the TD at the end of the hand and say "even if there is no damage, I think this is a flagrant use of UI and I think a procedural penalty is appropriate".

Hasn't opener got UI from "East squirms and bids 4♥". Hasn't opener used this UI to pass out 4♥ when he had earlier explained that 4♥ would be a slam try?

[manudude03]

RMB1, on 2011-November-13, 11:09, said:

Hasn't opener got UI from "East squirms and bids 4♥". Hasn't opener used this UI to pass out 4♥ when he had earlier explained that 4♥ would be a slam try?

Yes, but I don't consider West bidding over 4H a LA. Misfitting 15 count having already reversed, really?

[EricK]

But East has got a slammish hand opposite a reverse - 6 losers and honours in each of partner's suit. He certainly wasn't bidding it as natural!

[aguahombre]

jillybean, on 2011-November-13, 10:24, said:

1♣ 1♥
2♦ 2N* exlplained as a weak hand, relay to 3♣ or a slammish hand.
3♣ East squirms and bids 4♥.

RMB1, on 2011-November-13, 11:09, said:

Hasn't opener got UI from "East squirms and bids 4♥". Hasn't opener used this UI to pass out 4♥ when he had earlier explained that 4♥ would be a slam try?

We still need method information from E/W. Maybe 3H would have established the slammish hand with heart suit, and 4H is non-existent.

Maybe 3C showed minimum values for the reverse and Eest (squirm or not) backed off slam interest with that AI. The squirm in that case would have been doubt about strain; and, if that is the case, West did not take any advantage of the UI when he passed with a stiff heart vs. 5C. (Anyway, if we were E/W, that would be our story and sticking to it!)

[campboy]

I would, of course, ask East what he thought 2NT meant when he bid it, but I see no reason to think the explanation was different to the one he was expecting. Pass of 4♥ is surely automatic; how could West's hand be any worse?

[mrdct]

jillybean, on 2011-November-13, 10:24, said:

This happens frequently, a "no damage" , no foul approach when clearly, to me anyway this is blantant use of UI.
If this is indeed a problem, how can I better phrase my question to the director?

It's not really evident to me what the "blantant(sic) use of UI" was on this hand. Are you suggesting that 2NT was misdescribed or that East may have intended it as something else and then was woken-up by West's explanation? As other posters have said, we need more info about the East-West methods and what East's initial intention was. It does seem clear at this stage that East intend 2NT as something artificial as he doesn't have a ♠ stopper. What might be more important is the theoretical meaning of 3♣ in response to what East intended his 2NT bid as.

In answer to you question, before you even call the TD it often pays to ask a friendly question or two of your opponents such as a question to East, what did you mean with your 2NT bid and what's the difference between 3♥ and 4♥ over the 3♣ bid? When you then call the TD, my general approach in UI situations is to try to adopt a fairly soft approach of saying that I'm not accusing anyone of anything and would simply like the TD to have a look at the hand to assess whether or not there was any potential UI available to <player X> and, if so, was his action OK? This achieves two things, firstly it is less likely to offend your opponents and create agro at the table; and secondly TDs don't like being told how to rule so by phrasing your question this way you are empowering the TD and less likely to get him offside. There is absolutely no need to suggest to the TD what East's logical alternatives might have been (he should be perfectly capable of working that out himself). A 5-second analysis of the merits or otherwise of East's 4♥ bid at the end of the hand may not cover all of the nuances that a more in-depth analysis might reveal, so best to keep your powder dry on that issue just in case you are going to appeal.

[lamford]

jillybean, on 2011-November-13, 10:24, said:

2♦ 2N* exlplained as a weak hand, relay to 3♣ or a slammish hand.
3♣ East squirms and bids 4♥.

The squirm seems irrelevant, as West has a trivial pass. As campboy asks, how could his hand be any worse (he does not have a reverse in my book) ? And 2NT was clearly not intended as natural, and fits in with the description given. It seems that the methods are something like a good/bad 2NT here; some people play that the cheaper of fourth suit and 2NT is Lebensohl-style. West bids 3C with a minimum reverse, and East can pass, bid a non-forcing 3D or 3H, or game-force. I presume 4H was a mild slam-try in his methods. I am not sure I would have bid this way - I presume 3H on the previous round was forcing - but East does not seem to be taking advantage of any UI, as 2NT was probably correctly described, although we would need to ask East-West more about their methods.

Many players squirm inadvertently when they have an awkward bid. It is only an infraction to squirm deliberately to convey information, or to use UI from the squirm. I agree with aquahombre; there is no evidence that either happened here, and RMB1's suggestion of a PP seems way off the mark. But that does imply that this thread does not belong in simple rulings.

[jillybean]

Agree, West has an automatic pass of 4♥. The problem is entirely with East.
I can't guess why East bid 2N, perhaps thinking his partner would have ♠ controls for his reverse.
After hearing the explanation of 2N East must bid game now. fwiw I don't think he has a slam try.
After the board was completed West said '4H is a slam try!', East replied 'Oh' and mumbled something.

[blackshoe]

"East must bid game now". Okay, if you say so. He bid game. WTP?

West asserts that 4♥ is a slam try. How do we know he's right?

I don't think asking an opponent to explain his own bid, without the TD present, is kosher.

It sounds to me like EW have found a "soft spot", if not a hole, in their agreements, and need some discussion before this comes up again.

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-14, 10:38, said:

"East must bid game now". Okay, if you say so. He bid game. WTP?

West asserts that 4♥ is a slam try. How do we know he's right?

I don't think asking an opponent to explain his own bid, without the TD present, is kosher.

It sounds to me like EW have found a "soft spot", if not a hole, in their agreements, and need some discussion before this comes up again.

Soft spots or not, it sounded very much like East acted on the explanation of 2N. Ces't la vie, this type of thing happens frequently at the lower levels of the game.

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2011-November-13, 20:22, said:

RMB1's suggestion of a PP seems way off the mark.

Robin did not suggest that a PP was appropriate; he answered the question:

Quote

how can I better phrase my question to the director?

which was asked from the perspective of a player who wishes, here or in some other situation, to ask the director to consider a PP.

I don't agree with whoever said it's not such a good idea to tell the TD how to do his job.

It's true that for better or for worse there is indeed a "no harm, no foul" attitude both in England and, as far as I can tell from forum posts, other places as well. I think it would take significant re-education of TDs to change from a situation where PPs are generally only issued when opponents are damaged, assuming that particular NBOs wanted this in the first place.

This would be tough to implement, though, as the TD will often not be called, or called back, when the NOs aren't damaged, so penalties would be very inconsistent.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-14, 10:38, said:

"East must bid game now". Okay, if you say so. He bid game. WTP?

West asserts that 4♥ is a slam try. How do we know he's right?

It sounds to me like EW have found a "soft spot", if not a hole, in their agreements, and need some discussion before this comes up again.

Quite true, and very well worded so that even I can understand it .

IMO (having nothing to do with any ruling):

--E/W should agree that 3C shows a weaker reverse.
--East should be interested in slam if opener didn't have a weak reverse.
--E/W should agree that 4H is a quitted slam try, rather than still a slam try.
--E/W should agree that 3H would still be forcing and interested in slam opposite a minimum reverse.

[jillybean]

Vampyr, on 2011-November-14, 11:59, said:

Robin did not suggest that a PP was appropriate; he answered the question:



which was asked from the perspective of a player who wishes, here or in some other situation, to ask the director to consider a PP.

I don't agree with whoever said it's not such a good idea to tell the TD how to do his job.

It's true that for better or for worse there is indeed a "no harm, no foul" attitude both in England and, as far as I can tell from forum posts, other places as well. I think it would take significant re-education of TDs to change from a situation where PPs are generally only issued when opponents are damaged, assuming that particular NBOs wanted this in the first place.

This would be tough to implement, though, as the TD will often not be called, or called back, when the NOs aren't damaged, so penalties would be very inconsistent.

I don't know if a PP is needed. I have seen significantly worse violations and never seen a PP issued regardless of the presence of damage or not.
I think a quiet word to the players after the round would be a good start.

[blackshoe]

Let's go back to your OP, Jilly.

When West alerted and explained 2NT as a relay to 3♣, was there any indication from East that he didn't expect that explanation?
Whether there was or not, this is the point where Law 16B1{a} kicks in. Did you "reserve your rights" or (better IMO, though not strictly "correct procedure") solicit the opponents' concurrence that the explanation may have passed UI? (Failure to do so does not impact your rights).
The TD, called after the 4♥ bid (16B2), told you to call him back at the end of the hand if you felt damaged (this is the correct ruling at that time, of course). Did you call him back? If not, why not? If so, what was his ruling?

You said in a later post that "East must bid game". He did so and you still think he used UI. I'm confused. Did you mean "East must bid 3NT"? If so, I disagree. It does not seem to me that 3NT is an LA. Of course, it would be nice to know what East intended by 2NT, and whether West's description of their agreement as to its meaning is correct. Heh. I was going to say "is accurate", but then I remembered Sally Field in "Absence of Malice": "It isn't true, but it's accurate".

You asked, in effect, how best to handle these situations. As the above implies, I think the answer to that is that you should, at the time UI may have been passed, ask the opponents if they agree that's the case and remind them, if they do not agree, that it's legally up to them to call the TD. If they don't call the TD, call him yourself, and ask him to read Law 16B1{a} to the table. Then later, at the end of play, call the TD and suggest that you believe you may have been damaged by offender's choice among LAs (don't say "he (may have) illegally used UI" — some will view that as an accusation of cheating) (Law 16B3). NB: strictly speaking, the NOS are not required to assert they have been damaged, only that the offender may have had a logical alternative to the call he chose, and that the call he chose may have been suggested by UI. It's up to the TD to determine whether the OS gained advantage from the call in question.

Another point: if there is a dispute about whether there was UI, and the TD is called, he should rule on that question. Only if he rules there was UI does the rest of it possibly come into play later. If he rules there was no UI, then you have no basis in Law 16 to recall him, because there can be no use of something that did not exist. Bottom line on this: if the TD doesn't rule on the question, ask him specifically to do so. Of course, if the OS agree there was UI, all this is moot.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2011-November-14, 11:59, said:

Robin did not suggest that a PP was appropriate; he answered the question:

Well, jillybean did not suggest a PP in the opening post, so who did? His first sentence answered the question and tagged on the suggested PP, and his second sentence:

Hasn't opener got UI from "East squirms and bids 4♥". Hasn't opener used this UI to pass out 4♥ when he had earlier explained that 4♥ would be a slam try?

is surely an attempt to reinforce his view. That is outside the suggestion of what jillybean should say to the TD, which concludes with "appropriate"."

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-14, 13:13, said:

Let's go back to your OP, Jilly.

When West alerted and explained 2NT as a relay to 3♣, was there any indication from East that he didn't expect that explanation?
Whether there was or not, this is the point where Law 16B1{a} kicks in. Did you "reserve your rights" or (better IMO, though not strictly "correct procedure") solicit the opponents' concurrence that the explanation may have passed UI? (Failure to do so does not impact your rights).
The TD, called after the 4♥ bid (16B2), told you to call him back at the end of the hand if you felt damaged (this is the correct ruling at that time, of course). Did you call him back? If not, why not? If so, what was his ruling?

No I did not call him back. I was told to call him back if we thought we were damaged and we didn't.

blackshoe, on 2011-November-14, 13:13, said:

You said in a later post that "East must bid game". He did so and you still think he used UI. I'm confused. Did you mean "East must bid 3NT"? If so, I disagree. It does not seem to me that 3NT is an LA. Of course, it would be nice to know what East intended by 2NT, and whether West's description of their agreement as to its meaning is correct. Heh. I was going to say "is accurate", but then I remembered Sally Field "Absence of Malice": "It isn't true, but it's accurate".

Th 2N bid showed a weak hand, relay to 3C or a hand with slam interest. After East hears this explanation he must bid game as he now knows partner will pass any other bid. Without this information 3♥ a LA.

blackshoe, on 2011-November-14, 13:13, said:

You asked, in effect, how best to handle these situations. As the above implies, I think the answer to that is that you should, at the time UI may have been passed, ask the opponents if they agree that's the case and remind them, if they do not agree, that it's legally up to them to call the TD. If they don't call the TD, call him yourself, and ask him to read Law 16B1{a} to the table. Then later, at the end of play, call the TD and suggest that you believe you may have been damaged by offender's choice among LAs (don't say "he (may have) illegally used UI" — some will view that as an accusation of cheating) (Law 16B3). NB: strictly speaking, the NOS are not required to assert they have been damaged, only that the offender may have had a logical alternative to the call he chose, and that the call he chose may have been suggested by UI. It's up to the TD to determine whether the OS gained advantage from the call in question.

And what should happen if East does agree that this is their agreement but I believe East had forgotten and was woken up by the explanation? I doubt that this is an intentional violation, then again I can't be sure as these things are allowed to slide
I don't want to draw swords and accuse people of cheating and I am beginning to understand why people let these things slide in B/C/D but I don't like it.

blackshoe, on 2011-November-14, 13:13, said:

Another point: if there is a dispute about whether there was UI, and the TD is called, he should rule on that question. Only if he rules there was UI does the rest of it possibly come into play later. If he rules there was no UI, then you have no basis in Law 16 to recall him, because there can be no use of something that did not exist. Bottom line on this: if the TD doesn't rule on the question, ask him specifically to do so. Of course, if the OS agree there was UI, all this is moot.

So I should have asked the TD to rule on the possible UI before the hand was played?

[RMB1]

lamford, on 2011-November-14, 14:25, said:

Well, jillybean did not suggest a PP in the opening post, so who did? His first sentence answered the question and tagged on the suggested PP, ...

I thought the OP suggested "something should be done" although there was no damage from the UI. I suggested that the only other thing that could be done was a PP and if you felt strongly that a PP was appropriate then the player should mention that to the TD.

I should not have mentioned the UI from "squirms", it was a irrelevant and a distraction.

[mycroft]

Calling the TD back at the end of the hand and saying "<this> happened. I'm not sure if we were damaged; can you look at it, please?" *should* be enough.

Actually, as I've said before, just raising it should be enough, if there's a hand record; the TD should be going off and deciding on her own if there's a likely problem. Now, having said that, if she thinks there isn't, she isn't likely to come back and say so; and TDs judgement is sometimes clouded by their own skill level and omnipresence (well, view of the hand record, anyway), and if you feel you have been damaged, do call her back. If you don't understand why the ruling is "result stands", you can ask later. If you think that this pair blatantly use UI, even if it turns out there is no damage, you can say that - away from the table, to the TD alone - later.