[mfa1010]

This committees decision is from a tournament this weekend in Denmark, screens were in use.

---

3♠: GF splinter

3NT: This bid was slow, like 1-1½ mins. N later explained that he had forgotten if 3♠ was nat/weak or a splinter and was trying to remember. His written explanations to E supported that. In the end he decided to bid as if 3♠ was a splinter.

4♣: Cuebid. The committee decided that S's hand had so many extra values that pass was not a LA. So 4♣ was a legal bid whatever UI were present.

5♦: Weakest possible action at that point, according to NS's slam principles.

6♦: The committee decided that pass to 5♦ was a LA, since 6♦ was a quite aggressive bid.

6♦ made. N had a pretty decent hand for his bidding, so the slam was good, like 75% or so.
Some might well argue that 5♦ was an underbid.

Is 6♦ a legal bid, given these committee evaluations of N/S's hands?

[Cyberyeti]

What exactly did 3N mean in the splinter auction ? With no knowledge of system, not sure if it just suggests only 3 diamonds and wide range, whether a weak no trump is in the frame, wish to play 3N with no indication of hand type or what.

Without seeing the hands, assuming the committee got their assessments right, it goes back to 5♦.

[mink]

I would like to see the south hand before I answer.

Karl

[Phil]

An in-tempo 3N says "I have spade duplication and I think this is our best game".

A slow 3N:

1) Might convey confusion about the meaning of 3♠, but is too scared to pass and play in the 3-1. I'm speculating here - the real safety play in the bidding is 4♠, not 3N.

2) If 3♠ is interpreted correctly in tempo, it means I'm not sure about the best game. My spade stopper may not great, but I may not have enough to make 5♦ either.

If the 4♣ bidder had a void spade, this feels like a sleazy cuebid - avoiding the disaster-prone 4♠.

This seems hard to untangle without polling peers of South and giving them the hand and the auction up to 5♦. In any case, because of "2)" seems like a lively possibility and would warrant an adjustment back to 5♦, since the UI (at least partially) suggests bidding slam.

[barmar]

Why do you need to see South's hand, unless you wish to disagree with the committee's assessment that 5♦ is an LA and 6♦ is aggressive? The question said "given these committee evaluations of N/S's hands", which means that this assessment is not in question.

I think the real issue is which of the LAs the slow 3NT demonstrably suggests. I'm not sure.

[WellSpyder]

barmar, on 2013-January-15, 10:36, said:

Why do you need to see South's hand, unless you wish to disagree with the committee's assessment that 5♦ is an LA and 6♦ is aggressive? The question said "given these committee evaluations of N/S's hands", which means that this assessment is not in question.

I think the real issue is which of the LAs the slow 3NT demonstrably suggests. I'm not sure.

Exactly. It seems to me we have been given enough information to give clear answers to 3 of the 4 questions we need to answer in a UI case:
- was there UI? Yes. (Note that this is less clear with screens than without, and the regulations in use may contain something about attention to the BIT normally having to be drawn by the players on the other side of the screen, but I think we can assume from the length of the hesitation here that the existence of UI is clear.)
- were there LAs? Yes. The AC decided pass was an LA to 5♦, and we are asked to accept this in answering the OP.
- was there damage from the LA chosen? Yes, the score for 6♦ was greater than 5♦+1 would have scored.

So the only important question is whether the UI could demonstrably have suggested the LA chosen over the alternative. Like barmar, I'm not sure on this point. If we accept the player's explanation that the pause was caused by trying to decide whether 3♠ was a splinter or not, then I can't see any reason why making this information available to South would suggest bidding on over 5♦. So I would be tempted to rule that the table result stands.

[barmar]

When deciding this, you have to look at things from South's point of view. The actual reason for the player's hesitation is not necessarily what the hesitation suggests to his partner. Confusion about the meaning of the bid is a possibility, but hesitations usually suggest uncertainty about whether the hand is suitable for the call that's eventually made. In this case it could be whether opener's spade stoppers are sufficient, or about his general strength.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2013-January-15, 10:36, said:

I think the real issue is which of the LAs the slow 3NT demonstrably suggests. I'm not sure.

If you are not sure, then neither is demonstrably suggested to you, so you are sure ...

[mfa1010]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-January-15, 10:13, said:

What exactly did 3N mean in the splinter auction ? With no knowledge of system, not sure if it just suggests only 3 diamonds and wide range, whether a weak no trump is in the frame, wish to play 3N with no indication of hand type or what.

NS play a weak NT opening and 5-card majors. 1♦ is 3 with 4-4-3-2 only, and in that case it will be 15+ points. 3NT is a suggestion to play, I don't think the agreements about 3N go any deeper than that.

barmar, on 2013-January-15, 10:36, said:

Why do you need to see South's hand, unless you wish to disagree with the committee's assessment that 5♦ is an LA and 6♦ is aggressive? The question said "given these committee evaluations of N/S's hands", which means that this assessment is not in question.

Right. I deliberately left out the hands to focus the discussion on the question I would like to get opinions on.

[mfa1010]

Phil, on 2013-January-15, 10:31, said:

If the 4♣ bidder had a void spade, this feels like a sleazy cuebid - avoiding the disaster-prone 4♠.

No problem there. The 4♣-bidder had a singleton spade and ♣A, so 4♣ was the logical way to make a slam try over 3N.

[lalldonn]

A slow 3NT could suggest he might be too good for 3NT, or could suggest he forgot what 3♠ is. I think the 5♦ bid eliminates the first possibility, so I don't think south is under any more legal obligations.

I mean if you thought you were almost too good for diamonds to bid 3NT, you would never make the weak 5♦ bid next, right? You would clearly be too good for it.

I suppose you might have a hand that's bad for both diamonds and 3NT, like a balanced minimum with slow values and one spade stopper. But if that's what the combination of slow 3NT then 5♦ shows then it also doesn't suggest south bid on.

[paulg]

Once North bids 5♦ I think South is free to do as he wishes. I think this bid so clearly defines his hand, in context, that any UI from a slow 3NT is irrelevant.

[RMB1]

WellSpyder, on 2013-January-15, 10:56, said:

... the 4 questions we need to answer in a UI case:
- was there UI? Yes. (Note that this is less clear with screens than without, and the regulations in use may contain something about attention to the BIT normally having to be drawn by the players on the other side of the screen, but I think we can assume from the length of the hesitation here that the existence of UI is clear.)

But with screens were have to be satisfied that the UI is from partner.

In this case it probably obvious that opener is thinking before bidding rather than his screenmate. But assuming a standard screen set-up (N+E/S+W), ... opener's screenmate is unpassed hand who might have asked lots of questions about 3♠ before deciding not to double or bid 4♠ (for example). It may not be clear that a slow return of the tray is a slow 3NT. [I got it wrong.]

If the source of the slow return of the tray can not be identified as being the partner of the potential offender then Law 16B does not apply.

This post has been edited by RMB1: 2013-January-15, 13:38

[mfa1010]

RMB1, on 2013-January-15, 12:27, said:

But with screens were have to be satisfied that the UI is from partner.

In this case it probably obvious that opener is thinking before bidding rather than his screenmate. But assuming a standard screen set-up (N+E/S+W), opener's screenmate is unpassed hand who might have asked lots of questions about 3♠ before deciding not to double or bid 4♠ (for example). It may not be clear that a slow return of the tray is a slow 3NT.

If the source of the slow return of the tray can not be identified as being the partner of the potential offender then Law 16B does not apply.

Screens were indeed N+E/S+W, but it was therefore east, who was on the same side as north. East hardly had anything to consider after 3N.

[Trinidad]

I agree with the other posters that the UI does not demonstrably suggest 6♦ over 5♦.

(To add another vote.)

Rik

[JLOGIC]

I like jdonns answer a lot. We can judge from the 5D bid that the tank 3N was NOT an extra value hand, it was just unsure of the meaning of 3S. If the slow 3N was considering making a slam try, or was considering bidding 5D instead of 3N because it had only 1 stopper, it would have a cooperating bid over 4C.

Ergo, when you combine the 5D bid with the slow 3N, the UI from the slow 3N is almost surely that he was trying to remember what 3S meant. Since 5D was not slow, there was no UI transmitted that north had a good hand for his bidding. So I think 6D is definitely legal.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2013-January-15, 11:05, said:

If you are not sure, then neither is demonstrably suggested to you

The phrasing in the law is "could demonstrably have been suggested".

[WellSpyder]

barmar, on 2013-January-15, 11:03, said:

When deciding this, you have to look at things from South's point of view. The actual reason for the player's hesitation is not necessarily what the hesitation suggests to his partner.

Yes, I found myself getting a bit confused thinking along these lines. Suppose that there is general agreement about what a hesitation is likely to show, but in fact this is not what partner has actually got on this occasion. In that case, there has surely been no unauthorised information actually communicated between partners. So why is there any need to consider an adjusted score?

[barmar]

lamford, on 2013-January-15, 11:05, said:

If you are not sure, then neither is demonstrably suggested to you, so you are sure ...

But the issue isn't what's demonstrably suggested to me, but to the player in question. I meant "not sure" to describe my own limitation. This is a case where I think a poll would be helpful to determine what the hesitation suggests.

[barmar]

WellSpyder, on 2013-January-16, 02:27, said:

Yes, I found myself getting a bit confused thinking along these lines. Suppose that there is general agreement about what a hesitation is likely to show, but in fact this is not what partner has actually got on this occasion. In that case, there has surely been no unauthorised information actually communicated between partners. So why is there any need to consider an adjusted score?

Because the laws on UI don't say that the player's interpretation of it has to be correct. Read 16B1a, it's expressed in terms of "may suggest" and "could demonstrably have been suggested".

The hesitation actually occurred. It implies that partner is unsure about something. The specific thing he's unsure of doesn't really matter, we have to judge things from the point of view of the partner of the hesitator, and prohibit actions that many would consider suggested by it.

In cases where he misinterprets the UI, that misinterpretation may be its own punishment, as it could cause the wheels to come off (or just over/underbidding). But if choosing the action suggested by the UI results in a better score, we adjust, even if it's just coincidence.

This is necessary to try to be objective in judging the actions of the receiver of UI.