[peachy]

ahydra, on 2011-April-04, 14:49, said:

... it's what's demonstrably suggested that counts,...
ahydra

Not so fast. The law says "... could demonstrably
have been suggested over another
by the extraneous information." Bolding is from me.

[gordontd]

RMB1, on 2011-April-04, 14:57, said:

So perhaps there has been an infraction of Law 73C, if not of Law 16. Of course there is no prescribed penalty for an infraction of Law 73C: a procedureal penalty but score stands does not seem right.

L12A1?

[bluejak]

Surely a breach of Law 73C can lead to an adjustment under Law 12A1?

[Hanoi5]

RMB1, on 2011-April-04, 14:57, said:

Yes, some unease.

A systematic application of Law 16 suggests there is no infraction.

But cyberyeti and dburn make good points: perhaps the hesitation suggests the key card response was wrong, and/or the hesitation suggests partner thinks again.

We have seen before where a hesitation in the play leads to the right defence by partner. Often the hesitation does not demonstrably suggest the right play and perhaps there is no logical alternative to the right play. Nevertheless, we know that without the hesitation, the defender might have defended carelessly and misdefended; with the hesitation, the defender gives the defence sufficient thought (at the right time) and does not miss the right play. It is not clear that there has been an infraction of Law 16.

In this case, is it a logical alternative to not look at your hand again and simply pass 6NT, knowing that partner is captain of the auction? Does the hesitation suggest you look at your hand again and re-count your key cards? Certainly the hesitation gives you time to do so, and therefore makes it more likely that you will do so(?)

There is a case that the hesitation has prompted opener to re-count his key cards, and in doing so opener has taken advantage of the hesitation. So perhaps there has been an infraction of Law 73C, if not of Law 16. Of course there is no prescribed penalty for an infraction of Law 73C: a procedureal penalty but score stands does not seem right.

When I went through the facts I believed there was no foul in the hand, as someone made a mistake and then tried to correct their mistake which could have gone very wrong(?). However, what if the hesitation was made 'cause responder couldn't think of a hand with 9 winners and only 2 KC? Then it sort of alerted opener to look at his/her hand again and reconsider, which is what happened when he realized he had another ace. I'm not sure this is covered in the laws and would end up being a judgement call from the Director and committee but there's room for a lot of discussion and argument.

[lamford]

hrothgar, on 2011-April-04, 09:00, said:

<snip>I then check and see whether there is a statistically significant difference between the two sets of responses:

1. If there is no difference between the set of responses, no harm / no foul (nothing is demonstrably suggested by the bid)
2. If there is a statistically significant difference, we now have precise information about what is/is not suggested

Would folks consider this type of information at all helpful?

Yes and No. Let us say that 20 people of the second set bid 7, and only 5 people of the first set did so; this could be caused by a number of factors.
a) Perhaps only 5 of the first set knew how to play bridge
b) Perhaps only 5 of the fist set realised they had miscounted their key cards or knew what a key card was.
c) Most importantly, perhaps 20 of the second set were triggered by the question you ask to look for some hidden point.

So there are quite a few pitfalls in this approach. The other issue is that the hesitation did not convey to the advancer (assuming he did advance) that he had miscounted his keycards. It is what the hesitation conveys, not what the extra time that he had to think conveyed, that is relevant. Unless we believe that the hesitator did so for the purpose of getting his partner to recount - and this does seem a bit far-fetched.

[AlexJonson]

lamford, on 2011-April-05, 11:06, said:

Yes and No. Let us say that 20 people of the second set bid 7, and only 5 people of the first set did so; this could be caused by a number of factors.
a) Perhaps only 5 of the first set knew how to play bridge
b) Perhaps only 5 of the fist set realised they had miscounted their key cards or knew what a key card was.
c) Most importantly, perhaps 20 of the second set were triggered by the question you ask to look for some hidden point.

So there are quite a few pitfalls in this approach. The other issue is that the hesitation did not convey to the advancer (assuming he did advance) that he had miscounted his keycards. It is what the hesitation conveys, not what the extra time that he had to think conveyed, that is relevant. Unless we believe that the hesitator did so for the purpose of getting his partner to recount - and this does seem a bit far-fetched.

This may, or may not, be my only opportunity to agree completely with Lamford.

[shevek]

gordontd, on 2011-April-04, 01:12, said:

2♣-2♦
3♠-4NT
5♥-...6NT

2♣ showed a strong balanced hand, or 9 playing tricks, or a GF. The 3♠ identified it as the 9 playing trick type hand.

2♦ was a relay

4NT was RKCB

5♥ showed 2 key cards (no trump queen)

6NT was agreed to be slow. What do you think this suggests?

---