[Ranmit]

This hand was posted in an alternate thread but I had a few follow-on questions so asking here.
Bidding: S opens 1♥, W overcalls 4♠, N passes after a long pause (Clear BIT, even considering the pre-empt, and accepted by both teams).

{comments}

---

N-S vulnerable.

For the purpose of my questions, consider the following assumptions to hold:
A. In the absence of UI, 5♣ is the most common / obvious rebid by S. ~80-90% of the field bid 5♣ after the 4♠ preempt.
B. Pass by S is a LA, ~10-20% of the field passed after 4♠
(The holding is only illustrative - Feel free to assume a different hand if you believe these assumptions are not valid on this one)

Now as I understand it, the UI indicates a desire to bid by N, and hence to avoid acting on the UI, S should pass. Questions relate to the following 2 scenarios:

Situation 1: N has decent hearts & K♣. In this hand S passes because the UI; however, 4S is down 2. ~80-90% of the field ends up in 5H, which goes down 1 (Losing top 2 spades and 1 D). So NS here end up benefiting from the UI, since S would have bid on but passed only to avoid acting on the UI. Can EW claim any score adjustment?

Situation 2: N has 4 small ♠ and 0 HCP. He knew S is an aggressive bidder, and wanted to discourage a 5 level bid which he felt could not make. So he deliberately took a long pause, correctly predicting that S would have to pass given the UI. Again, ~80-90% of the field ends up in 5♥ which is down 2 / down 3, worse than 4S making. So NS here end up benefiting from the UI, though in this case it was deliberate by N. Can EW claim any score adjustment here?

Thanks in advance!

[RMB1]

Ranmit, on 2018-September-16, 05:49, said:

..., and wanted to discourage a 5 level bid which he felt could not make. So he deliberately took a long pause, ...

Did he admit this is why he paused.

Ranmit, on 2018-September-16, 05:49, said:

..., correctly predicting that S would have to pass given the UI.

Players (especially cheats) don't usually trust their partner's to behave legally in the presence of UI.

[Ranmit]

N's actions in Situation 2 seem wrong, but are they illegal though?

1. He made a BIT and passed UI (not illegal)
2. S made the bid which was the LA not demonstrated by the UI (not illegal)
3. Even though N's pause wasnt for a demonstrable bridge reason, the opponents didnt bid and hence did not draw any false inference from it (hence not illegal for N).

So to answer the question RMDB - even if N admits to the reason he paused, will he be penalized for it? And what if he does not admit to it?

Thanks.

[steve2005]

Is it clear that bidding on is more favourable for opener?
Could North's huddle be as had a penalty. Now bidding on could get a minus when passing gets a plus.
Plus the poll gives 80% for bidding on. Give them a break.

[steve2005]

Situation 2. If found to be true a procedural penalty and a player memo are in order.

[blackshoe]

Given the parameters stated by the OP:

Situation 1: EW have no claim to a score adjustment
Situation 2: EW have no claim to a score adjustment, but they or the director should file a player memo. Not so sure about a PP. What procedure was violated? North deliberately hesitated? That needs more evidence than we've seen here.

[barmar]

steve2005, on 2018-September-16, 11:01, said:

Is it clear that bidding on is more favourable for opener?
Could North's huddle be as had a penalty. Now bidding on could get a minus when passing gets a plus.
Plus the poll gives 80% for bidding on. Give them a break.

The hesitation suggests doing something other than pass. If he doesn't bid 5♥, then it suggests doubling to get a bigger plus.

[Cyberyeti]

barmar, on 2018-September-16, 20:37, said:

The hesitation suggests doing something other than pass. If he doesn't bid 5♥, then it suggests doubling to get a bigger plus.

Yes, I feel X should CLEARLY be disallowed as it covers all bases but the rulings here seem to disallow 5♣ which is what I'd bid every day of the week with no UI.

I'm finding myself passing now because I will only keep my result if 5♣ is wrong.

[sanst]

blackshoe, on 2018-September-16, 19:44, said:

Given the parameters stated by the OP:

Situation 1: EW have no claim to a score adjustment
Situation 2: EW have no claim to a score adjustment, but they or the director should file a player memo. Not so sure about a PP. What procedure was violated? North deliberately hesitated? That needs more evidence than we've seen here.

If the evidence is satisfactory, you can use Law 90A: “The Director […] may also assess procedural penalties for any offence that […] violates correct procedure”.

[weejonnie]

In the first situation, there has been no breach of the law, so the director cannot adjust the score.

In the second situation, there is a breach of law 74A2, but the director cannot adjust the score - only issue a disciplinary penalty.

2. A player should carefully avoid any remark or extraneous action that might cause
annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of
the game.

PROVIDING

The deliberate hesitation has not affected the decisions of the other side. In which case an adjusted score can be made. Law 74D2 and Law 74E2.

[lamford]

Where the player deliberately hesitates to try to prevent his partner bidding, there are various laws we might consider using, including 12A1 or perhaps 73B1 (specifically the manner in which calls are made).

[Vampyr]

What is a “player memo”?

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2018-October-03, 01:10, said:

What is a “player memo”?

It's an official complaint about a player's behavior, submitted to the the disciplinary body of the appropriate part of the ACBL (the National Recorder at the highest level). It might be acted on immediately, or simply recorded to establish a pattern of behavior.

[blackshoe]

From the current Code of Disciplinary Regulations:

Player memo: A written document informing the recorder about an Incident. The player memo is not necessarily a Complaint, but it may be used as the basis for a Complaint.
Complaint: A written accusation by an ACBL member, a non-member playing in an ACBL sanctioned tournament, ACBL Management, a Unit or a District alleging an act or conduct not in conformance with the ACBL’s standards that requests that Charges be brought to an appropriate Disciplinary Body for a hearing.
Charging Party: The official of a Unit, District or the ACBL who, acting upon a Complaint, brings Charges against another.

The Recorder is not the Charging Party.

[helene_t]

1 is just rub of the green, i.e. bad luck for EW.

2 I would consider an extremely serious violation by North. Difficult to prove, though. If North admitted that the tanked deliberately to force his partner to pass, he probably isn't aware of the most basic ethics so he needs some education. If an experienced player does something like that, it is close to being enough to kick him out of the club. But of course he wouldn't admit it and it is not possible to prove unless there is a consistent pattern.