[benlessard]

We could make an hesitation blackwood case.

A big spades fit and GF is agree and over 3S my mind wander off about if we play non-serious 3NT (we dont) and I bid 4S slowly. My hand is the most obvious signoff ever but for no good reasons I took some time to bid it.

partner bid 4NT . I respond aces and we bid and make 6.

Peers will vote that passing 4S is LA.

1-Bit is agreed
2-The slow 4S suggest that I was thinking about a cue so extra strenght.
3-Opener bid 4NT with the help of the UI (passing 4S was LA)
4- There is damage

It just doesnt seem to make sense for me to rollback this to 4S, I know that laws dont really care about what I hold for my slow 4S. I just think its a law loophole.

[Trinidad]

 benlessard, on 2015-April-01, 10:48, said:

I agree that

But IRL when BIT is not agree and its 2-2 director looked at the hand of the player that has done the slow bid to determine if there is a BIT or not
so when the BIT is agreed surely its sensible that director also look at south hand to to double check his decision by determining what was the reason of the slow bid.

You may not agree with my example so feel free to suggest another one as a club level director in can tell you that IRL for 99% of players will have extras for a seriously slow 2S in this spot, its almost never a case of close call between 2S vs 1NT or 2S vs pass. Of course there is a strong confirming bias since we don't get called when its a slow bid that dont have extras since the contract often fail or game is not reached anyway.

When experienced players call me right after the auction has ended "just to protect myself.." not once have I see the slow bidder not having extras. I repeat this is club level.

I see, this is hypothetical example. All facts are facts: AS + PP.

Rik

[blackshoe]

 benlessard, on 2015-April-01, 10:48, said:

But IRL when BIT is not agree and its 2-2 director looked at the hand of the player that has done the slow bid to determine if there is a BIT or not
so when the BIT is agreed surely its sensible that director also look at south hand to to double check his decision by determining what was the reason of the slow bid.

Your argument is flawed. When the facts are agreed, there is no need to verify them. Law 84 tells you that if there's no rectification for the irregularity, you tell the players to proceed with the auction or play. If there is a rectification in the laws, you apply it.

I don't think I've ever looked in a player's hand in a BIT case, even when the facts are not agreed, in order to see whether the hand supports the premise that there was a BIT. I don't think anyone should.

[benlessard]

Quote

I don't think I've ever looked in a player's hand in a BIT case, even when the facts are not agreed, in order to see whether the hand supports the premise that there was a BIT.

If they don't agree about the BIT and its 2-2 you need to look at the slow bidder hand its the main way to break the equality and decide if there is a BIT or not.

Once the BIT is agree or decided by the director it still make sense to take into account the slow bidder hand, just to make sure that what you think is suggested by the BIT (the UI) correspond to the real hand. According to the law their is not direct link to the UI and the real hand but experienced director told me its nonsense to not take the full hand into account.

Im going to post the hesitation blackwood hand on BW to see the opinion.

[blackshoe]

 benlessard, on 2015-April-01, 22:14, said:

If they don't agree about the BIT and its 2-2 you need to look at the slow bidder hand its the main way to break the equality and decide if there is a BIT or not.

If they don't agree about the BIT and you can't reconcile the question, law 85 tells you to make a ruling that will allow play to continue. You would presumably also tell the players of their right to appeal (Law 83).

I don't think that looking at the hand will always tell you what you want to know, and I do think it may lead you astray.

[barmar]

 benlessard, on 2015-April-01, 22:14, said:

If they don't agree about the BIT and its 2-2 you need to look at the slow bidder hand its the main way to break the equality and decide if there is a BIT or not.

What you seem to be saying is that if you think YOU would have hesitated with that hand, you're going to rule that he actually did hesitate. That seems like a poor way to rule. What makes you think your bridge ability is comparable to that player's, so you can put yourself in his position? Unless the hand is MSC-level difficulty, I don't think this is likely to be a good decision.

A slightly better method might be to poll players with the hand and see if they're able to answer quickly. In this case you don't actually care what they decide to bid, just how long they take. But the artificial setting of a poll may bias the result -- since they know they're being polled, they're likely to think extra hard about it before answering.

[Aardv]

I think I'm in the minority here, but I believe the actual hand should matter. It's usually daft to rule that a hesitation could demonstrably have suggested that a player is at one end of his range when the evidence of the current hand is that it suggests he's at the opposite end of his range.

[Vampyr]

 Aardv, on 2015-April-02, 17:13, said:

I think I'm in the minority here, but I believe the actual hand should matter. It's usually daft to rule that a hesitation could demonstrably have suggested that a player is at one end of his range when the evidence of the current hand is that it suggests he's at the opposite end of his range.

Well, you may have to consider frequencies, and in this case, the fact that the opener admitted to having used the UI.

In any case, I strongly agree with post #18.