[shevek]

---

Decent standard matchpoint club game. West & South are good players.
You are called by West after South bids 5♠. South happily acknowledges the break in tempo.
You observe the play from a discreet distance. East leads ♦J but West wrongly cashes ♥A, missing the second ruff, thus converting +500 near top into +300 below average.
You half expect a call back but West shows no interest, perhaps mulling over his cardplay.
Say West does call you back and suggests that North's hesitation made 5♠ more appealing.
How would you rule?
Would you need to know whether N/S had a proclivity to bid 5 over 5? If they don't, then North is favourite to hold a penalising hand, in which case 5♠ would not appear to be demonstrably suggested, though pass is clearly a logical alternative.

[Vampyr]

The BIT shows an unwillingness to defend this contract undoubled. I don’t think it is the right approach to try to work out what exactly is more likely demonstrably suggested; doing something is.

[steve2005]

If this logic allows South to you might as well throw any bit rule.
South's hand is a poster child for using UI.

[blackshoe]

The question is not what is more likely demonstrably suggested. The question is whether bidding 5♠ is demonstrably suggested over a logical alternative (presumably pass).

[nige1]

shevek, on 2018-March-31, 15:33, said:

Decent standard matchpoint club game. West & South are good players. You are called by West after South bids 5♠. South happily acknowledges the break in tempo. You observe the play from a discreet distance. East leads ♦J but West wrongly cashes ♥A, missing the second ruff, thus converting +500 near top into +300 below average.You half expect a call back but West shows no interest, perhaps mulling over his cardplay. Say West does call you back and suggests that North's hesitation made 5♠ more appealing. How would you rule? Would you need to know whether N/S had a proclivity to bid 5 over 5? If they don't, then North is favourite to hold a penalising hand, in which case 5♠ would not appear to be demonstrably suggested, though pass is clearly a logical alternative.

---

IMO, North's BIT over West's 5♥ suggests that South do something. 5♥ can make. Hence, assuming that a poll would establish that Pass is an logical alternative, EW were damaged and the director would adjust to 5♥=. He might also consider a penalty against South. EW defence is imperfect but neither egregious nor a double-shot.

[sanst]

blackshoe, on 2018-March-31, 20:03, said:

The question is not what is more likely demonstrably suggested. The question is whether bidding 5♠ is demonstrably suggested over a logical alternative (presumably pass).

And therefore you poll, with all relevant information, like the answer to the question whether this is a forcing situation for NS.

[nige1]

sanst, on 2018-April-01, 05:08, said:

And therefore you poll, with all relevant information, like the answer to the question whether this is a forcing situation for NS.

South would already have disclosed that North's pass was forcing, had it been

[sanst]

nige1, on 2018-April-01, 08:33, said:

South would already have disclosed that North's pass was forcing, had it been

How do you know that? I don't read this in the OP. But more importantly, the interviewees should know before they answer.

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2018-April-01, 11:17, said:

How do you know that? I don't read this in the OP. But more importantly, the interviewees should know before they answer.

Under many RAs a forcing pass would be alertable to opponents, in any case it should be on the convention card.

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2018-April-01, 14:13, said:

Under many RAs a forcing pass would be alertable to opponents…

How many, and which ones?

[sanst]

pescetom, on 2018-April-01, 14:13, said:

Under many RAs a forcing pass would be alertable to opponents, in any case it should be on the convention card.
Which if I was Director I would read carefully, given the lively 1-level 22 HCP opening and courageous 1 HCP raise to game.

AFAIK in many jurisdictions calls at the 4-level and above are not alertable. That's the case in Australia too according to the website of the ABF. Besides, it's not unheard of that players forget to alert...
About the CC: my partner and I have a rather complete one, or at least I think it is, but it doesn't say that, when we have voluntarily bid game, we either raise or double a call by the opps.

[shevek]

Okay, consider this hypothetical.

Let's say North-South have the following agreement, born of bitter experience:
"In auctions like this, we don't bid 5-over-5 in direct seat; pass is NOT forcing." It's a good agreement.

So North's only systemic action over 5♥ is to make a penalty double.

When North makes a BiT pass, South considers his three alternatives. If North has the indicated matchpoint double, double by South does not seem to be a LA. In choosing between pass and 5♠, South considers 16B1 and thinks "The BiT strongly suggests partner was considering a penalty double. This demonstrably suggests that Pass is the way to go plus. Therefore I am required to bid 5♠, which rates to turn +50 into -300."

What is wrong with South's reasoning?

[barmar]

How does the misdefense figure into this? South's action handed them the possibility of a top, so there wouldn't have been any damage, but West failed to take advantage of it. I know this isn't an ESE, but can we really say that the damage was caused by South taking advantage of UI?

If we rule that South's action was a violation, maybe we should award a split result: 5H= for NS, 5SX-1 for EW. Or keep the table result and give South a PP.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2018-April-01, 15:26, said:

How many, and which ones?

Italy in 2017 and 2010 for sure, France still I think, plus any other country where the Alert Procedures do little more than copy WBF Systems Policy – Appendix 3 - WBF Alerting Policy (Adopted July 1997, revised August 2002).
Essentially the rule is "Alert anything that is conventional".

sanst, on 2018-April-01, 15:45, said:

AFAIK in many jurisdictions calls at the 4-level and above are not alertable.

The WBF-derived rule states "Do NOT alert... Any call at the four level or higher", but in Italy certain doubles (for instance) are still alertable at any level, so it seems logical that a conventional use of pass would remain alertable at any level too.
In any case the rules say one should alert in case of doubt.

[cherdano]

shevek, on 2018-April-01, 21:38, said:

Let's say North-South have the following agreement, born of bitter experience:
"In auctions like this, we don't bid 5-over-5 in direct seat; pass is NOT forcing." It's a good agreement.

No it is not. I think a director should ignore such a claim, even if it is backed up by system notes. It is so non-sensical, and it is also meaningless - surely North would "violate" the agreement if he were 7=0=5=1.

But anyway, even if South knew that North's only option was a penalty double, in my view that still suggests bidding on over passing. The most likely slow pass in that scenario is a hand with extra values but not enough sure defensive tricks; i.e., exactly the hand where South expects that 5H is making, and that 5S won't be down too many.

I respect West for not calling the TD when he (I assume) blamed himself for the bad result, rather than the blatant use of UI. But I still think he should have called - 5S could certainly be worth a procedural penalty, especially if it is a repeat offender.

[sanst]

pescetom, on 2018-April-02, 03:23, said:

In any case the rules say one should alert in case of doubt.

The rules forbid to alert at the 4+-level. The OP is from Australia, so its totally irrelevant what the rules are anywhere else. This whole discussion is actually irrelevant and only started because I wrote that you should poll in a case like this and your question should include all relevant information, including whether this is a forcing pass or not. You shouldn't just give the hand and the auction and ask what call one would make. The interviewees must know the agreements of the pair involved.

[nige1]

Although their system card does not cover this topic, assume, for the sake of argument, that NS have the agreement that North's pass over 5♥ is forcing.
Assume, further, that this is not alertable.
At the end of the auction, but before the opening lead, are NS, as the declaring side, (morally/legally) obliged to disclose that understanding?

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2018-April-02, 11:27, said:

The OP is from Australia, so its totally irrelevant what the rules are anywhere else.

I was asked which countries had different rules, hence my reply.
I think we all realise that the OP is from Australia.
nige1 asks the right question IMO.

[pran]

nige1, on 2018-April-02, 12:28, said:

Although their system card does not cover this topic, assume, for the sake of argument, that NS have the agreement that North's pass over 5♥ is forcing.
Assume, further, that this is not alertable.
At the end of the auction, but before the opening lead, are NS, as the declaring side, (morally/legally) obliged to disclose that understanding?

I have a strong feeling that

Law 40A1B said:

Each partnership has a duty to make its partnership understandings available to its opponents. The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this is done.

and

Law 40B5A said:

When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to an opponent’s enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

come a long way to answer this question affirmative.

And in my opinion

Law 40B3A said:

A side that is damaged as a consequence of its opponents’ failure to provide disclosure of the meaning of a call or play, as these laws require, is entitled to rectification through the award of an adjusted score.

is relevant in situations like this.

[sfi]

nige1, on 2018-April-02, 12:28, said:

Although their system card does not cover this topic, assume, for the sake of argument, that NS have the agreement that North's pass over 5♥ is forcing.
Assume, further, that this is not alertable.
At the end of the auction, but before the opening lead, are NS, as the declaring side, (morally/legally) obliged to disclose that understanding?

In Australia the declaring side has a legal obligation to do so before the lead.