You be the Judge

[nickf]

@ those who thinks this appeal has no merit.

 

Would any of you actually pass over 4♥ in this situation if there were no pause?

 

(Don't answer that it's not inconceivable. What is your actual choice?)

Playing in a different match to the one discussed, I bid 4S without a second thought. I think my opponent overcalled 4H however. Either way, 4S was clearcut.

 

nickf

sydney

[Cascade]

@ those who thinks this appeal has no merit.

 

Would any of you actually pass over 4♥ in this situation if there were no pause?

 

(Don't answer that it's not inconceivable. What is your actual choice?)

Playing in a different match to the one discussed, I bid 4S without a second thought. I think my opponent overcalled 4H however. Either way, 4S was clearcut.

 

nickf

sydney

I don't like bidding 4♠ over 4♥. That means the auction was:

 

1♠ (4♥) 4♠

 

How does partner know if you have any values?

 

Wouldn't you be forced to take the same action with 13 hcp and a fit?

[nickf]

@ those who thinks this appeal has no merit.

 

Would any of you actually pass over 4♥ in this situation if there were no pause?

 

(Don't answer that it's not inconceivable. What is your actual choice?)

Playing in a different match to the one discussed, I bid 4S without a second thought. I think my opponent overcalled 4H however. Either way, 4S was clearcut.

 

nickf

sydney

I don't like bidding 4♠ over 4♥. That means the auction was:

 

1♠ (4♥) 4♠

 

How does partner know if you have any values?

 

Wouldn't you be forced to take the same action with 13 hcp and a fit?

I didnt like it either to be honest, but what are your options in the face of a pre-empt? With an opening hand you cant pass and wait for partner to balance, and with this very hand you cant afford to pass either.

 

As it happened, I bid 4S, I think the next hand bid 5H and my partner bid 6S which went just 1 off on bad lead.

 

nickf

sydney

[cherdano]

@ those who thinks this appeal has no merit.

 

Would any of you actually pass over 4♥ in this situation if there were no pause?

 

(Don't answer that it's not inconceivable. What is your actual choice?)

Playing in a different match to the one discussed, I bid 4S without a second thought. I think my opponent overcalled 4H however. Either way, 4S was clearcut.

 

nickf

sydney

I don't like bidding 4♠ over 4♥. That means the auction was:

 

1♠ (4♥) 4♠

 

How does partner know if you have any values?

 

Wouldn't you be forced to take the same action with 13 hcp and a fit?

I would put game before slam and allow 4♠ to be bid with a wide range of hands. This is different than bidding 3♠ over 3♥ IMO.

[mikeh]

Yes, this appeal has no merit. I would be ashamed if I bid 4S.

What if I told you the match was played with screens?

 

Would you still be ashamed to bid 4S?

 

nickf

sydney

Unless you have far better screens than any I've played with, it is almost always possible to know (in fact, almost impossible not to know) who has tanked when there is a significant break in tempo.

 

We can all hear the bidding cards hit the tray, especially when it is a high level bid... I don't mean that the 4♥ bidder slams his stack down on the tray, but there is usually some kind of sound (maybe, at last, I have found a reason for selecting only the actual bidding card you want, rather than the more customary habit of pulling out all the lower ones as well). You can sometimes even see your lho's body motion as he reaches forward to place the cards on the tray.

 

I stress that this is information that comes to one without any conscious attempt to be on the lookout for it: we can't (or, at least, I can't) turn off our ears (I've proven that I can turn off my brain at the table, but that's a different issue).

 

As for the appeal: I really think that asking the question: would most players bid 4♠ without the tank is 100% the wrong question. Would a significant minority pass without the tank is the better question. It may seem like the same, but it isn't....

 

Remember that of the players to whom 4♠ is automatic, some if not most of them would have bid the round before.

 

And while the tank MIGHT have been based on defence, it surely wasn't based on strong hearts, given that we hold the Q. So bidding on is suggested even if he was thinking of doubling, while it is clearly right if he was thinking of bidding anything.

[MFA]

As for the appeal: I really think that asking the question: would most players bid 4♠ without the tank is 100% the wrong question. Would a significant minority pass without the tank is the better question. It may seem like the same, but it isn't....

I'm just trying to find anybody who would actually pass 4♥. Are there any passers out there? On this planet?

If not ... well, you know the conclusion.

[Cascade]

As it happened, I bid 4S, I think the next hand bid 5H and my partner bid 6S which went just 1 off on bad lead.

There is the problem with bidding on this auction on rubbish.

 

I think after a pre-empt you just have to cut your losses and stay out of the auction on bad hands. Partner is going to presume when they pre-empt that it is your hand and therefore that you have values. If you don't have them you are going to mislead partner much more than the opponents.

[Cascade]

Wouldn't you be forced to take the same action with 13 hcp and a fit?

I would put game before slam and allow 4♠ to be bid with a wide range of hands. This is different than bidding 3♠ over 3♥ IMO.

Sure I agree with this principle but an effective 2-count with a singleton is hardly the hand I would want to raise to game on.

 

I think 2 (or even 4) hcp up to around 15 or 16hcp is just too wide a range if you want to expect partner to do something intelligent.

[mikeh]

As for the appeal: I really think that asking the question: would most players bid 4♠ without the tank is 100% the wrong question. Would a significant minority pass without the tank is the better question. It may seem like the same, but it isn't....

I'm just trying to find anybody who would actually pass 4♥. Are there any passers out there? On this planet?

If not ... well, you know the conclusion.

Well, I think Justin posted as if he would pass... after the huddle, so presumably he (and I) think that even if we'd bid absent a huddle, we can't bid after the huddle, and this logically implies that we see pass as a truly logical possibility, which was then rendered less logical by the illegal info that partner has extras of some kind.

 

I've always felt that the more interesting issue arises when one chooses not to bid, because of a huddle, and then one finds that both games fail. Surely the huddle has cost the opps because, absent the huddle, I'd have bid 4♠ (assuming that, in contrast to the actual hand, the opps defend 4♠).

 

But I think the laws require that I allow the huddle to change my actual call.. by eliminating the call suggested by the huddle. I've never seen this argued before a director or a committee.

[Cascade]

I am not 100% sure what you are saying - what is it that you have never heard argued?

 

The player has to be allowed to bid something.

 

It seems to me that both contracts could easily have been failing so I can not see how 4♠ is suggested over pass by the huddle.

 

We can all easily say after the fact when 4♠ is making that 4♠ was suggested but we have a danger of saying that Pass was suggested when both contracts failed and the player passed.

 

Perhaps ideally the committee need to make up their mind without knowing what action was taken nor what the result was on the board. Purely judging what the logical alternatives were and what was suggested.

 

Unfortunately this will not work with committee members who have played and discussed the hands.

[Echognome]

I think the difficulty with determining the logical alternatives is to really find the set of players whom would pass the round before. If they all passed with the intention of bidding again had 4♥ come back to them, then pass simply isn't a logical alternative.

 

Of course we should start by finding a set of peers and then ask them what they would call the round before (and really any prior rounds). If we can then get a set of players who would have passed the round before, then we can ask them what they would do the next round. Finally, we can determine what the LA's are.

 

We are really being asked our opinion on the above set of LA's in a highly biased environment. The added difficulty online is capture a two-part bidding question. What would you bid now? and if you passed now, what would you bid if 4♥ came around to you? I believe this is one of the problems with polling as well. If you give it to players as a problem, they are more likely to anticipate further complications on the hand and they might not do that at the table. It is only made worse if you give them the problem already with the stipulation that if they pass, then they will have to decide what to do next round with 4♥ coming back to them (as it was only a possibility before).

[mikeh]

I am not 100% sure what you are saying - what is it that you have never heard argued?

 

I was imagining a different scenario:

 

The auction is the same to and including the huddle. I hold a hand on which the majority of players would bid 4♠ absent a huddle... and on which I personally would have bid. Partner huddles and I decide that I cannot ethically choose 4♠, so I pass.

 

It turns out that 4♥ fails and that 4♠, my 'normal' bid, also fails... and this is what happens at the other table, say in a team game. The opps lose 5 imps when, without the huddle, they'd push the board. Is there any recourse?

[Cascade]

I am not 100% sure what you are saying - what is it that you have never heard argued?

 

I was imagining a different scenario:

 

The auction is the same to and including the huddle. I hold a hand on which the majority of players would bid 4♠ absent a huddle... and on which I personally would have bid. Partner huddles and I decide that I cannot ethically choose 4♠, so I pass.

 

It turns out that 4♥ fails and that 4♠, my 'normal' bid, also fails... and this is what happens at the other table, say in a team game. The opps lose 5 imps when, without the huddle, they'd push the board. Is there any recourse?

If the huddle really suggested bidding on over pass then I don't believe that they have any recourse. I can imagine though someone arguing in this scenario that the huddle suggested the pass.

 

Personally in the actual hand I think that the huddle suggests pass over 4♠. I would be worried after the huddle that I was taking a phantom sacrifice.

[lamford]

I won't comment very much here, as I have posted extensively on this hand on International Bridge Laws Forum.

 

I polled 10 strong players at a national British event, and all 10 bid Four Spades. All who offered an opinion would have passed on the previous round.

 

A simulation with Bridge Dealer and Deep Finesse made it a massive blunder to pass, assuming the pre-empting side has 9-10 hearts.

 

The Law of Total Tricks makes it wrong to bid only when TNT is 18 and both contracts are one off. This occurred rarely in the simulations.

 

This was a strong event - I understand it was played with screens, so we must assume that E-W were not novices.

[Cascade]

Perhaps Nick can confirm from which round this occurred. My understanding is that by the time screens were used in the knockout rounds VPs which the penalty was measured in were irrelevant. The knockout was based solely on IMPs.

 

Hence I am not sure if his screen comment was just a hypothetical question.

[nickf]

Perhaps Nick can confirm from which round this occurred. My understanding is that by the time screens were used in the knockout rounds VPs which the penalty was measured in were irrelevant. The knockout was based solely on IMPs.

 

Hence I am not sure if his screen comment was just a hypothetical question.

You're right Wayne, the match occurred during the Swiss, without screens, but I think the bidder (and Director and Appeals committee) has to look at the alternatives as well in the absence of UI and that either player could have thought before the tray was returned.

 

My suggestion was hypothetical.

 

nickf

sydney

[Guest Jlall]

@ those who thinks this appeal has no merit.

 

Would any of you actually pass over 4♥ in this situation if there were no pause?

 

(Don't answer that it's not inconceivable. What is your actual choice?)

If I had passed 3H I would pass 4H.

[jdonn]

I would pass/bid 4♠. But also I would be quite surprised if that was anywhere near unanimous, I feel I'm going out on a limb to bid that way.

 

Seeing the actual hand, why didn't partner make his auto-double? Sickening.

[Rebound]

Perhaps this is well understood by all of you who have posted already, but the thing that bothers me about this entire process is that, in such situations, break in tempo almost guarantees a favorable result for the opponents. As mentioned above, let's say neither 4H nor 4S makes. Then, if one passes, again one can be accused of using UI to make the decision. In some similar cases, it could be that pass, double, and 4S are all LA. How are you to know which to choose to avoid a ruling against you? I don't think you can. No matter which you choose, if it proves to be a good result for your side it seems you are doomed to an unfavorable adjustment. At the higher levels of competition is any break in tempo inexcusable? That doesn't make sense to me.

[Codo]

Perhaps this is well understood by all of you who have posted already, but the thing that bothers me about this entire process is that, in such situations, break in tempo almost guarantees a favorable result for the opponents. As mentioned above, let's say neither 4H nor 4S makes. Then, if one passes, again one can be accused of using UI to make the decision. In some similar cases, it could be that pass, double, and 4S are all LA. How are you to know which to choose to avoid a ruling against you? I don't think you can. No matter which you choose, if it proves to be a good result for your side it seems you are doomed to an unfavorable adjustment. At the higher levels of competition is any break in tempo inexcusable? That doesn't make sense to me.

In the actual scenario this should have been no big deal.

When my lho jumps to 3 HEart and uses a stop card, I have time to think what I will do after a possible pass or 4 HEart bid from rho, so I should be prepared.

 

And you are not always have a bad result if you have a BIT. If you bid, there is (in most cases) no penalty and if you pass and partner has an obvious bid there is no penalty either.

So the risk is there but not as high as you seem to belive.

[Codo]

Funnily in the given hand some very strong players like MFA and Cascade share the view that 4 Spade is automatic and others like MikeH and JLall disagree more or less strongly.

 

So at least the Appeal without merrit was pure nonsense. If players who played for there country do disagree about this, how could an appeal been without merrit?

 

After all an AC made from MFA, Cascade, echognome, lamford and me etc. had restored the table score.

[Rebound]

I may have neglected to say so in my previous post, but this ambiguity and subjective application of the laws is part of the problem I have with how this works. I know it makes sense that there has to be some way to address the possibility of a player taking unethical advantage of UI, intentionally or not. And I know I have little experience in these matters, I admit that. But if the numerous threads on this forum debating committee decisions is anything to judge by, it's a system in serious need of a rethink.

 

Edit: I didn't see you post, Cascade, before I posted mine, but, as I said, the number of debates on this subject I have seen here and elsewhere would seem to contradict that.

[Cascade]

Perhaps this is well understood by all of you who have posted already, but the thing that bothers me about this entire process is that, in such situations, break in tempo almost guarantees a favorable result for the opponents. As mentioned above, let's say neither 4H nor 4S makes. Then, if one passes, again one can be accused of using UI to make the decision. In some similar cases, it could be that pass, double, and 4S are all LA. How are you to know which to choose to avoid a ruling against you? I don't think you can. No matter which you choose, if it proves to be a good result for your side it seems you are doomed to an unfavorable adjustment. At the higher levels of competition is any break in tempo inexcusable? That doesn't make sense to me.

Its plain wrong.

 

The break in tempo must suggest one action over another to bar you. Its not a matter of what happens to work out after the fact.

[hrothgar]

I think the difficulty with determining the logical alternatives is to really find the set of players whom would pass the round before. If they all passed with the intention of bidding again had 4♥ come back to them, then pass simply isn't a logical alternative.

 

Of course we should start by finding a set of peers and then ask them what they would call the round before (and really any prior rounds). If we can then get a set of players who would have passed the round before, then we can ask them what they would do the next round. Finally, we can determine what the LA's are.

 

We are really being asked our opinion on the above set of LA's in a highly biased environment. The added difficulty online is capture a two-part bidding question. What would you bid now? and if you passed now, what would you bid if 4♥ came around to you? I believe this is one of the problems with polling as well. If you give it to players as a problem, they are more likely to anticipate further complications on the hand and they might not do that at the table. It is only made worse if you give them the problem already with the stipulation that if they pass, then they will have to decide what to do next round with 4♥ coming back to them (as it was only a possibility before).

For what its worth, I have (occasionally) wondered whether it would be worthwhile to design a web site specifically for the purpose of polling bridge players for Committees and the like.

 

Imagine a web based forum in which individual players could register to serve as members of a polling group. Players could enter individual attributes describing their geographical location, systems played, skill levels, etc. Over time, cluster algorithms could be used tofurther refine peer groups. (Assume that you claim to be an intermediate at card play, however, your judgement and performance consistently matches that of experts...) Real time feeds could be used to notify players when a new polling problem became available.

 

I think that the web site would provide value added through two primary avenues

 

1. The ability to quickly / conveniently poll large numbers of peers (this might prove particuarly useful for small congresses and the like)

2. Reduced bias

 

Assume for the moment, that we have a large number of players registered in the system. Using this case as an example, we'd follow a process much like the one the the Gnome describes.

 

A poll member is initial presented with the following hand. He knows only that he is White V Red and that he holds

 

♠ 6432

♥ Q

♦ Q97

♣ 98543

 

He then learns that partner opened 1♠, RHO overcalled 3♥, and that he needs to choose a bid. In an ideal world, the player doesn't know whether there is a hesitation problem, a UI problem, or whether its an early round of the auction. (In reality, experienced players will probably have no trouble figuring out when the UI was introduced)

 

Only those players who chose to pass make their way into the next round of the auction...

[han]

Very nice idea Richard.