Appeal committee problem

[glen]

x QJxx Axx KQxxx

And opener with Axxxxx x x Axxxx is now expected to bid 6 opposite your example hand and given the bidding?

[awm]

Is it necessarily clear that 3♦ is some kind of huge club raise? It seems like it could be just angling for the best contract, maybe trying to get a 3NT bid. What about some hand like:

 

xx

QJxx

Axxx

AQx

 

I guess you might bid 3NT with this, but it's easy to envision 4♠ or 5♣ or 3NT from pd's side being a better spot.

 

Qx

AQJx

xxxx

Axx

 

Seems worth a game bid, but who knows where? It's easy to imagine 4♠ as the right spot if partner has six (hey on the actual hand 4♠ is the right spot) or even 4♥ could be right if partner has king-third and a diamond void. Maybe this hand bids 3♠ over 3♣ (but that's probably NF?) or 4♠ over 4♣ (but that might be a cue?) but it seems reasonable to cuebid and then raise partner's 4♣ to 5♣.

 

I agree with Josh Donn on this one.

[jtfanclub]

x QJxx Axx KQxxx

Then what would 4♦ have shown over 4♣?

 

I guess what I'm looking for is a hand that...

 

Makes a negative double

Makes a cue bid,

Bypasses 4♦ and 4♥

in order to raise 4♣ to *6*

 

He got bored all the sudden? He thought QJT9 of hearts wouldn't be any losers? What?

 

How could responder possibly be considering 6♣?

[awm]

Well what do you do with a hand like:

 

♠Qx

♥QJT9

♦xxx

♣AKQx

 

You could easily be on for 6♣ (in fact it's cold on the actual hand). But you don't have any controls outside the club suit to cuebid. You know that if you bid 5♣, partner will have a tough time bidding on because he is missing all the top trump honors. Blasting six clubs seems risky too though, since partner could have some lousy diamond or heart holding that leaves you off two quick losers (say AKxxx Kx x JTxxx). So what do you do? Well you think about this annoying problem for a while, then you bid 5♣, and partner knows you have a problem so maybe he finds a six club bid with a control rich minimum that includes lousy trumps......

[jdonn]

x QJxx Axx KQxxx

And opener with Axxxxx x x Axxxx is now expected to bid 6 opposite your example hand and given the bidding?

I don't understand what point you are trying to make. That bidding is not a perfect science? I didn't even say bidding slam is wrong, I just said passing could clearly be right. Do you disagree that the hand I gave is possible (and not some ridiculous construction that shouldn't be considered)? If so then that's your case, if not then I don't see what your case is.

[cherdano]

This is really being overthought. Bidding slam could CLEARLY be wrong, and the tank CLEARLY showed interest in bidding it. This is one of the easier decisions ever to move back to 5♣.

Your argument is pretty irrelevant. Say opener is an expert bidder, and all experts agree that while there are hands where slam has no play, it is with the odds to bid the slam, than passing is not a logical alternative.

(I read somewhere that bidding is not an exact science.)

[jdonn]

This is really being overthought. Bidding slam could CLEARLY be wrong, and the tank CLEARLY showed interest in bidding it. This is one of the easier decisions ever to move back to 5♣.

Your argument is pretty irrelevant. Say opener is an expert bidder, and all experts agree that while there are hands where slam has no play, it is with the odds to bid the slam, than passing is not a logical alternative.

(I read somewhere that bidding is not an exact science.)

That would require a group of experts who agree with the previous bidding, which I believe you would be hard-pressed to find. It's irrelevant for a pollee to say "I have underbid before so of course I make up for it now" as the player at the table must have thought his earlier bids were correct.

 

By the way, you didn't make a case that my argument was irrelevant, you just made a case that I was misdefining logical alternative. I'm sure technically I did, although committees often demonstrate logical alternatives with example hands or statements that something else could easily have worked.

[glen]

I don't understand what point you are trying to make. That bidding is not a perfect science? I didn't even say bidding slam is wrong, I just said passing could clearly be right. Do you disagree that the hand I gave is possible (and not some ridiculous construction that shouldn't be considered)? If so then that's your case, if not then I don't see what your case is.

Given that a 8 point hand makes slam but can't get there opposite your example hand and the given bidding, the example hand you gave would not bid that way - that is the example hand is not possible. Hands with a good ♣ fit and the ♦ ace have to cuebid 4♦ over 4♣, since 3♦ was just a general force, not a bid that showed first round ♦ control. I'm still waiting to see an example hand that would bid the way that was given, and that slam does not have chances.

[Fluffy]

A bit off topic, but I have a question.

 

Lets say that 6♣ makes, but that it is a horrible contract that needs 3 good breaks and 2 fineses, would you still rule back to 5♣+1?

[Guest Jlall]

A bit off topic, but I have a question.

 

Lets say that 6♣ makes, but that it is a horrible contract that needs 3 good breaks and 2 fineses, would you still rule back to 5♣+1?

Yes of course. The fact that the offending side puts themselves in a no win position by cheating should not really disturb you.

[jdonn]

I don't understand what point you are trying to make. That bidding is not a perfect science? I didn't even say bidding slam is wrong, I just said passing could clearly be right. Do you disagree that the hand I gave is possible (and not some ridiculous construction that shouldn't be considered)? If so then that's your case, if not then I don't see what your case is.

Given that a 8 point hand makes slam but can't get there opposite your example hand and the given bidding, the example hand you gave would not bid that way - that is the example hand is not possible. Hands with a good ♣ fit and the ♦ ace have to cuebid 4♦ over 4♣, since 3♦ was just a general force, not a bid that showed first round ♦ control. I'm still waiting to see an example hand that would bid the way that was given, and that slam does not have chances.

Your "8 count" would make slam opposite x xxxx Axx Kxxxx so according to you this hand "has to" bid 4♦ there? Sorry but you can't get to every 15 point slam, and every random 12 count without much extra shape can't just keep cuebidding over and over in case opener has some fluke 6-5 both suits to the ace.

 

To Fluffy: That would have no bearing at all on the decision. As far as I know the laws are clear on that point, and the only one who disagrees is Bobby Wolff.

[glen]

Your "8 count" would make slam opposite x xxxx Axx Kxxxx so according to you this hand "has to" bid 4♦ there?

No, your x xxxx Axx Kxxxx is clearly silly since it would not cue 3♦.

[dburn]

A bit off topic, but I have a question.

 

Lets say that 6♣ makes, but that it is a horrible contract that needs 3 good breaks and 2 fineses, would you still rule back to 5♣+1?

Yes of course. The fact that the offending side puts themselves in a no win position by cheating should not really disturb you.

You need to be a bit careful about this sort of thing. The Law says this:

 

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may

suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a

question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis,

tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose

from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have

been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

 

When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who

had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been

suggested by such information, he should summon the Director

forthwith. The Director shall require the auction and play to continue,

standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an

infraction of law has resulted in damage.

 

Now, if 6♣ was a horrible contract, what information would you say that the player who bid it had received, and what information would you say that his partner had made available?

 

If his partner had, instead of merely bidding slowly, been illegally communicating every detail of his hand via some electronic device (or, now that these are banned in the United States, by some tried and trusted method such as signalling with his fingers), the player would never have bid 6♣.

 

So when he did bid it, he was clearly not acting on the basis of any actual information about his partner's actual hand. What offense, then, has the partnership committed, other than that of being lucky (which as yet the ACBL has not forbidden, although I understand that Larry Cohen is on the case)?

[Guest Jlall]

dburn, I think you are totally wrong. I think a much better way of looking at it is this:

 

If partner bid 5C without any hesitation, his range of hands would look like this {y}. Opposite range y, I make slam about 30 % of the time.

 

If partner bid 5C WITH a hesitation his range of hands would look like this {x}. x is a tighter range than y that does not include the worst 70 % of hands in y, and includes some hands that were not in y that make slam very good. Opposite range x I make slam about 70 % of the time.

 

Because of the hesitation, there is a much better chance of making slam thus you can take advantage of the UI by bidding slam. Now, just because partner HAPPENS to have a hand at the bottom of range x making slam very poor, that doesn't mean you didn't take advantage of the UI to bid slam. It just means you got unlucky in your cheating. This doesn't entitle you to keep the result of 6C making 6.

 

You need to think of this not as a specific hand but as a range of hands that partner can have.

[mikeh]

A bit off topic, but I have a question.

 

Lets say that 6♣ makes, but that it is a horrible contract that needs 3 good breaks and 2 fineses, would you still rule back to 5♣+1?

Yes of course. The fact that the offending side puts themselves in a no win position by cheating should not really disturb you.

You need to be a bit careful about this sort of thing. The Law says this:

 

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may

suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a

question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis,

tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose

from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have

been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

 

When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who

had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been

suggested by such information, he should summon the Director

forthwith. The Director shall require the auction and play to continue,

standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an

infraction of law has resulted in damage.

 

Now, if 6♣ was a horrible contract, what information would you say that the player who bid it had received, and what information would you say that his partner had made available?

 

If his partner had, instead of merely bidding slowly, been illegally communicating every detail of his hand via some electronic device (or, now that these are banned in the United States, by some tried and trusted method such as signalling with his fingers), the player would never have bid 6♣.

 

So when he did bid it, he was clearly not acting on the basis of any actual information about his partner's actual hand. What offense, then, has the partnership committed, other than that of being lucky (which as yet the ACBL has not forbidden, although I understand that Larry Cohen is on the case)?

I hestitate to argue the law with david, whose knowledge (of bridge law as well, I suspect, of many other things) surpasses mine, but I think that this post is mistaken.

 

Assume, for these purposes, that the hesitation conveyed the information that bidder was heavy for his bid.

 

Opener then bids what turns out to be a poor slam that makes.

 

In my view, the innocent side has been injured: had there been no hestitation, the offending side may well not have bid this lucky slam. The hestitation was improper, the taking advantage of it was improper, and damage flowed.

 

The fact that the hestitator may have less values than his partner would think 'appropriate' for a hestitation is meaningless.

 

Let's say that responder read into the 4♣ bid extra values and the opener felt that 4♣ showed a minimum. Now responder has a hand that, opposite significant extras, is worth a slam move, but, on reflection decides not to play partner for a perfecto and bids a slow 5♣. His hand is such that opposite opener's 'good minimum' the slam is ugly, yet it makes. He would not have hesitated had he been on the same page as opener. Opener would not have taken advantage of the hestitation had he realized that responder was already playing him for a good hand. But opener 'read' the hesitation as suggesting slam opposite a good minimum, while it was 'intended' (and I stress, neither opener nor responder need consciously 'intend' any of this) slam opposite a lot of extras.

 

In these circumstances, it is still demonstrable that 'absent the taking advantage of the hesitation', the innocent side would be defending 5♣+1. So damage was resulted.

 

The point about 'intention' is important: a lot of players, even experienced ones, get hot and bothered when ruled against in hestitation situations, thinking that their integrity is being impugned. The Director and the Committee never (well, supposedly never) consider whether the hestitation or the taking of improper action was consciously done. A player is DEEMED to have taken advantage, and no conscious or ethical considerations apply to either player.

[Cascade]

Assume, for these purposes, that the hesitation conveyed the information that bidder was heavy for his bid.

This is a big assumption for this and similar complex auctions.

[Cascade]

You need to think of this not as a specific hand but as a range of hands that partner can have.

 

I agree with this.

 

If partner bid 5C WITH a hesitation his range of hands would look like this {x}. x is a tighter range than y that does not include the worst 70 % of hands in y, and includes some hands that were not in y that make slam very good. Opposite range x I make slam about 70 % of the time.

 

I don't agree with this. There are many other reasons why partner might make a slow 5♣ bid ~ choice of contracts; unsure whether 4♣ is forcing; wondering whether 4NT would be natural etc etc.

 

The specific hand that partner has might give a clue as to what they were thinking but even that in its self is not sufficient evidence to determine that the UI may have demonstrably suggested one action over another.

[Cascade]

These rulings are very hard, because we can't help but put our own interpretation on the auction - really we have no choice in doing so.

In order to make a sensible ruling this is exactly what we need to not do.

 

Logical Alternatives and what has been Demonstrably Suggested will both be influenced by any spin observers put on the auction had at the table.

 

What is relevant is only what the auction meant for the pair at the table.

 

Twice in one day recently I had rulings of this nature made at my table. On the first one where where I made a cue-bid the director in his ruling said "some partnerships would play that as a general slam try" which is not our agreement and may have materially affected the LAs and what was Demonstrably Suggested. On the second occasion partner made a slow high-level double in a situation in which our notes (CC) say "convertible values" and the example hand referenced was only one card different than the actual hand held. I had shown five spades but actually had six spades and a side five-card heart suit that I would normally not have. I had little or no defense (I would need to look up the actual hand). The director accepted an argument from my opponents that most player would play 'penalty doubles' and ruled on logical alternatives etc on that erroneous basis.

 

To make a decent ruling in these situations we must at least attempt to establish what the bidders' methods are and only on that basis determine what is suggested and what the alternatives are.

[nige1]

dburn, I think you are totally wrong. I think a much better way of looking at it is this: If partner bid 5C without any hesitation, his range of hands would look like this {y}. Opposite range y, I make slam about 30 % of the time. If partner bid 5C WITH a hesitation his range of hands would look like this {x}. x is a tighter range than y that does not include the worst 70 % of hands in y, and includes some hands that were not in y that make slam very good. Opposite range x I make slam about 70 % of the time.  Because of the hesitation, there is a much better chance of making slam thus you can take advantage of the UI by bidding slam. Now, just because partner HAPPENS to have a hand at the bottom of range x making slam very poor, that doesn't mean you didn't take advantage of the UI to bid slam. It just means you got unlucky in your cheating. This doesn't entitle you to keep the result of 6C making 6. You need to think of this not as a specific hand but as a range of hands that partner can have.

 

I agree with the JLall's argument :) but go even further :) IMO, it doesn't matter what hand partner actually held; or what he was really thinking about; it matters only that (arguably) his hesitation suggested a call that turned out to be more successful than a non-suggested logical alternative.

 

But I'm concerned about the jocular inference that the 6♣ bidder "cheated" :P I feel that we should be wary of such remarks, even in jest :D

[glen]

dburn, I think you are totally wrong. I think a much better way of looking at it is this:

 

If partner bids 5C without any hesitation, his range of hands would look like this {y}. Opposite range y, I make slam about 30% of the time.

 

If partner bids 5C WITH a hesitation his range of hands would look like this {x}. x is a tighter range than y that does not include the worst 70% of hands in y, and includes some hands that were not in y that make slam very good. Opposite range x I make slam about 70% of the time.

 

Because of the hesitation, there is a much better chance of making slam thus you can take advantage of the UI by bidding slam. Now, just because partner HAPPENS to have a hand at the bottom of range x making slam very poor, that doesn't mean you didn't take advantage of the UI to bid slam. It just means you got unlucky in your cheating. This doesn't entitle you to keep the result of 6C making 6.

 

You need to think of this not as a specific hand but as a range of hands that partner can have.

What happens if this is the more likely case:

 

If partner bids 5♣ without any hesitation, his set of hands would look like this {y}. Opposite set y, I make slam about 70% of the time.

 

If partner bids 5♣ WITH a hesitation his set of hands would look like this {x}. x is a tighter set than y that does not include the best 70% of hands in y, and includes some hands that were not in y that make slam very bad. Opposite set x I make slam about 30% of the time. Because of the hesitation, there is a much worse chance of making slam thus you can take advantage of the UI by not bidding slam. You need to think of this not as a specific hand but as a set of hands that partner can have.

 

Now you might wonder how the slow set x hands can be worse for slam than the in-tempo set y hands. The in-tempo 5♣ hands are hands that can't make a red suit cuebid, and thus are game forcing hands that have values in ♣s and ♠s - these are great for slam. However a lot of the slow 5♣ hands are hands that could have cuebid on the 4 level but don't have a lot of extra values - a whole bunch of these that could have cuebid ♦s are bad for slam purposes.

[dburn]

dburn, I think you are totally wrong. I think a much better way of looking at it is this: If partner bid 5C without any hesitation, his range of hands would look like this {y}. Opposite range y, I make slam about 30 % of the time. If partner bid 5C WITH a hesitation his range of hands would look like this {x}. x is a tighter range than y that does not include the worst 70 % of hands in y, and includes some hands that were not in y that make slam very good. Opposite range x I make slam about 70 % of the time.  Because of the hesitation, there is a much better chance of making slam thus you can take advantage of the UI by bidding slam. Now, just because partner HAPPENS to have a hand at the bottom of range x making slam very poor, that doesn't mean you didn't take advantage of the UI to bid slam. It just means you got unlucky in your cheating. This doesn't entitle you to keep the result of 6C making 6. You need to think of this not as a specific hand but as a range of hands that partner can have.

 

I agree with the JLall's argument :) but go even further :) IMO, it doesn't matter what hand partner actually held; or what he was really thinking about; it matters only that (arguably) his hesitation suggested a call that turned out to be more successful than a non-suggested logical alternative.

 

But I'm concerned about the jocular inference that the 6♣ bidder "cheated" :( I feel that we should be wary of such remarks, even in jest :(

This is isomorphic to the idea that once partner hesitates, you cannot get a good result, "because" to hesitate is to cheat. This idea is the result of deeply muddled thinking, compounded by the notion that Bobby Wolff (and Bobby Goldman) must be wrong.

 

The Laws do not ban thinking. What they ban is actions based on unauthorised information, and to rule that a player has used unauthorised information, one needs to establish that some transfer of information has taken place.

 

To see this, consider:

 

♠AQ3 ♥K64 ♦QJ95 ♣A62

 

You open 1NT, 15-17. Partner thinks, then bids 2NT (natural and invitational). What call do you make?

 

Now, I do not very much care how the super-theorists would evaluate this hand, nor do I care whether you have methods that distinguish some raise to 2NT from some other raise to 2NT. Nor do I want anyone to run a simulation based on how often this hand will make 3NT facing an average raise to 2NT. No doubt these are valuable contributions to theory, but I am not talking about theory - I am talking about the law.

 

The Guthrie-Lall conjecture states that at this point, you cannot get a good result on this deal. Suppose you pass. Partner puts down a hand opposite which 3NT will make about 70% of the time, but on this occasion it fails. The opponents complain that partner's slow 2NT could have suggested that he had a marginal raise, so you ought to have ignored that putative suggestion, bid 3NT, and gone down.

 

Suppose you bid 3NT. Partner puts down a hand with which he might very well have passed 1NT, but 3NT makes on a couple of finesses and a 3-3 break. The opponents complain that partner's slow 2NT could have suggested that he had a hand almost worth 3NT, so you ought to have ignored that putative suggestion, passed 2NT, and made three.

 

Again, I want you to consider this argument without reference to your own personal tendencies towards "open aggressively, raise conservatively" or the converse. If you do so, I hope you will realise that the Guthrie-Lall conjecture is essentially no more than "if it hesitates, shoot it" and, more importantly, has nothing to do with what the law actually requires of players or of arbiters.

 

As to what the law actually does require - well, as Ambrose Bierce remarked, "it has been defined by five hundred lawyers in three volumes each. So how can anyone know?" But as an exercise, consider this thought experiment:

 

♠AKQJ109876543 ♥2 ♦None ♣None

 

Before you can open the bidding with 4NT, partner blurts out "this is the first hand tonight when I have had the ace of hearts".

 

You, being hard of hearing, believe him to have blurted out "this is the first hand tonight when I haven't had the ace of hearts".

 

RHO, who is actually the dealer, opens 6♦. What call do you make? You may say "I call the Director", but there is none. This is a private game among honourable people, and it is up to you to act in accordance with the law.

[jtfanclub]

Now you might wonder how the slow set x hands can be worse for slam than the in-tempo set y hands. The in-tempo 5♣ hands are hands that can't make a red suit cuebid, and thus are game forcing hands that have values in ♣s and ♠s - these are great for slam. However a lot of the slow 5♣ hands are hands that could have cuebid on the 4 level but don't have a lot of extra values - a whole bunch of these that could have cuebid ♦s are bad for slam purposes.

At this point, I'm honestly expecting a twist on this....

 

"In reality, opener didn't bid 6♣. He passed 5♣. His partner tabled...

 

Qx

AQJx

Qxx

Qxxx

 

and it made exactly. The actual appeal was that, without the hesitation, 6♣ was automatic. With the hesitation, opener could figure that partner had a red suit control but didn't bid it due to poor trumps. The hesitation demonstrably suggested passing".

[jdonn]

This is isomorphic to the idea that once partner hesitates, you cannot get a good result, "because" to hesitate is to cheat. This idea is the result of deeply muddled thinking, compounded by the notion that Bobby Wolff (and Bobby Goldman) must be wrong.

 

The Laws do not ban thinking. What they ban is actions based on unauthorised information...

You are misinterpreting. Justin's point was that it makes no difference if the hand partner holds matches the unauthorized information. He is presupposing that the hesitiation does suggest bidding on in this case. If, hypothetically, we can agree that partner's long tank in the problem as originally stated suggests bidding 6♣, then their point is that it would make no difference if 6♣ turned out to be a terrible contract. The only thing that would matter is that the unauthorized information suggested bidding it, and that UI was taken advantage of.

 

They are saying one thing and you are refuting another. And neither side is wrong at all, except you about what you believe you are arguing against.

[jtfanclub]

Sorry, was going to add to my last post, but I see somebody replied in the meanwhile.

 

I think part of what people are missing is that extra values makes it *less likely that slam will make*.

 

That doesn't seem to make any sense, but think about it.

 

If partner has extra values, then he surely could have bid 4 of a red suit. But he didn't. The most likely reason? Because his clubs are crap. And with crappy clubs, you aren't making slam across Jxxxx.

 

A hand with extra values and a club control doesn't sign off no matter how long the person thinks about it. So if you think the delay showed extra values, then you know for a fact that 6♣ will go down.

 

Examples:

 

Qx

QJxx

xx

AKxxx

 

This hand has an easy 5♣ bid. There's no other bid that would even be on the radar. And it makes six.

 

Qx

AQJx

xxx

Axxx

 

This hand has an easy 4♥ bid, so he doesn't have this sort of hand.

 

Qx

AQJx

AKQ

Qxxx

 

Well, there's extra values for you. It's a 20 count. But it isn't going to make slam, and there's no good way to bid it where you won't get way over your head. So this hand would think for two minutes and then bid 5♣.

[dburn]

I think that perhaps it may help to separate discussion of the actual hand from discussion of the legal principle involved. Some of jtfanclub's analysis above is, I confess, too abstruse for me, as is jdonn's notion that information may not correspond to that which is being informed about.

 

Mind you, the latter may be a matter of semantics only. If I say to you "I have the ace of hearts" when in fact I do not have the ace of hearts, have I informed you that I have the ace of hearts?