Was there any LA?

[crazy4hoop]

ACBL Club Game:

♠AQJxxx

♥J

♦A10xx

♣Kx

 

 

All NV:

RHO You LHO Partner

pass 1♠ 3♣* 3♠

4♥ 4♠ 5♥ pass**

pass ???

 

*shows a Michaels type bid with specifically diamonds and hearts

** BIT

 

The player chose to bid 5♠, got doubled, and made it. Did this person have any LA? I tend to think so but I am not certain. I appreciate all input here. Thanks.

[gordontd]

Do we know what partner was thinking of doing?

Isn't it more likely that partner was thinking of doubling 5♥ than of bidding 5♠?

[Cascade]

What did 3♠ show.

 

Without any special agreement I think that PASS of 5♥ looks normal. I don't have particularly good defense and I don't have particularly good offense. There is some defense - two aces etc - and some offense - 6-4 distribution.

 

I have shown something extra by bidding 4♠ now I don't think I have anything in reserve.

[blackshoe]

It seems clear that the BITer had to be thinking of either doubling or bidding 5♠, more likely the latter. So both doubling and bidding on are demonstrably suggested alternatives for opener. Is pass an LA? I'm inclined to think so, but I'd like to investigate a bit further.

[Cyberyeti]

What did 3♠ show and were 3♦ and 3♥ available as other raises and what did they mean ?

 

I'm potentially making this opposite as little as Kxxx, xxx, x, Qxxxx, but can partner have that ?

 

In my view, if 3♠ guarantees me 4 spades then my 4♠ says nothing other than I have a 6th one, and I do still have plenty of extras.

 

Also, I could easily concede 5♥ even when it's not making as I have an awkward choice of lead. I would bid on routinely at teams opposite what I would expect for 3S, at pairs it's less clear, both contracts figure to be -1 most of the time.

[crazy4hoop]

I am 99% sure this pair had no agreements as to what 3♦ or 3♥ would have been. I know I should have asked. I felt pass was a LA if partner could be as little as ♠Kxx ♥xx ♦xxx ♣QJxxx. If it means anything, one player has about 500 ACBL masterpoints and the other (the 5♠ bidder), has about 10.

[Phil]

It seems clear that the BITer had to be thinking of either doubling or bidding 5♠, more likely the latter. So both doubling and bidding on are demonstrably suggested alternatives for opener. Is pass an LA? I'm inclined to think so, but I'd like to investigate a bit further.

These "3-way" actions reflect a portion of the law that I've just never understood. Since the hitch could have meant that the hitcher was thinking about doubling or bidding, pass is frequently the 'only' LA.

 

Therefore if opener:

 

- bids on, and it works, the score is adjusted

- doubles, and it works, the score is adjusted

 

can I also assume that if opener:

 

- bids on, and if it doesn't work, keeps his score

- doubles, and if doesn't work, keeps his score.

 

Therefore, the only legitimate way that the 4♠ bidder can earn a good score is to pass, and hope it works.

 

When there is a binary action available in other auctions (pass / doubling, bidding/ doubling, or bidding / passing), the choices seem more equitable.

[bluejak]

If this the way your TD is ruling, I fancy it is your TD that does not understand the Law, not yourself. As can be seen by posts earlier in the thread many people consider whether an action not chosen is an LA, but this is insufficient reason to adjust under the Law. The action chosen must be demonstrably suggested over the LA, which is why gordontd asked what he did [and was ignored :D ].

 

Therefore the scenario that Phil propounds is only valid with a TD who does not understand or follow the Law. Either the UI suggests bidding on, or it does not, so it cannot be right to just routinely rule back all successful actions.

 

Let us look at the current case: what does partner's BIT suggest? Without an answer to this no ruling is possible on this hand.

 

:ph34r:

 

Incidentally, the name for the 3♣ overcall is "Ghestem", one of the great sources of MI rulings. This hand, unusually, has nothing to do with the Ghestem mistakes that cause so many rulings! :(

[hotShot]

Eddy Kantar has written a booklet "The Forcing Pass in Contract Bridge"

 

According to this a forcing pass situation is established,

after your side has issued and accepted a game invitation.

 

Now if partners pass was forcing, then the LA's are dbl and 5♠, and I don't think that one is more suggested than the other. If partner had a preference he would not pass.

 

If the partnership does not use forcing pass, or this situation is not suitable for a forcing pass, then "pass" should be considered.

[Jlall]

Lol at this thread. If partner tank passes and he was good it means 99 % of the time that he was thinking of doubling them. No good player would bid 3S then 5S. So the 5S bidder is acting ethically since a tank pass suggests a pass or double.

[Cascade]

Lol at this thread. If partner tank passes and he was good it means 99 % of the time that he was thinking of doubling them. No good player would bid 3S then 5S. So the 5S bidder is acting ethically since a tank pass suggests a pass or double.

That's not a very good idea. Basically you are saying that we should ignore the additional information that partner was happy to bid 4♠ and that the opponents are happy to raise hearts to the five level.

[greenender]

Eddy Kantar has written a booklet  "The Forcing Pass in Contract Bridge"

 

According to this a forcing pass situation is established,

after your side has issued and accepted a game invitation.

 

Now if partners pass was forcing, then the LA's are dbl and 5♠, and I don't think that one is more suggested than the other. If partner had a preference he would not pass.

 

If the partnership does not use forcing pass, or this situation is not suitable for a forcing pass, then "pass" should be considered.

If the pair has not considered the meaning of 3-level cue-bids as opposed to 3♠, then it is unlikely that they have any agreements as to forcing passes in this sort of auction.

 

Kantar's recommendations are all very well, but

- many partnerships will not have thought about the question at all; and

- a fair proportion of those who have discussed it will have reached a different conclusion.

 

Besides, for those in whose methods 4♠ merely denotes possession of a 6-4 fit, it is stretching it to say that they have issued and accepted an invitation.

[greenender]

Lol at this thread. If partner tank passes and he was good it means 99 % of the time that he was thinking of doubling them. No good player would bid 3S then 5S. So the 5S bidder is acting ethically since a tank pass suggests a pass or double.

I agree that partner is much more liekely to have been thinking of doubling than of bidding on, so:

 

- whilst pass is a LA

- bidding on is not demonstrably suggested.

 

So, no adjustment.

 

However, in three-way option cases where it is less clear what partner may have been thinking about, "not pass" tends to be demonstrably suggested over pass. Furthermore, double tends to be demonstrably suggested, as doubling does not preclude partner pulling if he was thinking of bidding on, whereas bidding does prevent partner doubling if that was his other option.

[inquiry]

This is probably an unclear situation to the player with the BIT.

• He could be considering rather this is a forcing pass in his system.
  
• He could know it was a forcing pass situation and was considering if he wanted to bid 5♠ immediately or pass and pull to show slamish hand.
  
• He could be thinking he should double
  
• He could be thinking he should bid 5♠
  
• I have been know to be thinking about where I am going to go out and eat after the session (no wonder I seldom win) :)
  

If I was a TD, I would not be sure which of these the BIT showed, but I would be fairly certain that the BIT suggesting doing something other than PASS would be more successful than pass. Thus, I would roll the contract back to 5♥ as pass has to be a logical alternative. Perhaps I would be wrong, but the only downside is if he was worried that his pass was forcing and he was very weak.

 

If I had to guess, real world, i would guess he was thinking about doubling not about any of the other possibilities.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I would say, that X instead of 5S is the most problematic bid,

since X covers all bases, partner wont be complete broke, so

he either has add. distribution or add. strength, and because of

this, X should not be allowed.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[bluejak]

If I was a TD, I would not be sure which of these the BIT showed, but I would be fairly certain that the BIT suggesting doing something other than PASS would be more successful than pass. Thus, I would roll the contract back to 5♥ as pass has to be a logical alternative. Perhaps I would be wrong, but the only downside is if he was worried that his pass was forcing and he was very weak.

 

If I had to guess, real world, i would guess he was thinking about doubling not about any of the other possibilities.

So he was thinking whether to double, and you believe this is the most likely scenario, and you are going to roll back 5♠ which is not suggested by someone thinking whether to double. Do you really think this is what the Law requires?

[TimG]

If this the way your TD is ruling, I fancy it is your TD that does not understand the Law, not yourself. As can be seen by posts earlier in the thread many people consider whether an action not chosen is an LA, but this is insufficient reason to adjust under the Law. The action chosen must be demonstrably suggested over the LA, which is why gordontd asked what he did [and was ignored ;) ].

 

Therefore the scenario that Phil propounds is only valid with a TD who does not understand or follow the Law. Either the UI suggests bidding on, or it does not, so it cannot be right to just routinely rule back all successful actions.

 

Let us look at the current case: what does partner's BIT suggest? Without an answer to this no ruling is possible on this hand.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that actions must be considered pairwise. That is, action (5S or DBL) is suggest over a LA (pass) is irrelevant. Rather where the Law is concerned the chosen action (5S) must be demonstrably suggested over the LA (pass) in order for adjustment.

[gordontd]

He could know it was a forcing pass situation and was considering if he wanted to bid 5♠ immediately or pass and pull to show slamish hand.

To show a slammish hand that had bid a non-forcing 3♠ on the previous round?

[bluejak]

If this the way your TD is ruling, I fancy it is your TD that does not understand the Law, not yourself.  As can be seen by posts earlier in the thread many people consider whether an action not chosen is an LA, but this is insufficient reason to adjust under the Law.  The action chosen must be demonstrably suggested over the LA, which is why gordontd asked what he did [and was ignored  ;) ].

 

Therefore the scenario that Phil propounds is only valid with a TD who does not understand or follow the Law.  Either the UI suggests bidding on, or it does not, so it cannot be right to just routinely rule back all successful actions.

 

Let us look at the current case: what does partner's BIT suggest?  Without an answer to this no ruling is possible on this hand.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that actions must be considered pairwise. That is, action (5S or DBL) is suggest over a LA (pass) is irrelevant. Rather where the Law is concerned the chosen action (5S) must be demonstrably suggested over the LA (pass) in order for adjustment.

Yes. Law 16B1A reads in part "... may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." I think that means you have to look at each pair separately.

[peachy]

Before going straight to "What are the LA's?" we have to determine what the UI from the BIT is.

 

Given that both of them were relative novices, one can assume their hesitations could mean anything and/or nothing at all. They are unlikely to know about the UI laws either.

 

If they had been a little more advanced or expert, the logical conclusion is that the hesitator was thinking of doubling, which makes Dbl by opener a LA he should not choose.

 

Result stands. But I am willing to listen.

[blackshoe]

The question, I think, is what the BIT would mean to his partner, not to the person who made the BIT or the TD or a committee member. The accepted way to determine that is to poll the partner's peers.

[crazy4hoop]

Thank you all for the input (and I still welcome more). In my opinion, this pair has probably never even heard of what a forcing pass is so I surmised that the BIT suggested not passing. Passing 5♥ seemed like it could work out just as much as bidding on or doubling so I did in fact adjust the result to 5♥ played by the nonoffenders (down 2 on the unfortunate, but at all probable, trump lead). I guess what I'm getting at is was I wrong?

[blackshoe]

"Surmised" is unfortunate wording. You can't guess — the law says that the player cannot choose an LA that "could demonstrably have been suggested" so you have to be able to demonstrate that it could have been suggested. That said, it's a judgement call, and in making such, you do the best you can, tell the players they can appeal, and if an AC overrules your judgement, learn from it. :)

[TimG]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that actions must be considered pairwise.  That is, action (5S or DBL) is suggest over a LA (pass) is irrelevant.  Rather where the Law is concerned the chosen action (5S) must be demonstrably suggested over the LA (pass) in order for adjustment.

Yes. Law 16B1A reads in part "... may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." I think that means you have to look at each pair separately.

Could comment on Appeal Case 7 (which can be found on page 4 of this Daily Bulletin from Washington, DC)?

 

In this case, the auction started:

 

1♠-(P)-2♠-(P)

P-(DBL)-P-(3♣)

P*

 

* alleged BIT

 

It seems to me that the BIT suggests taking action rather than passing. But, the BIT could have meant:

 

1) opener was thinking about doubling; or

2) opener was thinking about competing to 3♠.

 

Considered pairwise:

 

3♠ v Pass, if opener's hesitation was because he was thinking about doubling, then 3♠ is not suggested over Pass;

 

DBL v Pass, if opener's hesitation was because he was thinking about bidding 3♠, then DBL is not suggested over pass.

 

Perhaps DBL is suggested over pass because it allows for either 3♣X or 3♠, so caters to whatever opener was thinking about. But, surely the BIT does not suggest bidding 3♠ over the LA of Pass.

[blackshoe]

Considered pairwise:

 

3♠ v Pass, if opener's hesitation was because he was thinking about doubling, then 3♠ is not suggested over Pass;

 

DBL v Pass, if opener's hesitation was because he was thinking about bidding 3♠, then DBL is not suggested over pass.

 

Perhaps DBL is suggested over pass because it allows for either 3♣X or 3♠, so caters to whatever opener was thinking about. But, surely the BIT does not suggest bidding 3♠ over the LA of Pass.

I'm not sure this is the correct approach. The law (16A) specifies what sources of information are authorized to a player, and that he may not base a call or play on other information, such other information being designated extraneous. 16B1{a} says that when a player receives such extraneous information (EI), if it may suggest a call or play, he cannot choose that call or play if it demonstrably could have been suggested by the EI. So the question is "what is the information transmitted by the BIT?" It is that he was thinking about something. We (including the player in receipt of the EI) cannot be sure what that thing was, but as you have demonstrated, we can narrow it down. Since he might have been thinking about bidding 3♠, I think demonstrably the EI could suggest that his partner bid it. We've already decided that Pass is an LA, so the criteria of 16B1{a} are met, and 3♠ cannot be chosen over pass.

 

I could be wrong about this - I"m still not convinced I truly understand this law - but I'm sure if I am, David will correct me. :D