LA after making a poor bid

[mich-b]

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=st2htdakt9743cakj]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1♦-1♥

2♦-3NT*

4NT - 5♥

6♦[/hv]

 

3NT was slow (agreed). North actually had a balanced 16 count.

 

South proceeded directly to Blackwood and bid slam making.

Is PASS a LA for South?

Is PASS a LA for a South who bid 2♦ previously?

 

How would you rule?

 

Note 1: No special system agreements for N/S - vanilla 2/1.

Note 2: N/S are good players with at least 15 years of experience at the regional and national level, but not experts.

[blackshoe]

Is PASS a LA for South?

Is PASS a LA for a South who bid 2♦ previously?

These are the same question, since this south did bid 2♦.

 

How would I rule? First, I'd poll this player''s peers, if I can find any.

 

I should point out that IMO a priori pass is less likely to be an LA on the actual auction than if South had bid 3♦ at his second turn, since North rates to have a higher minimum strength for his 3NT. Then there's the question of what the BIT suggests. Maybe North was stretching to bid 3NT, in which case bidding on is likely to get them in trouble.

 

I was going to suggest that 4NT is a bad bid in any case, but I suppose if they're off two aces, they can stop in 5♦. Still, BW doesn't tell us a thing about the ♠K, and if we're missing that and the ♠A, 6♦ is probably doomed.

[hotShot]

As I see it, opener would bid 2♦ with 12 HCP and 5♦ cards. So I think holding 15 HCP, 7♦ and distributional values, pass is not on the list of LA's.

[jdonn]

Pass not being a logical alternative? It's the only possible bid!

 

Think of it this way. West bid 2♦ on this hand. 2♦ is allowed for the partnership on this (not altogether unusual) hand. East didn't investigate anything over it. So how can bidding be an LA?

 

Only two things could make that logic wrong. One is if the hand is so strange that the partnership couldn't be expected to have an implicit agreement about it, which is a matter of opinion but I really don't think this hand is. The other is that west made an anti-system bid, but good luck to him proving that.

[awm]

I'd allow the 4NT call, even though it seems illogical.

 

First, I don't think the break in tempo implies that 4NT is more likely to be successful. Partner could easily have been thinking about inviting. Or maybe he has a five-card heart suit and was thinking about trying to check back. Or maybe he is weak in one of the blacks and worried about that. In any case, slow 3NT does not necessarily show extras.

 

To give a similar situation, suppose that I miscount my points and open 1NT (15-17) with a 21-count. Partner thinks for a long time and then bids 3NT. Am I barred from bidding 4NT now that I've found the extra ace? I don't see why. Partner could easily have been thinking about inviting game, or about looking for a major suit fit with a 4333. The slow 3NT doesn't imply extras. Given that I have 21 high and partner evidently wants to be in game opposite 15, the quantitative call is "normal" (or whatever passes for normal after the initial misbid).

[jdonn]

To give a similar situation, suppose that I miscount my points and open 1NT (15-17) with a 21-count. Partner thinks for a long time and then bids 3NT. Am I barred from bidding 4NT now that I've found the extra ace? I don't see why. Partner could easily have been thinking about inviting game, or about looking for a major suit fit with a 4333. The slow 3NT doesn't imply extras. Given that I have 21 high and partner evidently wants to be in game opposite 15, the quantitative call is "normal" (or whatever passes for normal after the initial misbid).

In what way is that a similar situation? Did this player claim he saw his hand incorrectly? Even if he does, that would be different because it's very easy to prove. Here it would be much harder as the ranges for 2♦/3♦ rebids aren't generally defined that precisely, and on strict high cards it may be a 2♦ bid.

[TimG]

I would rule that pass is a logical alternative. More interesting to me is whether 4NT was demonstrably suggested over pass by the BIT.

[Jlall]

Since when does a slow 3N suggest extras? It usually suggests that responder has 5 hearts, and is considering whether to try for the 5-3 heart fit imo. I think the second most likely possibility is that responder is thinking whether or not to bid 2N or 3N. A slow 3N showing extras seems like the third most likely possibility.

[Codo]

A slow 3 NT DENIES extras, so 4 NT is fine.

 

I had problems with 4 diamond or 4 heart (with another hand obvously, but 4 NT is fine.)

[bluejak]

No, it certainly does not deny extras. One of the problems with "standard" bidding is that strong jump shifts have gone out of fashion. So a player makes a simple response, partner rebids his own suit, and .... Most players do not have a clear idea what to do next on many hands, so they think first. I grant you a hesitation then 3NT does not show extras, but it will often contain extras, especially with aficionados of this "modern" style.

[jdonn]

A slow 3 NT DENIES extras, so 4 NT is fine.

And yet, in real life bridge, at the table, when this really came up.... the player bid a slow 3NT with extras!!!

 

Think of it this way. Don't you think it is odd that:

- A player transmitted unauthorized information.

- His partner made an extremely strange bid, one that most of us would believe is impossible in the context of normal bridge.

- The player who transmitted the unauthorized information had exactly the hand that would make the extremely strange bid successful.

 

Occams Razor?

[mink]

jdonn,

 

you would be right if the question what was suggested by the UI could be answered by looking at the bid that the receiver of the UI makes next. But this is not the case. It would mean that whenever my partner thinks for a while and I am not sure if he thought because he is too weak or too strong for his bid, it is impossible for me to something intelligent. This is obviously nonsense.

 

If there are 2 possible ways to interpret the UI and these ways exclude each other, and they are more or less equally likely, then nothing is suggested by the UI. If way A is significantly more likely than way B, any bid that supports way A is suggested, and bids that are only good if looking at it in way B are not suggested.

 

Karl

[aguahombre]

jdonn,............

 

It would mean that whenever my partner thinks for a while and I am not sure if he thought because he is too weak or too strong for his bid, it is impossible for me to something intelligent. This is obviously nonsense.

No, it would mean that if you have made a limited, allegedly descriptive, bid --and then partner makes a sign-off call -- the auction is over. If you have slightly more strength than you have shown, and bid again after an obvious sign-off, you are presumed to have gained new informatation rather than looked again at your hand.

In this case, live with the underbid.

[jdonn]

All I'm saying is if we are trying to decide what particular UI shows in general, then looking at what the UI showed this time is evidence (not proof) of that.

 

I mean really we have 2 pieces of evidence that, at least for this pair, the slow 3NT bid suggested extras. One is that he had them. And one is that his partner did something very unusual that would be more successful if he had them. And the only counter evidence to suggest what the UI shows is some peoples' opinions. The opinions are valuable, but at the very least there is conflicting evidence to consider. I simply give more weight to the "hard" evidence.

[hotShot]

Josh my impression is that you seem to think that opener showed about 15 HCP and responders 3NT bid showed only 10 HCP while he held 16 HCP. And opener somehow got the UI that there is more.

 

My impression and I think others share this view is, that opener underbid his hand showing something like an average 13 HCP (more often (11) or 12 than 15) and responder showed about opening strength and a balanced hand. Discovering 2♦ cards in partners holding, makes opener reevaluate his hand and discovering extras (6♦ tricks and 2♣ trick => 8 tricks) in his unbalanced hand.

[blackshoe]

The question, when UI is present is "what does the UI demonstrably suggest that its recipient do?" "Demonstrably" is in there to prevent somebody (whether TD or player) from simply asserting that it suggests something, in order to arrive at his desired ruling.

 

If you cannot satisfactorily demonstrate that the UI in this case suggests bidding on over 3NT, then if there is a less successful alternative to bidding on, the TD shall adjust the score, considering that less successful alternative to have been taken.

 

It seems to me that if we are arguing that it could suggest bidding on, or it could suggest something else, then it does not demonstrably suggest either one.

[jdonn]

Josh my impression is that you seem to think that opener showed about 15 HCP and responders 3NT bid showed only 10 HCP while he held 16 HCP. And opener somehow got the UI that there is more.

Huh?

 

My impression and I think others share this view is, that opener underbid his hand showing something like an average 13 HCP (more often (11) or 12 than 15) and responder showed about opening strength and a balanced hand. Discovering 2♦ cards in partners holding, makes opener reevaluate his hand and discovering extras (6♦ tricks and 2♣ trick => 8 tricks) in his unbalanced hand.

Responder could be 4414. And judging by how well opener bids, I bet responder could be 3415 or 4405 as well.

[bluejak]

While a slow 3NT bid in general may be based on extras or not, one of the very difficult [possibly impossible] things is that a specific pair may have a much better idea whether extras are shown or not. I wrote earlier about the problems of strong jumps: now if a player like myself hesitates here I am less likely to have extras. Especially over a minor, where I play a Baron 2NT and strong jump shifts, how can I have extras? So if I think, it probably was lack of a stopper or a strange shape or something. But players who follow the modern style of not showing strength early are much more likely to have extras when they hesitate on this sequence.

[awm]

Suppose we gave this hand to a bunch of players, without the break in tempo.

 

Looking at the hand of ♠xx ♥x ♦AKTxxxx ♣AKJ, a lot of people would think that there could be a slam here. There are many hands for partner where slam makes, some of which are not even sufficient for the game bid. I suspect that most of us would bid on in this situation.

 

Of course, most of us would not have bid 2♦ earlier. So the question is whether the truly awful 2♦ rebid somehow bars the bidder from taking another call. It seems like there are two possibilities:

 

(1) Opener bid what he thought his hand was worth, then used the UI from partner's break in tempo to decide to bid on with a maximum for his previous actions.

 

(2) Opener rethought his 2♦ call, realized that it was a huge underbid, and then decided to bid on over partner's signoff for this reason only.

 

Obviously it's hard to tell between these, and if this was all there was to it, I could see ruling either way. Probably when in doubt we should assume case (1). One thing we can do is to ask opener why he bid on over 3NT (and if he makes a statement that sounds like 2, ask why he bid only 2♦ earlier). Sometimes he will say something like "I had one of my diamonds in with the hearts, and thought I had only a six-card suit when I bid 2♦" which pretty much clears up the confusion.

 

However, even if we decide that case (1) seems pretty likely, we need to establish that the slow 3NT made bidding on more likely to be successful. Since a slow 3NT could be based on any number of other things (five-card heart suit thinking about checkback, minimum game force thinking about invite, hand with weak club stopper thinking about bidding 2♠ to show a control) I don't see that the UI really makes bidding on more likely to succeed. The fact is that bidding on is simply very likely to succeed because opener's hand is so good (the 2♦ call was ridiculous).

[TimG]

I think that there are four conditions that must be met in order for there to be an adjustment:

• UI from partner was available;
  
• there was a LA to the chosen action; [edited]
  
• the chosen action could demonstrably be suggested over a LA by the UI; [edited] and
  
• damage was caused by the choice.
  

When you say:

(1) Opener bid what he thought his hand was worth, then used the UI from partner's break in tempo to decide to bid on with a maximum for his previous actions.

you seem to have already determined that the UI suggested bidding on, but as you later point out there are a number of possible reasons for a BIT that do not indicate bidding on.

(2) Opener rethought his 2♦ call, realized that it was a huge underbid, and then decided to bid on over partner's signoff for this reason only.

I don't think it matters what his motivation was if it is determined that the UI suggested bidding on. Even if the explanation is that the Ace of Diamonds was hidden when he rebid 2♦, that does not matter if it is determined that pass was a logical alternative and the UI available suggested bidding on. At least that's the way it seems to me.

[awm]

The issue is: "what does it mean for pass to be a logical alternative"? (whether bidding on over 3NT is an LA is not really relevant here)

 

Certainly if you just look at the auction (ignoring the hand) it seems like pass is the only logical alternative.

 

If you try to poll only people who would rebid 2♦ with the given hand, you're not going to get much of a sample size (and the people you get will be such bad players, who knows what they will say).

 

If you poll players in general, you may have to justify the 2♦ call. If you tell them "you came to the table as a sub, this call was just there already" then I suspect that pass is not a logical alternative.

 

My point is that if you believe that the dealer just misbid at second turn, perhaps because his hand was missorted, then you should be polling players in general with the explanation that the 2♦ bid was due to missorting the hand, or was just there when they arrived. Now I don't think pass is an LA. If you believe that the dealer bid 2♦ because he's a terrible player and this is how he evaluates hands, then you have to try to find his peers and poll them.

 

Of course, since the UI doesn't appear to make bidding on more favorable, we can avoid this whole polling issue and just rule result stands.

[bluejak]

• 
   
  
• a LA was the chosen action;
   
  

Hmmm. It has been discussed ad nauseam, but it is generally accepted that this is not a requirement. I have seen something like five different legal justifications for this, but the important thing is that rulings are based on this not being a requirement.

 

• 
   
  
• the chosen action could demonstrably be suggested by the UI;
   
  

Not enough: demonstrably suggested over an LA by the UI.

[blackshoe]

Hmmm. It has been discussed ad nauseam, but it is generally accepted that this is not a requirement. I have seen something like five different legal justifications for this, but the important thing is that rulings are based on this not being a requirement.

I agree with this, as far as it goes. However, Law 16 says "cannot choose from amongst logical alternatives… (emphasis mine). Clearly this is one case, at least, where we cannot determine what the law is simply by reading what it says — and I don't know about anyone else, but I don't like that at all.

[TimG]

• 
   
   
  
• a LA was the chosen action;
   
   
  

Hmmm. It has been discussed ad nauseam, but it is generally accepted that this is not a requirement. I have seen something like five different legal justifications for this, but the important thing is that rulings are based on this not being a requirement.

 

• 
   
   
  
• the chosen action could demonstrably be suggested by the UI;
   
   
  

Not enough: demonstrably suggested over an LA by the UI.

I was attempting to follow this:

To adjust for UI you need:

 

 

    * UI from partner, and

    * an LA to the chosen action, and

    * the chosen action to be suggested by the UI, and

    * damage caused by the choice

 

Now, since you need all of them, it is very reasonable to look at any one first.  So, for eample, if you determine there are no LAs to the chosen action you need go no further: no adjustment.

 

Despite often seeing in print an order as how you should approach UI, that is wrong: you look at whichever feature is easiest in case that is enough to decide no adjustment.

And made an error when I changed "an LA to the chosen action" to "a LA was the chosen action". I thought it looked odd and should have been more careful. My mistake.

 

But, I find it surprising that you would be critical of

 

"the chosen action could demonstrably be suggested by the UI"

 

when you previously said

 

"the chosen action to be suggested by the UI"

 

and later defended your choice of words with:

We are not legal eagles: we leave that to BLML [bridge-laws mailing list].  We do not need to use exact wording in every case, and I certainly do not.

[aguahombre]

I wish the hand in question had one less diamond and one more spade, and elsewise was a bit weaker. The lunacy of the 2D bid is so "demonstratively" obvious that it is not a good case in point -- being the all-too frequent situation where there is a limit bid and a signoff, then more bidding. this ain't the hand. I retract my earlier post and reserve the right to belabor the issue with a different hand.

 

With this hand, the hesitation would have to be followed by some other distraction (maybe a second cow flying by) to keep me from waking up and bidding more.