Logical Alternatives?

[jallerton]

The hesitation implies that the doubler does not hold a standard take-out double.

 

One eminent poster infers from the hesitation that his partner must hold a distributional hand not suitable for defending, and decides that because of the UI he has to change his call from 3NT to Pass.

 

However, I have some evidence to the contrary. A few weeks ago, my partner made a slow double on the same auction (2♠-P-3♠-?). On that occasion, he held a 3334 19-count and if I had found the winning action of passing the double holding ♠Ax the opponents would quite rightly have asked questions.

 

When partner doubles slowly in this auction we cannot tell in what way his double is flawed. It could be more or less suitable than normal for defending. Therefore I agree with:

 

I think pass is an LA but I don't see why 3NT or pass is suggested by the BIT.

[lamford]

The hesitation implies that the doubler does not hold a standard take-out double.

This is agreed. The bid that I would make opposite a standard takeout double is 3NT. Let us look at the possible hands for partner that would cause a problem:

 

a) the (3334) 19 count. Presumably partner did not have a spade stop or he would have bid 3NT. If that is all he was looking for, we can oblige. I don't understand why he would take such a long time over this, however.

 

b ) some distributional hand that is interested in higher things, or is uncertain whether 4m would be a Roman non-jump. That is an interesting issue in itself, and I think that it should show 5 bid m and 5 hearts. But I agree the very slow double is much more flexible. 3NT now caters for this hand; although slam might be on, it is going to be hard to find it.

 

c) a hand too good to bid 4H, or 5C. This is quite likely. Partner will not now pass 3NT and we have kept the bidding alive, whereas Pass might be really bad.

 

I cannot think of any other hand, but Pass is the bid that does not cater for partner's BIT, while 3NT does, in that partner is now still there. We are obliged to carefully avoid taking advantage of the BIT. The bids that do that are Pass, and, perhaps, 7S. I prefer the latter, but the former certainly complies with the Laws too.

[Vampyr]

When partner doubles slowly in this auction we cannot tell in what way his double is flawed.  It could be more or less suitable than normal for defending.

I think we have to look at the balance of probabilities here. Is partner more likely to have a hand with more defense, or a hand with less? If this can be determined, then I think we can decide what is suggested by the BIT. If the two possibilities are roughly even, then nothing is suggested. If one is rather more likely, it should be taken as suggesting an action.

 

There are, of course, problems with this approach. One is that it is rather difficult to get a sample size adequate to use for calculations. The other is that players may well have an idea of which sorts of hands their partners find difficult.

 

The solution, of course, is to use the STOP card for competitive auctions (or in this case, for auctions that are likely to become competitive and in which the next hand may well have problems deciding what to do). I think that the countries which have adopted this regulation are very forward-thinking.

[hotShot]

I cannot think of any other hand, ...

What about?

 

d) A 2344 12-count with ♠Qx which could be wasted 2 points and unsure if dbl implies 4♥.

 

e) A minimum opening 2(335) hand with a bad 5 card suit, that does not have 2 places to play.

[dburn]

The hesitation implies that the doubler does not hold a standard take-out double.

 

One eminent poster infers from the hesitation that his partner must hold a distributional hand not suitable for defending, and decides that because of the UI he has to change his call from 3NT to Pass.

 

However, I have some evidence to the contrary.  A few weeks ago, my partner made a slow double on the same auction (2♠-P-3♠-?).  On that occasion, he held a 3334 19-count and if I had found the winning action of passing the double holding ♠Ax the opponents would quite rightly have asked questions.

 

When partner doubles slowly in this auction we cannot tell in what way his double is flawed.  It could be more or less suitable than normal for defending. Therefore I agree with:

 

I think pass is an LA but I don't see why 3NT or pass is suggested by the BIT.

This is an ancient (but nonetheless partially valid) argument that can be expressed more simply in these terms:

 

You open 1♠ and partner thinks for a while before producing a limit raise to 3♠. Now, assuming that you have no prior knowledge of partner's tendencies towards aggression or conservatism, that slow 3♠ bid could be either a 2.5♠ bid or a 3.5♠ bid - nothing is suggested either way. You have a marginal reraise to 4♠. Are you at liberty to make it, and entitled to plus 420 or 620 if successful in your contract?

 

Jallerton, as far as I can tell, would say yes. I would say no. In fact, I said "no" some years ago when as a member of the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee I suggested the adoption of a general principle to the effect that when someone does something slowly, the UI that someone's partner is assumed to have is that someone does not want the auction to proceed "pass-pass-pass".

 

This principle will not work in all cases, nor of course will it eliminate "reverse hesitations", where someone who really does want there to be no more bidding will act slowly in order to bar partner. But since one must try to impose some sort of order on the chaos that is Law 16, despite the best efforts of the Law makers to confound such an attempt by also creating Law 73, it is at any rate a starting point. The alternatives are either to allow full-scale cheating (since a slow raise to 3♠ demonstrably suggests nothing, people are at liberty to use it systemically until the officials detect a pattern, which would take years) or to cancel all good results achieved after slow actions on the basis that whatever X is, a slow action could demonstrably suggest X. Neither alternative seems to me particularly desirable.

[campboy]

I think this one, more than anything else, depends on the standard of doubler. If he is a strong player I can buy into dburn's reasoning for the likely hand he has -- he shouldn't be taking a long time to decide between double and pass. On the other hand, if he is a weak player it is much more likely that he has some marginal takeout double, in which case 3NT and 3S are probably both going off. If he is somewhere in between, who knows?

[Vampyr]

This is an ancient (but nonetheless partially valid) argument that can be expressed more simply in these terms:

 

You open 1♠ and partner thinks for a while before producing a limit raise to 3♠. Now, assuming that you have no prior knowledge of partner's tendencies towards aggression or conservatism, that slow 3♠ bid could be either a 2.5♠ bid or a 3.5♠ bid - nothing is suggested either way. You have a marginal reraise to 4♠. Are you at liberty to make it, and entitled to plus 420 or 620 if successful in your contract?

 

Jallerton, as far as I can tell, would say yes. I would say no. In fact, I said "no" some years ago when as a member of the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee I suggested the adoption of a general principle to the effect that when someone does something slowly, the UI that someone's partner is assumed to have is that someone does not want the auction to proceed "pass-pass-pass".

 

I think that this is right. And I would go further. There have been too many cases posted recently where the general consensus is "partner's eg slow pass may mean he was thinking of doubling or thinking of bidding on; I cannot tell which, so the UI does not suggest anything". I have always maintained that it means at least that partner is not crazy about defending the current contract undoubled, so any action other than pass is suggested.

[lamford]

I cannot think of any other hand, ...

What about?

 

d) A 2344 12-count with ♠Qx which could be wasted 2 points and unsure if dbl implies 4♥.

 

e) A minimum opening 2(335) hand with a bad 5 card suit, that does not have 2 places to play.

OK, I accept those two, although I am not sure why partner would double very very slowly, which is what we are told in the OP. The only choice is between pass and double in each case.

 

But even then, surely 3NT is the most likely contract. On a spade lead we can duck the first round, as spades are going to be 2-2-6-3 round the table. We might only fail when the weak two bidder has a certain entry in clubs and we are forced to play on the suit.

 

So, your "extra" hands merely reinforce my argument - that 3NT is demonstrably suggested. And I would back partner to have a singleton spade after the raise - for which most lawful people would want three cards in the suit.

[bluejak]

... or to cancel all good results achieved after slow actions on the basis that whatever X is, a slow action could demonstrably suggest X.  Neither alternative seems to me particularly desirable.

I have always wondered a little about this which is perceived wisdom. A slow 3♠ may be 2.5♠ or 3.5♠, that is true in general.

 

But is it true in particular? If one player always hesitates when considering bidding more, and his partner always acts as though it is a 3.5♠ bid, he will be quite successful. But if the next player along only really thinks before making an optimistic call, then if after thought his partner assumed a 2.5♠ bid he will be relatively successful.

 

I know the arguments against "If it hesitates, shoot it" but there is one obvious argument for such an approach: the actual partner may have a good idea what a hesitation means [even if only on a subconscious level]. The only way to deal with this may be to assume that success should not be allowed.

[Vampyr]

... or to cancel all good results achieved after slow actions on the basis that whatever X is, a slow action could demonstrably suggest X.  Neither alternative seems to me particularly desirable.

I have always wondered a little about this which is perceived wisdom. A slow 3♠ may be 2.5♠ or 3.5♠, that is true in general.

 

But is it true in particular? If one player always hesitates when considering bidding more, and his partner always acts as though it is a 3.5♠ bid, he will be quite successful. But if the next player along only really thinks before making an optimistic call, then if after thought his partner assumed a 2.5♠ bid he will be relatively successful.

 

I know the arguments against "If it hesitates, shoot it" but there is one obvious argument for such an approach: the actual partner may have a good idea what a hesitation means [even if only on a subconscious level]. The only way to deal with this may be to assume that success should not be allowed.

I think that this is actually a reasonable approach for this sort of auction. What I and all of my partners do, if we realise that we have taken a long time over a bid, is make the final decision for the partnership.

 

However, in competitive auctions, especially at high levels, it is much more difficult to make a decision on your own. This is why I am a strong advocate of using the Stop card in such situations even when there is not a jump. I hope that the L&E Committee will consider such a regulation.

[axman]

... or to cancel all good results achieved after slow actions on the basis that whatever X is, a slow action could demonstrably suggest X.  Neither alternative seems to me particularly desirable.

I have always wondered a little about this which is perceived wisdom. A slow 3♠ may be 2.5♠ or 3.5♠, that is true in general.

 

But is it true in particular? If one player always hesitates when considering bidding more, and his partner always acts as though it is a 3.5♠ bid, he will be quite successful. But if the next player along only really thinks before making an optimistic call, then if after thought his partner assumed a 2.5♠ bid he will be relatively successful.

 

I know the arguments against "If it hesitates, shoot it" but there is one obvious argument for such an approach: the actual partner may have a good idea what a hesitation means [even if only on a subconscious level]. The only way to deal with this may be to assume that success should not be allowed.

Actually, the prescription found in L16, if followed, leads to shooting after the hesitation except in rare circumstances.

 

The reason that L16 is not enforced as written very often is that it is viewed as too onerous.

[pwg]

Law 16 includes the word *demonstrably* as in: "partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information". In normal parlance that implies at least a fairly high degree of certainty, not just a possibility.

 

How then should we interpret "demonstrably" in this context? If the extraneous information is that the doubler is not sure that this is the best call, how do we demonstrate that this suggests one LA over another?

[hotShot]

OK, I accept those two, although I am not sure why partner would double very very slowly, which is what we are told in the OP. The only choice is between pass and double in each case.

 

But even then, surely 3NT is the most likely contract. On a spade lead we can duck the first round, as spades are going to be 2-2-6-3 round the table. We might only fail when the weak two bidder has a certain entry in clubs and we are forced to play on the suit.

 

So, your "extra" hands merely reinforce my argument - that 3NT is demonstrably suggested. And I would back partner to have a singleton spade after the raise - for which most lawful people would want three cards in the suit.

Now that we have agreed on possible hands, lets take a look at Law 16:

B. Extraneous Information from Partner

1. (a) After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

A t/o-dbl is a request to bid on, if a slow t/o dbl would suggest bidding on, there is no extraneous information.

To play 3NT partner could bid that himself, if he has sufficient ♠ stopper, or he could make the only bid available to him that does not bypass 3NT.

Partners dbl (slow or fast) is massive suggestion to play 3NT, if my hand has sufficient ♠ stopper. What extraneous information does the hesitation carry?

[bluejak]

Actually, the prescription found in L16, if followed, leads to shooting after the hesitation except in rare circumstances.

 

The reason that L16 is not enforced as written very often is that it is viewed as too onerous.

I do not believe this at all.

[lamford]

What extraneous information does the hesitation carry?

As jallerton said, "that the hand is not a standard takeout double"

[Pict]

So in this case, let's say I follow the logic that leads to passing.

 

The TD is called, and asks me why I passed. I am to reply that I passed partner's double because he hesitated and I decided he didn't have a normal takeout double.

 

So far I am just not convinced by the arguments from vague interpretations of partner's tempo, and I am certainly not putting myself in the position of explaining myself to the Director as above or anything like it.

[aguahombre]

What extraneous information does the hesitation carry?

As jallerton said, "that the hand is not a standard takeout double"

Ok, so if I make the call which I would make if it were a standard takeout double (3NT), and explain to the TD or a committee just that....then my explanation is, of course, self-serving. But it is also correct. From what I see here, it is also the likely call that would be chosen by my peers and by the committee members.

 

If I were to Pass, for whatever noble reasons, that would be a call influenced by the BIT, and hard to defend if it worked out well. If I get lawyer'd against for making the call my hand and the auction suggest to me --without regard to the BIT-- at least my conscience will be clear.

[dburn]

If I were to Pass, for whatever noble reasons, that would be a call influenced by the BIT, and hard to defend if it worked out well.  If I get lawyer'd against for making the call my hand and the auction suggest to me --without regard to the BIT-- at least my conscience will be clear.

I have a lot of sympathy with this argument - it is the one Jeff Rubens used to advance in the Bridge World for just "doing what you would do anyway" even in the presence of UI from partner. This strategy is now considerably more strongly supported by Law 16 than it used to be, but it remains counter-indicated by Law 73 (which is why I remark that these two Laws are self-contradictory - or more exactly, why taken together they create a body of Laws that is self-contradictory; as was correctly pointed out to me the other day, neither actually contradicts itself).

 

If, as aquahombre and others remark, you make the "normal" call having taken care to convince yourself that it really is normal, you are not necessarily in violation of L16, for to you there are no logical alternatives to the call you made. Of course, your peer group may consider that (in effect) there were, and you should of course submit to such a judgement.

 

But suppose that I held this hand, and suppose my partner doubled very slowly. Now, maybe he had some 12-count with ♠Qx and only three hearts, and maybe he was doubling very slowly because he was screwing his courage to the sticking-point and beyond before he doubled. If he has such a hand, surely I should pass - we won't make anything, and they won't make 3♠ doubled.

 

That's not likely, though - the opponents won't often have only eight spades for this auction, and besides, partner would double only moderately slowly (or not at all) with some shapeless junk, not double very slowly. Far, far more often than that my guy will be doubling very slowly because he has some 0=4=(5-4) or 0=3=(6-4) monster hand and is terrified that I will leave the double in, so I should not.

 

That is why I consider that although L16 does not oblige me to pass, L73 might oblige me to pass, especially since some very strong players in their contributions to this thread have remarked that pass "could work" or "is reasonable", or words to that effect. A poll of such players per L16 would not provide evidence for enforcing a pass, since none of them actually would pass, but if bidding scored 2140 in 7♣ while pass scored 100 against 3♠ doubled, I might still consider that the opponents had a case under L73.

[lamford]

If I were to Pass, for whatever noble reasons, that would be a call influenced by the BIT, and hard to defend if it worked out well.  If I get lawyer'd against for making the call my hand and the auction suggest to me --without regard to the BIT-- at least my conscience will be clear.

I have a lot of sympathy with this argument - it is the one Jeff Rubens used to advance in the Bridge World for just "doing what you would do anyway" even in the presence of UI from partner. This strategy is now considerably more strongly supported by Law 16 than it used to be, but it remains counter-indicated by Law 73 (which is why I remark that these two Laws are self-contradictory - or more exactly, why taken together they create a body of Laws that is self-contradictory; as was correctly pointed out to me the other day, neither actually contradicts itself).

 

If, as aquahombre and others remark, you make the "normal" call having taken care to convince yourself that it really is normal, you are not necessarily in violation of L16, for to you there are no logical alternatives to the call you made. Of course, your peer group may consider that (in effect) there were, and you should of course submit to such a judgement.

 

But suppose that I held this hand, and suppose my partner doubled very slowly. Now, maybe he had some 12-count with ♠Qx and only three hearts, and maybe he was doubling very slowly because he was screwing his courage to the sticking-point and beyond before he doubled. If he has such a hand, surely I should pass - we won't make anything, and they won't make 3♠ doubled.

 

That's not likely, though - the opponents won't often have only eight spades for this auction, and besides, partner would double only moderately slowly (or not at all) with some shapeless junk, not double very slowly. Far, far more often than that my guy will be doubling very slowly because he has some 0=4=(5-4) or 0=3=(6-4) monster hand and is terrified that I will leave the double in, so I should not.

 

That is why I consider that although L16 does not oblige me to pass, L73 might oblige me to pass, especially since some very strong players in their contributions to this thread have remarked that pass "could work" or "is reasonable", or words to that effect. A poll of such players per L16 would not provide evidence for enforcing a pass, since none of them actually would pass, but if bidding scored 2140 in 7♣ while pass scored 100 against 3♠ doubled, I might still consider that the opponents had a case under L73.

I love it. Indeed partner's hesitation suggests that he may have ♠ none ♥ AQxx ♦xxx ♣AKxxxx. That is a really awkward hand; Double is flawed, but so is everything else; you don't want partner to pass, but you don't want to bid anything other than double either. In fact the slow double is ideal, as nobody passes the hand opposite. Note that nothing is demonstrably suggested, but over our slow 3NT he can bid 4C to show something like this, and while we will probably only reach 6C that is better than the likely five (or six) tricks against 3S doubled.

 

My conscience would not be clear ...

[aguahombre]

and who suggested a slow 3NT after the slow double? 3NT in tempo, and if the same hand who bid the slow double wants to bid on, so what? He merely knows I chose a takeout to 3NT.

[dburn]

and who suggested a slow 3NT after the slow double? 3NT in tempo, and if the same hand who bid the slow double wants to bid on, so what?  He merely knows I chose a takeout to 3NT.

Oh, no one is suggesting that you should bid 3NT slowly. The point is that you should choose pass instead of 3NT, perhaps because the UI from partner's very slow double demonstrably suggests that you should not choose pass. The further point is that even if no one would actually pass with your hand over an in-tempo double, L16 then says that it is OK for you to bid, but L73 says (or perhaps says) that it is still mandatory for you to pass over a very slow double.

[aguahombre]

If that is the case, then I should just call the director myself and tell him to make the bid he wants, because I won't make a wrong call based on a slow anything by partner.

[dburn]

If that is the case, then I should just call the director myself and tell him to make the bid he wants, because I won't make a wrong call based on a slow anything by partner.

I am not sure you have understood anything I have said, and I do not particularly blame you for that - these are deep waters.

 

What I say, to clarify, is that in the context of Law 16 you and jdonn are both right when you say in effect (as you both did say) that "if no one would pass [an in-tempo double] then we shouldn't make anyone pass".

 

But in the context of Law 73, then if I and jdonn say in effect (as we both did say) that "I think pass is very reasonable. Why should we have 9 fast tricks, one spade stopper is very scary?" then although neither of us would pass an in-tempo double, both of us should pass a very slow double if we are convinced that a very slow double can only be based on a hand that really does not want us to pass it.

 

Of course, we (by which I mean I - jdonn never errs) may be wrong - I in particular live in the constant dread that the Original Poster will tell us that partner actually had a weak no trump, and that my hand passed his very slow double, and the score wasn't adjusted to 3NT down two as it should have been... but to return to the main stream of this evening's symposium:

 

Now, I don't care whether they rewrite L16 or L73. I think that your (aquahombre's) point of view (bid 3NT) is entirely reasonable, and that it is entirely ridiculous that the present L16 and the present L73 should co-exist. I also think (how could I think otherwise?) that my point of view (pass) is entirely reasonable, and that it is entirely ridiculous that the present L16 and the present L73 should co-exist. And furthermore, I think that Carthage ought to be destroyed...

[Pict]

I believe (or suffer the delusion) that I understand dburn's argument, even if I don't agree with it.

 

There is one point that I think needs clarification.

 

dburn seems to have abandoned the defined meaning of 'logical alternative' and replaced it by 'reasonable alternative', or perhaps a bid that has some logic.

 

Ignoring the meaning of logical alternative in the Laws seems to cut Laws 73 and 16 adrift from each other, creating the possibility of adopting more extreme criteria for complying with 73C. Reintroducing the meaning of logical alternative appears (to me) to remove the supposed overall incoherence.

[lamford]

both of us should pass a very slow double if we are convinced that a very slow double can only be based on a hand that really does not want us to pass it <snip>

I would go further. Both of you should pass a very slow double if you think it is more likely than not to be based on a hand that really does not want us to pass it.

 

You must carefully avoid taking ANY advantage from the UI.

 

On another forum, I discussed what to bid on Axx Axx Axx Axxx third in hand after a very slow pass from partner as dealer. Only The Abbott, partnering Brother Anthony, would select 3NT, and therefore it is not a logical alternative, so 16B does not prevent me selecting it. Were it not for Law 73C, I would be permitted to have a shot at it, as partner's most likely hand type is a flawed pre-empt somewhere, or an off-centre weak two.