Logical Alternatives?

[Pict]

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.

You may have argued this, but I am surprised that you gained agreement to your proposition that 16B let's you choose a bid no-one else would choose, where your actions are being queried after a justified suggestion by opponents that you used UI.

 

I don't believe that view is standard, and personally would be dismayed to find it was.

 

I am not absolutely sure why 73C has survived, but I am convinced that it is not solely to prevent you from using UI to punt 3NT.

[blackshoe]

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.

You may have argued this, but I am surprised that you gained agreement to your proposition that 16B let's you choose a bid no-one else would choose, where your actions are being queried after a justified suggestion by opponents that you used UI.

 

I don't believe that view is standard, and personally would be dismayed to find it was.

 

I am not absolutely sure why 73C has survived, but I am convinced that it is not solely to prevent you from using UI to punt 3NT.

I have been taught, by more than one expert on the laws, that we do not treat the words "from among logical alternatives" in Law 16B1{a} literally. Instead, we treat any action chosen by the recipient of UI as a logical alternative, regardless of the definition of that term in Law 16B1{b}. I've never received a rational explanation why we do this, I've just been told "that's what we do". OTOH, in other cases, I've been taught that we follow the law literally. Why? Because "that's what we do". I don't like it. It's inconsistent. It makes no sense. :angry: :( :) :blink:

 

Maybe I've completely misunderstood the position of "standard practice", but if not it seems to me somebody needs to smack "standard practice" upside the head a couple of times. And if I have, I wish somebody would explain it to me in terms that make sense. "It's what we do" won't cut it.

[lamford]

I have been taught, by more than one expert on the laws, that we do not treat the words "from among logical alternatives" in Law 16B1{a} literally.

I think you have been taught correctly, as otherwise the Law becomes unworkable. 16b is quite specific however, so you are stuck with "it's what we do". And that is used to explain all sorts of anomalies in the Laws. The wording of 16b is just a blunder, as there is a greater use of UI if you select a bid that is not even a logical alternative.

[RMB1]

I have been taught, by more than one expert on the laws, that we do not treat the words "from among logical alternatives" in Law 16B1{a} literally. Instead, we treat any action chosen by the recipient of UI as a logical alternative, regardless of the definition of that term in Law 16B1{b}.

Indeed, we appear to treat the law as if it reads something like: "the partner may not choose a call or play when there are logical alternatives and the call or play chosen could demonstrably have been suggested over a logical alternative by the extraneous information".

 

I am happy with that but it would be better if the law said so.

[blackshoe]

I think you have been taught correctly, as otherwise the Law becomes unworkable.

Does it? How so?

 

16b is quite specific however, so you are stuck with "it's what we do". And that is used to explain all sorts of anomalies in the Laws. The wording of 16b is just a blunder, as there is a greater use of UI if you select a bid that is not even a logical alternative.

 

Not good enough. :)

[Pict]

If we consider examples such as pulling a hesitant double, or bidding game after a try and hesitant sign off from partner, then I would say we know that the intention is not to allow those actions because no-one else would bid that way without UI - quite the contrary.

 

It is perfectly reasonable to challenge poor drafting of the rules, and especially if you have a strong professional concern for those rules. That is not the same as harbouring any real doubt about the intention and the way that consultation and logical alternatives are used in practice.

 

So I would argue that it is beyond sense to damage my team/partnership interests by an interpretation of the rules that is so extreme, almost no opponent and perhaps no Director would agree with that interpretation.

[blackshoe]

If you're responding to me, Pict, I don't know what you're trying to say.

[Vampyr]

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.

I believe that dburn has said that bids were considered "reasonable" because he was quoting or paraphrasing people. The term, in any case, strengthens his arguments, because "logical alternatives" would include any bids that can be described as "reasonable", as well as others.

[Pict]

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.

I believe that dburn has said that bids were considered "reasonable" because he was quoting or paraphrasing people. The term, in any case, strengthens his arguments, because "logical alternatives" would include any bids that can be described as "reasonable", as well as others.

Yet in this case we were discussing whether there was any logical alternative to 3NT - in the sense of a bid that would be made by some peers...

 

It is not clear there is an alternative in that sense, but it is clear pass is reasonable. So I don't see how dburn's argument is strengthened in the context of this thread.

[Pict]

If you're responding to me, Pict, I don't know what you're trying to say.

No, I wasn't responding to you.

[JanM]

One point about what might be suggested by a slow double is that assuming this occurred without screens, the DBLer's partner often has additional information from the doubler's body language while s/he was thinking. That information might well be subconscious, not something of which the player is aware, but it's surely there.

 

My law's expert says that any bid the person at the table makes must be a logical alternative because it was actually made by a "peer" of the player involved.

[mycroft]

I think you have been taught correctly, as otherwise the Law becomes unworkable.

Does it? How so?

Reading it the other way allows the "illogical alternative" - "I know that the UI says bid 4S instead of (3NT/passing the double/whatever). But making the 'logical alternative not suggested by the UI' call guarantees me a zero. So, I'll bid 6S instead. That's not even sane, but there's a chance, if partner's got a perfecto and the cards all align right, that it will make - and my zero becomes a top. When they claim I can't make that call, I'll get them to prove that the call I took was a logical alternative. Since they can't, because it clearly isn't, I'll get to keep my top."

 

16b is quite specific however, so you are stuck with "it's what we do". And that is used to explain all sorts of anomalies in the Laws. The wording of 16b is just a blunder, as there is a greater use of UI if you select a bid that is not even a logical alternative.

Not good enough. :)

Very much agree. But the alternative is worse, and the chance of it getting fixed before 2018 is "not a logical alternative".

[blackshoe]

Fair enough — although I still don't know what you're trying to say. :)

[blackshoe]

But the alternative is worse, and the chance of it getting fixed before 2018 is "not a logical alternative".

Well, I can't disagree with that! :)

[lamford]

My law's expert says that any bid the person at the table makes must be a logical alternative because it was actually made by a "peer" of the player involved.

A logical alternative is defined in 16B1b, and my English expert thinks that the person at the table cannot constitute a "significant proportion of such players" on his own. Now if a well-known London player who has appeared on T-shirts showing his prowess were to make the bid, it is possible that the peer group would be only one, and he would be its only member, in which case I might agree. But in that case, peer has the meaning most often used in clues to Private Eye crosswords.

 

Why don't we all just admit 16B1a has been FUBAR, and get on with applying what we know it should say?

[blackshoe]

Because if "we" can apply that to 16B1, "we" (for values of "we") can apply it to any law - and then the chance of consistency in rulings in bridge drops to roughly zero.

[Vampyr]

Yet in this case we were discussing whether there was any logical alternative to 3NT - in the sense of a bid that would be made by some peers...

Do not forget that this in in the ACBL. If I am not mistaken, their regulation

does not require a peer to actually make a call before designating it a logical alternative. To consider and reject it is enough.

[blackshoe]

What regulation is that?

 

The ACBLScore Tech Files say

The ACBL Laws Commission has been asked for an interpretation of the phrase "logical alternative" as used in law 16.  A logical alternative is a call that would be seriously considered by at least a substantial minority of equivalent players, acting on the basis of all the information legitimately available.

and I suppose many ACBL TDs still use it. But the Tech Files are not regulations, and while an LC interpretation is binding on TDs, it is not clear if this interpretation still stands, since it predates the current laws, and the laws now explicitly define "logical alternative" — and this interpretation is inconsistent with that definition.

[Finch]

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 ...

All this comment tells me is that a slow double doesn't suggest anything unless you know your partner well.

 

Without having read this thread I was given your sample hand as a problem after 2S P 3S and I doubled with no difficulty, thinking it blindingly obvious. The person who gave me the hand also thought double obvious.

 

I am sure there are also hands that I would find difficult on this auction where you would find the choice of call easy.

[jallerton]

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.

 

I agree. Sometimes we might judge that a slow pass from partner was 90% likely to have been based on thinking of bidding on and 10% likely to have been based on thinking of doubling for penalties. In such a scenario, bidding on could be demonstrably suggested by the UI and we should not be able to use the "partner might have been thinking of doubling" argument.

 

In the present case, it is not at all clear to me which is more likely out of "more suitable for defending" and "less suitable for defending". Even if some Lamfordian simulation performed a few days later suggested that one was 55% and the other 45%, it would not matter as the results of such a simulation would not be available to a player at the table. Advice available on the ACBL website supports this view:

 

The use of the word “DEMONSTRABLY” is intended to remove from consideration logical alternatives that are not obviously suggested over another by the unauthorized information.

The Director should not change a result unless the action chosen can be shown (demonstrated) to have been suggested. The actions that will now be removed by Law have to be suggested in an obvious, easily understood way— it must be readily apparent rather than a product of some subtle bridge argument.

 

It is interesting to note the ACBL's guidance on Law 73:

 

When a violation of the Proprieties as described in this Law results in damage to an innocent, the Director may:

1. .......

2. award an adjusted score (Law 12) if a player has chosen from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested by his partner’s tempo, manner or remark.

 

So the ACBL seems to regard Laws 16B and 73C as complementary.

 

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.

 

Well in this case, 4th hand might have used the time profitably when partner was obeying the STOP warning over 2♠; a raise to 3♠ should not have been regarded as an unexpected development. Of course this does assume that 2nd hand did take the ACBL recommended 8-10 seconds before calling; I know that not everybody does.

 

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.

 

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

 

I am surprised by these arguments. Do you play double of 3♠ as "optional"? I play double as take-out, showing values and (ideally) a 3-suiter with shortness in the suit doubled. The 0436 hand quoted above looks like a completely obvious take-out double. If partner decides to pass, I'm not ashamed of my lack of defence; I do have 2 aces after all. Of course it might work out badly, particularly if partner has subsidiary club length, but that it why the opponents pre-empt!

 

Hands which are not 3-suiters or 1-suiters are the more difficult ones to bid after this auction (and hence far more likely to cause partner to hesitate) as there is no obvious call available to show them.

[lamford]

duplicated

[jallerton]

Reading it the other way allows the "illogical alternative" - "I know that the UI says bid 4S instead of (3NT/passing the double/whatever). But making the 'logical alternative not suggested by the UI' call guarantees me a zero. So, I'll bid 6S instead. That's not even sane, but there's a chance, if partner's got a perfecto and the cards all align right, that it will make - and my zero becomes a top. When they claim I can't make that call, I'll get them to prove that the call I took was a logical alternative. Since they can't, because it clearly isn't, I'll get to keep my top."

Well this is a good example of a case where, whilst it could be argued that Law 16B has not been breached, Law 73C certainly has been.

 

If Law 16B has not been breached, we can use Law 12A1 to adjust the score for a breach of Law73C, so the 6♠ bidder does not get to keep his top once the TD has given his ruling.

[barmar]

Is a wild gamble really "taking advantage from the UI"? It seems like the opponents get an automatic double shot from this: if it goes down they get a good board, if it makes they can call the TD and get it adjusted. This seems like just another version of "if it hesitates, shoot it", because once there's a hesitation there's almost no way for that side to get a good board. The receiver of the UI knows that he's can't take the normal action, so his choices are to take the contraindicated action (which he's pretty sure will result in a bad board) or take a flyer and pray.

[lamford]

All this comment tells me is that a slow double doesn't suggest anything unless you know your partner well.

Well, your hand, which is authorised, tells you quite a lot, but you are not allowed to discern the reasons for the BIT from your hand, in my opinion. The opponents have bid and raised spades which tells you that your partner is likely to have short spades. Now, you know from the BIT that he does not have ♠ x ♥ AQxx ♦Qxxx ♣AKJx. You might indeed know which hand partner will double on and which he will not, and that is authorised. What is not authorised is for you diagnose the most likely reason for the BIT, which is exactly the reason specified by dburn. It is much more likely (not 55% - 45% as jallerton suggested) that partner has a distributional hand and could not find anything better than double.

 

If you can suggest a hand that would double slowly that wants you to Pass, then I am happy to hear about it.

[mjj29]

Note that 73C does not say "some" or "a tiny amount of" or "a significant proportion of ". It says ANY. And I submit that bidding 3NT does take SOME (however small) advantage of the UI. I struggle to think of hands that will double slowly and want me to pass. I can think of many that will double slowly and not want me to pass. But you are quite entitled to see it differently. And no, I don't play double as optional.

And I see your reasoning on 73C as leading to the conclusion that one must always bid 7 of ones shortest suit after any UI has been transmitted this way, surely this law must be taken with some common sense....