Do you allow the raise to 6?

[pran]

For the record:

The board in question was played at 18 tables with the following results:

1*7♥ E 13 1510

2*6♥ E 12 980

1*3NT W 13 520

1*4♥ E 13 510

1*3NT W 12 490

1*5♥ E 12 480

1*4♠ W 12 480

7*4♥ E 12 480

1*3NT W 11 460

1*5♥ E 11 450

1*6♠ W 9 -150

 

So "nobody" would bid 6♥? :angry:

 

(We did not consult this list when handling the appeal, it would have been irrelevant for the question, as was the actual cards held by West.)

[jdonn]

So "nobody" would bid 6♥? :angry:

After the start 1♥ 1♠ 3♥ 4♥? I'm willing to bet none of the pairs got there that way. There were probably at least 12 or 13 different auctions perpetrated by those 18 pairs.

[bluejak]

Normally I would say, East has no idea what is going through partner's mind, but as Josh might say the auction alone suggests some monkey business.

Bingo. If there was no UI suggesting bidding on then where did west find this "impossible" auction?

I have just played a four day teams in South Africa. The number of "impossible" auctions perpetrated at my table in this time cannot be counted on my fingers. Players often make "impossible" calls without any UI, so the fact that a call is "impossible" might suggest the possibility of UI, but is nowhere near compelling evidence that there was UI.

 

:angry:

I agree, an "impossible" auction is not compelling evidence of UI. However I believe the combination of

- a break in tempo, followed by

- an "impossible" auction, then dummy comes showing

- the hand that broke tempo having exactly what makes the "impossible" auction work

is pretty compelling evidence that the break in tempo passed along the type of UI that the hand would suggest. Did that sort of thing happen to you many times over the weekend?

 

This is just one of those cases where in the abstract the UI could suggest either weakness or strength but where a partnership will be much better at interpreting its own 'black magic' than any director arguing in theory could.

These are strong arguments, but not really ones that a TD can use for ruling. While my experience of opponents is that this is not a case where the BIT suggests going on, in a specific partnership their experience may suggest it.

So why can't the director use that argument for ruling? I thought he could use anything he wants, it's his judgment.

Some impossible bids were highly successful: some were not. I took little notice.

 

I think there is a danger in this post of the "If it hesitates, shoot it" syndrome. The pause suggests either a weak hand or a strong hand. The argument that we do not know but because there was a strong hand here and a silly bid was made that was successful therefore the silly bid was based on UI and a knowledge that partner is strong is the worst type of circular reasoning.

 

While a TD can use any evidence he likes, I do not believe that "If A then B, B happens to be true, so A is true" is logic a TD should associate with.

[kenrexford]

I think you are missing something that seems to have been stated and seems to be obvious, but you still miss it, Mike.

 

I, and I think others, are NOT saying that anything about Responder's hand is relevant to the discussion. Hence, the fact that Responder held extras is not remotely relevant to the question of whether UI was acted upon.

 

I, and I think others, would argue that the 6♥ call that FAILS should also receive a TD call, and a procedural penalty, for knowingly acting on UI, even if errantly. Hence, the fact that people take the top as "just desserts" for this type of action is understandable but not relevant. ALL calls, successful and unsuccessful, of this nature should be reported and punished.

 

Furthermore, I think you are giving North way too little credit for the rules to be enforced logically. If a person is actually so stupid that he would bid a NF 3♥ and then blast slam without even asking for Aces, let alone inviting, then he is punished for taking unauthorized info from the hesitation unfairly, but such are the rules. He's too stupid to understand, anyway, the actual rules, even if you explain it to him.

 

But, no matter what you show me as proof, I won't buy that Dealer is that stupid. Show me a series of insanely idiotic calls, and I still won't be swayed. So, for me, this is so patently obvious, that your deference to Dealer's stupidity frightens me. Even if you are right, it doesn't matter, though. We cannot enforce UI rules unless we assume in the rules a minimum competence level, as otherwise we run into a serious problem.

 

Here's a simple reason why. If you accept this lunacy, then you have to go to the next logical analysis. If the UI suggests either a hand too strong for 4♥ or too weak for 4♥, then it seems that Opener has two additional options you have failed to consider. He might bid 7♥ but for the sense that the bid is too weak for 4♥. If he's stupid enough to bid 6♥, then why would 7♥ not have been bid but for the hesitation?

 

Also, you have to consider, IMO, 4♠ as a final contract, as well as 7NT, 6♣, and 5♦. Why? Because Dealer is a raging luinatic, so anything is possible.

 

This last part is probably hyperbole, but I think the first part is legitimate. 6♥ as the call could be an overbid based on the hesitation. Or, it could, in his mind, be a conservative call because of the hesitation suggesting a poor dummy. Either way, 6♥ seems wrong. In this guy's mind, this should be a pass-or-7♥ sequence, clearly. I mean, if 6♥ is right without the hesitation, then how can 6♥ be right WITH the hesitation???

 

Of course, this is all nonsense, because anyone with a brain KNOWS what Dealer was thinking.

[pran]

So "nobody" would bid 6♥? :angry:

After the start 1♥ 1♠ 3♥ 4♥? I'm willing to bet none of the pairs got there that way. There were probably at least 12 or 13 different auctions perpetrated by those 18 pairs.

I never said they did, in fact I don't know how the different auctions went by.

 

But can you find a "better" (more reasonable) way of reaching the various contracts above 4♥?

[kenrexford]

Let me put this another, simpler way.

 

The UI is NOT that partner has a strong hand, let's say. It is that partner does NOT have a simple call. Hence, he either has slam interest or interest in passing, or maybe interest in bidding 3NT or 4♠ or 7♣. But, he does not have a simple 4♥ call.

 

It doesn't matter what Responder actually has. What matters is that the odds of 6♥ working have INCREASED. Sure, the odds of 6♥ being doubled and set 7 tricks also has INCREASED. But, that is irrelevant. The UA is that partner has an unknown hand that is not normal.

 

If Opener were to bid 6♥ in a normal auction, he might face, for instance, these odds:

 

10% MAKING

90% Down two

10% Down three

 

These numbers are off, but follow along.

 

If the hesitation suggests the first or third option, then the odds change:

 

50% MAKING

50% Down three

 

Now, the odds have changed. Without the hesitation, 6♥ was a 10% shot. With the hesitation, it is a 50% shot.

 

Tweak the odds even slightly, and the slam bid may well be 51% or 60% or 80%. Whatever. Just not 10% or 5% or 1%.

 

Again, the NATURE of the hesitation is not critical. It is the existence of the hesitation coupled with a call that has no plausible merit EXCEPT because the hesitation was read as changing the odds of success of this otherwise lunatic call.

[gwnn]

Those who argue that weak hands pass quickly, so that any BIT shows extras, are talking nonsense, if they mean that as a general proposition.

 

There are always going to be hands that hit the seam in any player's view of whether the hand should pass or raise or bid 3N. I don't care where you draw the lines: some hands are always going to land on or near them. And most players will tend to break tempo whenever a hand lands on or near such a dividing line.

Thank you for your nice and frank evaluation of the simplification of my point of view MikeH. I simply said that in my experience, on average, people think less about game vs partscore hands. I agree that there are some hands which cause headaches for players, especially 3NT vs 4H, that is a good point.

 

But BIT is just a 3 letter acronym and it encompasses a wide variety of actions, in particular, it can be anywhere from 5 seconds to 3 minutes. I think the longer the BIT, the more likely the almost slam invitational hand. I don't think anyone has ever thought for a minute about "oh should I pass, should I bid 3NT or 4H? uhhh". Also, I think I can tell from most tanks of opponents' whether they are thinking slam or game. This is obviously a function of opponents and the level of the field, I assume at higher levels it becomes less and less true, but this is not, in all likelihood, a very high level pair.

 

Anyway I was not saying that all BIT's point towards a slam try, nor did I say that this is an universal truth. This is contrast to you labeling my point of view, based on my admittedly restricted experience at the bridge table, as nonsense, one word.

[pran]

I think you are missing something that seems to have been stated and seems to be obvious, but you still miss it, Mike.

 

I, and I think others, are NOT saying that anything about Responder's hand is relevant to the discussion.  Hence, the fact that Responder held extras is not remotely relevant to the question of whether UI was acted upon.

 

I, and I think others, would argue that the 6♥ call that FAILS should also receive a TD call, and a procedural penalty, for knowingly acting on UI, even if errantly.  Hence, the fact that people take the top as "just desserts" for this type of action is understandable but not relevant.  ALL calls, successful and unsuccessful, of this nature should be reported and punished.

 

Furthermore, I think you are giving North way too little credit for the rules to be enforced logically.  If a person is actually so stupid that he would bid a NF 3♥ and then blast slam without even asking for Aces, let alone inviting, then he is punished for taking unauthorized info from the hesitation unfairly, but such are the rules.  He's too stupid to understand, anyway, the actual rules, even if you explain it to him.

 

But, no matter what you show me as proof, I won't buy that Dealer is that stupid.  Show me a series of insanely idiotic calls, and I still won't be swayed.  So, for me, this is so patently obvious, that your deference to Dealer's stupidity frightens me.  Even if you are right, it doesn't matter, though.  We cannot enforce UI rules unless we assume in the rules a minimum competence level, as otherwise we run into a serious problem.

 

Here's a simple reason why.  If you accept this lunacy, then you have to go to the next logical analysis.  If the UI suggests either a hand too strong for 4♥ or too weak for 4♥, then it seems that Opener has two additional options you have failed to consider.  He might bid 7♥ but for the sense that the bid is too weak for 4♥.  If he's stupid enough to bid 6♥, then why would 7♥ not have been bid but for the hesitation?

 

Also, you have to consider, IMO, 4♠ as a final contract, as well as 7NT, 6♣, and 5♦.   Why?  Because Dealer is a raging luinatic, so anything is possible.

 

This last part is probably hyperbole, but I think the first part is legitimate.  6♥ as the call could be an overbid based on the hesitation.  Or, it could, in his mind, be a conservative call because of the hesitation suggesting a poor dummy.  Either way, 6♥ seems wrong.  In this guy's mind, this should be a pass-or-7♥ sequence, clearly.  I mean, if 6♥ is right without the hesitation, then how can 6♥ be right WITH the hesitation???

 

Of course, this is all nonsense, because anyone with a brain KNOWS what Dealer was thinking.

Dealer was North :P (6♥ was bid by East)

[gwnn]

Very good post by kenrexford, except his odds don't sum to 100%.

[helene_t]

Odds always add up to more than 100%.

 

Unlike percentages.

 

Sorry for being pedantic.

[jallerton]

As in all potential UI cases, the TD should ask the 6♥ bidder why he chose this call. [if the TD did not ask this question, then the AC should make sure that they do so.]

 

Unfortunately, the opening post does specify whether or not East was asked this question and, if it was asked, what reply was given.

 

Whilst the TD might well conclude that there has been no breach of Law 16A (as nothing was demonstrably suggested) he might also decide, having heard the player's reasoning, that there has been a breach of Law 73C.

 

Player Receives Unauthorised Information from Partner

When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorised information.

 

Assuming that the TD judges East to be good enough to appreciate that it is highly unusual to make any call other than pass over 4♥, then he might reasonably conclude that East has not "carefully avoided taking any advantage from that unauthorised information".

[gwnn]

It is my understanding that percentages are just fractions with denominator=100, why would they add up to 100%? In fact I am quite sure they add up to +inf (or 0 if we allow for negative numerators).

[aguahombre]

Assuming that the TD judges East to be good enough to appreciate that it is highly unusual to make any call other than pass over 4♥, then he might reasonably conclude that East has not "carefully avoided taking any advantage from that unauthorised information".

Doesn't this say it all?

 

And if the TD can't see that, then certainly somebody on the AC might bring it up. Problem solved. 4+2.

[mikeh]

Assuming that the TD judges East to be good enough to appreciate that it is highly unusual to make any call other than pass over 4♥, then he might reasonably conclude that East has not "carefully avoided taking any advantage from that unauthorised information".

Doesn't this say it all?

 

And if the TD can't see that, then certainly somebody on the AC might bring it up. Problem solved. 4+2.

Absolutely right, and in the real world one hopes this happened.

 

But the OP left out all of this.

 

What disturbs me is that a good player (josh) and a lawyer (ken) are prepared to impose on an unknown East their personal views of whether 6♥ should be permitted without any information as to E's level of ability. This is a very bad practice for committee members.

 

Neither really address the fundamental issue that the tank could be as much a sign that even 4♥ is in jeopardy as it is that slam may have play. Josh tried to do so with his reference to the imp table, but his analysis was incomplete because he ignored the very real cost of getting doubled when the tank was due to weakness.

 

Ken simply ignores it: to his way of thinking, since no bridge player could possibly choose 6♥ if there had been no break in tempo, there has to be a penalty.

 

One cannot help but wonder what he would do if a pair bid 1-3-4-6 with no BIT and it made. I suspect that, to be consistent, he'd roll it back and adjust the score. To make it even more absurd, if they bid this way and went down, they'd still get a procedural penalty...presumably for making a bid he personally couldn't tolerate.

 

Get real: there are a host of BAD players out there who don't know, don't understand, and don't care that you think that a bid is 'impossible'.

 

They usually fare badly, because there is a reason good players consider their aberrant bidding to be 'impossible'. But once in a while, they gain. Sometimes that will happen on an auction in which, viewed objectively there has been a BIT that, in and of itself, was neutral as to the information that might be conveyed. Just because an information-neutral BIT happened, and a player took unusual action, does NOT justify the inference of cause and effect. It DOES justify asking questions about skill level, past experience, basis for bidding and so on.

 

To say that every bridge player must be treated as if he or she were of a certain minimal competency is inconsistent with everything I've ever been told about committee work. We don't punish bad players because their bidding is not consistent with expert bidding. We don't let experts off the hook because they claim not to know basic bidding. In short, we assess the conduct of players by reference to their peers.

 

And as I said earlier, look on BBO and you will see calls that seem impossible on many boards. I doubt that you'd have to review many hands to find actions at least as 'impossible' as the 6♥ call here.

 

Finally, of course if E were competent, I'd be very very suspicious and would need to be convinced by E as to why he/she chose 6♥.

 

As for gwnn's apparent concern that I was attacking him, I wasn't and I apologize if I created that impression. The OP said nothing, that I saw, about the length of the BIT, and I feel (based on my experience) that it is simply wrong to assume that, as a general rule, people don't break tempo as much on weak hands as they do on strong ones. Personally, and I know that my own practices are not universal, I tend to break tempo longer with weak than with strong. That is because my partners will invariably pass if I make a simple raise, but have to bid if I cue bid. Therefore, I try to cuebid without breaking tempo but take as long as I want on what is likely to be the final partnership decision. I have taken several minutes to pass, as an example...I did so just last Saturday.

[gwnn]

Duly noted, next time I play against mikeh I will bear this in mind :P I think I can tell 90+% of the time whether my opponents are thinking of going to slam or signing off in a partscore by their mannerisms and tempo (also about some ex-partners, which is of course a little annoying). This impression may be faulty and exaggerated, I don't know.

[dburn]

It may help to consider jdonn's argument in the more familiar context of 1M-slow 3M (limit raise).

 

Assume that opener has a hand that would (if such things were legal) bid three (or even two) over a raise to 2.5 but bid four (rather than three) over a raise to 3.5.

 

Assume also that opener has no knowledge whatsoever of partner's tendencies - that is, a slow raise to three is exactly as likely to be a raise to 2.5 as a raise to 3.5.

 

Now, the UI in itself does not demonstrably suggest one thing (passing three) over the other (bidding four). But the IMP scale does, when combined with the UI - the reward for bidding four is greater when right than the cost when wrong (especially vulnerable).

 

That is why we say that even when other things may be equal, what is "demonstrably suggested" by a slow raise is that partner bids on.

 

In the actual case, where the question is not game but slam, the IMP scale is less decisive - the reward for bidding a slam when right is equal to the cost for bidding one when wrong. However, since even when partner was thinking of passing three, you might still make six (imagine partner with ♠KQ10xx ♥xx ♦xxx ♣xxx for example), bidding six is still with the odds and still "demonstrably suggested".

[peachy]

DBurn made a convincing argument why 6H should not be allowed.

[gerry]

Call me cynical, but one things for sure, this pair now knows what to do next time they have a 4.5 raise.

[jdonn]

Dburn is a smart cookie, he knows what I'm thinking better than I do. My argument could also be considered using logic rather than math. If partner makes his 4♥ bid out of tempo he was considering something that isn't 4♥. Therefore doing something that isn't 4♥ must be more likely to work well than otherwise.

 

And I didn't forget the possibility of being doubled Mike, I used many simplifying assumptions. One of them is that with AKJTxx of trumps that has been raised and not missing 2 aces we are unlikely to be doubled in slam, just because the opponents have extra queens and jacks in the side suits. Lazy, I know. Not to mention that I did address the fundamental issue that the tank could be based on a weak hand. I simply rejected it as much less likely in this case and gave plenty of reasons for doing so.

[jdonn]

So "nobody" would bid 6♥? :P

After the start 1♥ 1♠ 3♥ 4♥? I'm willing to bet none of the pairs got there that way. There were probably at least 12 or 13 different auctions perpetrated by those 18 pairs.

I never said they did, in fact I don't know how the different auctions went by.

 

But can you find a "better" (more reasonable) way of reaching the various contracts above 4♥?

Sure.

 

West could consider his hand a game force and, as many people at least in my circles do with this shape, begin with a game forcing 2♣ (or 2NT) response.

 

West could cuebid 4♦ over 3♥, showing his slam interest through an actual bid rather than a hesitation.

 

East could consider his hand a game force after a 1♠ response, upgrading his excellent heart suit and spade fit, and rebid 3♣ or 4♥ or something artificial that he plays to force to game. This might well convince west to head toward slam.

 

All of those judgments are completely plausible. In fact I even agree with certain ones of them. I mean heck, if west bid blackwood over 3♥ that would be a clear overbid but at least not inherently wrong, by which I mean you would have to look at his hand to know he misbid whereas in the actual auction you wouldn't have to see opener's hand to know he misbid.

[jdonn]

Call me cynical, but one things for sure, this pair now knows what to do next time they have a 4.5 raise.

They sure do...

[gerry]

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=st64hkt8652daqtc6]133|100|Scoring: IMP

(3♣)-p-(p)-?[/hv]

 

the other weekend (not at my table, there would have been bloodshed) a player found a double with this. Now this was a senior event and the pair involved are moderately successful in bullshit local mp events but have no decent results at imps.

 

Now this pair are well known bum-shifters (at least among the better players, they are a bit subtle for the bunnies) and the double was spectacularly successful -pd had

 

K87 A9 KJ9 KJ873 !

 

now this didn't even make it to a director because the BIT was 'masked' by the stop card.

 

How bad does it have to be before there is a prima facia case of UI?

[kenrexford]

Actually, I just thought of a reason why 6♥ could be deemed "clearly indicated."

 

Suppose you have a PERFECT 3♥ call. Exactly what you should have.

 

Partner, who always bids WRONG after a hesitation, bids 4♥ after a hesitation. So, you are POSITIVE that 4♥ is the wrong contract.

 

The right contract, per the hesitation, is either 3♥ or 6♥. You don't know which. But, you cannot get back to 3♥.

 

So, you either pass for a zero because it makes 6♥, pass for a zero because you will be down one, bid 6♥ for a zero, because you will be down three, or bid 6♥ for an average.

 

6♥ clearly wins.

[Phil]

1. One man's impossible bid is another's ignorance or lack of skill. I accept that to any decent player 6♥ is either impossible or a silly gamble...the two are not the same. Some people love the thrill of a gamble that to others seems stupid. Some people simply have no clue

 

(Snip)

 

Another example might help. What if the EW pair could show that they had had this situation, with BIT, a dozen times that session and that they had swung high every time, and got 8 bad boards and 4 good ones? Do we still assume that the BIT showed extras? it turns out that it had, 5 times (4 earlier and this one time) but had been on weakness 8 times. Surely the correct view is that the BIT suggested pass!

Every time Mike? I think this is a heavy burden to be placed on this pair. But if you want to place this on them, I would be curious to know every time they didn't 'swing high' and gamble a slam, or a game, or double a part score.

[pran]

As in all potential UI cases, the TD should ask the 6♥ bidder why he chose this call. [if the TD did not ask this question, then the AC should make sure that they do so.] 

 

Unfortunately, the opening post does specify whether or not East was asked this question and, if it was asked, what reply was given.

 

Whilst the TD might well conclude that there has been no breach of Law 16A (as nothing was demonstrably suggested) he might also decide, having heard the player's reasoning, that there has been a breach of Law 73C.

 

Player Receives Unauthorised Information from Partner

When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorised information.

 

Assuming that the TD judges East to be good enough to appreciate that it is highly unusual to make any call other than pass over 4♥, then he might reasonably conclude that East has not "carefully avoided taking any advantage from that unauthorised information".

"I was assessing my cards to be a very tough slam (and I usually bid them as well)"

 

There are two conditions neccessary for an adjustment:

1: There must be UI that demonstrably suggests a particular type of action.

2: Partner must have had available at least one logical alternative action not suggested by the UI that would have been less successful than the (suggested) action he selected.

 

As already stated we eventually agreed with TD that although the BIT created UI this UI did not demonstrably suggest any particular type of action. Therefore condition 1 above was not satisfied.

 

I am worried by those comments that seem to say: The BIT resulted in UI and the subsequent action by partner was successful so we adjust. They see only condition 2 and forget condition 1; according to my experience a very common mistake.