Do you allow the raise to 6?

[mikeh]

Altho this thread brings to mind some of the surrealism of Lewis Carroll, I can't resist posting yet again.

 

David: your entire thesis seems to be based on the idea that the BIT improved the chances that bidding 6♥ was good. Adam made several posts to similar effect.

 

It is my opinion, using the same analytic approach espoused by Adam, that you are both wrong. My numbers, posted previously, suggest that the BIT makes bidding 6♥ LESS attractive.

 

Now, I am not pretending that my assumptions were precisely correct, but I'm willing to say that they are at least as likely to be correct as are Adam's.

 

Moreover, even if you were right (and I'd hope that if you read my analysis you'd concede that MAYBE you are not), surely a game-playing theoretician capable of thinking in that fashion would realize that on many of the hands on which he bid 6♥, he'd end up in committee (if he didn't lose at the director stage...or if he was the appellant). And it makes no sense to argue that he'd be ok with Pran or me on the committee......I expect that I'd rule against him once I had more information.

 

And if there is ANY significant chance that he'd lose the appeal, the elaborate arithmetic used by Adam and implicitly used by you goes out the window.

 

The way I see it is:

 

1. There was a BIT that cannot be said, at this stage of the enquiry, with any degree of assurance, to point partner in one direction or the other

 

2. We need to find out more about the actual table action to see if there were any clue available to E

 

3. We need to cross examine E on why he made a seemingly illogical call. Since I agree that my argument about selection bias doesn't rule out a very weak inference, there is an onus on E to be persuasive. This cross examination would seek to establish such facts as whether EW were a practiced partnership...many of the hesitation-shooters seem to assume this to be the case. and one wonders why?

 

We'd also try to determine if this pair had any history.

 

4. Once we have gathered this evidence, and listened to both sides, we make a decision based on the evidence

 

I actually think this is the way committes are supposed to think. The OP omitted much of the evidence we'd have. Those of you who roll the result back don't seem concerned about this. Those of us who argue that maybe the result stands are not (at least, I'm not) saying that the result will stand: only that the arguments on the limited info available are inadequate to justify making ANY decision.

[rwbarton]

...

 

Moreover, even if you were right (and I'd hope that if you read my analysis you'd concede that MAYBE you are not), surely a game-playing theoretician capable of thinking in that fashion would realize that on many of the hands on which he bid 6♥, he'd end up in committee (if he didn't lose at the director stage...or if he was the appellant). And it makes no sense to argue that he'd be ok with Pran or me on the committee......I expect that I'd rule against him once I had more information.

 

And if there is ANY significant chance that he'd lose the appeal, the elaborate arithmetic used by Adam and implicitly used by you goes out the window.

Whoa there! Surely you cannot mean to suggest that the criteria for "demonstrably suggested" depend on the score obtained by an action after taking possible adjustments by a TD or AC into account. That way lies logical incoherence. "6♥ is not suggested over pass, because an AC will surely adjust the score, because it is [hypothetically] blatant use of UI; therefore no adjustment!" Or would you have an AC estimate the probability that a hypothetical AC in the mind of a peer of the player involved would adjust before coming to a decision?

[mikeh]

...

 

Moreover, even if you were right (and I'd hope that if you read my analysis you'd concede that MAYBE you are not), surely a game-playing theoretician capable of thinking in that fashion would realize that on many of the hands on which he bid 6♥, he'd end up in committee (if he didn't lose at the director stage...or if he was the appellant). And it makes no sense to argue that he'd be ok with Pran or me on the committee......I expect that I'd rule against him once I had more information.

 

And if there is ANY significant chance that he'd lose the appeal, the elaborate arithmetic used by Adam and implicitly used by you goes out the window.

Whoa there! Surely you cannot mean to suggest that the criteria for "demonstrably suggested" depend on the score obtained by an action after taking possible adjustments by a TD or AC into account. That way lies logical incoherence. "6♥ is not suggested over pass, because an AC will surely adjust the score, because it is [hypothetically] blatant use of UI; therefore no adjustment!" Or would you have an AC estimate the probability that a hypothetical AC in the mind of a peer of the player involved would adjust before coming to a decision?

Whoa there right back to you! :)

 

No...I was responding to the arguments advanced primarily by Adam, but relied on by others including dburn, to the effect that in considering whether East would, at the table, calculate whether the imp table made blasting better, he would assess the relative likelihoods of outcomes.

 

If we are crediting East with this amount of effort, surely such an East would also realize that taking an unusual action after a BIT is going to annoy his opps if it wins?

 

And such an East, who we are crediting with tremendous analytical abilities, would take into account the fact that a director/committee ruling lay in his future IF his blast worked, and not if he suffered an embarrassing loss because his partner was thinking of passing 3♥.

 

Furthermore, I venture to suggest that a player capable of and willing to implement and act upon this sort of information/reasoning would likely be no stranger to director calls and committee hearings. He is, in effect, a cheat. He is consciously taking advantage of the BIT...it has to be conscious if he is engaging in the subtle imp analysis postulated by Adam and David.....I find it difficult to believe that anyone would have assimilated this type of approach subconsciously...I mean, how many such occasions arise...with E never thinking about it in his conscious mind but with his subconcious working out these detailed calculations?

 

We cannot, in fairness, assign 'evil' intent to E (working out that the BIT, neutral as to values, nevertheless made blasting attractive, and then blasting...thus taking explicit advantage of UI) and then at the same time accuse him of being a stupid crook, naive to the existence of directors and committees.

 

I don't think Adam and David are correct in stating that the imps odds favour blasting. I think it is either too close to tell or as likely to be the other way around. I have posted my verison of Adam's arithmetic.

 

But my point is that even if I am wrong on that, no sophisticated, cheating East is going to ignore the impact of the laws and the director/committee system on the chances of his blast being allowed to succeed. Even Adam and David appear to acknowledge, implicitly, that if the odds in favour of blasting changed, to be against the action, then their inference that the BIT caused the blast falls away.

 

It may, of course, still be the case that in this partnership, there are reasons other than the imp odds that persuaded E that the BIT tended to be extras rather than weakness. I am addressing only the purely logical (but to my mind, flawed) argument that BECAUSE the imp odds favoured blasting, we start with an inference that the BIT caused the blast.

[rwbarton]

OK, that all may well be true, but it cannot be a basis for deciding whether to adjust.

[mikeh]

Are you saying that adam's and david's view that the imp odds favour blasting is a reason to adjust? If not, then of course neither is my counter (and I never suggested it was). If you agree with david and adam, then on what basis do you ignore East's almost certain awaremess of the likelihood of an adverse ruling? Adam and David seek to read his mind, and you agree that that is appropriate (altho none of you seem to think that maybe asking E is a useful exercise), so why limit your mind reading in such an artificial fashion?

[Echognome]

I was trying to think about this in a simpler way.

 

Let's consider Law73C

 

When a player has available to him unauthorized 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

unauthorized information.

 

*i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action.

Suppose we consider two events:

 

A - Player takes a "wild" or "unusual" action on a board (successful or not)

B - Player's partner hesitates

 

It may be the case that both of these events occur with reasonable frequency for a particular player. However, in order to follow law 73C, we should expect that:

 

P(A | B ) < P(A)

 

In layman's terms, that we would expect if a person's partner hesitates, then they should take wild actions less frequently than they might otherwise.

 

An AC will only observe cases such as this when B occurs. Here is a case where A also occurs. My feeling of several arguments is that when we observe both A and B together, there is a view that B caused A ... which would be contra to 73C. However, we should want to know the P(A) before making such a determination. Thus, in my view, we should first consider what constitutes a wild or unusual action for a person based on their ability. I believe this second part is a large part of the counter argument in that players make bad bids all the time.

 

My view is that we should not condemn alone on the fact that we observe both A and B. We should consider this as evidence that something may be amiss, but should try to gain a better understanding of P(A) before adjudicating on the matter. I can imagine very different circumstances surrounding a novice that often overbids good hands playing with another novice that doesn't know how to value good fitting hands without a lot of points versus two experts playing with each other.

 

So on this case, I'm afraid I would need more information in order to make a judgment.

[bluejak]

Out of interest, are there any instances where a BIT occurred, an option with a less successful LA was selected and the result was bad for the NOS where dburn and co would _not_ adjust? (i.e., where you would use the 'demonstratably suggested' criteria in order to leave the table result as it stood)

If the Davids would comment on this current thread, we might know: "A shade too ethical" http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=39046

My time in South Africa is somewhat limited, and I have not managed to catch up with IBLF. Specifically, I have found time to read three forums, but have not read about a dozen or so threads in the main forum. I expect do so sometime in the next week and shall comment then, even if I get to it late.

 

Actually, I have a fair amount of time tonight, and let us see how far I get. But the thread to which you refer is unlikely to be reached tonight.

[bluejak]

In many ways this case is actually easier, because a crazy bid was made that "can't possibly be right" without the UI. It should be routine to roll such fliers back.

It hesitated. Shoot it. :)

People say this as if it means something. But it really doesn't.

 

You have the following sequence of events:

 

(1) There was a hesitation.

(2) A crazy bid was made that no good player would ever make without the hesitation; the a priori chances of this bid working given the auction must be vanishingly small.

(3) The hesitation dramatically increases the chances of the crazy bid working (even if still less than even odds).

(4) If the player in question is able to get a good "read" on his partner's reason for hesitating, then the chances of the crazy bid working given this read could easily be greater than even odds.

(5) The crazy bid worked.

 

What more do you possibly need to adjust? It seems more like the people arguing the other way are expressing an attitude that taking advantage of partner's BIT to reach better contracts is "just bridge.".

Yes, it does mean something. There is a serious danger of:

 

You have the following sequence of events:

 

(1) There was a hesitation.

(2) A bid was made that others would not.

(3) The bid worked.

(4) The TD adjusts.

 

This is wrong in Law, but happens. Your comments do sound like it to me. You are basically saying that if there is a hesitation plus a successful crazy bid you would rule it back. Well, that is against the Laws, and rightly so. You need the full requirements of the UI Law to rule it back.

[peachy]

Yes, it does mean something. There is a serious danger of:

 

You have the following sequence of events:

 

(1) There was a hesitation.

(2) A bid was made that others would not.

(3) The bid worked.

(4) The TD adjusts.

 

This is wrong in Law, but happens. Your comments do sound like it to me. You are basically saying that if there is a hesitation plus a successful crazy bid you would rule it back. Well, that is against the Laws, and rightly so. You need the full requirements of the UI Law to rule it back.

This "danger" is reality.

This thread and your post once more brings me to the many years old example where score adjustment was seen as the legal thing to do by consensus of respected TDs and law experts, the decision with which I still never seem to agree with.

 

Here is how it went, uncontested -

1. There is a hesitation (1S-...3S. The hesitation before bidding 3S can mean at least two things: responder has EITHER too little OR too much for a limit raise)

 

2. A bid was made that others would not make. (6S - Nobody would bid six with a minimum opening hand, it was bid apparently out of frustration that no matter which way opener went, pass 3S or bid 4S, score would be adjusted if the decision was successful)

 

3. The bid worked. (Made 12 tricks, everything split and three finesses work, or something crazy like that)

 

4. Adjusted. (because it was an ILLOGICAL alternative that opener chose, not a LA)

 

However, in _this_ thread there is reason to judge that the hesitation showed extras as a few respected posters have it finely illustrated (whereas in the Old Chestnut it could not be determined what the UI showed). And still the AC allows result to stand. Don't understand.

 

Sorry everyone if this is too much thread shifting.

[awm]

Looking at a few hands, here's what I get...

 

If partner has 8-10 hcp with 4+♠, at most 2♥ then the chances of making 6♥ are about 16%.

 

If partner has 11-13 hcp with 4+♠, at most 2♥ then the chances of making 6♥ are about 43%.

 

Further, this is assuming the best lead from the opponents; there were several hands from the latter group where the odds of making improved dramatically if the opponents make a reasonable wrong lead.

 

Even if the chances of making 6♥ opposite less than 8 hcp were zero (they're not, although perhaps close), this implies that if roughly half the time partner's break in tempo implied "extras" then bidding 6♥ becomes noticeably more favorable than it would be without the BIT.

 

The thing is, we are never really going to have the information about how often crazy bids like jumping to 6♥ are made by this player. We are never going to know how frequently responder's hesitations imply extras rather than weakness. We're not realistically going to find out what's going on in opener's head when he bid 6♥ either (if you think he's going to tell us, or even that he really knows, you're fooling yourself). So the question is, in the absence of this information should the policy be that if your partner breaks tempo and you take a seemingly "crazy" action and hit the jackpot... we presume that you just "got lucky" and the result always stands? or do we presume that you could read the BIT and roll it back?

 

I know which one I'd pick.

[awm]

To Peachy's point, I think there's a difference between the following two situations:

 

(1) I open 1♠, partner makes a slow 3♠ limit raise. I have an "in between" hand where some people would pass and some would bid 4♠. I select one or the other and my decision ends up being right.

 

(2) I open 1♠, partner makes a slow 3♠ limit raise. I have absolutely the worst possible hand that would open in my system (say a 5332 11-count playing something standard-ish). However, I decide to bid 4♠ anyway. Partner shows up with a hand that most people would've game forced and 4♠ rolls home.

 

In the first case, there are two logical alternatives and I picked one, and if we're going to roll back the result it's not enough that my action "worked" -- we have to really argue that partner's BIT suggested my action over the alternative. It should always be the case that there is at least one logical action I can take that will not be rolled back by the director (and it shouldn't depend on what partner's hand actually is or what actually works at the table).

 

In the second case, my bid is not really logical. It seems very unlikely that I selected this bid without being influenced by the BIT. While it may not be obvious to everyone that partner's BIT showed extras rather than weakness, it's quite possible that I have a better read on partner than the committee. Certainly my chances of making 4♠ opposite a "normal" limit raise on my total garbage were terrible, so even if partner having extras is only 50-50 it improves my win percentage for accepting the limit raise over what it would've been if partner bid in tempo. I suggest that such a call should normally be rolled back (the normal LA of rejecting a limit raise with the worst possible opening hand would never be rolled back) unless there is fairly strong evidence that partner's BIT did not suggest extras.

[mikeh]

Looking at a few hands, here's what I get...

 

If partner has 8-10 hcp with 4+♠, at most 2♥ then the chances of making 6♥ are about 16%.

 

If partner has 11-13 hcp with 4+♠, at most 2♥ then the chances of making 6♥ are about 43%.

 

Further, this is assuming the best lead from the opponents; there were several hands from the latter group where the odds of making improved dramatically if the opponents make a reasonable wrong lead.

 

Even if the chances of making 6♥ opposite less than 8 hcp were zero (they're not, although perhaps close), this implies that if roughly half the time partner's break in tempo implied "extras" then bidding 6♥ becomes noticeably more favorable than it would be without the BIT.

 

The thing is, we are never really going to have the information about how often crazy bids like jumping to 6♥ are made by this player. We are never going to know how frequently responder's hesitations imply extras rather than weakness. We're not realistically going to find out what's going on in opener's head when he bid 6♥ either (if you think he's going to tell us, or even that he really knows, you're fooling yourself). So the question is, in the absence of this information should the policy be that if your partner breaks tempo and you take a seemingly "crazy" action and hit the jackpot... we presume that you just "got lucky" and the result always stands? or do we presume that you could read the BIT and roll it back?

 

I know which one I'd pick.

where the heck do you get the assumption that the BIT suggests extras even half the time????????

 

We have, I thought, established on this thread that there are going to be 4 plausible bridge decisions that might occasion a BIT. I don't know that one can conclude that any one of them was more common than the other, but my gut tells me that one is less common: the choice between 3♠ and 4♥.

 

I see them as:

 

P/4♥: horrible hand, chance of slam effectively zero

3N/4♥: average values, but likelihood of soft diamond values probably slightly reduces a priori slam chances

3♠/4♥: average values, arguably neutral or slightly negative for slam values, in that will tend to be weak in clubs and we need to avoid any trump losers on many layouts

4♥/slam try: significantly increased a priori slam chances.

 

Whether the NET effect, in terms of imp outcomes, summed over all these possibilities is plus or minus, in terms of bidding slam, is not possible to resolve without enormous work...running many simulations, with questionable constraints. Yet you are prepared not only to be certain that the result is positive for blasting but also to hold, in the absence of evidence, that E had done all of this math, had come to your conclusions, and that this 'demonstrated' that bidding slam was the advisable course.

 

Lord love a duck, as my grandmother used to say. I have no idea what that meant, but it always conveyed a sense of astonishment.

 

As for arguing that we should infer that E will lie to the committee....wow...I agree that many people do, but I hope we never start committee hearings with that as the starting assumption, nor write the rules with that built in. I like to think that intelligent, experienced players can ask questions that probe the situation and allow for at least some better-than-random chance of accurately assessing honesty.

[hotShot]

I see them as:

 

P/4♥: horrible hand, chance of slam effectively zero

The partnership will know if partner tends to bid aggressive or very solid.

3N/4♥: average values, but likelihood of soft diamond values probably slightly reduces a priori slam chances

Thinking about 3 NT could suggest wasted values in one or both minors. I accept that as negative.

3♠/4♥: average values, arguably neutral or slightly negative for slam values, in that will tend to be weak in clubs and we need to avoid any trump losers on many layouts

Holding ♠AJ9 and partner is thinking about 3♠ than his spades are longer or better. I think this is encouraging for slam because there are probably no ♠ loser and ♣ loser can be dropped on ♠ number 4 and 5. This also suggests that partner has little wasted values in the minors. That leaves a ♦ loser and a ♥ problem.

We have all been in worse slams.

4♥/slam try: significantly increased a priori slam chances.

So this favors a slam try.

 

So I have 2 in favor of a slam try, one that is discouraging and one that the partnership knows better than my guess of 50:50. So for me this is more like 2,5: 1,5 in favor of a slam try.

[dburn]

I see them as:

 

P/4♥: horrible hand, chance of slam effectively zero

You see, as Sherlock Holmes remarked, but you do not observe. If I had:

 

♠KQJxx ♥xx ♦xxx ♣xxx

 

I would pass after 1♥-1♠-3♥, and I would not consider my choice atypical. Chance of slam: roughly 43%. The same is of course true of a different "horrible hand":

 

♠xxxx ♥xx ♦xx ♣KQJxx

 

That, in essence, is why your "numbers" are fatally flawed - you completely ignore the possibility that even if West was thinking about passing 3♥, bidding 6♥ may still be the winning action.

 

Not that I base any part of my argument on anyone's numbers in any case - I do not. I say only that any subsequent East who plays bridge in Norway should bid 6♥ with this hand, because since the people who ruled on the current case appear to have mislaid the brains with which they were born, 6♥ is more likely to gain than to lose.

[mjj29]

You will need to rephrase the second paragraph of your post; I am afraid that as it stands, it makes no sense to me at all.

My point is that L16C gives us three criteria which must be met before we can adjust:

 

- The NOS must have been damaged

- There must be a less successful logical allternative

- The selected action must be 'demonstratably suggested' by the UI

 

Your views seem to suggest that in all cases where the first two are met you would adjust, since the mere fact of the UI leading to a successful action must ipso facto mean that the successful action was suggested. This is clearly wrong, or why include that condition in the law at all. Hence, I am trying to ascertain under what circumstances you would not adjust based on the 'demonstratably suggested' criterion.

[mikeh]

I see them as:

 

P/4♥: horrible hand, chance of slam effectively zero

You see, as Sherlock Holmes remarked, but you do not observe. If I had:

 

♠KQJxx ♥xx ♦xxx ♣xxx

 

I would pass after 1♥-1♠-3♥, and I would not consider my choice atypical. Chance of slam: roughly 43%. The same is of course true of a different "horrible hand":

 

♠xxxx ♥xx ♦xx ♣KQJxx

 

That, in essence, is why your "numbers" are fatally flawed - you completely ignore the possibility that even if West was thinking about passing 3♥, bidding 6♥ may still be the winning action.

 

Not that I base any part of my argument on anyone's numbers in any case - I do not. I say only that any subsequent East who plays bridge in Norway should bid 6♥ with this hand, because since the people who ruled on the current case appear to have mislaid the brains with which they were born, 6♥ is more likely to gain than to lose.

You read, but you do not understand :D

 

I wrote 'effectively' zero rather than 'zero', because I recognized that there will be a small family of hands on which slam will still make. However, the arithmetical analysis employed by your fellow shooter-of-hestitations was hardly susceptible to distinguishing between 0% and, say, 2% or even 4%.

 

Suffice it to say that even you will, I suggest, accept that a BIT based on weakness lowers the a priori odds of slam being good...and lowers them considerably. Which was the point I tried to make.

 

It is an unfortunate characteristic of those confronted with a detailed argument they cannot logically refute to select from the detailed argument minor points of no consequence to the underlying issue, and point out that these points are inaccurate.

 

Politicians do it, bad lawyers do it...but I expected more from someone of your reputation.

 

Now, maybe you CAN logically refute my argument or those of David Stevenson, whose reputation re the laws far exceeds yours (let alone mine, since I don't think I have any reputation in terms of knowing the laws...and if I do, it's probably not a good one B) ) But you haven't so far.

[kenrexford]

It is an unfortunate characteristic of those confronted with a detailed argument they cannot logically refute to select from the detailed argument minor points of no consequence to the underlying issue, and point out that these points are inaccurate.

It is also characteristic for people of intellect to be unaware of the true lunacy of their opponent in an argument and to mistakenly think there is an ability to comprehend common sense.

 

That said, I find this analysis of yours humorous. Your entire argument seems to me like minor points of no consequence to the underlying issue, which is that Opener fielded his partner's hesitation in about as obvious a fashion as one can imagine.

[dburn]

You will need to rephrase the second paragraph of your post; I am afraid that as it stands, it makes no sense to me at all.

My point is that L16C gives us three criteria which must be met before we can adjust:

 

- The NOS must have been damaged

- There must be a less successful logical allternative

- The selected action must be 'demonstratably suggested' by the UI

 

Your views seem to suggest that in all cases where the first two are met you would adjust, since the mere fact of the UI leading to a successful action must ipso facto mean that the successful action was suggested. This is clearly wrong, or why include that condition in the law at all. Hence, I am trying to ascertain under what circumstances you would not adjust based on the 'demonstratably suggested' criterion.

Thank you for the clarification, but I am still struggling to understand. If the UI "led to a successful action", then of course that action was "ipso facto suggested"; I cannot place any other construction on the meaning of the verb "to lead [to]" in this context.

 

But perhaps you mean "if the UI were followed by a successful action, I would always rule that the action must have been influenced by the UI even though there was no component of the UI that demonstrably suggested the successful action".

 

If this is actually your point, perhaps I can answer it simply by saying that: if in the case of 1♠-slow 3♠ the form of scoring were matchpoints (or BAM), I would not necessarily rule that a 4♠ bid on a marginal hand should be disallowed if game were to make. That is, I might be persuaded by an argument of the form "I did not know whether partner's BIT indicated that his call was aggressive or conservative, so when I bid game I was just guessing."

 

Chances are that I would not be so persuaded, because my (fairly extensive) experience leads me to conclude that almost no one ever acts slowly in the hope that partner will "guess" to pass; the slower a call, the less happy its perpetrator is with the notion that it should be the final call. But I do not discount the possibility altogether.

[dburn]

Suffice it to say that even you will, I suggest, accept that a BIT based on weakness lowers the a priori odds of slam being good...and lowers them considerably. Which was the point I tried to make.

If it makes you feel any better, I am happy to concede that if West has a bad hand, East will probably not make six hearts. I do not believe I have ever denied it, but if you think that I have, I hereby set the record straight with apologies for any confusion I may have caused.

 

But none of this matters. The question is simply: given that East knows (illegally) that West has a hand on which 4♥ is not a clear action, what should East do to maximize his expected score on the deal given also that if he bids a slam, his bid will not be cancelled by the authorities? The answer to that is obvious: he should bid a slam, because it will make considerably more than half the time.

[peachy]

To Peachy's point, I think there's a difference between the following two situations:

 

(1) I open 1♠, partner makes a slow 3♠ limit raise. I have an "in between" hand where some people would pass and some would bid 4♠. I select one or the other and my decision ends up being right.

 

(2) I open 1♠, partner makes a slow 3♠ limit raise. I have absolutely the worst possible hand that would open in my system (say a 5332 11-count playing something standard-ish). However, I decide to bid 4♠ anyway. Partner shows up with a hand that most people would've game forced and 4♠ rolls home.

 

In the first case, there are two logical alternatives and I picked one, and if we're going to roll back the result it's not enough that my action "worked" -- we have to really argue that partner's BIT suggested my action over the alternative. It should always be the case that there is at least one logical action I can take that will not be rolled back by the director (and it shouldn't depend on what partner's hand actually is or what actually works at the table).

 

In the second case, my bid is not really logical. It seems very unlikely that I selected this bid without being influenced by the BIT. While it may not be obvious to everyone that partner's BIT showed extras rather than weakness, it's Certainly my chances of making 4♠ opposite a "normal" limit raise on my total garbage were terrible, so even if partner having extras is only 50-50 it improves my win percentage for accepting the limit raise over what it would've been if partner bid in tempo. I suggest that such a call should normally be rolled back (the normal LA of rejecting a limit raise with the worst possible opening hand would never be rolled back) unless there is fairly strong evidence that partner's BIT did not suggest extras.

The Old Chestnut 1S-3S-6S does not involve "a better read on partner than the committee".

[mikeh]

Suffice it to say that even you will, I suggest, accept that a BIT based on weakness lowers the a priori odds of slam being good...and lowers them considerably. Which was the point I tried to make.

If it makes you feel any better, I am happy to concede that if West has a bad hand, East will probably not make six hearts. I do not believe I have ever denied it, but if you think that I have, I hereby set the record straight with apologies for any confusion I may have caused.

 

But none of this matters. The question is simply: given that East knows (illegally) that West has a hand on which 4♥ is not a clear action, what should East do to maximize his expected score on the deal given also that if he bids a slam, his bid will not be cancelled by the authorities? The answer to that is obvious: he should bid a slam, because it will make considerably more than half the time.

Here's the nub.

 

If we agree that the BIT makes bidding slam a net winner compared to the a priori probability of it being a winner, then, subject to a concern I will get to in a moment, you and I have no fight at all. In those circumstances, the hesitation could demonstrably suggest that bidding slam was the best move.

 

The only concern I have is that my reading of the law suggests (I think it is ambiguous) that we should consider the level of skill of E when we assess this question. We certainly have to, when considering what logical alternatives should be considered by him.

 

If the BIT does demonstrably suggest that bidding on is the best move, then we may have to consider whether this particular East is sophisticated enough (or perhaps inexperienced enough to always think that BITs show extras, but that's a different issue) to work that out.

 

However, the difference between us is more basic. I simply don't think that the BIT demonstrably suggests that bidding on is rendered, on a net basis, more attractive than the a priori odds.

 

My analysis, based on what I see as reasonable estimates, is that the BIT renders bidding slam LESS attractive than a priori, and Cascade, using yet different figures, agrees with me.

 

I am no neophyte. I am not a wanna-be expert who has never won an event. I am a regular member of committees, including committees in my country's team trials. I state this not to try to assert authority...I recognize that many of the posters here have equal or better credentials. I state mine only in the hope of persuading you that while your view might be proven right after a huge amount of work that neither of us are likely to do, it should be possible for you to admit that my view is as valid as yours.

 

In that case, it seems to me, that it is impossible to conclude, as a matter of fact, that the BIT demonstrably suggested that 6♥ was now a better proposition...which in turn means that it is impossible to make the pre-requisite finding, based solely on what the OP stated, that the impugned call was demonstrated to be suggested.

 

The Law requires a positive finding of demonstrability. When a substantial number of experts argue that they simply don't find any internal evidence of demonstrability, it is unsafe and unfair for those who disagree to ignore their opponents. It is NOT a case in which I, listening to everyone, would be prepared to state categorically: not demonstrated. It is a case where I say: not shown to be demonstrated. That is a narrow, perhaps fine, distinction, but this is a Law we are discussing and all laws admit of and need, in order to work, fine distinctions.

 

Now, having said that...and I am repeating myself...if I were on the committee I'd be asking some pointed questions of EW. But those questions would not start from the premise that the BIT demonstrated anything other than that he had a hand that made slam worse or better.....if EW confessed to anything that suggested a tendency towards this kind of BIT with extras, or there was evidence that the BIT player's hand strayed towards the bidding box...the area containing bids, not passes, and seemed to be choosing between bids, not calls...and so on...then the result gets rolled back. Now, we are dealing with external evidence that could cause us to conclude that for this pair on this board, the BIT did demonstrate that 6♥ had become more attractive.

[dburn]

My analysis, based on what I see as reasonable estimates, is that the BIT renders bidding slam LESS attractive than a priori, and Cascade, using yet different figures, agrees with me.

Well, Cascade's post says (inter alia) that:

 

Now for p>50% we need P(partner thinking of slam try) * P(12 tricks given that partner was thinking of making a slam try) > 50%

but this is simply false. The truth is that:

 

for p>50% we need

 

[P(partner thinking of slam try) * P(12 tricks given that partner was thinking of making a slam try)]

 

plus

 

[P(partner not thinking of slam try) * P(12 tricks given that partner was not thinking of making a slam try)]

 

> 50%.

 

It is this second factor that, as it seems to me, you and Cascade have vastly underrated. I understand the difference between "zero" and "effectively zero", but I also understand the extent to which 43% is greater than 0%.

 

Still, as you say, we do not appear to have much quarrel with respect to the legal principles involved. As to my own credentials, I have won an event or two and I have for quite some time been a member of (and a quondam chairman of) the Laws and Ethics Committee in England. David Stevenson even bought me a drink once. I must return the kindness some day.

[Echognome]

The Law requires a positive finding of demonstrability. When a substantial number of experts argue that they simply don't find any internal evidence of demonstrability, it is unsafe and unfair for those who disagree to ignore their opponents. It is NOT a case in which I, listening to everyone, would be prepared to state categorically: not demonstrated. It is a case where I say: not shown to be demonstrated. That is a narrow, perhaps fine, distinction, but this is a Law we are discussing and all laws admit of and need, in order to work, fine distinctions.

This quote addresses your views on Law 16C.

 

What about Law 73C?

[cherdanno]

The Law requires a positive finding of demonstrability.

Really? Law 73F.1 says:

If the Director determines that a player chose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the like, he shall award an adjusted score.

[aguahombre]

I would define Pass as "no action", and anything else as "action". Then I would say "action" is illogical on the auction and that the BIT could be the only reason for action.

 

Let the offending side explain how an accepted invite to game invites slam. Am all ears to that one. Maybe I won't be invited to another committee; but oh, well.