Should I Have Sanctioned an Appeal?

[dburn]

Surely not "completely impossible". If it is sufficiently unlikely that it becomes illogical to cater for the possibility, that is enough.

 

(I do not intend to suggest that it is sufficiently unlikely in this case; I would certainly be adjusting unless N/S could convince me they had some agreement such as "can't splinter in competition in a suit oppo have not bid".)

Law 16 requires only that it be "illogical" to play the opponents for ten spades. Law 73, on the other hand, requires (more or less) that it be "completely impossible" to play the opponents for ten spades. This discrepancy has been highlighted before, and will be highlighted again, but nothing very much will be done about it.

[campboy]

Law 16 requires only that it be "illogical" to play the opponents for ten spades. Law 73, on the other hand, requires (more or less) that it be "completely impossible" to play the opponents for ten spades. This discrepancy has been highlighted before, and will be highlighted again, but nothing very much will be done about it.

If it more or less requires that it be completely impossible, is that stronger or weaker than completely requiring that it be more-or-less impossible?

[lamford]

If it more or less requires that it be completely impossible, is that stronger or weaker than completely requiring that it be more-or-less impossible?

I assume you are being flippant. But in case you are not ... the relevant clause is "he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information." (my emphasis). So if there would be a 1% chance of a bid being natural without the UI, and the UI tells you that there is a 0% chance that the bid is natural, then you must not take any advantage, and must assume the alternative that is least palatable.

[Vampyr]

If it more or less requires that it be completely impossible, is that stronger or weaker than completely requiring that it be more-or-less impossible?

It is much stronger. The adjective "completely" is in the first case modifying "impossible". But I suspect that English is your native tongue, and that you know that, and are kidding.

 

(Also, of course, "requires" doesn't need the modifier "completely". Something is required or it is not. That is all.

[campboy]

I assume you are being flippant. But in case you are not ... the relevant clause is "he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information." (my emphasis). So if there would be a 1% chance of a bid being natural without the UI, and the UI tells you that there is a 0% chance that the bid is natural, then you must not take any advantage, and must assume the alternative that is least palatable.

I wasn't (just) being flippant; I think it absurd of DBurn to base a precise requirement on an approximation of what the law says. So, on to the actual law...

 

I don't think you gain an advantage by not doing something which you would not have done anyway. If you have to choose between two possibilities, one having a 99% chance and the other having a 1% chance, and the payoffs being comparable, do you not choose the 99% shot 100% of the time? If you have secret knowledge that actually the 99% chance is coming in, that doesn't change how you bet so it doesn't change your result so you haven't gained anything.

[campboy]

Something is required or it is not. That is all.

That was, in fact, the point I was making. How can something be "more or less" required?

[lamford]

I don't think you gain an advantage by not doing something which you would not have done anyway. If you have to choose between two possibilities, one having a 99% chance and the other having a 1% chance, and the payoffs being comparable, do you not choose the 99% shot 100% of the time? If you have secret knowledge that actually the 99% chance is coming in, that doesn't change how you bet so it doesn't change your result so you haven't gained anything.

On your basis if there is a 51% chance of something meaning one thing leading to you making one bid, and a 49% chance of it meaning something else, leading to you making another bid, you would guess that it meant the former. We know that 16B states that you are obliged to choose the latter, if you think the former is demonstrably suggested, even though it is what you would choose anyway. Dburn is right that there is a conflict between 16B and 73C. The former normally sets the bar at bids that 20% would consider and 10% of them would choose, or something like that. I can accept that 73C should not be more restrictive.

[Vampyr]

That was, in fact, the point I was making. How can something be "more or less" required?

:) Ah yes. My guess is that dburn didn't want the discussion to get mired down in whatever exceptions or loopholes someone might be able to find.

[dburn]

Law 16 requires only that it be "illogical" to play the opponents for ten spades. Law 73, on the other hand, requires (more or less) that it be "completely impossible" to play the opponents for ten spades. This discrepancy has been highlighted before, and will be highlighted again, but nothing very much will be done about it.

 

 

If it more or less requires that it be completely impossible, is that stronger or weaker than completely requiring that it be more-or-less impossible?

Yes and no, up to but not necessarily beyond a point that might or might not be established or even apparent.

 

The truth is that, just as it was shortly after the epic voyage of Harold Vanderbilt on the SS Finland, whether or not you're as bent as a nine-bob note is still largely a matter of perception. Consider what a pair of out-and-out benders would do on this deal.

 

After 1♦-Dble, North bids 1♥ thinking (however temporarily) that this shows hearts. South informs the assembled company that 1♥ in fact shows spades. East bids 2♣, South bids 3♠, West passes and North... well, what's his problem? Partner has a spade stop, so North bids 3NT. Acts of nitwittery subsequently occur when somebody doubles and nobody defends, but these are not particularly relevant.

 

Now, when something happens that is exactly what would have happened had North-South been Bonnie and Clyde or Henry Gondorff and Johnny Hooker, East-West are entitled to call in the constabulary. Should North, they enquire, be allowed to bid 3NT? Should South be allowed to pass it?

 

Various learned arguments are advanced to the effect that once East bid clubs, South bid 3♠ and West did not double, North had sufficient AI to know that he had cocked up the auction, and that South might therefore not have what he would have if he had (say) explained 1♥ on request as showing hearts. The merits of those arguments rely on East-West's tendency to bid as you or I would bid if we had spades - but they are under no obligation to do that.

 

Various other learned arguments are advanced to the effect that from North's point of view, South might well have explained 1♥ as showing hearts, but have bid 3♠ anyway because he had lots of spades and lots of diamonds and lots of points (too many of either or both to bid a mere 2♠.) The merits of those arguments rely on the extent to which South, East and West are prepared to go into the witness box and certify themselves as lunatics (how can West have a double, East a free bid, South a jump reverse, and North what he has?) But no one is under any obligation to be sane either, so these arguments have about the same force as those above.

 

Still, if you are inclined to credit any of the above arguments, you will be inclined to support the view that the table result should stand. Your view may be reinforced when you learn that North-South "do not play splinters in competition" and "play 2♠ as natural and non-forcing in the sequence 1♦-Double-1(natural)♥-2♣-2♠". If you happen to be the Tournament Director or the Appeals Committee in this case you will rule accordingly, and the strains of Scott Joplin's "The Entertainer" will accompany your entrance while the strains of his "The Easy Winners" will accompany your exit.

 

If on the other hand you believe as I do that North took it upon himself to correct South's impression that North had spades by bidding as he would not have bid if under the impression that South knew North had hearts, you will... well, you may someday finish fourth in the Tollemache. But you'll sleep at night.

[campboy]

On your basis if there is a 51% chance of something meaning one thing leading to you making one bid, and a 49% chance of it meaning something else, leading to you making another bid, you would guess that it meant the former. We know that 16B states that you are obliged to choose the latter, if you think the former is demonstrably suggested, even though it is what you would choose anyway. Dburn is right that there is a conflict between 16B and 73C. The former normally sets the bar at bids that 20% would consider and 10% of them would choose, or something like that. I can accept that 73C should not be more restrictive.

I don't think that first sentence is necessarily true. There is some uncertainty in my estimate of their probabilities and I imagine that if they were as close as that I would get them wrong a fair proportion of the time. And of course that is in line with the definition of LA; I need to carefully consider which is more likely, and I may get it wrong.

 

The conflict (I think that is too strong a term really) between 16D and 73C comes in in two ways. Firstly even if I know I would not have done somthing (say when I have already decided on my next call before making this one) law 16D may require me to make it because it doesn't take that into account. And that is how it should be: law 16D is written in such a way that the TD can apply it without needing to know my state of mind. The second way is where I know that I might have done something even though it probably doesn't meet the definition of LA; then law 73C places a stricter requirement on me than the TD can reliably enforce.

[Poky]

Bluejak has already stated his view on the case in this thread, Poky. Unfortunately, it got buried in between a lot of fairly irrelevant arguments.

 

In my view, Bluejak tells us exactly the right approach to adopt in this type of case.

True. I didn't notice it. TY.

[Poky]

The opinion of Wank seems spot on: "I think in the circumstances it seems perfectly reasonable for people to be a little incredulous concerning the suggestion it would be natural." Dburn has already explained to you why you cannot draw inferences from your own spade holding. You know that it is not natural, dburn knows it is not natural, Frances knows it is not natural (modifying her opinion with 'probably') ". Please don't try to treat the readers of this forum as imbeciles by writing such nonsense.

Well, I'm not so sure that someone treating himself as an imbecile is proper behavior either... But, that's just my opinion. To be worth more than 1 penny firstly I have to learn the difference between truth and nonsense, probably... Or not? :unsure:

[lamford]

Still, if you are inclined to credit any of the above arguments, you will be inclined to support the view that the table result should stand. Your view may be reinforced when you learn that North-South "do not play splinters in competition" and "play 2♠ as natural and non-forcing in the sequence 1♦-Double-1(natural)♥-2♣-2♠".

As I agree with ChrisL that judgement rulings are only a small part of bridge, and the game itself has some importance, maybe I can be excused for drifting off-topic for a moment. I think that a sensible use for the sequences 1♣ - 1♥ - 3♠ or 1♣ - 1♠ - 3♥, with or without competition, is to play them as three-way. One of:

a) a splinter in that major

b) a cue bid agreeing the other major

c) a hand too good to raise to four of a major

Partner puppets with 3NT and opener passes ... er, sorry, he bids 4♣ with the splinter, 4♦ with the cue, and 4 other major with the hand too good to raise to four major.

 

The disadvantage of this method is that we have to play the jump shift or reverse as natural and forcing, so that may be too avant garde for some. But not for this North-South who play lots of "stuff".

[mjj29]

On your basis if there is a 51% chance of something meaning one thing leading to you making one bid, and a 49% chance of it meaning something else, leading to you making another bid, you would guess that it meant the former. We know that 16B states that you are obliged to choose the latter, if you think the former is demonstrably suggested, even though it is what you would choose anyway. Dburn is right that there is a conflict between 16B and 73C. The former normally sets the bar at bids that 20% would consider and 10% of them would choose, or something like that. I can accept that 73C should not be more restrictive.

I believe it's possible to apply L16B and not L73C and also (in other cases) to apply L73C and not L16B.

 

To my mind, L73C is as campboy suggested. If I genuinely believe I would always make an action and I take that action, I don't see how I can be in breach of L73C. I may still have my score adjusted under L16B if it is judged that my peers may sometimes make another action, and that is fine.

 

L73C should be applied where we believe that the player has taken the suggested action when they _wouldn't_ have made it 'all the time'. In those cases L16B will also apply and will be our route of choice.

 

When L73C could be applied alone are the rare cases where the player does something off-the-wall because of the UI and so L16B does not apply.

 

Matt

[lamford]

When L73C could be applied alone are the rare cases where the player does something off-the-wall because of the UI and so L16B does not apply.

This was Grattan Endicott's response to deal with someone who does not select among logical alternatives, because nobody would choose the bid. He saw 73C as a stopgap to deal with that, although some argue that the bid chosen must always be a logical alternative. Say somebody opens 3NT fourth in hand after three passes, on Axx Axx Axx Axxx and his partner, who broke tempo, has a flawed pre-empt somewhere and the contract makes. I hope we would all adjust under 73C if we feel that we cannot catch him under 16B.

 

Correcting 16B to add "(which always include the bid chosen)" after "logical alternatives" in a couple of places would eliminate this anomaly.

[blackshoe]

Correcting 16B to add "(which always includes the bid chosen)" after "logical alternatives" in a couple of places would eliminate this anomaly.

 

Sounds to me like you're suggesting we redefine "logical" to include (at least in some cases) the illogical too. I think that's a pretty poor approach.

[bluejak]

I'm a simple soul. Whenever I have UI I bid as I would have bid without UI. And I do not see any problem in it. I do not see any reason why the UI should prevent me to use the AI I have available. Is there any law saying that?

 

But I could agree with you that some people are more skillful in using AI than others.

 

You made a general statement without reference to this problem. I answered it. So these comments are inappropriate:

 

Well, that's maybe right, but we aren't talking about 'much of time' but about one very specific case.

 

I do not think you gave an example which has much to do with our initial problem. Rather, you can tell us, what would be your ruling on the xx-KTxxx-xx-AQxx board? Do you agree with 6NTx?

 

because your comments were not about one specific case. I replied to your post, not to anything else, and I still consider my reply accurate and complete.

[lamford]

Sounds to me like you're suggesting we redefine "logical" to include (at least in some cases) the illogical too. I think that's a pretty poor approach.

No, I was aiming to automatically include the selected bid among logical alternatives, in that it was chosen by the player, and was therefore logical to him or her. Do you have another method of closing the loophole, other than using 73C?

[Vampyr]

No, I was aiming to automatically include the selected bid among logical alternatives, in that it was chosen by the player, and was therefore logical to him or her. Do you have another method of closing the loophole, other than using 73C?

I have always felt that the bid chosen should count as a logical alternative even without a change in wording. After all, it made sense to the player (for whatever reason) at the time.

 

Surely his peers cannot be more like the player than the player himself.

[bluejak]

Law 16 requires only that it be "illogical" to play the opponents for ten spades. Law 73, on the other hand, requires (more or less) that it be "completely impossible" to play the opponents for ten spades. This discrepancy has been highlighted before, and will be highlighted again, but nothing very much will be done about it.

Well, you could explain it to me, since it sounds nonsensical to me. Perhaps you are being over-pedantic?

 

This was Grattan Endicott's response to deal with someone who does not select among logical alternatives, because nobody would choose the bid. He saw 73C as a stopgap to deal with that, although some argue that the bid chosen must always be a logical alternative. Say somebody opens 3NT fourth in hand after three passes, on Axx Axx Axx Axxx and his partner, who broke tempo, has a flawed pre-empt somewhere and the contract makes. I hope we would all adjust under 73C if we feel that we cannot catch him under 16B.

 

Correcting 16B to add "(which always include the bid chosen)" after "logical alternatives" in a couple of places would eliminate this anomaly.

 

No, I was aiming to automatically include the selected bid among logical alternatives, in that it was chosen by the player, and was therefore logical to him or her. Do you have another method of closing the loophole, other than using 73C?

This problem has been discussed many many many times, with a variety of acceptable solutions. However, it is not of particular importance in this forum since it is not a forum for changing Laws, and it is a matter of general agreement that we adjust for UI even if the chosen action is not seen as an LA, or alternatively would not have been considered an LA if it had not been chosen.

[jallerton]

You seem to have overlooked the implications from the fact that (for the purposes of his own bidding) South is not allowed to know that they might have had a misunderstanding; therefore he is not allowed to take into account the fact that E/W may be trying to be clever and cater for a N/S misunderstanding.

 

Imagine that screens are in use and that North and South have access to an E/W system file. Responder has bid hearts naturally, his LHO has bid clubs in response to RHO's take-out double and partner has now jumped to 3♠. If RHO really has a strong jump overcall he will surely double 3♠ (whatever 3♠ means).

 

 

I am not sure I understand this - North-South are the people who have no idea what they are doing, while East-West are the people who need access to a North-South system file in order to work out what is going on.

 

Yes, of course East-West do need access to a North-South system file, but the 1♥ bidder must draw all inferences from the bidding of East, West and South on the assumptions that he own 1♥ bid was natural and explained as such.

 

 

Will he? If I (West) knew that South's 3♠ was support for his partner's imaginary spades, why would I double it with spades, instead of waiting to see where my opponents ended up? After all, if 4♠ is our side's predestined contract, I can always bid it later.

 

If you were West, you might come to that conclusion, yes.

 

But if you were North, you would not know (or be allowed to know) that West could know of a possible North/South misunderstanding. Therefore, it would not occur to you that West might be lurking with a strong jump overcall in spades or similar.

[Vampyr]

But if you were North, you would not know (or be allowed to know) that West could know of a possible North/South misunderstanding. Therefore, it would not occur to you that West might be lurking with a strong jump overcall in spades or similar.

Ah, but you do know. Are you forced to "use" the UI to your own detriment? You are when you are forced to choose an inferior bid that is an LA, and I think you are here.

[jallerton]

Is that right Jeffrey? My understanding is that North is supposed to bid on the basis that E-W have heard South's explanation but North has not.

 

I don't think your understanding can be correct. If it were, then North would often be able to infer a N/S minsuderstanding from an E/W explanation. Suppose you respond 2♥ to 1NT which you play as a weak take-out. Unfortunately, partner forgets that you still play this and announces "spades". LHO bids 2♠. Are you entitled to know that LHO has, say "hearts and another suit", rather than spades?

 

I doubt that this South would ever bid 3S to show a 5-6 hand: he would automatically bid 2S and then 3S. Before splinters became popular the meaning of an unnecessary jump was a cue for partner's suit: why should that not apply here? Perhaps Ax AQxx AKQJx xx. Is there no logical alternative to risking playing in 3NT instead of slam (grand slam if you trust the club finesse)?

 

It may be possible to argue that 3S is an impossible bid and therefore North is allowed to remember his system. But if we deny that, I don't see how we can confidently determine that the 5-6 hand is much more likely than the cue or the splinter.

 

I don't think North should be allowed to remember his system unless there is no even vaguely plausible explanation for the 3♠ bid.

 

Clearly, if there is any significant chance that 3♠ might be a cue bid agreeing hearts, then 4♣ must be a logical alternative (though even a 9-card spade fit East/West is quite hard to believe if West would normally overcall 1♠ in preference to a take-out double with 5 of them).

 

Perhaps my conclusion on the meaning of 3♠ is biased by my own agreements. With most partners, I do not play splinters in competiton, other than in suits bid by opponents. I play 1♦ P 1♠ (2♥) 4♣ as natural and game forcing. My competitive system file with a couple of partners even states that non-jump new suit reverses at the 3-level are very strong but NF (e.g. 1♣ P 1♦ 2♠ 3♥). My "lunatic" view is only one answer, which is why I am curious to know how the widely the TD consulted and how he came to his "no logical alternative" conclusion.

[lamford]

My competitive system file with a couple of partners even states that non-jump new suit reverses at the 3-level are very strong but NF (e.g. 1♣ P 1♦ 2♠ 3♥).

So what are the chances of partner having a hand too good to bid a natural 2S, when your RHO has doubled 1D for takeout, and your LHO had volunteered 2C? I would have said vanishingly small. And what is wrong with partner having a hand too good to raise to 4H, as suggested by Aardv, and he has produced an advance cue bid. I would be surprised if you neither play advance cue bids nor splinters in this situation - everything would have to go through 3C and if your LHO did not help by bidding a suit, it would be even more awkward. Surely the advance cuebid is much more likely than a natural and game-forcing 3S?

[lamford]

I don't think your understanding can be correct. If it were, then North would often be able to infer a N/S misunderstanding from an E/W explanation. Suppose you respond 2♥ to 1NT which you play as a weak take-out. Unfortunately, partner forgets that you still play this and announces "spades". LHO bids 2♠. Are you entitled to know that LHO has, say "hearts and another suit", rather than spades?

The knowledge arises from your side's infraction, so is UI. In this case, Aardv is absolutely correct, in my view. You are using the fact that East-West did not bid spades, and you know why they probably have not from the UI. You just select the LA that is not demonstrably suggested, and that is clearly 4C.

 

I don't think North should be allowed to remember his system unless there is no even vaguely plausible explanation for the 3♠ bid.

I think we all agree on this.