BIT auction

[AlexJonson]

What do you mean by adjust to 4S? It is the initial outcome. The question is whether to adjust to 3N or not.

 

See the edited version above.

[pran]

There seems an implication that when 3NT is a worse outcome [ and 4S is bid ], the contract is adjusted to 3NT under 73C. If 4S is a worse outcome [and 3NT is passed]we adjust to 4S under 16B (after a poll).

 

That does not seem satisfactory.

It certainly is not.

 

This would imply that regardless of which call is chosen we should rule that the chosen call was "demonstrably" suggested over the other. But no call shall ever be ruled "demonstrably suggested" simply because it is chosen, there must be some feature in the UI that will lead to such ruling. And when neither call can "demonstrably" be suggested over the other by the UI the correct ruling should be "no adjustment"!

[gwnn]

I have never seen a slow natural* bid being passed and the director called, let alone the director forcing the passer to bid! A slow offer to play a contract shows a certain desire to play somewhere else, so passing it is never suggested by the hesitation.

 

*suggestion to play there. also, both players knowing fully well that it is natural (i.e. not a situation like 1NT-4♥; 4♠-...oh my idiot partner thinks we play texas, well let's try 5♥ maybe he'll pass that.)

[pran]

I have never seen a slow natural* bid being passed and the director called, let alone the director forcing the passer to bid! A slow offer to play a contract shows a certain desire to play somewhere else, so passing it is never suggested by the hesitation.

 

*suggestion to play there. also, both players knowing fully well that it is natural (i.e. not a situation like 1NT-4♥; 4♠-...oh my idiot partner thinks we play texas, well let's try 5♥ maybe he'll pass that.)

I no longer remember the details, but I have once adjusted the result on a board from 5♥= to 6♥-1 on the ground that pass (to 5♥) rather than bidding 6♥ "could demonstrably have been suggested" by UI.

[gnasher]

Many weaker players do not use fourth-suit forcing; some have not heard of it. They bid spades then clubs because they have spades and clubs. They probably have an unbalanced hand. We are only concerned with LAs for this class of player (assuming both are the same class), and that could include Pass. I think 4S is a better bid (it might play well in a Moysian with club ruffs in the short trump hand) and I expect a poll of players of a similar class would have most of them bidding 4S without the UI. However this is the bid that does not carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI, so this could be the rara avis of a 73C adjustment instead of a 16B adjustment.

 

I don't understand why the question of a Moysian would arise. If partner has an unbalanced hand, he has five spades, doesn't he? Or are you saying that he might be 4-5 in the blacks?

[aguahombre]

Wouldn't 4-5 in blacks have bid 2C first? Oh, wait...the BIT was because he re-arranged his hand.

[RMB1]

I don't understand why the question of a Moysian would arise. If partner has an unbalanced hand, he has five spades, doesn't he? Or are you saying that he might be 4-5 in the blacks?

 

I think they are.

 

It is often difficult to rule on unfamiliar bidding methods (e.g. fourth suit natural): although the perpetrators may usually land on their feet, they don't really have any clear understandings. Of course, when this occurs in a UI ruling, there will always be suspicion that endemic use of UI is what helps them to land on their feet in the absence of clear undertstandings.

[lamford]

I don't understand why the question of a Moysian would arise. If partner has an unbalanced hand, he has five spades, doesn't he? Or are you saying that he might be 4-5 in the blacks?

I thought he would probably be unbalanced, but like you I am guessing how somebody who plays fourth-suit natural and forcing might bid, so only having four spades is a distinct possibility. Perhaps he thinks he is too good for 3NT and bids 3C for that reason; after all 4NT is always Blackwood. He should be able to judge the final contract by the speed of your reply, and be able to describe his hand better by the speed of his next bid.

 

TD, forgive them, for they know not what they do. (WB 23:34)

[AlexJonson]

It certainly is not.

 

This would imply that regardless of which call is chosen we should rule that the chosen call was "demonstrably" suggested over the other. But no call shall ever be ruled "demonstrably suggested" simply because it is chosen, there must be some feature in the UI that will lead to such ruling. And when neither call can "demonstrably" be suggested over the other by the UI the correct ruling should be "no adjustment"!

 

But Pran, that exactly seems to be the result of allowing people to choose between Laws 73 and 16 when they rule (according to dburn and Lamford).

 

I notice that neither dburn or Lamford care to deal with that, do you?

[lamford]

But Pran, that exactly seems to be the result of allowing people to choose between Laws 73 and 16 when they rule (according to dburn and Lamford).

 

I notice that neither dburn or Lamford care to deal with that, do you?

I do not think a call is 'demonstrably suggested' because it is chosen. I am happy with accepted practice that a call is a 'logical alternative' because it is chosen. In this example you could argue that 4S is not demonstrably suggested, because partner could have several different hand types. You could argue that Pass is not a logical alternative, because not enough peers would select it. However, it is more likely after the BIT that 4S will be right, and there will be some people, if not the requisite percentage, who will seriously consider Pass. Selecting 4S therefore is not "carefully avoiding taking any advantage" of the UI. In a nutshell, if the BIT tilts us one iota towards the idea that 4S is the bid that is more likely to work, then selecting it is a breach of 73C. That does not say "any significant advantage"; it says "any advantage", and we must assume the lawmakers put in "any" for a reason. It is therefore much more restrictive. It also forces the player to consider what the UI suggests - rather than ignore it - in order to carefully avoid taking any advantage.

[StevenG]

It also forces the player to consider what the UI is - rather than ignore it - in order to carefully avoid taking any advantage.

 

If you do not know what the UI is, or what it suggests, you cannot possibly be taking advantage of the UI by ignoring it.

 

That does not, however, absolve you of your responsibilities under Law 16.

[gwnn]

I no longer remember the details, but I have once adjusted the result on a board from 5♥= to 6♥-1 on the ground that pass (to 5♥) rather than bidding 6♥ "could demonstrably have been suggested" by UI.

I've spent the last 16 hours trying to come up with an auction where this makes sense and I don't see it. Could you give a possible example? I don't care about the actual details, just a possible case where it makes sense.

 

I think whenever we have a slam auction and I bid 5♥ slowly, I show that I think maybe 6♥ could be a better contract, either I wanted to bid 6♥ directly, or cuebid before. When partner passes 5♥, he carefully avoided taking advantage of my hesitation and should be commended.

 

The best I could come up with is something like

1H-4H

..5H-pass ? (i.e. the 5♥ itself is the slam try)

this case is very complicated. I suppose a slow slam try like this could show either a minimum or a maximum, and since a minimum is more likely than a maximum, raising is less likely to succeed.

[WellSpyder]

I've spent the last 16 hours trying to come up with an auction where this makes sense and I don't see it. Could you give a possible example? I don't care about the actual details, just a possible case where it makes sense.

 

How about a competitive auction in which one player makes a forcing pass of 4♠, then pulls partner's double to 5♥? Most people would play this as a slam try, bidding 5♥ directly over 4♠ if they just knew this was where they wanted to play. But if there was a long pause before pulling the double to 5♥ this would certainly suggest that the 5♥ bidder hadn't been planning all along to do this in order to show a slam try. So the hesitation could certainly suggest passing rather than bidding 6♥.

[gwnn]

Sure but that's about some sort of misunderstanding, which I tried to exclude in my query above. 3NT here is clearly natural and an offer to play 3NT. It is not a slam try, and should definitely not occur to anyone that it promises slam invitational values. Anyway, irrespective of what I meant to ask, or whether there are some special exceptions to the general rule, it is true that you're almost always OK if you pass slow natural bids by partner.

[pran]

It certainly is not.

 

This would imply that regardless of which call is chosen we should rule that the chosen call was "demonstrably" suggested over the other. But no call shall ever be ruled "demonstrably suggested" simply because it is chosen, there must be some feature in the UI that will lead to such ruling. And when neither call can "demonstrably" be suggested over the other by the UI the correct ruling should be "no adjustment"!

But Pran, that exactly seems to be the result of allowing people to choose between Laws 73 and 16 when they rule (according to dburn and Lamford).

 

I notice that neither dburn or Lamford care to deal with that, do you?

If TD can show that there is UI and that a player "who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information" he "shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender". (Law 73C leading to 16B3)

 

Violations of Law 73 other than those leading us directly to Law 16B3 are still subject to rectification and/or PP. Such PP is not depending on any advantage for the offender.

[lamford]

If you do not know what the UI is, or what it suggests, you cannot possibly be taking advantage of the UI by ignoring it.

 

That does not, however, absolve you of your responsibilities under Law 16.

It seems hard to "ignore it" if you do not what it is or what it suggests. But, yes, if you were unaware that partner took thirty seconds to bid 3NT, having broken off to take two diazepam tablets before bidding, then you could not be accused of taking advantage of the UI, which you are not aware of, by ignoring it.

[gnasher]

If partner makes a slow natural jump, that might suggest that he was thinking of something lower. eg

pass 2

♠

dbl pass

4

♥

If 4♥ was slow, that suggests he was considering a weaker action. With a marginal slam try, therefore, the doubler is obliged to move.

[pran]

I no longer remember the details, but I have once adjusted the result on a board from 5♥= to 6♥-1 on the ground that pass (to 5♥) rather than bidding 6♥ "could demonstrably have been suggested" by UI.

I've spent the last 16 hours trying to come up with an auction where this makes sense and I don't see it. Could you give a possible example? I don't care about the actual details, just a possible case where it makes sense.

 

I think whenever we have a slam auction and I bid 5♥ slowly, I show that I think maybe 6♥ could be a better contract, either I wanted to bid 6♥ directly, or cuebid before. When partner passes 5♥, he carefully avoided taking advantage of my hesitation and should be commended.

 

The best I could come up with is something like

1H-4H

..5H-pass ? (i.e. the 5♥ itself is the slam try)

this case is very complicated. I suppose a slow slam try like this could show either a minimum or a maximum, and since a minimum is more likely than a maximum, raising is less likely to succeed.

I believe the original case was a Blackwood sequence, but your case is as good an example as any:

 

If the jump to 4♥ (limit raise) was made on a maximum hand and the raise to 5♥ was apparently very reluctant I would quite possibly adjust a pass to 6♥ if it only makes 5.

[AlexJonson]

If TD can show that there is UI and that a player "who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information" he "shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender". (Law 73C leading to 16B3)

 

Violations of Law 73 other than those leading us directly to Law 16B3 are still subject to rectification and/or PP. Such PP is not depending on any advantage for the offender.

 

Thank you Pran.

 

If we are always in 16B3 territory, then given the lack of consensus on this case, it follows that a poll would be the only way to resolve it (IMO).

[gwnn]

If partner makes a slow natural jump, that might suggest that he was thinking of something lower. eg

pass 2

♠

dbl pass

4

♥

If 4♥ was slow, that suggests he was considering a weaker action. With a marginal slam try, therefore, the doubler is obliged to move.

fair enough. just goes to show that 16 hours is not enough for me. :)

[Vampyr]

I believe the original case was a Blackwood sequence, but your case is as good an example as any:

 

Really? I should have thought that Hesitation Blackwood cases are always rolled back to the 5-level. I cannot imagine penalising, I mean rectifying, a player for not respecting his partner's signoff.

[dburn]

But Pran, that exactly seems to be the result of allowing people to choose between Laws 73 and 16 when they rule (according to dburn and Lamford).

 

I notice that neither dburn or Lamford care to deal with that, do you?

I have observed in another thread that, at least in the ACBL, any action (however illogical) chosen by a player in possession of UI is now considered a logical alternative for that player. That thread was constructed by lamford in order to "deal with" the issue raised here, so I hope at least that AlexJonson will discontinue to believe that either of us is avoiding the question.

 

I observe here that if a player considers that any selection from among logical alternatives is likely to work badly for his side (because if it succeeds, it will be ruled against), he may not attempt to avoid the provisions of Law 16 by selecting an illogical action, because to do so is a violation of Law 73. The ACBL minute from the Reno meeting was designed, as far as I can see, to bring the selection of an illogical (in the wider context) action within the purview of Law 16, and a praiseworthy effort it was too. It is deeply flawed, but that is only because the Laws themselves are deeply flawed.

 

At the moment, the second best advice I can give to a player in possession of UI who is (correctly) trying to maximise his side's score is this: select from among logical alternatives that which you think is least likely to be overturned if it works. This is rather more cynical than the "Rubens approach" (advocated in The Bridge World passim for about thirty years), which is in essence "do what you would have done anyway and accept adverse rulings with good grace". But it isn't much more cynical: if you are correct in thinking that your action is least likely to be overturned if it works, you are less likely to incur an adverse ruling than otherwise.

 

The best advice I can give is to play with someone who doesn't transmit UI. But well it was said by the bard:

 

A man has horns in Tufnell Park.

A man eats clocks in Camberwell.

A man plays billiards in the dark

Entirely by the sense of smell.

A man I knew extremely well

Went up to bed and met a bear

That said its name was Little Nell -

But cases of the kind are rare.

[AlexJonson]

I have observed in another thread that, at least in the ACBL, any action (however illogical) chosen by a player in possession of UI is now considered a logical alternative for that player. That thread was constructed by lamford in order to "deal with" the issue raised here, so I hope at least that AlexJonson will discontinue to believe that either of us is avoiding the question.

 

I observe here that if a player considers that any selection from among logical alternatives is likely to work badly for his side (because if it succeeds, it will be ruled against), he may not attempt to avoid the provisions of Law 16 by selecting an illogical action, because to do so is a violation of Law 73. The ACBL minute from the Reno meeting was designed, as far as I can see, to bring the selection of an illogical (in the wider context) action within the purview of Law 16, and a praiseworthy effort it was too. It is deeply flawed, but that is only because the Laws themselves are deeply flawed.

 

(...)

 

Of course I agree that selection of a bid that noone else would make, and that would almost always result in a poor score, can only be treated as a logical alternative for reasons of convenience (quite possibly good reasons in the interest of the game).

 

I don't see the connection between this line of thought and situations such as the case in this thread.

 

Anyway if it is all really a bit of scholasticism to while away the time, while the practical player just passes slow game bids and slow doubles, then it is not nearly as much of a problem as I imagined.

[Vampyr]

Of course I agree that selection of a bid that noone else would make, and that would almost always result in a poor score, can only be treated as a logical alternative for reasons of convenience (quite possibly good reasons in the interest of the game).

 

I don't see the connection between this line of thought and situations such as the case in this thread.

 

 

Why only for reasons of convenience? It made sense at the time, after all.

 

Anyway, the connection between this line of thought and situations such as the case in this thread is that they are identical.

[AlexJonson]

Why only for reasons of convenience? It made sense at the time, after all.

 

Anyway, the connection between this line of thought and situations such as the case in this thread is that they are identical.

 

Are you confusing this thread with Lamfords invention to investigate Law 73? This thread seems a standard example of choice of genuine candidate logical alternatives.