Looooong thinking

[LH2650]

In this case the rules say that you must not choose from among LAs any which are suggested by the UI. If you genuinely believe that Pass isn't even a Logical Alternative then you can bid 4♥, but otherwise, bidding 4♥ is cheating.

 

Eric

This is exactly what the Laws are designed to avoid. If the holder of the strong hand states that he always intended to bid 4H, and feels that a ruling against him is equivalent to calling him a liar, he doesn't understand the law. Likewise, if West feels that he was cheated, Law 16 is not designed to address that. It simply does not matter what anyone intended. The Law only cares about what a player's peers would do. The Bridge World points out that Law 16 is often misinterpreted because it only addresses what a player should not do, not what he should do.

[inquiry]

This is exactly what the Laws are designed to avoid. If the holder of the strong hand states that he always intended to bid 4H, and feels that a ruling against him is equivalent to calling him a liar, he doesn't understand the law. Likewise, if West feels that he was cheated, Law 16 is not designed to address that. It simply does not matter what anyone intended. The Law only cares about what a player's peers would do. The Bridge World points out that Law 16 is often misinterpreted because it only addresses what a player should not do, not what he should do.

The laws are made to avoid problems where there is a judgement call, and UI can sway the judgement. This is why I said above that IF 3♦ was game invite, the long hesitation would bar south. But if 3♦ is one round forcing, and not merely game invite, this is not the case.

 

Some of you would accept a signoff (fast or slow). With this hand, playing at imps, (and most especially if being vulnerable but that info not provided), I would not accept anything BELOW GAME with this hand. There is a saying, don't play me for the perfect hand, but don't play me for the worse hand either. With this hand, I would bid game and take my shot over a fast 3hearts. This is because I would never bid 3di as a question to partner of 3H or 4H. I am always going to four. Period. You guys, in my opinion, under-evaluate your hand. That is your "problem" (at least in my opinon). You delude yourself with the wrong question. Should South be forced to pass a signoff after his 3♥ game try. In my opinion 3♥ was a slam try, not a game try.

 

Now we can quote the laws all day. I have bridge worlds going back to the sixties, and I read and re-read how would you rule. And I understand if I bid 4♥ I might be dragged before a committee. But at least in mycase, I think I can point to like 1000 of my 4500 post here (to date) to suggest that I would, in fact carry on with this hand. That I evaluate my hands by ZAR points, that I believe in ZAR points for the most part, and that there must be enough ZAR points here to merit a game try, especially at imps. I see no one of you addressed my two hands where I had opener rebid 3D and responder "signoff" with 3H rebid. I do not view the question as any different. If my had was a tad weaker, chance club queen for small, ok, over hesitation, I would be banned. But here I think 4♥ is clear cut, and unambigious.

 

Ben

[Flame]

Ben the law isnt talking about how you bid, the law talks about how other ppl at your level bids, if you're an agressive it wont help you at this case.

maybe its wrong but thats the law.

[pclayton]

Ben the law isnt talking about how you bid, the law talks about how other ppl at your level bids, if you're an agressive it wont help you at this case.

maybe its wrong but thats the law.

I think if Ben can present a body of evidence that he would always make a 4♥ call on the subject hand, then the 4♥ call becomes a 100% action (to Ben) and no adjustment should be granted.

 

The normal screening of peers would not be relevant if a body of knowledge is available about a certain player's actions.

 

I think Meckstroth would bid 4♥ too. But I think a majority of other world class players would just invite.

 

Me still thinks that pushing to 4♥ on this hand is an ovvvvverrrrrrbidddd.

[Flame]

The normal screening of peers would not be relevant if a body of knowledge is available about a certain player's actions.

Are you sure ?

Are you basing it on logic or on previous cases ?

[pclayton]

The normal screening of peers would not be relevant if a body of knowledge is available about a certain player's actions.

Are you sure ?

Are you basing it on logic or on previous cases ?

Its common sense Flame.

 

Peer review is a basis for screening appeals. A screening director takes the hand to a few players to see what they would have done.

 

If I can demonstrate that I always bid game with a 5 loser hand opposite a minimum response, why should I have to explain anything to an AC? Ben's 4H call becomes a 100% action. Peers would not matter, because I choose to bid differently than my peers.

 

If a Flight B player is involved in a possible appeal, the screening director talks to players of a similar caliber.

 

Say there is a clone of Flame playing in the event. Who better to ask on what he would bid in a certain situation, if you were involved? The clone would have no 'table feel', based on partner's hitch, on which to go on to make a certain call. The fact that a body of knowledge exists through online play should be conclusive in validating a person's assertion that he does / does not make certain decisions in certain situations. I can even see portable versions of bridgebrowser beeing brought to committee hearings :) .

 

As far as the actual laws are concerned, I'm not that knowledgable to base my opinion on anything concrete. I do however, read all of the casebooks from our nationals and I'm very familiar with the application of certain laws and how the AC treats evidence. There are many cases where the player has said: "A (certain call) is automatic for us, since we have an agreement that we always do "x" in this situation".

[inquiry]

The normal screening of peers would not be relevant if a body of knowledge is available about a certain player's actions.

Are you sure ?

Are you basing it on logic or on previous cases ?

The rules for committees are very codified... and include the following wording...

 

When use of unauthorized information made available by partner is

alleged there are four key questions for the appeals committee:

• Does the accused player have unauthorized information inconsequence of an action by his partner?
  
• Could the unauthorized information be thought to suggest demonstrably the action that was taken by the player who possessed it?
  
• Were there logical alternatives (or was there a logical alternative)
  that the player could have selected in place of the action that is questioned? (A ‘logical alternative’ is a different action that, amongst the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is reasonable to think some might adopt it.)
  
• Have opponents been damaged in consequence of the player’s action when in possession of the unauthorized information? Damage is assessed in terms of the score obtained.
  

If the answer to each and every one of these four questions is ‘yes’ it is appropriate to adjust the score but not otherwise.

 

I hope you read, again, the bold the part from above. Specifically where it says USING THE METHODS OF THE PARTNERSHIP. My selected methods, as told in advanced, and prealerted on my convention card and at the table is very light opening bids following ZAR evaluation. Using these methods, a 37 point ZAR opening hand will always bid game after a major suit fit has been found. This is because you simply can't respond to a 1 of a minor suit bid with less than a zar 15 (in fact, Zar suggest 16 is the minimum responding hand). 37 + 16 = 53, one more than any ZAR fanatic needs to bid game.. and there is no RULE THAT says partner has to have the minimum hand... even WHEN HE BIDS 3♥ over what ever 3♦ means.

 

Overbid? At imps, no, this is not an overbid to force to game once this fit is found. This is good bridge and if we are vulnerable, this is mandatory bid. Can you construct hands were game goes down? Sure, and I can construct very minimum hands opposite this where game makes. Big deal The issue is my intent when I bid 3♦. Did I intend to drive to game, and invite slam if partner showed life? Or did I intend to abide by patners 3/4 decision. Some players fall in the second case, I would fall in the first. My statements of such would not be self-serving, they would be facts, facts I can more than adeuqately support, and that would be more than adequately displayed on my convention card and by my pre-alert. If you want to test what the logical alternative is for me, given my partnbership methods you will have to drag in people using ZAR evalaution and ask them... and I asure you, they would bid game here. After all, we ARE ALLOWED TO USE ANY information based upon ‘authorized’ information, and when I heard 1♥ I was authorized to know parntner had a minimum 16 zar points, and four hearts... That is all I need to know that I want to be in at least game.. the rest of this is nonsense...

 

So the four steps above...

 

1) did unauthorized info exist? Yes, clearly

2) could it suggest some action? Yes, it suggest bidding on if on top of invite

4) Where the opponents damaged? Well, if since 4 makes, yes, and easily quantified.

 

Where this falls down is item 3, the definition of logical alternative, and my stated methods. For me, there IS NO LOGICAL ALTERNATIVE to bidding game, nor for people following the same "partnership methods" that I use.

 

To be honest, norht must have been surfing hte internet looking for porn or off visitng the bathroom, as he has clear additional bid, unless this "mini-splinter" can be based on some kind of 12 hcp crap... like I said, I don't play this method anyway..... but for me, if I bid 3♦ no way do I EVER, plan on passing 3♥. And I think the laws support my position that my 4♥ bid would be entirely legal and upheld. This may not be true for others, this requires some investigation (as I said in my very first post.. what is 4♦, etc...).

 

Ben

[Flame]

OK

(i would say nothing more but you said so much i feel i must say something more)

I wasnt aware of the "same partnership methods" part.

In general i think its might be too much to ask a commete to consider the player style, its possible but there is a limit to how much you want the commette to work and this will lead to some unfair rulling since not everyone can prove his style like Ben, so making a general rule of not using style and only system is ok with my common sense.

I do agree that zar points, pre alerts and cc , are good enough to convince the comette that this is the way you play, but i wouldnt go farther then this into bridge browser or friends asking.

[jtfanclub]

This is because you simply can't respond to a 1 of a minor suit bid with less than a zar 15 (in fact, Zar suggest 16 is the minimum responding hand).

Which is fine using your methods, but using the original poster's methods, the initial reply only showed ZAR 13.

 

It's not fair to adjust their bidding to your needs. If 1♥ was a GF, then sure, you can't pass 3♥. If it showed 16+ Zar, then you probably can't pass. But 13+? I don't think bidding on is clear at all.

[luke warm]

1) did unauthorized info exist? Yes, clearly

2) could it suggest some action? Yes, it suggest bidding on if on top of invite

4) Where the opponents damaged? Well, if since 4 makes, yes, and easily quantified.

 

Where this falls down is item 3, the definition of logical alternative, and my stated methods. For me, there IS NO LOGICAL ALTERNATIVE to bidding game, nor for people following the same "partnership methods" that I use.

i understand what you're saying, and i agree that south should just bid game, and that if he doesn't, north should... however i don't quite understand your #2... if 3h here suggest bidding on with a max invite, what bid does he make if he wants to sign off? surely 3h can't be both...

[LH2650]

Would the committee have to drag in some aggressive ZAR people to consult? Not even the NABC Casebook people know. See the New Orleans Casebook, Case 1, for a short debate, and a slightly different definition of Logical Alternative.

 

Partner's extra Ace is just too convenient. I think you lose in committee. And for inquiry's statement "and there is no RULE THAT says partner has to have the minimum hand... even WHEN HE BIDS 3♥ over what ever 3♦ means", that is simply not bridge. As far as he knows, you have merely invited.

[inquiry]

1) did unauthorized info exist? Yes, clearly

2) could it suggest some action? Yes, it suggest bidding on if on top of invite

4) Where the opponents damaged? Well, if since 4 makes, yes, and easily quantified.

 

Where this falls down is item 3, the definition of logical alternative, and my stated methods. For me, there IS NO LOGICAL ALTERNATIVE to bidding game, nor for people following the same "partnership methods" that I use.

i understand what you're saying, and i agree that south should just bid game, and that if he doesn't, north should... however i don't quite understand your #2... if 3h here suggest bidding on with a max invite, what bid does he make if he wants to sign off? surely 3h can't be both...

Jimmy,

 

It was the unauthorized information that suggest bidding on, not the bid of 3♥. If north had bid 3♥ in "a flash", the theory goes, the meaning is clear. If north has to ponder rather to bid 3♥ or to bid something else, that conveys some information... that he has a tough choice between bidding 3♥ (showing a minimum, not necessarily "signing off" if 3♦ was invite or BETTER)... this information, that he has something more than minimum is the Unathorized Information that south is now in possession of. It is this information that makes bidding 4♥ "safe" or "safer" and, as all will say, after bidding 4♥, one can always come up with justifications for that bid if it was one option from among several. This is the reason for the rule about logical alternatives. I agree with this rule, I preach this rule. But one has to take other factors into consideration.. the bidding system, the bidding philosophy, other hands a partnership has used in this or other recent events, etc. These bids don't happen in a vaccum... and this is waht appeals committees are charged with finding out.

 

To JTFANCLUB.. I know what a response to an opening bid ZAR pushes.. he use to say 18 ZAR points was a minimum. He now says 16 is a minimum. Since a ZERO hcp hand as at least 8 zar points, and that is a hnad with 4333 distribution.. I can not imagine a hand that will will respond 1H to 1C or 1D with just 13 zar points. That would be a 5431 hand with zero hcp, or a 4432 with jsut a king or a queen and jack. I will respond to a minor with just a queen or jsut a king from time to time, but only with considerable distribution... 5431 with just two jacks...for instance I will bid... imagine Jxx Jxxxx xxxx x... partner opens 1C, I might respond bid 1♥. But this is just 15 zar points (more once parnter shows four card support)... now imagine this disaster hand opposite the hand south held... A109--AQ62--J-KQ632, as you can see, that if heart king doubleton or singlton is onside, along with one of the two spade honors, you have a chance to make game. But the point is, even 15 zar points is almost impossible to imagine in response to an opening bid.

 

Ben

[jtfanclub]

Since a ZERO hcp hand as at least 8 zar points, and that is a hnad with 4333 distribution.. I can not imagine a hand that will will respond 1H to 1C or 1D with just 13 zar points.

Well, he defined it as 4 hearts and 5 HCP. A 3433 hand with 5 HCP and no controls is 13 Zar points. If they had an agreement that some 5-6 HCP hands did not respond to 1 of a minor, I would certainly factor that into my ruling.

 

I know people who do it with less. Remember the poll I had earlier, in which a person had 4333 distribution with 6 HCP all queens and jacks? A majority of people here said they would respond 1NT to 1 club with that hand, in spite of the 14 Zar. Restrictions like you speak of are a good thing, but I don't think most people play them.

 

I assume there's about one trick's worth of range for the decline. If he's promised 16 Zars, I'd figure he was in the 16-19 range. If he has promised 13 Zar points, I'd assume he was in the 13-16 range. Obviously, these are very different hands.