tempo - too quick

[ahydra]

Did anyone ask East why he passed the X? (perhaps he took a view he could collect 800)

 

Am I the only one considering that S's 4S might be a bit WoG, given that even if partner gave him a trick he's still down 800?

 

ahydra

[gnasher]

Am I the only one considering that S's 4S might be a bit WoG

It was prior to the alleged infraction, so that appears to be irrelevant.

[gnasher]

I reread the OP just to be sure. It does not say that there was any inquiry or explanation about the double at the table. Perhaps there actually was, but this was not stated.

I don't know about you, but when I find myself in 4♠x I always find out what the double meant. Anyway, I don't really see the relevance of this: South asked for a ruling under Law 16, so we rule.

 

I suppose if west had doubled in tempo, east would still be faced with a choice of which "agreement" to follow, but could now do either thing in clear conscience?

Yes. Obviously, he should also disclose the implict agreement ("It means x but he sometimes forgets."), and the two-way meaning has to be permitted by the RA.

[CSGibson]

If I have a history of forgetting my agreements, it is much more likely that I have done so with a fast action than a considered one - fast actions are reflexive, and my history of forgetting suggests that our agreement is not reflexive for me. Therefore the UI from the out-of-tempo X strongly suggests passing over bidding on. On the other hand, if E makes a slam try, I cannot imagine W cooperating with what have to be wasted spade honors no aces and 4-3-3-3 shape, so I'd rule 5H making.

[c_corgi]

Am I the only one considering that S's 4S might be a bit WoG, given that even if partner gave him a trick he's still down 800?

 

ahydra

 

It looks closer to automatic than WoG to me!

[barmar]

I reread the OP just to be sure. It does not say that there was any inquiry or explanation about the double at the table. Perhaps there actually was, but this was not stated.

True, although without knowing the agreement I wonder what justification South would have for saying that East should have pulled the double.

[lamford]

Yes. Obviously, he should also disclose the implict agreement ("It means x but he sometimes forgets."), and the two-way meaning has to be permitted by the RA.

I agree with the first part, but "forgetting" is surely not an agreement. It is covered by "Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnerships methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system." That does not require the deviations to be deliberate. Law 40 also states, earlier, "The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding." The player can therefore forget as much as he wants, provided it is fully disclosed. I cannot agree that all "forgets" are a two-way meaning, and I have never seen an agreement being permitted provided it is never forgotten. Perhaps it should be with Ghestem.

 

I don't agree that they would get to slam, as East has ruled out slam on the first round, and he is only being asked whether to go to the 5-level. So 5H = gets my vote.

[barmar]

So you don't think that "then form a part of the partnership's methods" makes the two-way meaning a "special partnership understanding" that the RA can disallow?

[aguahombre]

I don't agree that they would get to slam, as East has ruled out slam on the first round, and he is only being asked whether to go to the 5-level. So 5H = gets my vote.

I can't find where someone has suggested they might get to slam, but maybe I just missed it.

 

However, would X KXXXX KXX KQX meet the "high ODR" definition within their agreements?

[AlexJonson]

So you don't think that "then form a part of the partnership's methods" makes the two-way meaning a "special partnership understanding" that the RA can disallow?

 

You seem to imply that forgetting can be forbidden, and therefore it can be automatically penalised. In the EBU we are close to that with fielding misbids, but not quite there.

[joostb1]

The problem for EW is the meaning of double.

Systemically it means "I have high ODR, I'm happy to be at the 5-level."

It's a good method but West forgot, quickly.

 

What is ODR? It's not in the list of abbreviations.

[billw55]

What is ODR? It's not in the list of abbreviations.

ODR = offense-defense ratio. I think.

 

It describes the relative worth of a hand for declaring versus defending. So "high ODR" would describe a hand with values that are much more useful declaring than defending.

 

Here, the point is that east, armed with the knowledge that west has a high ODR, should be choosing to declare rather than defend.

[shevek]

No skip bid warning in Australia, seems irrelevant here anyway.

When the director polled 4 of East's peers, all would remove an in tempo double, reaching 5♥, not 6. So 650 awarded.

 

Whether East should remove this style of double is a moot point. An aim of raising a limited 1M opening to game on a wide range of hands is to catch the opponents speeding, accepting the occasional 4 IMP loss for +500.

The point being that

 

♠x ♥KJxxxx ♦Jxx ♣Kxx or

 

♠Ax ♥KJxxxx ♦Kx ♣xxx

 

will also double 4♠, these admittedly are very specific.

 

Still, the quick double seems to suggest that passing is likely to be right and East can hardly claim that passing is indicated, in the face of peer pressure. System users are few & far between.

[billw55]

As an aside, is such an agreement wise? It seems to essentially bar a penalty double at the four level.

[sfi]

As an aside, is such an agreement wise? It seems to essentially bar a penalty double at the four level.

 

The idea is that an 8-12 count that has already denied 4 spades (not sure that was in the original post) will never have a penalty double with partner being so ill defined. So you use it to show a hand that wants to compete but does not want to get in the way of partner's ability to double for penalties.

[barmar]

You seem to imply that forgetting can be forbidden, and therefore it can be automatically penalised. In the EBU we are close to that with fielding misbids, but not quite there.

If a player forgets a specific agreement enough that partner suggests it as a possibility, I think the alternate meaning has implicitly become part of their agreements.

 

There's another common "forget" case that I'm not sure how to classify, though. If you've made a change to your agreements, you might worry that partner has forgotten the change the first time it comes up. Should the opponents be warned about this possibility?

[AlexJonson]

If a player forgets a specific agreement enough that partner suggests it as a possibility, I think the alternate meaning has implicitly become part of their agreements.

 

There's another common "forget" case that I'm not sure how to classify, though. If you've made a change to your agreements, you might worry that partner has forgotten the change the first time it comes up. Should the opponents be warned about this possibility?

I think so if partner is inclined to forget. I have told opponents that partner forgets to use check back, makes trial bids less often than most, makes cue bids less often than most.

 

Why is this any different from telling oppos that partner forgets some transfers and then catering for it at own risk. Where is the CPU. Edit: slightly strayed to a recent similar post. But this case is ver y like it. I'm amazed by the idea that partner should be judiciously slow to double so I know he has remembered our conventional double.

[bluejak]

Some of the earlier posts were concerned with a regulation that is ignored across Australia. When dealing with a UI problem, a regulation that will not apply in practice has no effect, and does not affect the presence or absence of UI.

 

There is always a slight difficulty in getting one's mind around systems that one is not used to. Here, South is in the position of LHO opening a very weak 1♥ opening and RHO bidding 4♥. I think a lot of people would bid 4♠. After an ODR double, I would think 5♣ sounds like a control with slam interest.

 

Whether it is in the notes or not, it appears to be an implicit understanding that West forgets his ODR doubles. Not being in the notes, it seems to be a CPU.

 

East has UI from the quick double: no doubt West might have remembered, but as has been pointed out, a hand with an automatic penalty double is likely to double quickly, and may do so before he remembers his double is not a penalty one. A real ODR double is more likely to be slow. So the UI suggests West is more likely than not to have forgotten again.

 

When considering adjusting, there was some idea of a slam try. No-one suggested a weighted adjustment - why not?

 

I would adjust to

 

.. 15% of 6♥ -1, NS +50

+ 85% of 5♥ =, NS -650

 

I'm amazed by the idea that partner should be judiciously slow to double so I know he has remembered our conventional double.

I'm amazed that anyone thinks this has any connection with bridge or this case. If he concentrated enough to know this sort of rubbish, he might actually start remembering his agreements.

[aguahombre]

When considering adjusting, there was some idea of a slam try. No-one suggested a weighted adjustment - why not?

 

I would adjust to

 

.. 15% of 6♥ -1, NS +50

+ 85% of 5♥ =, NS -650

Yep, I actually posted a hand somewhere up there with a "high ODR" that is cold for slam. We don't get to weight adjustments over here, yet; so I didn't bother suggesting a weight. However, if trying to do what you would do, you have to get past the argument that this pair wouldn't bid slam. Why? Because that 4H response suggested no desire and/or no methods to try for slam. It would be difficult to enforce a correction to slam under that condition.

[AlexJonson]

I'm amazed that anyone thinks this has any connection with bridge or this case. If he concentrated enough to know this sort of rubbish, he might actually start remembering his agreements.

 

My post started with a quote from Barmar and was addressed to that thread of discussion and not the ruling.

 

The bbo software doesn't allow threading, but it is normal for slightly separate discussions to form in a series of posts.

 

You are of course free to comment on whatever you choose in your usual unpleasant, selectively quoting and inconsistent fashion.

[gnasher]

When considering adjusting, there was some idea of a slam try. No-one suggested a weighted adjustment - why not?

Because it would be inappropriate.

 

A weighted result might be correct if East or West had a decision to make at some point in the auction. East's actions are constrained by the UI, and I can't think of an auction where he would have more than one legal option. West will decline any slam try, so we shouldn't award any proportion of a sequence where West bids slam or cooperates.

 

For example, suppose that we think East's logical alternatives are:

- Pass

- Bid 5♥

- Cue-bid 5♣ then pass 5♥

- Drive to slam.

The first three are suggested over the last one by the UI, and are therefore illegal. Hence we should give EW 100% of 6♥ -1.

 

Or suppose that we think that driving slam is not an LA, so his LAs are:

- Pass

- Bid 5♥

- Cue-bid 5♣ then pass 5♥

The first two are suggested over the third one by the UI, so East is obliged to cue-bid, but West will sign off. Hence we should give EW 100% of 5♥=.

 

I would adjust to

 

.. 15% of 6♥ -1, NS +50

+ 85% of 5♥ =, NS -650

You cannot do that unless there is a credible legal sequence to each contract. When you decided on this adjustment, what sequences did you have in mind?

 

[Edited to improve wording of second paragraph.]

Edited April 26, 2012 by gnasher

[Cyberyeti]

Because it would be inappropriate.

 

A weighted result might be correct if East or West had a decision to make at some point in the auction. East's actions are constrained by the UI, and I can't think of an auction where he would have more than one legal option. West will decline any slam try, so we shouldn't award any proportion of a sequence where West bids slam or cooperates.

 

For example, suppose that we think East's logical alternatives are:

- Pass

- Bid 5♥

- Cue-bid 5♣ then pass 5♥

- Drive to slam.

The first three are suggested over the last one by the UI, and are therefore illegal. Hence we should give EW 100% of 6♥ -1.

 

You could rule that Pass is strongly suggested over all the others, and that the suggestion of one of the other actions over the remainder is minor to non existent, then I think you could weight.

 

Partner would certainly make this double as a penalty double with AQ8x, Kxxx, xxx, Kx but this wouldn't stop you making 6 even if the spade lead got ruffed for example so a penalty double might not be an indication that a slam doesn't make.

[bluejak]

My post started with a quote from Barmar and was addressed to that thread of discussion and not the ruling.

 

The bbo software doesn't allow threading, but it is normal for slightly separate discussions to form in a series of posts.

 

You are of course free to comment on whatever you choose in your usual unpleasant, selectively quoting and inconsistent fashion.

As do you, of course.

 

I still think that my comment was valid. If your comment was based on some other thread completely then why not post to that thread? My comment was based on the idea, which seems reasonable to me, that your comment was related to this thread.

[gnasher]

You could rule that Pass is strongly suggested over all the others, and that the suggestion of one of the other actions over the remainder is minor to non existent

 

You could only rule that way if you actually believed it to be true. Do you really believe that?

[Cyberyeti]

You could only rule that way if you actually believed it to be true. Do you really believe that?

Not exactly, but I'm wondering how much something has to be suggested for it to be important.

 

If I felt the slow X suggested:

 

Pass was 85% likely to be right

5♥ was 10% likely to be right

5♣ and pass 5♥ was 4% likely to be right

Drive to slam was 1% likely to be right

 

Where the odds without the UI were

 

Pass 10%

5♥ 40%

5♣ and pass 5♥45%

Drive to slam 5%

 

I would rule that in fact the vast majority of the time all that has happened is that pass has replaced some means of getting to 5♥ so would probably just rule the simple adjustment to 5♥, but if the last set of figures were:

 

Pass 10%

5♥ 35%

5♣ and pass 5♥40%

Drive to slam 15%

 

I might consider an 85:15 5♥/6♥ split, it's too harsh to give the whole score for a 15% action.