Money Forfeited

[bluejak]

I'm not exactly sure what to call what you're talking about here, David, but "logic" ain't it. A logical argument is logical whoever is looking at it. Turn it around: if an argument is logical, and someone "can't see it", the failure is in the observer, not the argument.

Ok, so what Trinidad is saying is not logical by your definition.

 

But I think your definition of a logical argument is wrong. If I say that all cows are brown, and I can see a white animal, therefore it is not a cow, that is logical. But not everyone can see it [think child aged less that five years, or someone whose mental faculties are seriously disturbed].

 

A logical argument is one that follows logically, not one that every one can follow the logic.

[blackshoe]

David, you're saying exactly what I said. If a five year old or a mental defective cannot follow the logic, the fault is in them, not in the logic.

 

The problem with your cow argument is that the premise is demonstrably false. However, if you accept the premise, the conclusion does follow logically from it.

 

If I understand what you're getting at, in order to refute Rik's argument, you'd have to demonstrate that one or more of his premises is false. Or perhaps the problem is that his argument depends on premises which he did not state, and which others would not necessarily assume. Is that it?

[Trinidad]

I think you are just not putting yourself into the mind of the average player. Of course a good player will assume 3♣ shows a club fit.

 

I assume you mean spade fit.

 

Maybe it is not possible. You tend to put logical deductions to sequences where a lot of people just think "I do not know what he is doing, but if he bids a suit, he has that suit." 1NT - 2♠ is a complete and inviolable signoff to a lot of people who do not play transfers, and for them 1NT - 2♠ - 3♣ is impossible, but clearly suggests playing in clubs. With no agreements whatever, a psyche or semi-psyche are two of the most likely possibilities.

Why do you automatically assume that EW are beginners?

 

The point is that these people clearly are playing transfers, in general. If they would never play transfers, they wouldn't have had a misunderstanding about whether transfers apply after an intervening double, would they?

 

So, we are not talking about rank beginners. In fact, we are dealing with players who play four suit transfers and therefore might know that there is such a thing as super-accepting. As a matter of fact, they even seem to play the -relatively unusual, but expert- method of super-accepting transfers to minors that Barry Rigal advocates (super-accept by bidding the suit, rather than the standard way of super-accepting by bidding the in-between suit). I would say that if you are advanced enough to use the Barry Rigal method to super-accept transfers to minors, you certainly do know what a super-accept for a transfer to a major is.

 

Therefore, we can safely assume that -in the system that East thought he was playing- 3♣ shows a spade fit while focusing on clubs. (Of course, he knew from the UI that that was not the intended meaning of 3♣, and it may not even have been the correct meaning of 3♣, but it would be the meaning that East would assume, since the alert of 2♠ is UI.)

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

Rik: I disagree. Rank beginners are taught transfers in response to opening 1NT. Rank beginners would be confused as to whether they applied when the 2nd chair has made a call which didn't interrupt anything.

[blackshoe]

I missed this earlier.

 

Only if there is an LA to 3♠ (or 4♠ in the next round). IMO there isn't.

 

With the given East hand, opposite a 15-17 balanced hand, I want to play in spades at as low a level as possible. This is even more true if partner shows a game try in spades with club values (by bidding 3♣). I would certainly not bid 3♦, as suggested by some, since with that East hand I do not want to make a counter game try.

 

It may well be that "unauthorized panic" was the underlying reason why East bid 3♠. But as long as there is no LA, it is neither an infraction nor an irregularity to bid 3♠, whether East bid it in good faith (deciding rationally that there were no LA's to 3♠), out of unauthorized panic, because his mother-in-law told him to, or for whatever other reason East might have had to bid 3♠.

This was in response to my assertion that East violated Law 73C when he bid 3♠.

 

Law 73C doesn't say anything about LAs. It says players in receipt of UI must carefully avoid taking advantage of it. I submit that by its very nature, "unauthorized panic" takes advantage of UI. If there is no LA, the TD may rule that there should be no adjustment, as the criteria of Law 16 have not been met, but that doesn't meant there's been no infraction of 73C.

[StevenG]

3♦ is clearly an LA for the lesser player. Your "logic" will not be his: to him, absent UI, 3♣ is meaningless and he will normally pass it. But he will bid 3♦ because of the void. 3♠ is based on UI, ie it is unauthorised panic.

I don't think this is quite right. If these were weak players (and I am unconvinced that this is the case here), what would be happening is:-

West: 3♣

East: What? I told him I wanted to play in spades. He must have long clubs and only a couple of spades. But I haven't got any clubs, so we can't play in those. Our spades must be better and I still want to play there. So I'll bid spades again and he'll get the message.

 

East, in my experience, (without the UI) will not see this anything but a salvage operation, and will not even think of bidding diamonds.

 

In general, weak players will rebid a 5-card suit if they are not sure what to do, rather than look for anything more subtle. I feel that a lot of sequences that are castigated here as "unauthorised panic" are actually just a case of "panic", in that they would have bid exactly the same way without the UI, because they had an fixed idea of how to bid, and what contract to be in, before the problem occurred.

[Trinidad]

Law 73C doesn't say anything about LAs. It says players in receipt of UI must carefully avoid taking advantage of it. I submit that by its very nature, "unauthorized panic" takes advantage of UI. If there is no LA, the TD may rule that there should be no adjustment, as the criteria of Law 16 have not been met, but that doesn't meant there's been no infraction of 73C.

This, to me, is an entirely new interpretation of Law 73C. Let me see: you play a strong NT system, you have a 16 point 4342, you get some kind of UI (it may be that NT contracts need to be played from your side) and you open 1NT. With your reasoning, you deserve a PP since "you haven't carefully avoided taking advantage of the UI". The fact that there is no LA, is irrelevant since "Law 73C does not mention LAs".

 

To put it in Dutch: Ammehoela. The phrase "taking advantage of UI" implies that you have a choice of multiple actions (let's call them ... LAs!). If you have only one action, you are not taking advantage, you do as you are forced to.

 

The point in this case is that there is only one LA: For lesser players this is 3♠, because "they are the captain of the auction and they already decided that they want to play in spades opposite a balanced 15-17". For better players this is 3♠ because they will reject a try for 4♠ when opener shows club values. It is just like the example with the 1NT opening: There is no choice, therefore no infraction, no adjustment and no penalty.

 

And... it doesn't matter why East bid 3♠ at the table. Maybe he thought it over rationally and correctly decided it was his only logical alternative. And maybe he was in utter panic. Maybe he screamed hysterically before he bid 3♠ and we are 100% sure that he panicked. We may penalize him for the screaming as a violation of just about every article in Law 74, but we cannot penalize him for the 3♠ bid... because there was no logical alternative.

 

Rik

[barmar]

Rik: I disagree. Rank beginners are taught transfers in response to opening 1NT. Rank beginners would be confused as to whether they applied when the 2nd chair has made a call which didn't interrupt anything.

Around here, beginners are taught transfers to majors, they generally learn about transfers to minors later on. I think the typical progression is to first learn "3-way transfers" (2♠ is puppet to 3♣, responder passes or corrects to 3♦), and then adopt 4-way transfers when they're more advanced (since this has the added complication of taking away the natural 2NT invite, starting with Stayman instead).

[campboy]

Law 73C uses the word "carefully" so players have not obeyed 73C unless they take care. To argue that they cannot be fined simply because they did not happen to gain any advantage is like trying to argue that you can't convict someone for reckless driving unless they actually cause an accident.

 

Of course we should not issue a PP unless we have strong grounds for believing that the player did not obey 73C, which in this case we don't. But if we asked the player why he bid 3♠ and he said something like "to let partner know I actually had spades" then a PP might be appropriate, even if we decide there is no LA.

[Trinidad]

Despite my earlier posts, I agree with Campboy. If we know for a fact that 3♠ was bid "to let partner know we have spades" then a PP might be appropriate (though usually some education might be more effective). But (as Campboy says) we don't have any indication that this is the case here.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

In many cases on these forums we don't have all the information we would like to have, or cannot confirm that some hypothesis is untrue, because we can't ask questions of the players at the table. In such cases we have to do the best we can, and perhaps it would be better to discuss how the TD on site should handle such cases than to try to give a specific ruling, or perhaps do both, making it clear that the ruling is contingent on only the evidence presented, or on assumptions (dangerous, imo) about what evidence might be found if we could investigate more thoroughly.

 

In the case at hand I'd really like to ask East why he bid the way he did.

[lamford]

The point is that West could have made many types of game tries. Opposite many of these you might want to make some kind of counter try. But if West tries with 3♣, you will know more than enough and you will never make a counter try.Rik

West has chosen 3♣ as a picture bid, breaking the sign-off in spades, to show a good hand with good clubs. Like the curate's egg, from East's point of view this is good in parts. A reverse game try on the East hand is more than enough.

[lamford]

East has a clear sign-off for me. Steve Bloom's suggested hand (KQxx xxx Ax AKxx) does not resonate. Partner bids a suit in which he requires no help yet I am supposed to bid ten to five?

I agree with you that 3♠ is the better bid. Partner's club wastage is more likely to be the prime factor. But to adjust all we require is for 3♦ to be an LA, and that only requires about 20% of people to consider it and perhaps 10% to select it. I think 3♦ is just a last-train style try, and while pushy, it is surely an LA?

[richlp]

I agree with you that 3♠ is the better bid. Partner's club wastage is more likely to be the prime factor. But to adjust all we require is for 3♦ to be an LA, and that only requires about 20% of people to consider it and perhaps 10% to select it. I think 3♦ is just a last-train style try, and while pushy, it is surely an LA?

"But to adjust all we require is for 3♦ to be an LA"

 

for the class of player involved. Even after all the discussion, I'm not sure that is correct.

[Vampyr]

Rik: I disagree. Rank beginners are taught transfers in response to opening 1NT. Rank beginners would be confused as to whether they applied when the 2nd chair has made a call which didn't interrupt anything.

 

This is just one reason why teachers must resist pleas from their "rank beginners" to 'teach us transfers please'.

[Trinidad]

This is just one reason why teachers must resist pleas from their "rank beginners" to 'teach us transfers please'.

I think I had an excellent teacher. He told us to go and play and not bother with conventions. Get experience in bidding your hands first. Then think of tools to make it easier. So, for two years I played:

- 16-18 NT with Stayman and Gerber

- Control cuebids (1st round) and Blackwood

- Takeout double of an opening bid below game

- Strong two bids in four suits

- 3 level sound preempts

- 2NT 22-24, 3NT 25-27

 

No transfers, no negative doubles.

 

When beginners ask me what to play, I tell them to play these for the first 2-3 years:

- 15-17 NT with Stayman

- Control cuebids (mixed) and Blackwood

- Takeout double of an opening bid below game

- 2♣ for strong hands, weak two bids in ♦♥♠

- 3 level sound preempts

- 2NT 20-21 or 20-22

 

No transfers, no negative doubles.

 

Then start by adding negative doubles. Transfers, while certainly excellent tools, are not high on my list of "must learns".

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

I think I had an excellent teacher.

 

I think so too.

[barmar]

My mother played kitchen-table bridge all her life. Sometime in her 60's, she decided to take bridge lessons. She told me she didn't like those transfer things they were teaching, she didn't like bidding things she doesn't have.

[bluejak]

I assume you mean spade fit.

Yes. :(

 

I don't think this is quite right. If these were weak players (and I am unconvinced that this is the case here), what would be happening is:-

West: 3♣

East: What? I told him I wanted to play in spades. He must have long clubs and only a couple of spades. But I haven't got any clubs, so we can't play in those. Our spades must be better and I still want to play there. So I'll bid spades again and he'll get the message.

 

East, in my experience, (without the UI) will not see this anything but a salvage operation, and will not even think of bidding diamonds.

 

In general, weak players will rebid a 5-card suit if they are not sure what to do, rather than look for anything more subtle. I feel that a lot of sequences that are castigated here as "unauthorised panic" are actually just a case of "panic", in that they would have bid exactly the same way without the UI, because they had an fixed idea of how to bid, and what contract to be in, before the problem occurred.

You are right in one way, since I think many players will thinks as you say, probably a majority. But I would have expected there to be enough of a minority who would bid 3♦ to make it an LA.