What is Suggested?

[Vampyr]

[hv=pc=n&s=sj52ht5da984c7432&w=skq9876hk864dkq6c&n=st3ha72dj7cakqj98&e=sa4hqj93dt532ct65&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=pp1s2cd4c4h(20%20sec%20after%20stop%20card%20removed)5c5hppp]399|300[/hv]

Matchpoints. Lead AC. Table Result NS-450

 

This was an interesting ruling from today's Corwen. NS felt that East's 5H could have been suggested by the UI, but the TD ruled that the result stood. He polled three players who all thought a slow 4H here could be light or heavy, and that East could visualise a club void opposite and had a normal 5H. NS did not find the winning defence of an original diamond lead ducked, so no doubt someone will deny them redress anyway for a serious error, but what about the rest of you?

 

Posted by lamford in error, using Vampyr's account

[c_corgi]

No serious error, but no infraction either. I would think that if the slow 4H suggests anything it would be a lower ODR, so East's 5H bid is a good effort to avoid taking any advantage.

[wank]

if the slowness of the 4h suggests anything, it suggests defending. north-south are trying to have the hesitator shot.

[lamford]

A slow 4H indicates that an alternative bid was being considered. These might be Pass, Double and 4S. If partner had a normal 4H, then I would consider Pass of 5C normal. 5H caters for partner being light (it could be cheap) or heavy (5H might make). If partner had doubled 4C we would definitely not bid 5H, and if partner had passed 4C we would also not be bidding. So I cannot agree with either of the esteemed posters here.

[campboy]

To me a slow 4♥ suggests 5♥ is less likely to make, and I have no reason to suppose 5♣ is making.

[lamford]

How can pass or double have been considered after the stop card was used? Surely 4♠ is the only other bid likely to have been considered.

The stop card was used by South, not West.

[RMB1]

Any resemblance to persons or events, real or imaginary, in any of my posts is purely coincidental

!

 

This seems a strange statement given than you gave all the pips, the final contract, the lead and identified the event; and detailed records of the event are available online.

[lamford]

!

 

This seems a strange statement given than you gave all the pips, the final contract, the lead and identified the event; and detailed records of the event are available online.

I think it's called the rule of coincidence. :)

[Codo]

A slow 4H indicates that an alternative bid was being considered. These might be Pass, Double and 4S. If partner had a normal 4H, then I would consider Pass of 5C normal. 5H caters for partner being light (it could be cheap) or heavy (5H might make). If partner had doubled 4C we would definitely pass 5C, and if partner had passed 4C we would definitely not be bidding. So I cannot agree with either of the esteemed posters here.

 

I disagree.

If partner had to decide between pass and 4 ♥ and holds a weak hand for his bidding so far, it could be easily a phantom save- both contracts failing looks like the most likey possibility opposite a weak opening..

If partner has a strong hand, my bid may influence him to play me for additional values and he will bid a no play slam. (

I cannot imagine many hands where he has a hard descission between 4 ♥ and 4 ♠ and will not bid over 5 ♣ anyway...

[lamford]

I disagree.

If partner had to decide between pass and 4 ♥ and holds a weak hand for his bidding so far, it could be easily a phantom save- both contracts failing looks like the most likey possibility opposite a weak opening..

If partner has a strong hand, my bid may influence him to play me for additional values and he will bid a no play slam. (

I cannot imagine many hands where he has a hard descission between 4 ♥ and 4 ♠ and will not bid over 5 ♣ anyway...

I asked a couple of people here after the ruling; both have served on ACs to my knowledge and played the hand. Neil Rosen thought bidding 5H was quite incredible whether partner is light or heavy for 4H. Pass is automatic in his opinion - you barely have a negative double. Miles Cowling thought all your cards were working but he would still pass, although he thought 5H was closer than Neil. He would strain to make the "normal" bid when you have UI.

[gnasher]

Neil Rosen thought bidding 5H was quite incredible whether partner is light or heavy for 4H. Pass is automatic in his opinion - you barely have a negative double.

You're allowed to make incredible bids, as long as they're not suggested by the UI over more credible bids.

 

Miles Cowling thought all your cards were working but he would still pass, although he thought 5H was closer than Neil. He would strain to make the "normal" bid when you have UI.

That approach isn't required by the rules, and sometimes it will be illegal.

[Finch]

A slow 4H indicates that an alternative bid was being considered. These might be Pass, Double and 4S. If partner had a normal 4H, then I would consider Pass of 5C normal. 5H caters for partner being light (it could be cheap) or heavy (5H might make). If partner had doubled 4C we would definitely pass 5C, and if partner had passed 4C we would definitely not be bidding. So I cannot agree with either of the esteemed posters here.

 

...or 5C

I don't consider pass of 5C as normal opposite a 'normal' 4H, because as far as I'm concerned it isn't forcing, and I've got enough not to want to defend 5C undoubled. (I believe the TD asked if pass of 5C would have been forcing and was told it wasn't)

 

We don't know what double of 4C would have meant for this pair, but responder has AI from the auction that partner has a club void.

Depending on partner's standard, a slow pass could be any of

- a hand that is debating bidding 5C but isn't certain about whether it's right to drive to the 5-level

- a hand that isn't certain whether to double or hope partner has 5H (e.g. 6340 shape)

- a hand that isn't confident about driving the 4-level

- a hand that some people would consider a normal 4H bid, but is a bit light in high cards (after all, it only has a 13-count, that's not enough to bid game in the 4-4 fit)

 

My partner and I were two of the players consulted (separately) and I couldn't really see what action a slow 4H bid suggested; my partner said there was possibly a tenuous argument that it suggested bidding but thought that was too subtle to rule on that basis.

[lamford]

...or 5C

I don't consider pass of 5C as normal opposite a 'normal' 4H, because as far as I'm concerned it isn't forcing, and I've got enough not to want to defend 5C undoubled. (I believe the TD asked if pass of 5C would have been forcing and was told it wasn't)

 

We don't know what double of 4C would have meant for this pair, but responder has AI from the auction that partner has a club void.

Depending on partner's standard, a slow pass could be any of

- a hand that is debating bidding 5C but isn't certain about whether it's right to drive to the 5-level

- a hand that isn't certain whether to double or hope partner has 5H (e.g. 6340 shape)

- a hand that isn't confident about driving the 4-level

- a hand that some people would consider a normal 4H bid, but is a bit light in high cards (after all, it only has a 13-count, that's not enough to bid game in the 4-4 fit)

 

My partner and I were two of the players consulted (separately) and I couldn't really see what action a slow 4H bid suggested; my partner said there was possibly a tenuous argument that it suggested bidding but thought that was too subtle to rule on that basis.

I would agree that pass of 5C would not be forcing, but you have nothing extra for your action to date. If one of the things partner was considering bidding was 5C, which is a valid point, then that suggests bidding 5H now. Partner has extras.

 

I believe there has been a WBFLC minute that choosing an "illogical alternative" is an infraction. This is in answer to gnasher's points as well. If 5H is not a logical alternative, even if it is not demonstrably suggested, then choosing it is an infraction. For example you open 1NT on a 13 count, but partner announces it as 15-17 and invites with 2NT. You bid 6NT and it makes. That is an infraction because even though 6NT is not demonstrably suggested, it is not an LA.

 

But it would be better if 16B were reworded to make this clear, if indeed this is the minute which is from memory. Perhaps someone with better filing than me can locate it.

[lamford]

You're allowed to make incredible bids, as long as they're not suggested by the UI over more credible bids.

Not so clear. As dburn wrote in 2011:

 

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.

End of quote

 

I have been unable to find that Reno minute (despite going through all the UI cases from the 2010 nationals), but essentially, as I recall, it means that you have to select from among logical alternatives when you have UI. So, if nobody polled would bid 5H - and I am not saying that is the case here - then it is a violation of Law 73 to choose it. I recall there is a similar WBFLC minute, maybe from the Reno minute. I would be grateful if anyone could quote it exactly.

[lamford]

Miles Cowling thought all your cards were working but he would still pass, although he thought 5H was closer than Neil. He would strain to make the "normal" bid when you have UI.

That approach isn't required by the rules, and sometimes it will be illegal.

jallerton [2011-February-25, 18:36] argues:

Well, it seems to me that if a player bases his call solely on authorised information (as Law 12A3 demands) then that player is also "carefully avoiding taking any advantage" of any unauthorised information he may have (as Law 73C demands). End of quote

 

If the player makes the same call he would have made without the UI, then he is basing his call solely on authorised information.

[gnasher]

I have been unable to find that Reno minute

I'm not sure why the minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission should be considered relevant to a ruling in England, but I think this is what you're looking for:

 

http://www.acbl.org/...ion-Minutes.pdf

 

The relevant text is: "Chip Martel brought up the issue of what constitutes a logical alternative. Suppose someone with UI makes a call that is not considered to be a logical alternative but that works out for the offenders (e.g. in a competitive auction N makes a slow double of 4S; South now bids 6C making when 5C and Pass are considered to be his logical alternatives). Have we the right to penalize this? Martel moved that the call actually chosen by a player is considered to be a logical alternative with respect to application of law 16B1. Seconded by Wildavsky. Motion carried."

 

The WBFLC minutes are, of course, relevant in an EBU event. This one addresses the same question:

There was a discussion of the definition of a 'logical alternative'. It was agreed that the call actually chosen by a player is normally considered to be among the logical alternatives with respect to the application of Law 16B1. An exception may arise in the case of a call that it would be impossible to contemplate in the particular circumstances.

Without that last sentence, everything would be clear: 5♥, as the call chosen, should be treated as an LA for the purposes of Law 16. Lord knows what we're supposed to do with the final sentence. Frame it, perhaps.

 

I believe there has been a WBFLC minute that choosing an "illogical alternative" is an infraction.

Perhaps you should find it then? The minutes are all here:

http://www.worldbrid...ee-minutes.aspx

[gnasher]

jallerton [2011-February-25, 18:36] argues:

Well, it seems to me that if a player bases his call solely on authorised information (as Law 12A3 demands) then that player is also "carefully avoiding taking any advantage" of any unauthorised information he may have (as Law 73C demands). End of quote

 

If the player makes the same call he would have made without the UI, then he is basing his call solely on authorised information.

When I said that making the normal call would sometimes be illegal, I meant that it would sometimes breach Law 16B1. I'm happy to agree that there are many other Laws that aren't breached by this approach.

[lamford]

I believe there has been a WBFLC minute that choosing an "illogical alternative" is an infraction.

 

Perhaps you should find it then? The minutes are all here:

http://www.worldbrid...ee-minutes.aspx

I think it would be quicker to ask on BLML, as I think it was on there that I recall an example, and it was not the Philadelphia minute which I agree is unhelpful, as it is does not say what happens if a bid is not considered a logical alternative. The minutes are not indexed, and have to be opened separately.

 

It was dburn who claimed, as I quoted:

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.

[Finch]

I'm not sure why you consider 5H to be not a logical alternative, just because one player consulted considers it 'incredible'. Or perhaps you are diverting yourself into a different discussion.

You know partner has a club void; ignoring the UI for the time being, you want to be in 5H on the actual layout and I don't think partner is going to bid it. Partner's actual shape - 6430 - is hardly unexpected and your ace of spades is a huge card.

 

I had the hand at the table and I doubled, but on reflection I am not at all certain that is right at matchpoints.

[Finch]

I would agree that pass of 5C would not be forcing, but you have nothing extra for your action to date. If one of the things partner was considering bidding was 5C, which is a valid point, then that suggests bidding 5H now. Partner has extras.

 

No it suggests passing. If you make a very aggressive 5H bid and partner has extras, he may raise expecting more from you. He won't pass out 5C if he was thinking of bidding it last time.

 

If you aren't careful, you end up explaining why, on this particular hand, partner's slow heart bid suggests bidding but on a different hand (when a different action works) why partner's slow 4H bid suggests doing something else.

[lamford]

No it suggests passing. If you make a very aggressive 5H bid and partner has extras, he may raise expecting more from you. He won't pass out 5C if he was thinking of bidding it last time.

 

If you aren't careful, you end up explaining why, on this particular hand, partner's slow heart bid suggests bidding but on a different hand (when a different action works) why partner's slow 4H bid suggests doing something else.

I can accept arguments that the slow 4H can suggest different things, but I think the bid chosen still has to be an LA. But we have not yet been able to find a clear pronouncement on that. Do you think if nobody polled selected 5H, it should be allowed?

[lamford]

I'm not sure why you consider 5H to be not a logical alternative, just because one player consulted considers it 'incredible'.

No, others, Peter Clinch and Matthew Read thought it was not in the ballpark, but I quoted Neil Rosen as he was the strongest player. I do not think it is certain that partner has a club void - the opponents can have 9 clubs. And partner has bid his club "void" already.

 

If you think a significant number of people would seriously consider 5H and some would choose it, then it is an LA of course. Perhaps I should put it as a bidding question first.

[Finch]

I think that if nobody can demonstrate what calls are demonstrably suggested by the slow 4H bid, then any call should be allowed.

[lamford]

I think that if nobody can demonstrate what calls are demonstrably suggested by the slow 4H bid, then any call should be allowed.

I think that if nobody can demonstrate which LAs could be demonstrably suggested by the slow 4H bid, then any LA should be allowed.

[gnasher]

I think that if nobody can demonstrate which LAs could be demonstrably suggested by the slow 4H bid, then any LA should be allowed.

When someone with UI chooses an apparently illogical alternative which is suggested by the UI, there are two ways that we might apply law 16B1:

(1) It's allowed, because he hasn't "chosen from amongst logical alternatives"

(2) It's disallowed, because the fact that he chose it makes it a logical alternative.

 

Paul, you seem to think that there is a third possible interpretation, which is

(3) It's not allowed, because it's not a logical alternative.

 

But (3) simply isn't what the Law says. Saying that it does makes no more sense than claiming that Law 16 prohibits the eating of mints.

 

If the Law did, in fact, say (3), it would be almost as silly as banning mints. The purpose of Law 16 is to eliminate the possibility that people gain from receiving UI. For that purpose, it's relevant whether the chosen action is suggested by the UI, but the merit of the action is completely irrelevant.