Bid or pass?

[dkham]

This is a dilemma I faced last night. It was aggregate scoring, during a club night in Scotland.

 

You are West with the auction below:

 

[hv=pc=n&w=sk7652h84dk63cq83&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=pp1np2dp2hpp]133|200[/hv]

 

1NT was 12-14.

2♦ was a transfer, and 2♥ accepted the transfer.

Partner had a big pause before passing over 1NT, and a fairly big pause before passing over 2♥.

 

The bidding is now back round to you. You'd like to bid, but can you?

[blackshoe]

I don't think so. More precisely, I think bidding would violate Law 73C, and probably also Law 16B.

[Cyberyeti]

You can bid, but it will be ruled back if it works.

[aguahombre]

1--You need to have a talk with partner, for the next time when you have a hand which actually should balance in this situation.

2--I voted for the first one, because with proper tempo, this is the kind of hand where weak NT pairs will nail you big time.

3--We know from partner's table action that "2" above won't happen if we bid; and if we bid we should be ashamed.

[ggwhiz]

I would bid 2♠ in a flash in a smoother auction and pass in a flash here.

 

If you did bid I don't think it's that terrible but I'm ruling against you.

[Codo]

I would always bid 2 ♠ in the pass out seat and I would surely had allowed it as a TD- this bid looks too obvious to be forbidden.

But as some people here had ruled different, I had to change this ruling...

[lamford]

I would always bid 2 ♠ in the pass out seat and I would surely had allowed it as a TD- this bid looks too obvious to be forbidden.

But as some people here had ruled different, I had to change this ruling...

I would also bid 2S if not constrained, but I would judge that some of my peers would seriously consider pass and some would select it, and 2S is demonstrably suggested, so I would pass. Partner was thinking of bidding something. He might have both minors, in which case 2S would work badly, but that is the only "downside" to bidding. We "know" from the UI he has values, and the opponents do not have 23-24 HCP.

[aguahombre]

He might have both minors, in which case 2S would work badly, but that is the only "downside" to bidding. We "know" from the UI he has values, and the opponents do not have 23-24 HCP.

A quick look at KXX and QXX in the minors would suggest that if we balance with 2S and partner scrambles for the minors, it will not work out badly at all. Whatever partner was tanking about twice suggests we bid. Our hand and the knowledge of competitive theory vs. weak notrumpers suggests bidding would be a bad thing. I can't imagine a clearer example for an adverse ruling if our balancing is successful.

[dkham]

Thanks for the replies.

At the table, I did bid 2♠, reasoning that "it's what I would always do". But I see now that's not good enough, and I should have passed. I'm glad to see that there was at least some support for my bid though!

 

Here's the full auction and deal:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s8hq7653daq972c72&w=sk7652h84dk63cq83&n=saq4hkt9djt854ca6&e=sjt93haj2dckjt954&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=pp1np2dp2hpp2sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Unsurprisingly to most people here, I found good support with partner, and 2♠ made. On every other table North-South were playing and making part scores in Hearts or Diamonds.

[Zelandakh]

Question: does it not make a difference what the level of the players involved is? Is there not some level at which pass stops being a LA on this hand?

[MickyB]

Question: does it not make a difference what the level of the players involved is? Is there not some level at which pass stops being a LA on this hand?

 

No.

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/48867-protect/page__p__584551__fromsearch__1#entry584551

[Zelandakh]

Not only was that hand less clearcut (having Ax in their suit and a weaker suit) but the best player thought balancing was clear. Surely this supports a "Yes" answer?

[gwnn]

Grue and Versace both passed :) And the hand had two aces, come on, are you really suggesting that this is a clearer balance?

[MickyB]

QT853 is not a weaker suit than K7652.

[billw55]

You can bid, but it will be ruled back if it works.

I would bid 2♠ in a flash in a smoother auction and pass in a flash here.

 

If you did bid I don't think it's that terrible but I'm ruling against you.

I would also bid 2S if not constrained, but I would judge that some of my peers would seriously consider pass and some would select it, and 2S is demonstrably suggested, so I would pass.

 

This is interesting, and brings me to questions I often have about such a situation. Ethically and/or lawfully, am I supposed to sort of self-rule by passing? Or am I supposed to make what I think is the normal bid on the hand, and let the ruling take its course? For example, if (trying to be ethical) I choose pass, and this actually works out better than balancing, have not the opponents been damaged, in a way? Should the director then adjust?

 

???

[gwnn]

This is interesting, and brings me to questions I often have about such a situation. Ethically and/or lawfully, am I supposed to sort of self-rule by passing? Or am I supposed to make what I think is the normal bid on the hand, and let the ruling take its course? For example, if (trying to be ethical) I choose pass, and this actually works out better than balancing, have not the opponents been damaged, in a way? Should the director then adjust?

 

???

You should either

• carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI, or
  
• make a conscious effort to figure out what the logical alternatives (LA's) are and then exclude any LA that has been (may have been demonstrably) suggested by the UI
  

The either/or and the parentheses above are there because there are two laws that apply to this situation and because the construction "may have been demonstrably" is kind of absurd (one is making the requirement stronger, the other one just incredibly vague). Some people say the first one is written for practical play and the second one is written for directors, but I would think the laws are written for everyone. And a LA is any action that either a significant portion of your peers would choose, or they would seriously consider, or maybe any action that although nobody would consider, some people (usually, you) would choose.

 

Hopefully that's clear. ;)

[cherdano]

Grue and Versace both passed :) And the hand had two aces, come on, are you really suggesting that this is a clearer balance?

 

The hand of this thread is matchpoints, at w/w. The old thread was IMPs.

Here the opponents have a weak NT opposite a passed hand. The other thread had a strong NT opening.

 

I do think it's much clearer to balance here than in the old thread.

[MickyB]

The hand of this thread is matchpoints, at w/w.

 

This is a dilemma I faced last night. It was aggregate scoring

[cherdano]

Ah, I can't read I guess!

At aggregate, I have no doubt that a balance should be disallowed.

[billw55]

You should either

• carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI, or
• make a conscious effort to figure out what the logical alternatives (LA's) are and then exclude any LA that has been (may have been demonstrably) suggested by the UI

The either/or and the parentheses above are there because there are two laws that apply to this situation and because the construction "may have been demonstrably" is kind of absurd (one is making the requirement stronger, the other one just incredibly vague). Some people say the first one is written for practical play and the second one is written for directors, but I would think the laws are written for everyone. And a LA is any action that either a significant portion of your peers would choose, or they would seriously consider, or maybe any action that although nobody would consider, some people (usually, you) would choose.

 

Hopefully that's clear. ;)

Not entirely :unsure:

 

You seem to be saying that in this situation, I should pass. Which is fine, and leads to the last two questions of my post.

 

Also I think you switched the two words I marked in your post. At least I hope so, else I am really confused.

[gwnn]

No I didn't :) There has been a funny thread or two about the possibility of somebody choosing an "illogical alternative" for one reason or another (perhaps maliciously using UI or perhaps trying too hard to do the right thing, or perhaps something in between). But this is really a tiny detail and a situation that almost never comes up, except mostly on these forums in entertaining but made-up situations.

 

this is one of the recent ones: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/60557-punishing-partner/

[blackshoe]

You should either

• carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI, or
  
• make a conscious effort to figure out what the logical alternatives (LA's) are and then exclude any LA that has been (may have been demonstrably) suggested by the UI
  

The either/or and the parentheses above are there because there are two laws that apply to this situation and because the construction "may have been demonstrably" is kind of absurd (one is making the requirement stronger, the other one just incredibly vague). Some people say the first one is written for practical play and the second one is written for directors, but I would think the laws are written for everyone. And a LA is any action that either a significant portion of your peers would choose, or they would seriously consider, or maybe any action that although nobody would consider, some people (usually, you) would choose.

 

Hopefully that's clear. ;)

I would say "may demonstrably have been suggested," which I think has a slightly different meaning. IOW, what you need to be able to show (demonstrate) is that a particular LA may have been suggested over another.

 

It has been said that Law 73C ("carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI") is for players and Law 16B ("may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another…" So a reasonable guide would be to follow 73C and not worry too much about LAs. There has been some discussion here of the possibility of violating one of these laws without violating the other, but I don't think we reached any consensus on that point. IMO, the possibility is very rare, at best. IAC, asking yourself "could my desire to make whatever call I'm contemplating be influenced by partner's action, or comment, or whatever?" is probably easier and quicker for most people than "what are the Logical Alternatives, and which, if any, could be suggested by UI?" Particularly if one is inexperienced in making such determinations.

 

If the TD later judges that, in spite of your effort to avoid taking advantage, you have chosen a "forbidden" LA, he will adjust the score. This is not an indictment of your actions, nor is it a punishment. Just accept it gratefully, make a note (so that next time, if there is a next time, you can avoid the score adjustment) of the circumstances, and move on. Remember that the TD's job here is to restore equity. If you're unsure of the basis for the TD's ruling, ask him to explain it.

[billw55]

I would say "may demonstrably have been suggested," which I think has a slightly different meaning. IOW, what you need to be able to show (demonstrate) is that a particular LA may have been suggested over another.

 

It has been said that Law 73C ("carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI") is for players and Law 16B ("may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another…" So a reasonable guide would be to follow 73C and not worry too much about LAs. There has been some discussion here of the possibility of violating one of these laws without violating the other, but I don't think we reached any consensus on that point. IMO, the possibility is very rare, at best. IAC, asking yourself "could my desire to make whatever call I'm contemplating be influenced by partner's action, or comment, or whatever?" is probably easier and quicker for most people than "what are the Logical Alternatives, and which, if any, could be suggested by UI?" Particularly if one is inexperienced in making such determinations.

 

If the TD later judges that, in spite of your effort to avoid taking advantage, you have chosen a "forbidden" LA, he will adjust the score. This is not an indictment of your actions, nor is it a punishment. Just accept it gratefully, make a note (so that next time, if there is a next time, you can avoid the score adjustment) of the circumstances, and move on. Remember that the TD's job here is to restore equity. If you're unsure of the basis for the TD's ruling, ask him to explain it.

I agree that the marked bit is good guidance. I think the case in this thread is particularly interesting, because it is a situation where I am sure I would balance 2♠ without the UI, but also that the UI undeniably makes it more attractive. Does that mean my desire to make the call has been influenced, or not?

 

Also what about my last questions from my first post. If I consciously choose pass for ethical reasons, and this turns out to score better, then what is the ruling? I did "carefully avoid taking advantage" of the UI. But at the same time, my call was clearly influenced by the UI. So what happens?

[RMB1]

I think Law 16A/B tells you to Pass

I think Law 73C tells you to Pass

 

I do not think it is close

[ggwhiz]

I guess I've been lucky and have never been in a position of accusing or thinking that an opponent deliberately took advantage of UI. All you can do is take your best shot and I know lots of players that consider 2♠ to be automatic period here and am introduced to a few more that posted.

 

As to making your best "ethical" choice and getting a good result from it that's just a rub of the green. You are not required to roll over and die because of the presence of UI and to do so would damage the rest of the field.

 

In the heat of battle and possibly under time pressure it's not required to get them all right, just to try. That's why we pay the Directors the big bucks.