Acceptance of game invitation

[WellSpyder]

I happen to disagree with those polled

You and everyone else who has commented apart from lamford, I think.

but such is life. Too bad for WellSpyder, next board.

Indeed. At the time I was genuinely baffled as to how anyone could think bidding on was suggested when my hand was minimum for the invite and partner's hand was arguably maximum for his 2♦ bid. But if the AC simply didn't accept this and thought my hand was a maximum invite while partner's was a minimum acceptance then the decision is much more understandable.

 

For those who see it the AC's way, though, I would suggest imagining the south hand with ♦A and a low ♦ turned into ♣s instead. Now you can see why south's hand was so much better than it might have been, and why north was initially unsure whether to invite or not.

[Ant590]

As, eventually, the personnel of the AC will be published by the EBU (eg http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/appeals/ebu-appeals-2011.pdf), would it be within BBO's rules for the OP to say who was on the committee?

 

If so... who was on the appeals committee?

[WellSpyder]

As, eventually, the personnel of the AC will be published by the EBU (eg http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/appeals/ebu-appeals-2011.pdf), would it be within BBO's rules for the OP to say who was on the committee?

 

If so... who was on the appeals committee?

I don't think I feel entirely comfortable doing this, but I can certainly say that I have absolutely no complaints about the composition of the AC. Apart from lamford, who has outed himself, the other 2 members of the AC both have considerable international experience and have played on many occasions in Division 1 of the English Premier League.

[Ant590]

I understand, no worries.

[lamford]

You do not use the fact that South chose a successful LA as evidence for the fact that he must have known what the UI suggested. Otherwise it is impossible to do anything right.

We did not do that. We used the South hand and the poll and our own opinion of what we would bid opposite an in-tempo 3D to decide whether to adjust. South bid 3NT with a hand which, in our opinion, reinforced subsequently by simulations and consulting some good players, suggested he had used the UI. Two very strong players I have spoken to since would have imposed a PP for the 3NT bid. I think they are wrong and the AC quickly decided to return the deposit. In my opinion 3NT is not in the ballpark as a bid, although I agree with VixTD that it is not that clear what is demonstrably suggested. We decided that bidding on was demonstrably suggested. Personally, I would have bid 3NT instead of 3D. Opposite something like AKxx xx Kxxx 10xx game is excellent and that is a ten-count and a vulnerable game at teams is at stake. Partner rates to have four spades (no raise). None of us thought North was seriously considering pass.

 

And I have outstayed my welcome and will not comment on this thread again. And it is not correct to give the other AC members unless they choose to do so themselves.

[WellSpyder]

None of us thought North was seriously considering pass.

Well I wish you had asked me to explain my thinking, then! In fact I find this quite an objectionable statement given that I made clear at the appeal that this is what I was thinking about and no-one asked for any further information about why I was considering this. The NOS certainly accepted that the north hand was a minimum invite.

[dburn]

North had an opening bid facing an opening bid, and he invited game rather than bidding it. Does he need an ace more than an opening bid to have more than a minimum invitation facing an opening bid? Of course he had a maximum invitation, and South (who had no extras at all) should not have accepted it.

[WellSpyder]

North had an opening bid facing an opening bid, and he invited game rather than bidding it. Does he need an ace more than an opening bid to have more than a minimum invitation facing an opening bid? Of course he had a maximum invitation, and South (who had no extras at all) should not have accepted it.

I don't think that the fact that you personally appear not to agree with North's assessment of his hand is necessarily a particularly convincing reason for disbelieving his statement that the alternative bid he was considering was passing.

[jallerton]

I think most agree that Pass is an LA, and the poll conducted by the TD confirmed that it was, as was my (subsequent) informal poll of a few strong players. We already "think" we have wrong-sided 3NT. The sole decision is what is demonstrably suggested.

 

I agree with you there. However, I find the rest of what you say surprising.

 

In most partnerships one will have experience of whether partner is conservative or aggressive, so a slow bid will always indicate whether the alternative bid of which he was thinking, when he invites, was a sign-off or a game bid.

 

That does not follow at all. If I know that partner is conservative, I know from AI, not UI, that his invitations are up to strength. On the other hand, if I know that partner is aggressive in this situation, I know from AI, not UI, that he will have bid game already on a stronger invitational hand so when he does invite he tends to hold a weaker hand.

 

Such is the case after 1S-(Pass)-3S(slow) for example. That could be a 2.5 spade bid or a 3.5 spade bid, so it could be argued that neither 4S nor pass is demonstrably suggested, but in practice it will be and we adjust if a non-obvious 4S is successful, and should adjust if an obvious 4S bid would fail. In my experience, most players are thinking of bidding game (or forcing to game) when they invite slowly, rather than thinking of passing. And, for sure, a regular partnership will have experience of whether partner was previously light or heavy for a slow invite and this is also UI.

 

You are advocating an "if it hesitates, shoot it" approach. Sorry, that is not what the Law says.

[jallerton]

As you may have gathered, the ruling and subsequent appeal both went against Wellspyder, and the score was changed to 3♦(S)=, NS+110.

 

I carefully selected some good players from other sections of the competition (who were playing different boards) who I thought would not find the NS action alien, and asked what they would do over an in tempo 3♦.

 

If I remember correctly, two thought that pass was clear, two that 3NT was clear, two others could have gone either way. When I asked them what they thought a slow 3♦ suggested, they both thought it suggested bidding on over passing. The appeals committee wanted to know if I'd asked why they thought it suggested this, but I hadn't asked.

 

 

I agree that the question of what is suggested over what is the weak part of this ruling, and I wouldn't have been surprised if the appeals committee had overturned the ruling. In their comments they said that they were persuaded by the TD's poll of players.

 

If I understand you correctly, you only asked two players what they thought the UI suggested. I don't think that the TD/AC should attach too much weight to a sample size of 2!

 

Lamford makes the point that partnerships will get to learn to read each others' tempo breaks correctly, and I suppose if partner is uncertain that 3♦ is the correct bid there's more to gain from bidding 3NT than there is from passing.

 

Not if partner was thinking of passing 2♦.

Not if partner has some 6-4 hand and was thinking of bidding his 2nd suit. Now there is more likely to be a suit wide open in 3NT.

[jallerton]

North had an opening bid facing an opening bid, and he invited game rather than bidding it. Does he need an ace more than an opening bid to have more than a minimum invitation facing an opening bid? Of course he had a maximum invitation, and South (who had no extras at all) should not have accepted it.

 

The N/S style is to open a point lighter than you are used to, so all other things being equal, Responder needs to be a point stronger to force to game. That North hand does not look too great to me: a queen high long suit, which needs help from partner to be of much use, and a dubious QJ doubleton. A further reason for pessimism is that sometimes when 3NT is makeable it needs West to be on lead. North knows that his system may have wromg sided NT and that is a reason for caution. Meanwhile, 5♦ looks a very long way off opposite 11-13 balanced.

 

South may not have any extra high cards, but ♦AJxx is a huge holding when partner shows a 6-card suit.

[lamford]

That does not follow at all. If I know that partner is conservative with his slow invites, I know from AIUI, not UIAI, that his slow invitations are up to strength. On the other hand, if I know that partner is aggressive in this situationwith slow invites, I know from AIUI, not UIAI, that he will have bid game already on a stronger invitational hand so when he does invite slowly he tends to hold a weaker hand.

[steve2005]

EW seem to be a little fixed on HCP. Fit is simply more important than HCP.

 

Other than that, I agree with Blackshoe that it is difficult to tell whether North has the high end or the low end of his invitation.

 

Rik

 

I agree with Rik. South hasn't shown a ♠ stopper and has 2 cards. Hasn't shown a fit and has a big fit. Forget points South has the cards North needs to accept an invite. Is there a law that you can't accept inv on a minimum?

 

Besides EW if they think could realise ♠ are stopped and lead ♣ and it's down.

[nige1]

I believe that there was an old edict, possibly promulgated by an erstwhile L&E Chairman, that a slow Pass and a slow Double both indicate that you do not want the bidding to end. By the same token, I think that a slow invite usually indicates that you want partner to accept.

That is often the case but I believe that you are not meant to argue that way. Especially because some players seem to use hesitations to try to prevent action by partner.

I think I am supposed to declare that I was on the AC and also that this opinion does not replace the official write-up, which I think is available immediately from the TD rather than in a few months time.

In the old days, committee members were told to confine their comments to the official appeal report.

North had an opening bid facing an opening bid, and he invited game rather than bidding it. Does he need an ace more than an opening bid to have more than a minimum invitation facing an opening bid? Of course he had a maximum invitation, and South (who had no extras at all) should not have accepted it.

Does that mean dburn agrees with the rulings?

That does not follow at all. If I know that partner is conservative, I know from AI, not UI, that his invitations are up to strength. On the other hand, if I know that partner is aggressive in this situation, I know from AI, not UI, that he will have bid game already on a stronger invitational hand so when he does invite he tends to hold a weaker hand.

I'm unsure whether the following argument is valid. If not, what's the flaw in it?

• If a conservative partner makes a hesitant game-try, then it's unlikely that he swithered between passing and making a try. A more likely explanation is that he has a hand on which others might have bid game; so the hesitation suggests bidding game.
• If an aggressive partner makes a hesitant game-try, then it's unlikely that he swithered between bidding game and making a try. A more likely explanation is that he has a hand on which others would not have made a try; so the hesitation suggests stopping.

You are advocating an "if it hesitates, shoot it" approach. Sorry, that is not what the Law says.

It might be better if the law were changed :)

If I understand you correctly, you only asked two players what they thought the UI suggested. I don't think that the TD/AC should attach too much weight to a sample size of 2!

I guess that Vixtd found it hard enough to find her original sample of 4 appropriate players. If the committee felt that was inadequate, they might have conducted their own poll.

[campboy]

I'm unsure whether the following argument is valid. If not, what's the flaw in it?

• If a conservative partner makes a hesitant game-try, then it's unlikely that he swithered between passing and making a try. A more likely explanation is that he has a hand on which others might have bid game; so the hesitation suggests bidding game.
• If an aggressive partner makes a hesitant game-try, then it's unlikely that he swithered between bidding game and making a try. A more likely explanation is that he has a hand on which others would not have made a try; so the hesitation suggests stopping.

You could equally well argue that a conservative player is likely to invite after seriously considering passing when an aggressive player would invite in tempo, so a slow invitation by a conservative player suggests passing. Both arguments are invalid, of course, any player who thinks and then invites could either have a minimum invite (by his standards) or a maximum invite (by his standards). If he is conservative then it follows that a slow invite from him will on average be stronger than an invite from another player, but it is equally true that an in-tempo invite from him will be slightly stronger than an invite from another player, so the UI tells you nothing new about his expected strength.

[VixTD]

For future reference, is there any reason why you only asked those who were undecided about what they would bid what they thought a hesitation would suggest, rather than also asking those who knew what they would have done?

If I understand you correctly, you only asked two players what they thought the UI suggested. I don't think that the TD/AC should attach too much weight to a sample size of 2!

I could have asked all the players, it just made more sense to me to ask a player who was "swithering" which way they would be swayed by a slow bid than someone who would only choose one action.

 

I also don't think that everyone who is suitable for a poll to find logical alternatives is necessarily good at working out what is suggested. Even some good players struggle with the concept. (I'm aware that I'm leaving myself open to the accusation that I'm deliberately creating a biased poll. Of course I didn't select players who I thought would give a particular answer, but you could argue that answers from players who can't work out what is suggested are just as valuable as anyone else's.)

[VixTD]

There seems to be a curious misunderstanding here of how appeals are conducted in England these days. The players rarely get to state anything on an appeal form, and indeed NS on this occasion never even saw one.

I stated the objections to the ruling which you gave at the table in the "TD comments" section of the form. There is also a section for the players to add their remarks, but I think it's less important for the players to do this when they are going to be present at the appeal and can argue their case eloquently in person.

[VixTD]

I guess that Vixtd found it hard enough to find her original sample of 4 appropriate players.

I don't know which English TD you're taking me for, but I can assure you that you're wrong.

[RMB1]

I guess that Vixtd found it hard enough to find her original sample of 4 appropriate players.

 

I presume that nigel is reading "Vixtd" as "Vixen TD" in assuming that Vixtd is female. We may have our own opinion of which female EBU TD most befits "Vixen". :)

[nige1]

I don't know which English TD you're taking me for, but I can assure you that you're wrong.

You have a right to your anonymity and I respect it.

I presume that nigel is reading "Vixtd" as "Vixen TD" in assuming that Vixtd is female.

I made a random choice.

[VixTD]

You have a right to your anonymity and I respect it. I made a random choice.

I don't crave anonymity. I used to post under my name on the old forum. When we switched to this one it wouldn't let me use any standard variation of my name (all were already taken), and after some desperate attempts to find one it would accept I ended up with "Vix", an old school nickname derived from my surname which was originally applied to my brother, then to me. As it wouldn't even allow that I appended "TD" as it seemed to have worked for Gordon, and I was fed up of trying.

 

I expect you can identify me now from the TD list in the EBU diary, if you are interested.

[blackshoe]

I expect you can identify me now from the TD list in the EBU diary, if you are interested.

That would be too much like work. B-)

[Vampyr]

That would be too much like work. B-)

 

Not if you use your EBU diary every day.

[WellSpyder]

In the old days, committee members were told to confine their comments to the official appeal report.

I don't think we should criticise lamford's contribution to this discussion, indeed I think we should be grateful for it. I don't think anything has been said that devalues the appeals process or undermines the confidentiality of discussions between the AC members themselves, and I for one am grateful for a chance to understand the sort of thinking that affected the AC's decision (however much I might disagree with some of the judgments involved!).

 

It is at least clear to me now that there is more scope for judgment in the ruling rather than simply logic than I had perhaps appreciated at the time, even if some of the judgments expressed seem to be based on a lack of understanding about the systemic inferences available (I'm thinking of dburn's rather forthright comments in particular). I gave the south hand to a Tollemache-standard player from another county who I found myself travelling with after the EBU's AGM yesterday and his judgments were:

 

a) it makes sense for S to bid only 2♦ rather than 3♦ on the second round of the auction given that ♠Q is likely to be of limited value;

 

b) once north bids 3♦ over this it looks clear to bid 3NT. 4♦ might be an alternative, but 11 tricks looks a long way off.

 

c) when pressed, he accepted that passing 3♦ might be a LA.

 

d) when shown the north hand, he said he would probably have passed over 2♦.

 

I really do not think, therefore, that it is obvious north has a maximum invite and that south has no reason to accept, even if that is your final judgment.

[dburn]

Oh, I don't mind people bidding without enough points. It's the modern game.

 

But I thought South had to bid 2♦ at his second turn to show 11-13 balanced with a four-card major (that's what the annotation in the OP says, anyway). If he could have raised diamonds, rather than having to show four spades, then he might have bid 3♦ after which 3♠-3NT would be a normal enough conclusion to the auction. I expect the system isn't really as it's been depicted, because this would be bonkers, but another part of the modern game is that people play bonkers systems.

 

It occurs to me that "suggested" is probably the wrong word in Law 16. We don't want to spend any more time pointing out smugly (and almost always wrongly) that a slow invitation doesn't suggest anything. As an erstwhile chair of the L&E I did once remark that the slower a call, the less happy the caller was that it should conclude the auction - but this was simply based on many years of experience, and remains more firmly based on many more years of it.

 

What we do want is people not to do things that they wouldn't have done had partner acted in normal tempo. Maybe "demonstrably influenced".