Spectacular Stop

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa6532hk4dakqcqj7&w=s4hj985dj862ct642&n=st9hqt72dt943cak9&e=skqj87ha63d75c85&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1sp1np2n(very%20slow)ppp]399|300[/hv]

Matchpoints. Opening lead ♠K. Table result NS +120

 

There was a lucky landing by NS in this hand from a North London club last night, and East, who looks and behaves like the Secretary Bird, was apoplectic. North-South were playing four weak twos and EHAA and South decided that his partner might well respond on a very weak hand as South did not have a strong opening bid available. He was also regretting not having opened 2NT now, and decided that he would give his partner some leeway and bid only 2NT. North guessed that South had dredged up an invite on some 15 count, and decided to pass, as his 1NT could be up to 10 and he only had 9. East led the king of spades and the traveller revealed that NS had a complete top. One poor soul had been doubled in 3NT by a loony East who found the miracle ♠T9 tight with North. SB started his tirade against North. "You breached Law 73C and we were damaged", he began, "in that you did not carefully avoid taking any advantage of the UI. The fact that South was as heavy as Eric Pickles does not matter. You played for South to be stretching and got lucky". "I disagree", replied North, "the slow 2NT does not demonstrably suggest anything at all". "Partner could have been thinking of bidding 3NT, or forcing to game. You seem to a member of the 'if it hesitates, shoot it' school."

 

How do you rule?

[campboy]

I think the difference between this case and the one that presumably inspired it is that in this case, without UI, passing would be clearly wrong. When you get the UI that partner is either very minimum or very maximum, passing becomes more plausible. So passing is suggested.

 

In the other thread the poll shows that the right action is not clear without UI (two people bid 3NT; two passed; two were unsure). The extra information that partner is either minimum or maximum does not help at all. So in that case the UI does not demonstrably suggest anything.

[lamford]

When you get the UI that partner is either very minimum or very maximum, passing becomes more plausible. So passing is suggested.

It has to be demonstrably suggested rather than more plausible. I presume therefore you would adjust. And I am not sure which "other case" you mean.

[lamford]

<snip>The extra information that partner is either minimum or maximum does not help at all.

Surely it is more helpful in a marginal situation, and game theory says that one should work out the gain from action A when partner is minimum and the loss from action B when partner is maximum and select the call with the highest expected value. However, you are not allowed to know that partner is either minimum or maximum, but not bog standard.

[campboy]

It has to be demonstrably suggested rather than more plausible. I presume therefore you would adjust. And I am not sure which "other case" you mean.

Yes, I should have said "demonstrably", and I would adjust. I think the chance of pass being right goes up a lot once you know partner doesn't have a normal invite.

[campboy]

Surely it is more helpful in a marginal situation, and game theory says that one should work out the gain from action A when partner is minimum and the loss from action B when partner is maximum and select the call with the highest expected value. However, you are not allowed to know that partner is either minimum or maximum, but not bog standard.

No, it is less helpful in a marginal situation, because all the UI does is make the situation more marginal. As the hand in this thread illustrates -- without the UI it was clear what to do; with the UI it becomes unclear, and so passing goes from ridiculous to plausible.

[lamford]

<snip> No, [the UI] is less helpful in a marginal situation, because all the UI does is make the situation more marginal.

I cannot agree with that. Even in simple situations like 1NT (11-14) - 2NT (natural, but slow) we know that partner was almost certainly considering passing or bidding 3NT. All hands which are standard invites are eliminated, and the chance of partner being maximum for the invite has gone up to something like 50%, from an original value of perhaps 20%, depending on how many hands were in the medium range of standard invites.

 

A slow invitational bid can always demonstrably suggest one of bidding on or passing, depending on the expected value of both actions, and the change to that expected value by the illegal elimination of the middle.

[ArtK78]

I think it is as clear as this: Without any inference suggested by the hesitation, would North bid 3NT? I think the answer is clearly yes. The North hand is HUGE. 9HCP and good spots in every suit, including the T9 of partner's opening major suit. The hesitation put something else into the mix - the fact that South had something to consider other than bidding 2NT. Therefore, given that 3NT is the 99.9% action with the North cards in the absence of a hesitation, it is clear that the hesitation demonstrably suggested something else, and that is what North did.

 

Furthermore, given the NS system, North knows that he has to respond to South's opening bid on hands that others might pass, to cater to South having a hand that others might open 2♣. So, North knows that South will be careful about taking a second call such as 2NT with marginal values. These are inferences not available to others, and makes it more likely that North should bid game (in the absence of the hesitation).

 

Not only would I adjust, but I would consider some additional action against North - possibly C & E. This case is too much.

[Trinidad]

A slow invitational bid can always demonstrably suggest one of bidding on or passing, depending on the expected value of both actions, and the change to that expected value by the illegal elimination of the middle.

But the expected value of both actions is not UI.

 

In some cases it is easy to demonstrate what the UI suggests. E.g. after a slow sign-off, the UI suggests to bid on.

 

After a slow invite, the UI doesnot suggest what direction to take. The UI indicates that accepting or rejecting the invitation is right, but it is not possible to demonstrate which one. And that is not significantly different from where we would be without the UI.

 

Any theorizing about a shift in the ratio of the probabilities of "heavy invites" and "light invites" is futile. It assumes a much higher degree of estimation accuracy than is remotely realistic for a bridge situation.

 

Of course, you can talk about expected values and pull in the IMP table. But that is not what we are supposed to judge, because the IMP table is AI. We are supposed to judge what the BIT itself suggests. And after a slow invite a BIT doesn't demonstrably suggest accepting over rejecting the invitation, or vice versa.

 

Rik

[lamford]

But the expected value of both actions is not UI.

Because the expected value is the result multiplied by the percentage chance of partner having that hand, and one of the ingredients of that expected value is heavily affected by UI, the expected value becomes UI. The IMP table is indeed AI, as is partner's tendency to be aggressive or conservative, as these are both pieces of information that the player possessed before he removed his cards. However, if a BIT changes the likely percentages of different hand types to our advantage (and when game is in the equation it usually will change it upwards), bidding game tends to become demonstrably suggested by a BIT. Matchpoints is different of course.

[lamford]

After a slow invite, the UI doesn't suggest what direction to take.

So you would rule "score stands" in this example?

[campboy]

I cannot agree with that. Even in simple situations like 1NT (11-14) - 2NT (natural, but slow) we know that partner was almost certainly considering passing or bidding 3NT. All hands which are standard invites are eliminated, and the chance of partner being maximum for the invite has gone up to something like 50%, from an original value of perhaps 20%, depending on how many hands were in the medium range of standard invites.

 

A slow invitational bid can always demonstrably suggest one of bidding on or passing, depending on the expected value of both actions, and the change to that expected value by the illegal elimination of the middle.

True, but the chance of him being minimum for the invite has similarly gone up. These two things push in opposite directions, and in many cases they will about balance out.

 

What's the average height of a man in the UK? What's the new average if you eliminate the middle 50%? My guess is it wouldn't be very different, and I don't know if it would be higher or lower.

[Vampyr]

Not only would I adjust, but I would consider some additional action against North - possibly C & E. This case is too much.

 

I agree, and I don't even care what C&E means.

[barmar]

I agree, and I don't even care what C&E means.

Conduct and Ethics -- essentially charging North with cheating.

 

I think all this talk of what is demonstrably suggested is misguided. In this instance, I'm with SB, this was a 73C violation, not 16B. There's no good bridge reason for passing the invitation with 9 HCP, it can only be explained by taking inference from the UI.

 

Actually, I just thought of a bridge reason: maybe the state of the game suggested that they need a swing, so he took a low-percentage action. But if this had been the reason, I'd expect North to mention it. But I also expect the TD to view it suspiciously -- it's an incredible coincidence that he decided to do that at just the right time. If there's no tempo break, you get to keep your good luck, but when UI is around, self-serving explanations like that should be viewed suspiciously.

[Vampyr]

After a slow invite, the UI doesnot suggest what direction to take. The UI indicates that accepting or rejecting the invitation is right, but it is not possible to demonstrate which one. And that is not significantly different from where we would be without the UI.

 

OK, well do you place any weight on the fact that, after the UI, North did a truly bizarre action?

[barmar]

The difficult thing about this case is that the actual reason for the hesitation is the exact opposite of the reason that would suggest passing. If North knew that South was actually heavy for his bid, he would bid 3NT eagerly. It's just really bad luck that they can't make 3NT with 28 HCP. That's what makes it difficult to believe that North is "taking advantage" of the UI -- how can you be taking advantage of an inference if your inference is wrong?

[lamford]

True, but the chance of him being minimum for the invite has similarly gone up. These two things push in opposite directions, and in many cases they will about balance out.

However, the reward when partner is maximum rates to be 10 IMPs for a making a vulnerable game and the loss when partner is minimum might be only 6 IMPS (-100 instead of 140, say). If both have gone up, because of the UI, the player would be right to bid game. Which is why TDs routinely, and correctly, adjust when a slow invite leads to a successful game provided that biddding game is not the only LA. You often argue that something is demonstrably suggested when its chances go up from those absent the UI, even though it is still a massive underdog. There was a wild leap to 7S in another thread you may recall, where you were a lone wolf wanting to adjust, so I think your stance on this point is inconsistent.

[campboy]

However, the reward when partner is maximum rates to be 10 IMPs for a making a vulnerable game and the loss when partner is minimum might be only 6 IMPS (-100 instead of 140, say). If both have gone up, because of the UI, the player would be right to bid game. Which is why TDs routinely, and correctly, adjust when a slow invite leads to a successful game provided that biddding game is not the only LA. You often argue that something is demonstrably suggested when its chances go up from those absent the UI, even though it is still amassive underdog. There was a wild leap to 7S in another thread you may recall, where you were a lone wolf wanting to adjust, so I think your stance on this point is inconsistent.

You seem to be making the assumption that game is definitely making if partner is maximum and definitely going off if he is minimum. In that case, with UI you want to be bidding game (in the other thread at least; this one is matchpoints). But how likely do you think game is to make when partner's hand is in the middle? About 50% seems consistent with your assumptions, and so we want to be bidding game even without UI.

 

I don't think I'm being inconsistent at all. IIRC in the case you refer to, bidding 7♠ would be absurd without UI, and much more plausible (though still an underdog) with UI. Therefore it was demonstrably suggested, and I would adjust. In this thread, passing is absurd without UI, and much more plausible (though IMO still an underdog) with UI. As I already said, I would adjust here too. Wellspyder's case is not comparable IMO. There the choice between passing and bidding 3NT was close without UI, and I believe it is still close with UI; if the odds have changed then I'm not sure in which direction they've gone.

[Trinidad]

Because the expected value is the result multiplied by the percentage chance of partner having that hand, and one of the ingredients of that expected value is heavily affected by UI, the expected value becomes UI.

Sure... but this is a misrepresentation of what is going on: The expected value is not heavily affected by UI. It is slightly affected by UI in a direction that is indeterminable, because it depends on too many unknowns (what hands will partner tank with, on what hands will he just bid game, how aggressive does partner normally invite). The idea that a regular partner can figure out what kind of hand partner must hold for his BIT in an invitational situation is simply wrong.

 

So, you are trying to quantify something that you can't quantify. It is like measuring the diameter of a cell with a yardstick.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

It has to be demonstrably suggested rather than more plausible. I presume therefore you would adjust. And I am not sure which "other case" you mean.

The wording is "could demonstrably have been suggested". So to demonstrate, you have to show the logic by which whatever action you're examining could be suggested by the UI.

[Trinidad]

So you would rule "score stands" in this example?

In this "spectacular stop" example? Absolutely. How can North deduce whether South is light or heavy for his invite? He can't.

 

As a bridge player, I would not see pass as an LA, and North's pass makes my head hurt. But we have already established in many previous discussions that we can consider the action taken by the player to be an LA (no matter how absurd it is). North is simply RR and RR always beats SB.

 

Rik

[ArtK78]

Conduct and Ethics -- essentially charging North with cheating.

Strictly speaking, I would suggest that North was guilty of unethical conduct. Cheating is too strong of a term.

 

In this case, there was no logical alternative to bidding 3NT. Yet North chose to pass. Why? The combination of the hesitation and, possibly, a history of playing with this partner. North somehow knew that the hesitation was more likely to be based on a light 2NT bid rather than a heavy one. He was wrong in that partner had a heavy 2NT, but right in that 3NT could not make. But that is not the issue. He attempted to take advantage of UI by making a call that virtually no one else would take given the information legally and ethically available to him. That is the issue.

[blackshoe]

I can't find my copy of Landau's book, but wikipedia suggests that a 2NT rebid shows 16-18, and a 3NT rebid shows 19-20. A 2NT opening shows 21-24, 3NT 25+. Now this pair may have different agreements, and the TD should investigate them, but we aren't told what they are, so let's go with this. South has 19 points, 20 if you count his spade length. By the agreements just mentioned, he's too weak for a 2NT opening, and too strong for a 2NT rebid. South correctly evaluated his hand as not worth a 2NT opening, and then when he thought North might have stretched to respond 1NT, re-evaluated his hand downward even further (incorrectly, imo, as I understand EHAA). Then North, holding 9 HCP decided he was not worth 3NT opposite 16-18. This is not cheating, these are bidding mistakes (but see below).

 

The first thing I'm going to do is make it perfectly clear to both sides, but especially the SB, that the proper thing to do when there seems to be a problem is to call the director. There is only one alternative to that: don't say anything. Then I'm going to issue a disciplinary penalty to both sides for violation of the "best behaviour" policy. SB may wish to argue. If so, he gets one warning. If he doesn't shut up, he gets another DP.

 

South's BIT provides UI to North. What is the "I" here? What could it demonstrably suggest? I don't know, and at the moment I don't care. I'm with Barry — this is a 73C violation. North clearly did not "carefully avoid taking advantage of UI", because the fact that South broke tempo before bidding 2NT clearly suggested to North that South might be at the low end, or even a point or so lower, for 2NT. In spite of that, North passed 2NT.

 

Okay, now what?

Law 73F: When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo or the like of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C).

I'm not real happy with calling the SB "innocent," but never mind that. It was North, not South, who violated 73C. So what false inference did SB (or his partner) draw from North's "remark, manner, tempo or the like"? As far as I can see, none. So there is no basis here for a score adjustment. Ah, but wait! The law refers to "opponent," which means "a player of the other side". So this part of Law 73C applies to South as well as North. So again, what false inference did SB (or his partner) draw from South's "remark, manner, tempo or the like"? And again, no such inference is in evidence, so again there is no basis for a score adjustment.

 

I'm tempted to rule "result stands" and give North a PP for violation of 73C, but that will no doubt raise screams of outrage here, and probably from the SB as well. B-)

 

Should we now look at 16 again? Probably. Back to "what is the "I", and what could it demonstrably suggest?" The "I" is that South was unsure whether 2NT is the right call. As it happens, South was right: 3NT is the right call. :D But it is possible that North was considering passing over 1NT. In the former case, the "I" suggests bidding 3NT. In the latter case, the "I" suggests passing. Could we demonstrate that this "I" suggests passing over bidding? I'm in the "no" camp, in spite of what happened at the table. So again, no basis for a score adjustment. If your judgement is that the "I" does suggest passing over bidding, then yeah, adjust the score. But at this moment, I'm not convinced. I still want to give North a PP for violating 73C, though, noting that 73C is a "must" law. :P

 

Is there another route to a score adjustment?

Law 12A1: The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent.

I suppose one could argue that neither Law 73F nor Law 16B3 "provides indemnity" here, but…

Law 12B2: The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

One could argue that "result stands" is "unduly severe" to the NOS and "unduly advantageous" to the OS, but this law says that none of that matters.

 

Note: I have made a distinction here between 73C's "don't take advantage of UI" and 16B3's "the UI suggests one LA over another". This is deliberate, as I think the distinction is built into these laws.

 

Perhaps I have misread the law. I would be pleased in that case if someone would show me how. B-)

[mycroft]

I do have a copy of the Landau book, and played (essentially) the Landau book two weeks ago Wednesday.

 

1m-1x; 2NT is indeed "good 16 to not-good 19" (and 3NT is "good 19-20"). I don't know what it would be after 1♠, but I can't imagine anyone thinking this didn't show "good 16 to not-good 19" (and probably only 4 spades). As such, North has zero reason from system to not bid 3NT with a hand that everybody would just blast 3NT (after Stayman, presumably) after a 15-17 1NT opener, never mind a "16-18"+ opener. Frankly, I'm surprised (given that they're playing not even "semi-forcing" NT) that this hand didn't get upgraded into a 10 and therefore into a 2♦ call over 1♠. I also personally would have upgraded this into a 3NT response with the South hand (has South seen North's responses before?) But you can't regulate bad (or even unthinking) judgement; you can regulate ludicrous judgement in combination with UI.

 

North's "this is 6-10 (well, maybe good 4-10), I only have a 9-count, so I won't accept" is hilarious, unless EHAA is the only system North has ever played in the 4 months he's being playing bridge. That's what the other meaning of "self-serving statements" came from.

 

As everyone says, this is a clear Law 73C violation. South could have upgraded his hand into a "good 16"? So? Aren't you *still* going to game? What does he think, South upgraded a decent 13-with-5-spades? Or one of those "extra-special 12s that aren't 2-bids" like AKJTxx x KJTx xx? Language filters bar me from expressing my opinion, but I think it would start with "I object to the concession" (*). North "guessed" that South had dredged up an invitation? Sorry, UI, no guessing (and if South did decide to hitch-raise with a random 14 and 3NT magically rolled, I'd say "well, you had to bid 3NT given what the bid shows. Score stands" over the SB's objections that this time it could have been an overstrength 19 thing (and 4NT was an option?)).

 

I believe that 3NT is the *only* alternative playing the system as I do (basically, From The Book) and that any other call is Not Logical (okay, 3♥ I'll give; partner could still be 4=4=(32). The Book does Wolff Signoff after this auction, so no CBS available. Any NGF call is Not Logical). If anyone tries that with me, there's the interpretation-in-force that "the call actually taken is always considered a LA for the purposes of Law 16"). What does the UI demonstrably suggest? That's a discussion, but when the only logical information from AI is "16+9 = game; 19+good 9 != slam, bid accordingly", I can't imagine the UI didn't suggest *something* (and yes, I'd have the same argument here if North bid 4NT guessing that South decided to undervalue his hand because he didn't want to bid 3NT in case partner responded on 3, South bid 6 with his supermax, and it rolled).

 

I understand the purpose of this particular construction, but unfortunately unless the system is played quite differently from The Book with this pair, I don't think there's any case here - North psyched, or hid information about the system. Psyching in the face of UI is a clear violation of L73C. The only argument I'd grant the time of day from North would be "I'm sorry, after I passed I found the ♣K."

 

(*) This post and thread, for those who don't get the reference.

[Vampyr]

Strictly speaking, I would suggest that North was guilty of unethical conduct. Cheating is too strong of a term.

 

... He attempted to take advantage of UI by making a call that virtually no one else would take given the information legally and ethically available to him. That is the issue.

 

I think you are contradicting yourself here...

 

But yes, this is the issue, that North took deliberate advantage of the UI.