What is your verdict?

[DaveB]

[hv=pc=n&s=sat953ha8dkj852c6&w=sqhkqjt7dcakt7542&n=skj74h92dat9643cq&e=s862h6543dq7cj983&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p1s2s3d3h4h5d5spp6h6sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Governing Body - English Bridge Union

 

1♠ - at least 4♠

2♠ - Michaels - at least 5♥ plus at least 5 of a minor

3♦ - natural and forcing

3♥ - I am macho

4♥ - Cue - ♦ slam interest

5♦ - Cue ♥ slam interest

South Pass was slow

 

Result 6♠ making 12

 

E-W appeal on the basis that North's 6♠ was based upon UI from South's slow pass.

 

What is your verdict?

[ahydra]

If this was an appeal, what was the director ruling? Result stands, I assume, but did he give any reasoning?

 

ahydra

[DaveB]

Director ruling was result stands.

 

South statement was that his hesitation was determining the meaning of the 5♠ bid.

Once he had decided it was non forcing he passed.

Hence the decision to bid 6♠ could not demonstrably have been suggested as required by L16B.

 

Also in an auction as murky as this, a hesitation is to be expected so conveys little or no information.

South had already expressed an interest in 6♦ with the 4♥ bid.

[helene_t]

Director ruling was result stands.

 

South statement was that his hesitation was determining the meaning of the 5♠ bid.

Once he had decided it was non forcing he passed.

Hence the decision to bid 6♠ could not demonstrably have been suggested as required by L16B.

This doesn't sound like the correct interpretation of L16B.

 

If North knew why South was hesitating then, yes. But North observed South hesitating which from North's point of view suggested that S may have been thinking of bidding 6. OK, maybe it occured to N that S may have been thinking of something else, but as long as (from North's point of view) South may have been thinking of bidding 6, the hesitation makes bidding 6 more attractive.

[barmar]

If North thought they had a slam, why didn't he bid it on the previous round? Did he think the opponents were making 6♥ and he needed to sacrifice?

[mikeh]

If North thought they had a slam, why didn't he bid it on the previous round? Did he think the opponents were making 6♥ and he needed to sacrifice?

I think this sums it up quite well.

 

N decided on the previous round that his hand was worth only 5♠, a call that logically could not be forcing, since N had not previously chosen to show that he had any interest in spades at all. It was an attempt to play in 5♠...if the partnership were to bid slam thereafter, it would be S's decision.

 

Then the auction came back at 6♥ after S made a slow pass.

 

What information did N have that he didn't have over 5♥?

 

The fact that S made a slow pass meant that S was thinking of bidding slam. Indeed, S admitted as much but, accurately or otherwise, said that the reason he was thinking of slam was that he wasn't sure whether he was allowed to pass. I don't think it matters 'why' S was thinking of slam. All that matters is that the slow pass indicated, correctly as it happens, that S was considering bidding more.

 

So N, over 6♥, was possessed of the information that S was thinking of bidding slam, and that means that he simply isn't allowed to bid himself. He has to pass, since the information that S was thinking of bidding 6 is unauthorized and logically makes bidding slam more attractive.

 

Of course, S should probably bid the slam when it comes back to him...I think he ought to have bid 6♦ over 5♠, and then N would have had an easy 6♠ call.

[mycroft]

I was thinking the same thing as Mike: "North's 6♠ was made in the presence of UI that suggested going further (Yes, I heard South, but 'he would say that, wouldn't he?'); Pass was a Logical Alternative, and I am imposing a pass. South will not pass, however, and with +200 (the likeliest score from a double, with -1660 coming next) being the only option to bidding - losing to +6x0; South is going to bid 6♠. Score adjusted to 6♠=."

[mikeh]

I was thinking the same thing as Mike: "North's 6♠ was made in the presence of UI that suggested going further (Yes, I heard South, but 'he would say that, wouldn't he?'); Pass was a Logical Alternative, and I am imposing a pass. South will not pass, however, and with +200 (the likeliest score from a double, with -1660 coming next) being the only option to bidding - losing to +6x0; South is going to bid 6♠. Score adjusted to 6♠=."

 

With respect to the ruling to be made: I think we agree that North can't be allowed to bid slam....but that isn't the end of the matter.

 

He still has two alternatives....pass or double. Pass invites slam by South, and is made more attractive by the tank by South the previous round. Having decided not to commit unilaterally to slam last round, and now facing the choices of settling for a small plus or risking a minus (ignoring a two way make scenario), doesn't the slow pass make the forcing pass over 6♥ more attractive?

 

So I think it boils down to this: how plausible is double, rather than pass?

 

My own take is that the N hand is too good to double and that doubling is not a logical alternative, and so I would allow a fp, and over a fp, we now look at S. I don't think it clear to bid slam over a fp, given that I think N should have bid slam over 5♥. To me that means that S should expect a little less than N has, so say Kxxx xx AQxxxx x, where slam is definitely a poor proposition...does anyone think spades are 2-2?

 

Since I don't think the offending side is allowed the benefit of doubt here, I rule that N-S has to defend 6♥ doubled.

[DaveB]

To me that means that S should expect a little less than N has, so say Kxxx xx AQxxxx x, where slam is definitely a poor proposition...does anyone think spades are 2-2?

I most certainly WOULD want to be in 6♠ opposite that hand.

West is certain to hold 1 or zero ♠ on the auction.

If it is zero 6♥ is almost certainly making and if one then it is 50-50 on it being a singleton honour.

Edited April 29, 2015 by barmar
add quote markup

[mikeh]

To me that means that S should expect a little less than N has, so say Kxxx xx AQxxxx x, where slam is definitely a poor proposition...does anyone think spades are 2-2?

 

I most certainly WOULD want to be in 6♠ opposite that hand.

West is certain to hold 1 or zero ♠ on the auction.

If it is zero 6♥ is almost certainly making and if one then it is 50-50 on it being a singleton honour.

 

well, we only need one pointed suit trick and I don't care which suit it is in. Red v white, LHO has exceptional shape, but he won't be 0=5=0=8, and I doubt he would be 0=5=2=6....I think that some 5=7 is the most likely, especially when he tacked on the 6♥ call, since he is playing for down 1 on an average day, given the vulnerability.

 

Now, slam MIGHT make their way since maybe East is 4=4=0=5 and West 0=5=2=6, but West simply hasn't bid as if he has two fast diamond losers. As far as everyone at the table knows N-S may hold only 10 diamonds, so I just don't think it probable that West took the red suit dive with two diamonds.

[Lanor Fow]

Given it's the EBU we can weight the two outcomes

[sanst]

I would poll; actually, in Holland I should poll. Firstly about N's bids, including the 5♠. If pass is a LA according to that poll, which I expect, then I would like to know what S's alternatives are over 6♥ and give a weighted score based on that poll. And there is still the possibility of a PP for N for the use of OI.

[DaveB]

For those of you who think that North bidding 5♠ and then 6♠ is absurd and clear evidence of skulduggery,

let me pose the following question:-

 

Suppose your estimate for the probability of 6♠ making is in the range of 25 to 50 percent

and that you expect 6♥ to be going one off (at best) - your vul opponents not being total lunatics,

then what should you bid

(1) after 5♦

(2) after 6♥

[mikeh]

For those of you who think that North bidding 5♠ and then 6♠ is absurd and clear evidence of skulduggery,

let me pose the following question:-

 

Suppose your estimate for the probability of 6♠ making is in the range of 25 to 50 percent

and that you expect 6♥ to be going one off (at best) - your vul opponents not being total lunatics,

then what should you bid

(1) after 5♦

(2) after 6♥

who said skulduggery? since when has the test been an opinion on N's motives?

[StevenG]

I too fail the understand the logic that failing to bid 6♠ on the previous round means that bidding 6♠ now is irrational. We are not told the scoring, so let's assume a teams match, and that the other table is in a spade game scoring 650 or 680. If we play in 5♠, we get a flat board. If we play in 6♠, we get either +11 IMPs or -11 IMPs, so the break-even point is a 50% chance of making. However, once they have bid 6♥, if they are allowed to play there, doubled, we are -6 or -7 IMPs. So, surely this changes the odds we need for the slam down to those which give an expected value of about -6 IMPs which is around 25%.

 

As DaveB suggests, if you judge the odds of the slam between 25% and 50% it makes sense to play in 5♠, if allowed, but bid to 6 if pushed. Of course, we don't actually know what will happen at the other table.

 

Imagine that this was MPs, not teams. Then, if the rest of the room was in 5♠, then bidding 6 would be automatic since -50 and +200 would both score 0%.

 

As for South's hesitation, I always struggle with the idea that, to quote Helene, "but as long as (from North's point of view) South may have been thinking of bidding 6, the hesitation makes bidding 6 more attractive". The AI is that South prefers 5♠ to 6♠ on the auction so far, and that limits the range of hands he can have. The UI suggests that he evaluated (which I think is a fairer word than "considered" or "thought about") 6♠ and found it wanting. All the UI does is eliminate those hands where bidding 6 is so ridiculous that it can be seen as such without any thought. If there are no such hands, the UI does not make bidding 6 more attractive. At least, that's the way I see it. What's wrong with my logic?

[mikeh]

I too fail the understand the logic that failing to bid 6♠ on the previous round means that bidding 6♠ now is irrational. We are not told the scoring, so let's assume a teams match, and that the other table is in a spade game scoring 650 or 680. If we play in 5♠, we get a flat board. If we play in 6♠, we get either +11 IMPs or -11 IMPs, so the break-even point is a 50% chance of making. However, once they have bid 6♥, if they are allowed to play there, doubled, we are -6 or -7 IMPs. So, surely this changes the odds we need for the slam down to those which give an expected value of about -6 IMPs which is around 25%.

 

As DaveB suggests, if you judge the odds of the slam between 25% and 50% it makes sense to play in 5♠, if allowed, but bid to 6 if pushed. Of course, we don't actually know what will happen at the other table.

 

Imagine that this was MPs, not teams. Then, if the rest of the room was in 5♠, then bidding 6 would be automatic since -50 and +200 would both score 0%.

 

As for South's hesitation, I always struggle with the idea that, to quote Helene, "but as long as (from North's point of view) South may have been thinking of bidding 6, the hesitation makes bidding 6 more attractive". The AI is that South prefers 5♠ to 6♠ on the auction so far, and that limits the range of hands he can have. The UI suggests that he evaluated (which I think is a fairer word than "considered" or "thought about") 6♠ and found it wanting. All the UI does is eliminate those hands where bidding 6 is so ridiculous that it can be seen as such without any thought. If there are no such hands, the UI does not make bidding 6 more attractive. At least, that's the way I see it. What's wrong with my logic?

 

Your logic breaks down, it seems to me, because you appear to think that N's choices over 6♥ were limited to defending or bidding, and this is simply incorrect.

 

North had three messages he could convey over 6♥:

 

1. I want to defend: double

 

2. I want to play slam: bid

 

3. I am interested in slam but don't want to make the decision: pass

 

I agree that doubling seems unattractive and accept that doubling would not be a LA.

 

Where I differ from you is that it seems to me that we can invite partner to bid slam by passing, and that this is surely a logical alternative. Once you accept that we can show partner that we are interested in bidding on, then it seems to me clear that N cannot be allowed to choose the more aggressive alternative, given that partner's BIT should, viewed objectively, be a signal that bidding on is likely to be successful. Put another way: had S passed in tempo, would you not agree that some peers of N would consider that the FP over 6♥ would be a LA?

[mikeh]

Director ruling was result stands.

 

South statement was that his hesitation was determining the meaning of the 5♠ bid.

Once he had decided it was non forcing he passed.

Hence the decision to bid 6♠ could not demonstrably have been suggested as required by L16B.

 

Also in an auction as murky as this, a hesitation is to be expected so conveys little or no information.

South had already expressed an interest in 6♦ with the 4♥ bid.

I hadn't previously quoted this post, but I think that it is critical to one's views on the matter.

 

I have always understood that a TD ought to apply what is known in law as an objective test. This serves to avoid the invidious idea that the outcome of a BIT situation will depend on the TD's view of the honesty of the player concerned. As it is, most inexperienced or ignorant players, who see their score adjusted because of their BIT, often express feelings of outrage that the TD didn't accept their innocent explanations, and fail to appreciate that the TD ought never to be sitting in judgement of their honesty.

 

The only question the TD should be interested in, in terms of a ruling, is whether, to a North who observed the BIT, that BIT would logically suggest that S might well be thinking of doing something other than pass. The actual reason for S's BIT means nothing, unless it was a reason that would be seen by an objective observer as the most probable.

 

FWIW, and it isn't worth much since belief in S's motives is irrelevant, as a TD, I would have grave reservations about the explanation given by S. I can't think of any reason why S should ever think that 5♠ was forcing....when did N ever previously support spades, and how could he compete in spades other than by bidding 5♠, assuming he had a 3♦ call earlier? Now, I am not accusing S of misstating anything, and indeed you can see from this precisely why it is that a TD ought not to be weighing S's credibility. Once we start doing that, then we get the terrible situation that the outcome will be determined by the TD's personal views of South's honesty. Rule against N-S, and they can and will infer that the TD thought S was lying.

 

A TD who thinks as I do would end up being seen as calling S a liar. A TD who accepted the explanation and ruled that S's inner thinking meant that N couldn't have been influenced would be seen by E-W as playing favourites. It gets ugly quickly once the TD is making decisions like that.

[StevenG]

Where I differ from you is that it seems to me that we can invite partner to bid slam by passing

Ah, but you are an expert. I, on the other hand, am most definitely not, and nor are my partners. So I don't think I could make the assumption that my partners would treat a pass as a slam invitation (actually, I am quite sure I couldn't), which is why I overlooked that option. As for the players in the original post, since I have no idea who they are, I cannot tell whether they have agreements from your world or mine.

[mycroft]

I am surprised at the number of people who are sure 6♥ is going down. If the spades are N=0 (and South can't see the ♦A, so West could have that and no spades instead of what she has), they're *making* 6♥ it sure sounds like. Okay, that's not likely a priori, but they did bid 6♥ red on white.

 

I am interested in what Mike has to say (still/again); and since it is EBU, I'm guessing we will weight the scores; and I would poll (in fact I thought that was my answer to the poll :-).

 

Following along in the "want to play 5, not 6; but now that it's a choice between whatever we go down and +200, I'm not taking the guaranteed average or bad postion"; as StevenG says, it's +11/-11 if we bid 6 not sure if we can make it and reasonably certain that they won't be in it; it's -6/-7 if we defend, *and possibly -19* vs either +11 or -11 if we bid on. The only plus we can get defending is if both slams go down, *and the other table is in 6♠*. That seems a pretty high dice roll to me.

 

At matchpoints (and I don't think we were told the scoring format) I bet this is even worse: +200 is going to be 4, 5 on a 24 top; -1660 is going to be 0 or 1, of course; and +980 is going to be 18, 19 at least. My option to get the A+ for +6x0 has gone away; what do I do?

[DaveB]

Well in my opinion South has a totally obvious pass over a competitive 5♠ bid

as North will have only 3 card support on the vast majority of occasions.

Equally he has a totally obvious 6♦ bid over an invitational or forcing 5♠ bid.

 

In what was a highly unusual auction which was unlikely to be tempo sensitive (even if that was not how it turned out)

and with potentially large number of imps resting on getting it right it appears highly likely

that South would consider carefully the meaning of 5♠.

 

I gave the auction to a partner of mine and his unprompted reaction was "What the hell is 5♠!"

[mikeh]

Well in my opinion South has a totally obvious pass over a competitive 5♠ bid

as North will have only 3 card support on the vast majority of occasions.

Equally he has a totally obvious 6♦ bid over an invitational or forcing 5♠ bid.

 

In what was a highly unusual auction which was unlikely to be tempo sensitive (even if that was not how it turned out)

and with potentially large number of imps resting on getting it right it appears highly likely

that South would consider carefully the meaning of 5♠.

 

I gave the auction to a partner of mine and his unprompted reaction was "What the hell is 5♠!"

 

You have allowed your belief in S's pure motives to influence your views. What S was thinking is irrelevant, and this notion that it is important causes all kinds of ill-will (there can be exceptions to this statement...if S was thinking over an explanation of a conventional call by the opps, for example, or if someone had spilled their drink all over his cards, but his hand-related thinking is irrelevant).

 

The only issue is whether the BIT would logically suggest that S was thinking about bidding slam. It matters not if there are other innocent explanations...maybe, unknown to N, S had been reading a newspaper waiting for the bidding tray to come back (assuming screens) or some other completely innocuous matter.

 

If there was a BIT, that ends the concern with the behaviour or reasoning of that player. We shift now to an objective view of what effect that BIT is probably going to have on N. There is no plausible reason for thinking that N would not at least contemplate that the BIT had arisen from S thinking, for whatever reason, of bidding on. Once we accept that...and I stress we do not need to find that this was the ONLY inference that could be drawn, then N cannot choose to bid if there is a LA that is not, itself, also made more attractive by the BIT. No way could the BIT make passing more attractive than bidding, therefore bidding is not permitted.

 

It also makes no sense for a TD to listen to claims that N wasn't sure that pass would be forcing. It is just too convenient an explanation. At best the TD could poll players he thinks to be of equivalent status to see whether this is plausible, but he cannot make that ruling based solely on the assertions of the players. TDs are NEVER to get involved in making rulings based on having to make credibility findings about the players' honesty in situations of this nature.

 

If that poll persuaded the TD that N wouldn't know if the pass were forcing, then and only then could the TD decide whether N's real choices lay between defending, doubled or undoubled, or bidding slam. Only then, in my view, would it be reasonable to compare the merits of bidding as opposed to defending...and then it is possible to conclude that in the absence of the BIT, passing was simply not a LA, for the risk/reward factors outlined before.

 

Btw, my sense is that you were one of N-S. Am I correct?

[DaveB]

Rumbled :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

I was indeed South - hence I KNOW definitively what the hesitation was about.

 

I found the situation over 5♠ exceedingly complex.

Why had partner not agreed ♠ over 2♠?

What would a Pass over 5♦ have shown?

What would a double of 5♦ have shown?

Would either of the 2 above followed by 5♠ be more or less encouraging than the direct 5♠

Was it possible 5♠ was a cue bid hoping I could show the A♣

 

At the end of a long tournament thought processes were not quick.

By contrast I believe the decisions once you have decided what is going on are utterly trivial.

 

My belief is that your interpretation of the procedure to be followed after UI is wrong.

Firstly you determine if there was UI and if so what did it suggest.

If the UI has more than possible reason - in this case partner was unsure of the meaning of 5♠ OR

partner was thinking of bidding 6♠ or 6 Diamonds,

then the director should weigh the evidence available - which will be the hands, the auction, the players' statements

and the players' credibility and the result of any polls and form a view of what UI had actually been transmitted.

 

You simply cannot say there was UI transmitted - it MIGHT have suggested bidding so treat it as if it did.

 

This is going back to the regime of "If it hesitates, shoot it"

[mikeh]

Rumbled :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

I was indeed South - hence I KNOW definitively what the hesitation was about.

 

I found the situation over 5♠ exceedingly complex.

Why had partner not agreed ♠ over 2♠?

What would a Pass over 5♦ have shown?

What would a double of 5♦ have shown?

Would either of the 2 above followed by 5♠ be more or less encouraging than the direct 5♠

Was it possible 5♠ was a cue bid hoping I could show the A♣

 

At the end of a long tournament thought processes were not quick.

By contrast I believe the decisions once you have decided what is going on are utterly trivial.

 

My belief is that your interpretation of the procedure to be followed after UI is wrong.

Firstly you determine if there was UI and if so what did it suggest.

If the UI has more than possible reason - in this case partner was unsure of the meaning of 5♠ OR

partner was thinking of bidding 6♠ or 6 Diamonds,

then the director should weigh the evidence available - which will be the hands, the auction, the players' statements

and the players' credibility and the result of any polls and form a view of what UI had actually been transmitted.

 

You simply cannot say there was UI transmitted - it MIGHT have suggested bidding so treat it as if it did.

 

This is going back to the regime of "If it hesitates, shoot it"

 

 

I don't believe in 'if it hesitates, shoot it' if only for purposes of self-preservation :D

 

The problems lie with S and N. S's explanation is irrelevant and this is very important, since as South you may feel that an adverse ruling suggests that your explanation is not being believed.

 

The point isn't 'why' you considered bidding slam....as it was, had you bid slam it would have been because you thought 5♠ was forcing. Your explanation is relevant only to the extent that it eliminates a non-bridge explanation...you didn't, for example, spill and drink and get distracted by that....and presumably N would have known of that.

 

So you hesitated because you were considering slam, albeit for reasons other than thinking you had extras. You are completely innocent.

 

Now, over to North. Over 6♥ he knows that you had been thinking of slam.

 

True, he doesn't know for sure why you were doing that, but to a stranger watching the North player and him alone, I suggest that it would have been obvious that you MIGHT have been thinking of slam because your hand was almost strong enough to bid it over a non-forcing 5♠.

 

It is that possibility, so long as it is not a trivial possibility (and I don't accept that it was, even tho I fully accept that it wasn't the actual reason for the BIT), that causes the problem. That possibility arising from a BIT, the existence of which is UI, makes bidding slam more attractive than otherwise, and hence N may not choose that call if there are LAs that are not made more favourable by the BIT.

 

 

Now, if your argument is that the BIT was not UI, we have a different debate. I don't for a moment accept that all BITs constitute or pass UI, but given the manner in which you described the auction, I inferred that the BIT by South was a break of more than the normal gap between bids in this kind of unusual auction. I would expect all players to be bidding at a slow tempo on this hand, so assumed that we were discussing the kind of BIT that causes all of us to pay attention.

[blackshoe]

A BIT is not information, so it can't be UI. It might convey UI, though, and it is that with which the law deals.

[barmar]

I have always understood that a TD ought to apply what is known in law as an objective test. This serves to avoid the invidious idea that the outcome of a BIT situation will depend on the TD's view of the honesty of the player concerned. As it is, most inexperienced or ignorant players, who see their score adjusted because of their BIT, often express feelings of outrage that the TD didn't accept their innocent explanations, and fail to appreciate that the TD ought never to be sitting in judgement of their honesty.

I think this is because there are two Laws that relate to action after receiving UI from partner.

 

Law 16B1 is phrased relatively objectively, in terms of LAs and what is demonstrably suggested. LAs are defined in terms of the player's peers, not the specific player.

 

But Law 73C just says that the player "must carefully avoid taking any advantage from the UI". This is often paraphrased as "bend over backwards".

 

The problem is that 73C is easy for players to understand, while 16B1 is complicated, so 73C is how most of them understand their obligations. When they get ruled against, it seems like an accusation that they didn't take the care that they were supposed to.