Demonstrably Not Suggested

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=saqthaqtd765cq543&w=s8654h8752daqcat6&n=s92h96djt8432ckj2&e=skj73hkj43dk9c987&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=p(very%20very%20slow)p3n(gambling)ppp]399|300[/hv]

Table result 3NT=. Lead 7♥

 

SB has been reading the new laws assiduously and was tempted on Tuesday to rise to barmar's bait and test out the interpretation of "is demonstrably suggested" in 16B rather than the old "could demonstrably be suggested". RR, North, took an age to pass, bizarrely because he could not remember whether he was playing a weak two diamonds or a multi with this partner. SB, South, considered upgrading his hand to a strong NT, but he thought that would demonstrably take advantage of the UI, and therefore he chose 3NT, which could not possibly be a logical alternative. His luck was in when the cards lay favourably. ChCh, West, was unhappy and called the director, and suggested that 3NT, playing his partner for a balanced 11-count, was illegal, even though that was only one of many reasons for a slow pass.

 

How do you rule?

[billw55]

Interesting. Intuitively, it seems it should be rolled back, as SB has obviously and wildly changed his call because of the UI. Not sure exactly how this works with the letter of law though.

 

Perhaps one could argue that with such an ordinary hand, the opening bid is well defined, and hence that all other calls as a group fall under "is suggested by the UI".

[lamford]

Interesting. Intuitively, it seems it should be rolled back, as SB has obviously and wildly changed his call because of the UI. Not sure exactly how this works with the letter of law though.

 

Perhaps one could argue that with such an ordinary hand, the opening bid is well defined, and hence that all other calls as a group fall under "is suggested by the UI".

Under both sets of laws, 3NT would have to be demonstrably suggested by the UI to be disallowed.

[helene_t]

Under both sets of laws, 3NT would have to be demonstrably suggested by the UI to be disallowed.

Isn't it? 3NT would work badly if partner has a balanced 5-count but that's what he can't have, given the slow pass.

 

The slow pass could be an 11-count, or a flawed preempt. Even if it's some 6520 shape at least 3NT doesn't bypass the safety level and we might land on our feet.

[lamford]

Isn't it? 3NT would work badly if partner has a balanced 5-count but that's what he can't have, given the slow pass.

 

The slow pass could be an 11-count, or a flawed preempt. Even if it's some 6520 shape at least 3NT doesn't bypass the safety level and we might land on our feet.

"Might land on our feet" seems a far cry from "is demonstrably suggested", let alone "could be demonstrably suggested".

[weejonnie]

NB - the fact that 3NT is not a 'logical alternative' is now irrelevant providing there are calls that are 'logical alternatives'

 

That does not affect IMHO the ruling that 3NT should be allowed since the pause by RR does not indicate that 3NT is demonstrably suggested over any other call. All we know about RR's hand is that he does not have an obvious pass (Mind you with RR even a hand with an obvious pass might take some time to be bid, if his mind drifted off to the stock market etc). 14HCP opposite a hand that is too weak if balanced <12HCP or too weak to make a weak 2 bid is not normally going to be in game.

[nige1]

The legal condition is not that an action (say 3N) is illegal simply because UI demonstrably suggests it..

The UI must demonstrably suggest it over a logical alternative (here 1♣, say).

But the action chosen need not itself be a logical alternative.

 

Arguably, RR's tank would normally show near-opening values, so 3N is a cunning attempt at fast arrival in a reasonable contract, with minimal "leakage"..

[helene_t]

"Might land on our feet" seems a far cry from "is demonstrably suggested", let alone "could be demonstrably suggested".

No, because if partner has the balanced 5-count then we would not land on our feet.

 

"Suggested" doesn't mean "having 100% success rate". I don't think it even means "sane", as long as it is (demonstrably) less insane than it would have been without the UI.

[weejonnie]

If I held the North hand and my partner opened 3NT then I think I would be bidding 4 Clubs since presumably it is based on a long solid minor. Has RR used derivative UI (the fact he knows that SB knows that he has paused for along time) to pass?

[StevenG]

I think this situation is a clear breach of L73C, whether or not it breaches L16B1.

[lamford]

If I held the North hand and my partner opened 3NT then I think I would be bidding 4 Clubs since presumably it is based on a long solid minor. Has RR used derivative UI (the fact he knows that SB knows that he has paused for along time) to pass?

SB bid 3NT in tempo, so RR did not have any UI. There is no such think as derivative UI in the Laws.

[lamford]

I think this situation is a clear breach of L73C, whether or not it breaches L16B1.

I think "taking any advantage of the UI" must mean that a call is more likely to be successful as a result of it. A simulation opposite a balanced 11 count shows that 3NT is underdog to make, and opposite other hands that might think of bidding, such as the one in the hand above, almost hopeless. A simulation showed that 3NT made less than 1% of the time on the combined hands - give West one of East's major-suit jacks and it fails. It was therefore, if anything, the "ethical" call, lemming-like carefully avoiding taking any advantage of the UI. But he got lucky.

[blackshoe]

I could have sworn I read in the new law book a law that says "The Secretary Bird is not allowed to get lucky." :P

[barmar]

SB bid 3NT in tempo, so RR did not have any UI. There is no such think as derivative UI in the Laws.

I'm pretty sure we've had discussions about second-order UI in the past. And someone else started a thread about it on Bridge Winners last week. The basic idea is that when you know you've transmitted UI to partner, may you take inferences from the knowledge that partner is ethical in dealing with that UI?

[blackshoe]

Some say yes, some say no. No one really has a convincing argument. For myself, knowledge that partner is ethical is presumably knowledge that I had before I sat down to play, so inferences based on that knowledge are authorized per Law 16A1{d}. Note: I don't see where the laws preclude my use of this knowledge. That is, I suppose, one aspect of the disagreement.

[Zelandakh]

Some say yes, some say no. No one really has a convincing argument. For myself, knowledge that partner is ethical is presumably knowledge that I had before I sat down to play, so inferences based on that knowledge are authorized per Law 16A1{d}. Note: I don't see where the laws preclude my use of this knowledge. That is, I suppose, one aspect of the disagreement.

You had knowledge that partner is ethical but not knowledge that (s)he would be bidding particularly conservatively/aggressively on this particular hand, so adjusting your bidding based on that knowledge is, for me, a clear breach of the rules.

[lamford]

If I held the North hand and my partner opened 3NT then I think I would be bidding 4 Clubs passing since presumably it is based on he cannot have a long solid minor.

FYP. Even RR is not bad enough to bid 4♣ here. And even if South did have ♦AKQxxxx, the silent opponents are a giveaway.