[barmar]

AlexJonson, on 2012-April-24, 13:07, said:

You seem to imply that forgetting can be forbidden, and therefore it can be automatically penalised. In the EBU we are close to that with fielding misbids, but not quite there.

If a player forgets a specific agreement enough that partner suggests it as a possibility, I think the alternate meaning has implicitly become part of their agreements.

There's another common "forget" case that I'm not sure how to classify, though. If you've made a change to your agreements, you might worry that partner has forgotten the change the first time it comes up. Should the opponents be warned about this possibility?

[AlexJonson]

barmar, on 2012-April-25, 10:40, said:

If a player forgets a specific agreement enough that partner suggests it as a possibility, I think the alternate meaning has implicitly become part of their agreements.

There's another common "forget" case that I'm not sure how to classify, though. If you've made a change to your agreements, you might worry that partner has forgotten the change the first time it comes up. Should the opponents be warned about this possibility?

I think so if partner is inclined to forget. I have told opponents that partner forgets to use check back, makes trial bids less often than most, makes cue bids less often than most.

Why is this any different from telling oppos that partner forgets some transfers and then catering for it at own risk. Where is the CPU. Edit: slightly strayed to a recent similar post. But this case is ver y like it. I'm amazed by the idea that partner should be judiciously slow to double so I know he has remembered our conventional double.

[bluejak]

Some of the earlier posts were concerned with a regulation that is ignored across Australia. When dealing with a UI problem, a regulation that will not apply in practice has no effect, and does not affect the presence or absence of UI.

There is always a slight difficulty in getting one's mind around systems that one is not used to. Here, South is in the position of LHO opening a very weak 1♥ opening and RHO bidding 4♥. I think a lot of people would bid 4♠. After an ODR double, I would think 5♣ sounds like a control with slam interest.

Whether it is in the notes or not, it appears to be an implicit understanding that West forgets his ODR doubles. Not being in the notes, it seems to be a CPU.

East has UI from the quick double: no doubt West might have remembered, but as has been pointed out, a hand with an automatic penalty double is likely to double quickly, and may do so before he remembers his double is not a penalty one. A real ODR double is more likely to be slow. So the UI suggests West is more likely than not to have forgotten again.

When considering adjusting, there was some idea of a slam try. No-one suggested a weighted adjustment - why not?

I would adjust to

.. 15% of 6♥ -1, NS +50
+ 85% of 5♥ =, NS -650

Quote

I'm amazed by the idea that partner should be judiciously slow to double so I know he has remembered our conventional double.

I'm amazed that anyone thinks this has any connection with bridge or this case. If he concentrated enough to know this sort of rubbish, he might actually start remembering his agreements.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2012-April-25, 18:41, said:

When considering adjusting, there was some idea of a slam try. No-one suggested a weighted adjustment - why not?

I would adjust to

.. 15% of 6♥ -1, NS +50
+ 85% of 5♥ =, NS -650

Yep, I actually posted a hand somewhere up there with a "high ODR" that is cold for slam. We don't get to weight adjustments over here, yet; so I didn't bother suggesting a weight. However, if trying to do what you would do, you have to get past the argument that this pair wouldn't bid slam. Why? Because that 4H response suggested no desire and/or no methods to try for slam. It would be difficult to enforce a correction to slam under that condition.

[AlexJonson]

bluejak, on 2012-April-25, 18:41, said:

I'm amazed that anyone thinks this has any connection with bridge or this case. If he concentrated enough to know this sort of rubbish, he might actually start remembering his agreements.

My post started with a quote from Barmar and was addressed to that thread of discussion and not the ruling.

The bbo software doesn't allow threading, but it is normal for slightly separate discussions to form in a series of posts.

You are of course free to comment on whatever you choose in your usual unpleasant, selectively quoting and inconsistent fashion.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2012-April-25, 18:41, said:

When considering adjusting, there was some idea of a slam try. No-one suggested a weighted adjustment - why not?

Because it would be inappropriate.

A weighted result might be correct if East or West had a decision to make at some point in the auction. East's actions are constrained by the UI, and I can't think of an auction where he would have more than one legal option. West will decline any slam try, so we shouldn't award any proportion of a sequence where West bids slam or cooperates.

For example, suppose that we think East's logical alternatives are:
- Pass
- Bid 5♥
- Cue-bid 5♣ then pass 5♥
- Drive to slam.
The first three are suggested over the last one by the UI, and are therefore illegal. Hence we should give EW 100% of 6♥ -1.

Or suppose that we think that driving slam is not an LA, so his LAs are:
- Pass
- Bid 5♥
- Cue-bid 5♣ then pass 5♥
The first two are suggested over the third one by the UI, so East is obliged to cue-bid, but West will sign off. Hence we should give EW 100% of 5♥=.

Quote

I would adjust to

.. 15% of 6♥ -1, NS +50
+ 85% of 5♥ =, NS -650

You cannot do that unless there is a credible legal sequence to each contract. When you decided on this adjustment, what sequences did you have in mind?

[Edited to improve wording of second paragraph.]

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-April-26, 10:43

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on 2012-April-26, 02:49, said:

Because it would be inappropriate.

A weighted result might be correct if East or West had a decision to make at some point in the auction. East's actions are constrained by the UI, and I can't think of an auction where he would have more than one legal option. West will decline any slam try, so we shouldn't award any proportion of a sequence where West bids slam or cooperates.

For example, suppose that we think East's logical alternatives are:
- Pass
- Bid 5♥
- Cue-bid 5♣ then pass 5♥
- Drive to slam.
The first three are suggested over the last one by the UI, and are therefore illegal. Hence we should give EW 100% of 6♥ -1.

You could rule that Pass is strongly suggested over all the others, and that the suggestion of one of the other actions over the remainder is minor to non existent, then I think you could weight.

Partner would certainly make this double as a penalty double with AQ8x, Kxxx, xxx, Kx but this wouldn't stop you making 6 even if the spade lead got ruffed for example so a penalty double might not be an indication that a slam doesn't make.

[bluejak]

AlexJonson, on 2012-April-26, 01:22, said:

My post started with a quote from Barmar and was addressed to that thread of discussion and not the ruling.

The bbo software doesn't allow threading, but it is normal for slightly separate discussions to form in a series of posts.

You are of course free to comment on whatever you choose in your usual unpleasant, selectively quoting and inconsistent fashion.

As do you, of course.

I still think that my comment was valid. If your comment was based on some other thread completely then why not post to that thread? My comment was based on the idea, which seems reasonable to me, that your comment was related to this thread.

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-April-26, 10:19, said:

You could rule that Pass is strongly suggested over all the others, and that the suggestion of one of the other actions over the remainder is minor to non existent

You could only rule that way if you actually believed it to be true. Do you really believe that?

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on 2012-April-27, 01:14, said:

You could only rule that way if you actually believed it to be true. Do you really believe that?

Not exactly, but I'm wondering how much something has to be suggested for it to be important.

If I felt the slow X suggested:

Pass was 85% likely to be right
5♥ was 10% likely to be right
5♣ and pass 5♥ was 4% likely to be right
Drive to slam was 1% likely to be right

Where the odds without the UI were

Pass 10%
5♥ 40%
5♣ and pass 5♥45%
Drive to slam 5%

I would rule that in fact the vast majority of the time all that has happened is that pass has replaced some means of getting to 5♥ so would probably just rule the simple adjustment to 5♥, but if the last set of figures were:

Pass 10%
5♥ 35%
5♣ and pass 5♥40%
Drive to slam 15%

I might consider an 85:15 5♥/6♥ split, it's too harsh to give the whole score for a 15% action.

[gnasher]

Lets' assume it's IMPs. For a vulnerable slam to be good, it needs to be 38% or better. If, without the UI, most Easts would consider that slam has a 15% chance of succeeding, it's not an LA, so we'd give East 100% of 5♥=.

I think what you might be suggesting is a scenario like this:
With UI, we expect 6♥ to make 37% of the time
Without UI, we expect 6♥ to make 39% of the time

These would be estimates, obviously. If we think the slam odds are in that zone, some players will be more optimistic, so bidding slam is an LA.
If this difference in expectations is demonstrable, the conditions of Law 16B1a are met, so bidding slam is required by law, and we give East 100% of 6♥-1.
If the difference in expectations is not demonstrable, the conditions of Law 16B1a are not met, so East's actions are unconstrained. Then we would give a weighted score.

I think that the difference in slam expectations between the auction with UI and the auction without UI is rather larger than that, so I think it will always be demonstrable. Therefore I think a weighted score will never be appropriate.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-April-27, 07:33

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on 2012-April-27, 06:58, said:

Lets' assume it's IMPs. For a vulnerable slam to be good, it needs to be 38% or better.

Sorry am I missing something, 1430 vs 680 = 750, -100 vs 650 = 750 so why 38% ? Looks like 13/-13 or 50%.

Quote

If, without the UI, most Easts would consider that slam has a 15% chance of succeeding, it's not an LA, so we'd give East 100% of 5♥=.

Not necessarily true, it will succeed more than 15% of the time as in some cases you'd bid 5♣ and partner would bid 6. But if I think it's the right action 15% of the time, 25% of people might consider taking it and 15% take it, that's enough for it to be a LA IIRC.

Quote

I think what you might be suggesting is a scenario like this:
With UI, we expect 6♥ to make 37% of the time
Without UI, we expect 6♥ to make 39% of the time

These would be estimates, obviously. If we think the slam odds are in that zone, some players will be more optimistic, so bidding slam is an LA.
If this difference in expectations is demonstrable, the conditions of Law 16B1a are met, so bidding slam is required by law, and we give East 100% of 6♥-1.
If the difference in expectations is not demonstrable, the conditions of Law 16B1a are not met, so East's actions are unconstrained. Then we would give a weighted score.

I think that the difference in slam expectations between the auction with UI and the auction without UI is rather larger than that, so I think it will always be demonstrable. Therefore I think a weighted score will never be appropriate.

A better example would be where the odds of 5♥, 5♣ and drive to slam stay approximately in proportion, but pass changes wildly.

so Pass 70, 5♥ 15, 5♣ 10, 6♥ 5 goes to Pass 10, 5♥ 45, 5♣ 30, 6♥ 15. Basically the suggestion of pass is very strong, but among the others, it doesn't disproportionately discriminate between the options.

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-April-27, 08:12, said:

Sorry am I missing something, 1430 vs 680 = 750, -100 vs 650 = 750 so why 38% ? Looks like 13/-13 or 50%.

Sorry, yes, I must be going mad. Even though I knew we were talking about bidding slam, for some reason I had the odds for game fixed in my mind.

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-April-27, 08:12, said:

A better example would be where the odds of 5♥, 5♣ and drive to slam stay approximately in proportion, but pass changes wildly.

so Pass 70, 5♥ 15, 5♣ 10, 6♥ 5 goes to Pass 10, 5♥ 45, 5♣ 30, 6♥ 15. Basically the suggestion of pass is very strong, but among the others, it doesn't disproportionately discriminate between the options.

In that example, bidding 6♥ is not an LA. If you think that bidding 6♥ has a 15% chance, how many people will think that bidding 6♥ has a 50% chance?

Cue-bidding 5♣ might be an LA, but so what? Partner will sign off in 5♥, so bidding 5♣ is equivalent to bidding 5♥.

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on 2012-April-27, 09:46, said:

In that example, bidding 6♥ is not an LA. If you think that bidding 6♥ has a 15% chance, how many people will think that bidding 6♥ has a 50% chance?

Cue-bidding 5♣ might be an LA, but so what? Partner will sign off in 5♥, so bidding 5♣ is equivalent to bidding 5♥.

You misunderstand what I'm saying, I'm not saying 6♥ has a 15% chance, I'm saying I (hypothetically) assess that there's a 15% chance of it being the best bid. This means in practice that 15% of the time I will bid 5♣, partner will bid 5♥ and we'll make 6. If partner would accept the invite anyway, I'd rather make the invite as there will be more hands where partner will correctly decline.

There may well be a decent chance that 6 makes.

Again for a LA I believe 20% of people have to consider the bid and a few make it, which is not a high threshold.

[AlexJonson]

bluejak, on 2012-April-26, 17:27, said:

I still think that my comment was valid. If your comment was based on some other thread completely then why not post to that thread? My comment was based on the idea, which seems reasonable to me, that your comment was related to this thread.

This thread is coming to a natural end so..

1. You have misunderstood my point about threads/sub-threads. Maybe I expressed it badly.

2. I didn't comment on the OP because there is little to go on and a common view had emerged.

As it happens I disagree with the common view.

a) If I had the opening agreement in the OP with the handy high ODB follow up, I would never forget or need any time to bid it.

b) If I were East, a moderate player maybe, why should I not go for penalty with three aces, Why am I accused of something or required to try for completely stupid slams (imo of course).