[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-June-02, 16:07, said:

No it suggests passing. If you make a very aggressive 5H bid and partner has extras, he may raise expecting more from you. He won't pass out 5C if he was thinking of bidding it last time.

If you aren't careful, you end up explaining why, on this particular hand, partner's slow heart bid suggests bidding but on a different hand (when a different action works) why partner's slow 4H bid suggests doing something else.

I can accept arguments that the slow 4H can suggest different things, but I think the bid chosen still has to be an LA. But we have not yet been able to find a clear pronouncement on that. Do you think if nobody polled selected 5H, it should be allowed?

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-June-02, 16:03, said:

I'm not sure why you consider 5H to be not a logical alternative, just because one player consulted considers it 'incredible'.

No, others, Peter Clinch and Matthew Read thought it was not in the ballpark, but I quoted Neil Rosen as he was the strongest player. I do not think it is certain that partner has a club void - the opponents can have 9 clubs. And partner has bid his club "void" already.

If you think a significant number of people would seriously consider 5H and some would choose it, then it is an LA of course. Perhaps I should put it as a bidding question first.

[FrancesHinden]

I think that if nobody can demonstrate what calls are demonstrably suggested by the slow 4H bid, then any call should be allowed.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-June-02, 16:28, said:

I think that if nobody can demonstrate what calls are demonstrably suggested by the slow 4H bid, then any call should be allowed.

I think that if nobody can demonstrate which LAs could be demonstrably suggested by the slow 4H bid, then any LA should be allowed.

[gnasher]

Lamford said:

I think that if nobody can demonstrate which LAs could be demonstrably suggested by the slow 4H bid, then any LA should be allowed.

When someone with UI chooses an apparently illogical alternative which is suggested by the UI, there are two ways that we might apply law 16B1:
(1) It's allowed, because he hasn't "chosen from amongst logical alternatives"
(2) It's disallowed, because the fact that he chose it makes it a logical alternative.

Paul, you seem to think that there is a third possible interpretation, which is
(3) It's not allowed, because it's not a logical alternative.

But (3) simply isn't what the Law says. Saying that it does makes no more sense than claiming that Law 16 prohibits the eating of mints.

If the Law did, in fact, say (3), it would be almost as silly as banning mints. The purpose of Law 16 is to eliminate the possibility that people gain from receiving UI. For that purpose, it's relevant whether the chosen action is suggested by the UI, but the merit of the action is completely irrelevant.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-June-03, 01:04, said:

Paul, you seem to think that there is a third possible interpretation, which is (3) It's not allowed, because it's not a logical alternative.

I think if a bid "would be impossible to contemplate by peers of the player", whatever that means, it is not carefully avoiding taking advantage of the UI and is disallowed.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2013-June-03, 02:05, said:

I think if a bid "would be impossible to contemplate by peers of the player", whatever that means, it is not carefully avoiding taking advantage of the UI and is disallowed.

And you would believe this even if the player making the call told you he chose it because he was trying to carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-June-03, 07:07, said:

And you would believe this even if the player making the call told you he chose it because he was trying to carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI?

The 6♠ hand that is always used as an example is a case where the player did the above. It is still not appropriate or legal.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-June-03, 02:05, said:

I think if a bid "would be impossible to contemplate by peers of the player", whatever that means, it is not carefully avoiding taking advantage of the UI and is disallowed.

OK, you think that, but why? You've said in the other thread that an impossible bid which stands to gain over the only allowed LAs is illegal. I agree.

Here, however, you seem to be saying that it's illegal to make any impossible bid, even if that bid does not stand to gain over the allowed LAs. Where is the law that says this?

[blackshoe]

He seems to be saying that the relevant law is 73C.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-June-03, 07:25, said:

OK, you think that, but why? You've said in the other thread that an impossible bid which stands to gain over the only allowed LAs is illegal. I agree.

Good. I am glad we agree on that.

gnasher, on 2013-June-03, 07:25, said:

Here, however, you seem to be saying that it's illegal to make any impossible bid, even if that bid does not stand to gain over the allowed LAs. Where is the law that says this?

It was dburn that first suggested that making an impossible bid, because you think that the LAs will do badly, is a breach of 73C. I think the term "taking any advantage" is more onerous on the player than not selecting a call that could be "demonstrably suggested". I think it should be illegal to make an "impossible bid", if there is any chance that it could do better than an LA. "Stand to gain" should not be the criteria. Now, I do not know whether it is illegal to make such a bid; the laws are not precise enough to decide. I think it is up to the TD to decide, in each case, whether such a call is "taking any advantage of the UI". If you backed the toss of a fair coin at 11/10, you could be said to be taking advantage of the offer, but if you backed a fair coin at 10/11, you would not be said to be taking advantage of the offer. So, one could interpret "taking any advantage" as "likely to gain". That is certainly contrary to practice, and the 4S bid in this thread and the 7S bid in the supplementary thread are not "likely to gain".

[mycroft]

Oddly, I might have been influenced by the hand before I saw the bidding, but I thought that the most likely cause for the hesitation was "which major should I bid"? As Frances says, that implies quite strongly 6430 (possibly only three hearts, but not likely - 6340 or 6331 would bid spades again if he was bidding and hope) - over 5(43)1 or 5440 for instance.

What does that mean over 5♣? I don't know. Things could be 20-20; in fact they are. *I* know we're playing in a 30 (as opposed to a 34) point deck, and all our points are working; but that's still 10 and we are talking 1 trick or 2 (depending on whether partner has the void or not). And all our points are likely working on defence as well.

I am pretty certain that 5♣ undoubled is the wrong contract. I'm not sure I know which of the three alternatives is right, but I do know that the UI only makes me more convinced that 5♣ undoubled is wrong.

[wank]

mycroft, on 2013-June-03, 14:12, said:

I am pretty certain that 5♣ undoubled is the wrong contract. I'm not sure I know which of the three alternatives is right, but I do know that the UI only makes me more convinced that 5♣ undoubled is wrong.

assuming what you say is true, that would only imply we should be more ethically influenced towards passing 5c in the pass-out seat. as partner still has a call during the actual auction, the situation's totally different. by passing which imo is by far the best call, we're giving partner the full set of options, beit to push on or double or just sell out.

[richlp]

Vampyr, on 2013-June-01, 17:20, said:

---

Matchpoints. Lead AC. Table Result NS-450

This was an interesting ruling from today's Corwen. NS felt that East's 5H could have been suggested by the UI, but the TD ruled that the result stood. He polled three players who all thought a slow 4H here could be light or heavy, and that East could visualise a club void opposite and had a normal 5H. NS did not find the winning defence of an original diamond lead ducked, so no doubt someone will deny them redress anyway for a serious error, but what about the rest of you?

Posted by lamford in error, using Vampyr's account

While I would probably have bid 5♥, I'm also clearly not of the class of player involved so my opinion on that doesn't count.

However.......

In terms of a ruling on this hand, is it relevant to consider the question of damage? Should a poll be taken to see how many West's would have continued to 5♥ if East had passed 5♣ in tempo? FW(little)IW, I probably would have (what kind of neg X can East have with no club honor that doesn't make 5♥ a good contract and is it fair to assume N/S have 100 honors for bidding to the 5 level?) How many would be needed to do this for a ruling of "no damage" to be warranted?

[aguahombre]

mycroft, on 2013-June-03, 14:12, said:

I'm not sure I know which of the three alternatives is right, but I do know that the UI only makes me more convinced that 5♣ undoubled is wrong.

So, you consider either a double or 5H could demonstrably be suggested by the UI. I agree. We don't have to know whether the UI showed more strength, more distribution, or less of both. All we have to know is that it could suggest something other than us passing ---the standout call with no UI (other thread), and with partner still alive in the auction.

[campboy]

richlp, on 2013-June-03, 18:54, said:

In terms of a ruling on this hand, is it relevant to consider the question of damage? Should a poll be taken to see how many West's would have continued to 5♥ if East had passed 5♣ in tempo? FW(little)IW, I probably would have (what kind of neg X can East have with no club honor that doesn't make 5♥ a good contract and is it fair to assume N/S have 100 honors for bidding to the 5 level?) How many would be needed to do this for a ruling of "no damage" to be warranted?

In the EBU (where this was) and if you thought there had been an infraction (which I don't) you can give a weighted score between 5♥ (presumably still making even on the different auction) and 5♣ based on how likely you think West is to bid on. So you wouldn't rule "no damage" unless you thought bidding on was obvious.

Assuming West was considering passing last round, I don't think a 5♥ bid over 5♣ is very likely.

[mycroft]

The responses to my final paragraph seem to only hear the last line (or misread me to believe that the three alternatives were "pass, double or bid").

Without the UI, I don't know which of the three of 5♥, 5♠, and 5♣x is right. I do know that 5♣ undoubled will be wrong. Does that mean that pass is LA? Only if partner is going to take a call. Is pass forcing? Absolutely not. Can I afford to pass, therefore, telling partner to do something, when he is likely to take the wrong choice? I don't think so. <sarcasm>Of course, I could agonize over the auction and then pass, that should be forcing.</sarcasm>

I only think the UI makes that more emphatic; but unlike many situations I've mentioned here (where "partner still has a call") I don't believe in this case that partner can possibly get it any righter than I can - and I know he can take the "clearly second-best choice". I'm also not sure that the UI does anything to help me guess (i.e. among what I think are LAs, the UI doesn't tell me anything).

I don't see the other thread, don't know if it's a poll or a discussion about the LAs and "what makes an LA". If it's a poll, and the poll says pass, my judgement is wrong - won't be the first time. [Edit: found it. Okay. Unlike Roger, I am not terribly happy with partner passing - it's clearly the second-best result, and I don't know how many pairs are going to be faced with this (so I could be accepting 6/24 rather than gambling 2 vs 16 with any call). But who's the one with all the big wins, and who's the one who "can't play and can't teach"?]

[aguahombre]

Here you are, Mycroft.

Regarding your question about whether passing is a LA, even without the other thread: Any time we have shown at least a responding hand and have shown 4 of a certain suit, and we have that, passing thereafter must be a LA.

Sorry, if I misread --- while agreeing with you --- and assumed your acknowledgement of pass as a LA.

[CSGibson]

For a call to be illegal, it has to be demonstrably suggested by the UI as being more likely to score well than other logical alternatives. I just don't think that's true here. A slow 4H could have been about to pass, about to make a slam try, about to double, about to bid 4S instead, etc. Those actions suggest wildly different things, and to my mind strongly suggest passing the E hand will be the winning action, so I think that any non-pass call rates to score worse on average than pass.

That doesn't mean pass is illegal - I don't see a logical alternative on the E hand, personally - but it does suggest that other actions are not illegal.

[dburn]

lamford, on 2013-June-03, 07:41, said:

It was dburn that first suggested that making an impossible bid, because you think that the LAs will do badly, is a breach of 73C.

It was dburn who observed that a justification for disallowing selection of illogical alternatives (not proscribed by Law 16) could be found in Law 73, and he did so in endorsement of Chip Martel's principle that the call selected by a player in possession of UI should be considered a LA within the meaning of Law 16. After all, if every LA you can think of will lead to a bad result anyway, it is logical to make an absurd call and hope for the best.

An earlier principle stated by dburn is this: the slowness of any call is in direct proportion to the caller's desire that it not be the final call in the auction. West had a prototypical slow 4♥, and East had an obvious 5♥ bid over 5♣ with all working cards. Sophisticated partnerships should consider using East's 5♦ as "last train" in this kind of auction; at least, they should until the just anger of the populace results in the incarceration or execution of people who think that a slow 4♥ doesn't demonstrably suggest anything. Bah.