[lamford]

---

Matchpoints; Table scores: all different.

The TD was called three times at different points in the evening on this hand from a North London club last night, and, as a playing director, he recused himself from playing the hand. At many tables East had bid 4S at his first turn, but the three TD calls all featured an auction much as above, with one North bidding 2NT to show a mixed raise instead. All had a BIT by West as shown.

At table 1, East bid 4S which NS allowed to go undoubled, and declarer lost the obvious 4 tricks for a good score for EW. South called the TD claiming that 4S was based on UI, as East knew from the BIT that his partner did not have KQxxx Qx Qxx Jxx or the like, when 4S would go for 800. East claimed that he was always going to 4S, but did not want to jump before he was pushed, which is why he had not bid it on the previous round.

At table 2, East doubled, and West decided to defend. Declarer misguessed the queen of diamonds expecting East to have it for his double and went one off for a huge score to EW. South called the TD claiming that double was based on UI, as East knew from the BIT that his partner had extra values and he had an ace. The fifth trump was a particular reason not to double. East argued that they played double here as "do something sensible" and that his partner could still save if it was right.

At table 3, East passed, and again declarer misguessed the queen of diamonds expecting spades to be 6-4 for West's tank and East's pass. He also thought West would not be thinking with Qx(x) of diamonds. +100 was a good score for EW. Again South called the director claiming that Pass was based on UI, as East had a normal 4S at these colours, and that he passed because he thought partner had extra values and might well have been considering doubling 4H. South claimed the risk of 4S being a phantom had gone up because of the BIT, and that Pass should be disallowed.

How would you have ruled in all three cases?

[weejonnie]

What is indicated by west's pause? Extra defence? Extra offence? Sacrifice? Penalise?

I would say that the one bid not allowed would be a double, as that allows West to bid based on the exact extra he has indicated. I suppose it could be described as a co-operative double. "I know you have extras and am willing to go along with what your extras show."

So: allow the pass (hand 3), allow 4 Spades (hand 1)

As for hand 2: Lets see the convention card and do a poll, but I am minded to play the contract in 4 Hearts or 4 Spades. Since east doesn't double south is more likely to place QD so we can weight the scores in favour of NS in terms of the 4H contract.

So

4S - 1 : 10%
4S* -1 : 20%
4H - 1 : 20%
4H Make: 50%

[lamford]

 weejonnie, on 2014-December-02, 10:49, said:

So: allow the pass (hand 3), allow 4 Spades (hand 1)

You therefore think that neither of those are demonstrably suggested over the other by the BIT? That seems unlikely.

[weejonnie]

 lamford, on 2014-December-02, 12:44, said:

You therefore think that neither of those are demonstrably suggested over the other by the BIT? That seems unlikely.

Obviously not - since one player chose to pass and one player chose to bid. The call that is demonstrably suggested by the BIT is double. Both South's have made suggestions as to what West's pause may be. Since both suggestions are equal in merit (but made after the hand and so are self-serving), it is therefore impossible to decide what west has shown. The bid you cannot make, therefore, is a flexible bid to find out. You must come down on one side of the fence or the other.

[lamford]

 weejonnie, on 2014-December-02, 13:18, said:

Obviously not - since one player chose to pass and one player chose to bid.

That just shows that both are logical alternatives, and one does not normally use the bids chosen in any poll; it does not show what is suggested. On your method, double would not be demonstrably suggested either as one player chose to do that. I think we have to poll 10 players and ask their opinion on what the BIT suggests, as all three complainants made valid points.

I have seen before the argument that double is often the most flexible bid in similar situations and therefore is demonstrably suggested as it caters for whatever partner might have. That is also an argument for double when you do not have UI, so I am unconvinced.

[campboy]

 lamford, on 2014-December-03, 03:49, said:

I have seen before the argument that double is often the most flexible bid in similar situations and therefore is demonstrably suggested as it caters for whatever partner might have. That is also an argument for double when you do not have UI, so I am unconvinced.

Well the point is it caters for whatever partner might have except the rubbish hands where 4♥ is making and 4♠ is a bad save. Since partner won't have that sort of hand once he hesitates, double is suggested over either alternative IMO.

[lamford]

 campboy, on 2014-December-03, 04:01, said:

Well the point is it caters for whatever partner might have except the rubbish hands where 4♥ is making and 4♠ is a bad save. Since partner won't have that sort of hand once he hesitates, double is suggested over either alternative IMO.

You could argue that 4♠ is demonstrably suggested because you know from the BIT that it cannot be a bad save, and Pass is demonstrably suggested because you know from the BIT that you are more likely to beat 4♥ as partner does not have a rubbish hand and there is an increased chance of both drifting one off.

Opposite some of my partners, double as "do something sensible" is guaranteed to get a bad result, so may be demonstrably unsuggested.

[campboy]

 lamford, on 2014-December-03, 04:19, said:

You could argue that 4♠ is demonstrably suggested because you know from the BIT that it cannot be a bad save, and Pass is demonstrably suggested because you know from the BIT that you are more likely to beat 4♥ as partner does not have a rubbish hand and there is an increased chance of both drifting one off.

Suggested* over what? If deciding between 4♠ and double, then it's not being a bad save that's the issue, but being a phantom, and the UI makes that more likely. If deciding between pass and double, then obviously the fact that you are more likely to beat 4♥ is not an argument for passing. So I do not think there is any reasonable argument for either 4♠ or pass to be suggested* over double.

Whether 4♠ is suggested* over pass, pass is suggested* over 4♠, or neither is less clear. My view is that 4♠ is suggested* over pass. I don't think partner's hesitation marks him with any more defensive strength than he has shown, as he may just have more distribution, so I don't buy the counterargument. But then I have no idea why three different players felt the need to hesitate with that hand, so what do I know?

Even if 4♠ is suggested* over pass, it is not clear that pass is an LA (the fact that East at table 3 passed, perhaps because he felt constrained by UI, does not automatically mean we should consider it an LA when ruling at the other tables).

*demonstrably

[lamford]

 campboy, on 2014-December-03, 05:07, said:

Suggested* over what? If deciding between 4♠ and double, then it's not being a bad save that's the issue, but being a phantom, and the UI makes that more likely. If deciding between pass and double, then obviously the fact that you are more likely to beat 4♥ is not an argument for passing. So I do not think there is any reasonable argument for either 4♠ or pass to be suggested* over double.

Whether 4♠ is suggested* over pass, pass is suggested* over 4♠, or neither is less clear. My view is that 4♠ is suggested* over pass. I don't think partner's hesitation marks him with any more defensive strength than he has shown, as he may just have more distribution, so I don't buy the counterargument. But then I have no idea why three different players felt the need to hesitate with that hand, so what do I know?

Even if 4♠ is suggested* over pass, it is not clear that pass is an LA (the fact that East at table 3 passed, perhaps because he felt constrained by UI, does not automatically mean we should consider it an LA when ruling at the other tables).

*demonstrably

The (probably wrong) wording of 16B is "demonstrably suggested over another", not over all others. So, if there are n LAs, and each one is suggested over any one of the other n-1 LAs, then the player has to breach 16B or have the board taken away and get fined for slow play.

I think we have to poll to establish LAs. I tend to agree that 4S is suggested over Pass, primarily because it can never be -800 after the BIT. But you could argue that Pass is suggested over 4S, because the odds have gone up that 4S is a phantom. Double is more complicated; I think it is bad with the fifth trump, but is it demonstrably suggested? I would have bid 4S on the previous round, which also has the small risk of being too expensive, but I had no UI then.

[campboy]

 lamford, on 2014-December-03, 05:29, said:

The(probably wrong) wording of 16B is "demonstrably suggested over another", not over all others. So, if there are n LAs, and each one is suggested over any one of the other n-1 LAs, then the player has to breach 16B or have the board taken away and get fined for slow play.

Yes, I know. But I think such a situation is impossible. A reasonable interpretation of "A is demonstrably suggested over B by the UI" is "the expected benefit from choosing A rather than B has significantly increased as a result of the UI". Then this is obviously asymmetric and transitive.

So the TD should allow at least one LA as not demonstrably suggested over any of the others (I would allow pass, and also 4♠ if I felt pass was not an LA). It is true that different TDs might allow different actions, but that sort of thing is always going to be possible when the ruling depends on the TD's judgement.

[lamford]

 campboy, on 2014-December-03, 05:44, said:

Yes, I know. But I think such a situation is impossible. A reasonable interpretation of "A is demonstrably suggested over B by the UI" is "the expected benefit from choosing A rather than B has significantly increased as a result of the UI". Then this is obviously asymmetric and transitive.

I don't think that follows at all. In comparing A and B, B and C, C and A, the UI might well suggest different things for each comparison, so there is no reason whatsoever why A, B and C should not "win". For an extreme case, let us say that there are 10 LAs, which is the effective maximum. It must be very likely that in one of the 9 comparisons for each LA, there would exist another LA over which it was demonstrably suggested. The player is then unable to make a legal call.

Something else concerns me about LAs. If someone selects the LA which is a big majority choice - say 4S in the above example which people polled last night picked, they will still be ruled against if their choice is demonstrably suggested over any of the other LAs. That cannot be right. I think the majority choice should always be allowed or at least one that is picked by 70% of those polled. That used to be the test of course, but some bright spark changed it.

[blackshoe]

 lamford, on 2014-December-03, 03:49, said:

That just shows that both are logical alternatives, and one does not normally use the bids chosen in any poll; it does not show what is suggested. On your method, double would not be demonstrably suggested either as one player chose to do that. I think we have to poll 10 players and ask their opinion on what the BIT suggests, as all three complainants made valid points.

I have seen before the argument that double is often the most flexible bid in similar situations and therefore is demonstrably suggested as it caters for whatever partner might have. That is also an argument for double when you do not have UI, so I am unconvinced.

"… could demonstrably have been suggested…" Can we demonstrate how double could have been suggested? Sure — you just did. The fact that you could argue that the auction (without the BIT) suggests the same thing doesn't matter. Or are you arguing that the UI does not suggest that double might be better than (an)other call(s)? I might by that, but then what could the UI demonstrably suggest?

[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2014-December-03, 09:29, said:

"… could demonstrably have been suggested…" Can we demonstrate how double could have been suggested? Sure — you just did. The fact that you could argue that the auction (without the BIT) suggests the same thing doesn't matter. Or are you arguing that the UI does not suggest that double might be better than (an)other call(s)? I might by that, but then what could the UI demonstrably suggest?

The problem is that the UI could demonstrably suggest all of double, pass or 4S. All the Souths submitted cogent arguments as to why the UI did suggest each of those, so it would seem logical to assume the UI could suggest any of the three. I had forgotten about the "could" on which you often correct me, but all that does is to have the effect of widening the number of LAs which could be demonstrably suggested. I think, in practice, TDs and ACs ignore the could, which otherwise makes the Law unworkable and they disallow LAs that are demonstrably suggested.

[blackshoe]

There is also "(suggested) over another LA" (my emphasis and paraphrasing). It seems to me double could be suggested over the other calls, but could one of the others be suggested over the third? If so, I think we have to pick the third, if not, either should be acceptable.

"TDs and ACs ignore the could".

I think "unworkable" is an overbid. IAC, TDs and ACs should not act like Humpty Dumpty. If TDs and ACs think the law is unworkable because of the word "could", they should lobby their NBO for an official interpretation that lets them do what they want legally.

I'm told that I'm too literal minded, but I don't know what to make of "the director is bound by these laws" other than that he must rule according to what they say, not what he would like them to say.

[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2014-December-03, 10:29, said:

If TDs and ACs think the law is unworkable because of the word "could", they should lobby their NBO for an official interpretation that lets them do what they want legally

Many of the Laws have rather quaint and arcane expressions, and I think TDs and ACs leave improvements to people that write to Grattan when he asks for suggestions about every seven years.