[akwoo]

Auction, with opponents silent, goes 1C-1H-2H-3N, with 3N slow (and a suggestion to play there). Is a pull to 4H demonstrably suggested? (I think this should not depend on opener's hand? Of course whether it is a logical alternative does.) If it depends on agreements about 2H, assume it's almost always at least 4.

[Cyberyeti]

No it isn't, could be decision between 2N/3N presuming 2N is nat inv. If your arrangements are that 4N is quant here, could also be decision between 3N/4N.

I don't know whether the knowledge that partner might be at the weaker end for 3N suggests 4♥ might be safer

[shyams]

Matchpoint scoring?

[axman]

akwoo, on 2023-July-12, 21:16, said:

Auction, with opponents silent, goes 1C-1H-2H-3N, with 3N slow (and a suggestion to play there). Is a pull to 4H demonstrably suggested? (I think this should not depend on opener's hand? Of course whether it is a logical alternative does.) If it depends on agreements about 2H, assume it's almost always at least 4.

To devise an expectation of possible inferences and likely inferences needs things such as method of the players, normal mannerisms and 'precisely' the deviation (slow is meaningless), the skill at bidding (strong bidders strive for the edge of declarer's skill; weak aren't aware of such distinctions), the skill at dummy of the players, and meta agreements where system is vague. what are ranges of starting hands and responding hands and .....

[mycroft]

A slow "choice of games" bid...means there was another choice. Like the Yeti says, it could be "invite? (*) slam invite? (**)" as well as "show double fit?" and "maybe I shouldn't offer the choice?" (or with some pairs, "partner tells me I have to offer the choice, but it never seems to work out").

It also could be "remembering my system" for any of the above, and ending up at 3NT as "closest to what I want to bid".

But still, a slow "choice of games" bid - is a "choice of games" bid. If you have the hand where 4♥ will be better, do that. With a 3433 14-count...

(*) What's the chance 2♥ is on 3 and ♠xx? And also, is 2NT a forcing inquiry (so they don't have a "invite, to either game" call)?
(**) Is 4NT RKC? Do they play kickback - and will partner remember kickback?

[steve2005]

You still have to play Bridge.
Responder just bids there hand as to its opinion between 3N and 4♥

[pescetom]

steve2005, on 2023-July-13, 12:00, said:

You still have to play Bridge.
Responder just bids there hand as to its opinion between 3N and 4♥

To play bridge Responder also has to obey Law 16, which may require formulating (correctly in the eyes of peers) "an opinion" about which of the two is more suggested by the BIT, and then choosing the other one.

I like mycroft's list of possible explanations (in particular "partner tells me", although that can hardly be without other forms of UI) but as a pollee I'm going to hang them with "pull" unless agreements really suggest otherwise.

[akwoo]

mycroft, on 2023-July-13, 09:11, said:

A slow "choice of games" bid...means there was another choice. Like the Yeti says, it could be "invite? (*) slam invite? (**)" as well as "show double fit?" and "maybe I shouldn't offer the choice?" (or with some pairs, "partner tells me I have to offer the choice, but it never seems to work out").

It also could be "remembering my system" for any of the above, and ending up at 3NT as "closest to what I want to bid".

But still, a slow "choice of games" bid - is a "choice of games" bid. If you have the hand where 4♥ will be better, do that. With a 3433 14-count...

(*) What's the chance 2♥ is on 3 and ♠xx? And also, is 2NT a forcing inquiry (so they don't have a "invite, to either game" call)?
(**) Is 4NT RKC? Do they play kickback - and will partner remember kickback?

Let's set some parameters:

Infrequent partnership.

2♥ will be bid on 3 only with 1=3=4=5 hands - 2=3=3=5 hands will be rebid 1N.

Responder's choices after 2♥ are: 2N/3♥ invites (the first suggesting notrump as a possible denomination), 2♠/3♣/3♦ help suit tries, 3N choice of games, 4♥ setting the contract, 3♠/4♣/4♦ splinters, 4N RKCB.

[sanst]

akwoo, on 2023-July-13, 15:11, said:

Responder's choices after 2♥ are: 2N/3♥ invites (the first suggesting notrump as a possible denomination), 2♠/3♣/3♦ help suit tries, 3N choice of games, 4♥ setting the contract, 3♠/4♣/4♦ splinters, 4N RKCB.

Given this information I would think that, although the hesitation conveys UI, there’s no bid that’s demonstrably suggested.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2023-July-13, 12:58, said:

To play bridge Responder also has to obey Law 16, which may require formulating (correctly in the eyes of peers) "an opinion" about which of the two is more suggested by the BIT, and then choosing the other one.

I've long maintained that Law 16 is for TDs, not players; players should obey Law 73 (try to avoid taking advantage of the UI). It's not really feasible for a player to determine what their peers would consider and do (they obviously can't conduct a poll), especially given the time constraints at the table.

So you try to avoid taking advantage, but otherwise "just play bridge", then the TD uses Law 16 to decide if you achieved it.

[axman]

barmar, on 2023-July-14, 08:22, said:

... players should obey Law 73 (try to avoid taking advantage of the UI). It's not really feasible for a player to determine what their peers would consider and do (they obviously can't conduct a poll), especially given the time constraints at the table.

So you try to avoid taking advantage, but otherwise "just play bridge", then the TD uses Law 16 to decide if you achieved it.

Well. Yes. Players ought to satisfy 73. Just as your assessment that 'It's not really feasible for a player to determine what their peers would consider and do' reeks of truth. Yet it is insufficient reason for players to fail to satisfy 16B1a which demands that the player must satisfy it. Why does the law demand the impossible? and having done so exact heavy penalties when players fail... as well as most of the time when they succeed? After all, words on paper that do not work can be ripped up and even replaced with words that do.

barmar, on 2023-July-14, 08:22, said:

I've long maintained that Law 16 is for TDs, not players;

As alluded above, 16 is to be satisfied (by players and directors) and 16 instructs the player to satisfy it.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2023-July-14, 08:22, said:

I've long maintained that Law 16 is for TDs, not players; players should obey Law 73 (try to avoid taking advantage of the UI). It's not really feasible for a player to determine what their peers would consider and do (they obviously can't conduct a poll), especially given the time constraints at the table.

So you try to avoid taking advantage, but otherwise "just play bridge", then the TD uses Law 16 to decide if you achieved it.

I don't think that really holds water. Sure, Law 16 sets the bar higher than Law 73 (which is mere common sense and what a player would expect without studying the Laws, except for the subdolous footnote "but see 16B") but it can hardly be the lawmakers' intention that a player decides on the basis of 73 and is then judged by TD on the basis of 16. Often the "just play bridge" choice and the "LA more suggested by UI" will coincide but still be in violation of Law 16 (and considered a severe infraction too). It seems clear to me that the player has a duty to obey both laws (the footnote makes it clear if general principles are not enough).

Which of course begs the question of why Law 73 remains on the books after the insertion of the more stringent Law 16: I imagine because it establishes a more general principle and applies to all possible actions of the player, not just to LAs, and that is still useful although not sufficient for practical directing (hence 16B).

I don't share your doubts about the practicality of respecting Law 16: if I am a logical player of a certain level then LAs coincide with what I would seriously consider on the basis of AI, peers are just an objective and non-judgemental way to reality check. What's difficult about this law for players is that it is not what they expect (without specific education) and can seem contorted and unduly restrictive.

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2023-July-14, 10:49, said:

Which of course begs the question of why Law 73 remains on the books after the insertion of the more stringent Law 16

The Laws need a complete rewrite. I doubt they'll ever get it -- the Drafting Committees have been extremely reluctant to go that far.

[akwoo]

pescetom, on 2023-July-14, 10:49, said:

I don't share your doubts about the practicality of respecting Law 16: if I am a logical player of a certain level then LAs coincide with what I would seriously consider on the basis of AI, peers are just an objective and non-judgemental way to reality check. What's difficult about this law for players is that it is not what they expect (without specific education) and can seem contorted and unduly restrictive.

One of the difficulties of Law 16 is "of a certain level". In the recent thread by mycroft where he had to make a ruling on me - he faced a serious challenge. (Like I said on that thread, I knew I had done something questionable and wasn't going to question any poll.) I have about 500 masterpoints, but I have won a limited national championship competing against players of up to 2500 masterpoints, and I was playing a system (which in this case was somewhat but not completely relevant to the problem) almost anyone with fewer than 3000 masterpoints considers too complicated for them. (Probably it's too complicated for us, but I enjoy playing it, screwups included.) What the hell is my level exactly? Who are my peers?

I wasn't the hardest person in the room - there was a 15 year old (*) with around half my masterpoints who I think is better than me, and a 15 year old (*) with slightly more than my masterpoints who is way better than me. Unfortunately, because of their inexperience, they have a tendency to take certain bad actions that almost no players of their general caliber would ever take, and there are other decisions that they tend to do better on to make up for the bad ones.

(*) I might be off by a year or two, but they're both in high school.

[pescetom]

akwoo, on 2023-July-14, 22:31, said:

One of the difficulties of Law 16 is "of a certain level". In the recent thread by mycroft where he had to make a ruling on me - he faced a serious challenge. (Like I said on that thread, I knew I had done something questionable and wasn't going to question any poll.) I have about 500 masterpoints, but I have won a limited national championship competing against players of up to 2500 masterpoints, and I was playing a system (which in this case was somewhat but not completely relevant to the problem) almost anyone with fewer than 3000 masterpoints considers too complicated for them. (Probably it's too complicated for us, but I enjoy playing it, screwups included.) What the hell is my level exactly? Who are my peers?

I wasn't the hardest person in the room - there was a 15 year old (*) with around half my masterpoints who I think is better than me, and a 15 year old (*) with slightly more than my masterpoints who is way better than me. Unfortunately, because of their inexperience, they have a tendency to take certain bad actions that almost no players of their general caliber would ever take, and there are other decisions that they tend to do better on to make up for the bad ones.

(*) I might be off by a year or two, but they're both in high school.

Fair enough, but those are more issues for TDs than for the players. A player "just" has to choose the logical alternative that smells least of cheese, operating the mouse trap is the TD's problem. People your level don't deserve much room for playing a system too complicated for one or both, having brilliant but erratic beginners is a rare and happy problem.

[sanst]

blackshoe, on 2023-July-14, 14:58, said:

The Laws need a complete rewrite. I doubt they'll ever get it -- the Drafting Committees have been extremely reluctant to go that far.

Like many other Laws these are the result of years - in the case of duplicate bridge 95 years - of evolution both of the game, the way it’s played and the opinions about infractions and how to handle these. Even if you rewrite the current Laws, the evolution won’t stop and within a decennium there will be points that need clarification, that need to be changed or added. Again a rewrite is called for and in the meantime there would have been hundreds of remarks on fora like this about the inadequacy of the Laws…
A not so minor point is the available woman and manpower. A rewrite is an enormous amount of work, will need lots of meetings - online and offline - and it has to be done by unpaid volunteers. I don’t think the WBF will or even can provide the money to get professional lawyers, who should know enough of the game and directing it, to do the job, which is more than to provide a new set of Laws, but also to keep these up-to-date.
Instead of always making remarks about the inadequacy of the current Laws, it’s my opinion that the lawmakers did a pretty decent job, given the restrictions they have to cope with. They all do it as good as they can for the benefit of the game, the players and the directors and organizers and I think some gratitude is called for these people who do this voluntarily. And they’re open to suggestions.
The deadline for suggestions for the 2027 edition of the Laws was the end of last month. An overview of these can be found at https://2027laws.canny.io/suggestions. Law 23 is not surprisingly mentioned more than once .

[axman]

sanst, on 2023-July-16, 02:13, said:

A not so minor point is the available woman and manpower.

In my early days I acquired a copy of Hardy and of Lawrence. I came to the conclusion that for 2/1 to be its most useful it was important that it be utilized as written because the author was aware of how the pieces made the whole. Which is a way of describing that what a committee produces has fatal defects. In America think the Articles of Confederation which nearly got the lot of us enslaved/killed. On the other hand the handiwork of Madison in his single handed distillation of the rag tag 1789 ratification signing statements coordinated the ideas known as the Bill of Rights into a reasonably coherent and robust framework of liberty that history proved is necessary against weak kneed men.

[blackshoe]

Joost, you paint me poorly here. I'll not thank you for that.

[mycroft]

Heh, akwoo, I am reminded of a ruling from the last Toronto NABC (one of my colleagues took it and tells the story, I've just heard it secondhand).

There's a ruling in the Regional Open Pairs where there was a hesitation by partner and a double. After getting all of the information, my colleague goes to the DIC of the event, Gary Zeiger. (I mention the name, because those of you who knew him will get more out of the punchline. Gary was - a treasure(*).) They work through it and basically it's a "well, you know, it's probably the right call, but double after a hesitation is always suggested because partner can do what they wanted to do. But still" hand. Plus the players who called were basically being jerks about it, trying to push around the much younger (therefore newer, therefore maybe push-aroundable) players.

At the end of the discussion, Zeiger says, with that Zeiger smile, "well, you'll have to poll it. Luckily, we have a whole room of peers to this pair; the Junior NABC is downstairs. Take it down there and see." Sure enough, "No LA to double, score stands."(**)

(*) Sometimes Smaug's...
(**) Somewhere I read "I was in 4♦xx making. I went to look at the card, when RHO called the score. Trust a junior to know that one off the top of their head."

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2023-July-16, 10:48, said:

(**) Somewhere I read "I was in 4♦xx making. I went to look at the card, when RHO called the score. Trust a junior to know that one off the top of their head."

At the national tournament in Turin last year I walked the dog making 5♦xx against a top junior pair. They were fuming but knew the score.