[mikeh]

DaveB, on 2015-April-29, 13:08, said:

Well in my opinion South has a totally obvious pass over a competitive 5♠ bid
as North will have only 3 card support on the vast majority of occasions.
Equally he has a totally obvious 6♦ bid over an invitational or forcing 5♠ bid.

In what was a highly unusual auction which was unlikely to be tempo sensitive (even if that was not how it turned out)
and with potentially large number of imps resting on getting it right it appears highly likely
that South would consider carefully the meaning of 5♠.

I gave the auction to a partner of mine and his unprompted reaction was "What the hell is 5♠!"

You have allowed your belief in S's pure motives to influence your views. What S was thinking is irrelevant, and this notion that it is important causes all kinds of ill-will (there can be exceptions to this statement...if S was thinking over an explanation of a conventional call by the opps, for example, or if someone had spilled their drink all over his cards, but his hand-related thinking is irrelevant).

The only issue is whether the BIT would logically suggest that S was thinking about bidding slam. It matters not if there are other innocent explanations...maybe, unknown to N, S had been reading a newspaper waiting for the bidding tray to come back (assuming screens) or some other completely innocuous matter.

If there was a BIT, that ends the concern with the behaviour or reasoning of that player. We shift now to an objective view of what effect that BIT is probably going to have on N. There is no plausible reason for thinking that N would not at least contemplate that the BIT had arisen from S thinking, for whatever reason, of bidding on. Once we accept that...and I stress we do not need to find that this was the ONLY inference that could be drawn, then N cannot choose to bid if there is a LA that is not, itself, also made more attractive by the BIT. No way could the BIT make passing more attractive than bidding, therefore bidding is not permitted.

It also makes no sense for a TD to listen to claims that N wasn't sure that pass would be forcing. It is just too convenient an explanation. At best the TD could poll players he thinks to be of equivalent status to see whether this is plausible, but he cannot make that ruling based solely on the assertions of the players. TDs are NEVER to get involved in making rulings based on having to make credibility findings about the players' honesty in situations of this nature.

If that poll persuaded the TD that N wouldn't know if the pass were forcing, then and only then could the TD decide whether N's real choices lay between defending, doubled or undoubled, or bidding slam. Only then, in my view, would it be reasonable to compare the merits of bidding as opposed to defending...and then it is possible to conclude that in the absence of the BIT, passing was simply not a LA, for the risk/reward factors outlined before.

Btw, my sense is that you were one of N-S. Am I correct?

[DaveB]

Rumbled

I was indeed South - hence I KNOW definitively what the hesitation was about.

I found the situation over 5♠ exceedingly complex.
Why had partner not agreed ♠ over 2♠?
What would a Pass over 5♦ have shown?
What would a double of 5♦ have shown?
Would either of the 2 above followed by 5♠ be more or less encouraging than the direct 5♠
Was it possible 5♠ was a cue bid hoping I could show the A♣

At the end of a long tournament thought processes were not quick.
By contrast I believe the decisions once you have decided what is going on are utterly trivial.

My belief is that your interpretation of the procedure to be followed after UI is wrong.
Firstly you determine if there was UI and if so what did it suggest.
If the UI has more than possible reason - in this case partner was unsure of the meaning of 5♠ OR
partner was thinking of bidding 6♠ or 6 Diamonds,
then the director should weigh the evidence available - which will be the hands, the auction, the players' statements
and the players' credibility and the result of any polls and form a view of what UI had actually been transmitted.

You simply cannot say there was UI transmitted - it MIGHT have suggested bidding so treat it as if it did.

This is going back to the regime of "If it hesitates, shoot it"

[mikeh]

DaveB, on 2015-April-29, 17:30, said:

Rumbled

I was indeed South - hence I KNOW definitively what the hesitation was about.

I found the situation over 5♠ exceedingly complex.
Why had partner not agreed ♠ over 2♠?
What would a Pass over 5♦ have shown?
What would a double of 5♦ have shown?
Would either of the 2 above followed by 5♠ be more or less encouraging than the direct 5♠
Was it possible 5♠ was a cue bid hoping I could show the A♣

At the end of a long tournament thought processes were not quick.
By contrast I believe the decisions once you have decided what is going on are utterly trivial.

My belief is that your interpretation of the procedure to be followed after UI is wrong.
Firstly you determine if there was UI and if so what did it suggest.
If the UI has more than possible reason - in this case partner was unsure of the meaning of 5♠ OR
partner was thinking of bidding 6♠ or 6 Diamonds,
then the director should weigh the evidence available - which will be the hands, the auction, the players' statements
and the players' credibility and the result of any polls and form a view of what UI had actually been transmitted.

You simply cannot say there was UI transmitted - it MIGHT have suggested bidding so treat it as if it did.

This is going back to the regime of "If it hesitates, shoot it"

I don't believe in 'if it hesitates, shoot it' if only for purposes of self-preservation

The problems lie with S and N. S's explanation is irrelevant and this is very important, since as South you may feel that an adverse ruling suggests that your explanation is not being believed.

The point isn't 'why' you considered bidding slam....as it was, had you bid slam it would have been because you thought 5♠ was forcing. Your explanation is relevant only to the extent that it eliminates a non-bridge explanation...you didn't, for example, spill and drink and get distracted by that....and presumably N would have known of that.

So you hesitated because you were considering slam, albeit for reasons other than thinking you had extras. You are completely innocent.

Now, over to North. Over 6♥ he knows that you had been thinking of slam.

True, he doesn't know for sure why you were doing that, but to a stranger watching the North player and him alone, I suggest that it would have been obvious that you MIGHT have been thinking of slam because your hand was almost strong enough to bid it over a non-forcing 5♠.

It is that possibility, so long as it is not a trivial possibility (and I don't accept that it was, even tho I fully accept that it wasn't the actual reason for the BIT), that causes the problem. That possibility arising from a BIT, the existence of which is UI, makes bidding slam more attractive than otherwise, and hence N may not choose that call if there are LAs that are not made more favourable by the BIT.


Now, if your argument is that the BIT was not UI, we have a different debate. I don't for a moment accept that all BITs constitute or pass UI, but given the manner in which you described the auction, I inferred that the BIT by South was a break of more than the normal gap between bids in this kind of unusual auction. I would expect all players to be bidding at a slow tempo on this hand, so assumed that we were discussing the kind of BIT that causes all of us to pay attention.

[blackshoe]

A BIT is not information, so it can't be UI. It might convey UI, though, and it is that with which the law deals.

[barmar]

mikeh, on 2015-April-29, 10:07, said:

I have always understood that a TD ought to apply what is known in law as an objective test. This serves to avoid the invidious idea that the outcome of a BIT situation will depend on the TD's view of the honesty of the player concerned. As it is, most inexperienced or ignorant players, who see their score adjusted because of their BIT, often express feelings of outrage that the TD didn't accept their innocent explanations, and fail to appreciate that the TD ought never to be sitting in judgement of their honesty.

I think this is because there are two Laws that relate to action after receiving UI from partner.

Law 16B1 is phrased relatively objectively, in terms of LAs and what is demonstrably suggested. LAs are defined in terms of the player's peers, not the specific player.

But Law 73C just says that the player "must carefully avoid taking any advantage from the UI". This is often paraphrased as "bend over backwards".

The problem is that 73C is easy for players to understand, while 16B1 is complicated, so 73C is how most of them understand their obligations. When they get ruled against, it seems like an accusation that they didn't take the care that they were supposed to.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2015-April-30, 10:10, said:

I think this is because there are two Laws that relate to action after receiving UI from partner.

Law 16B1 is phrased relatively objectively, in terms of LAs and what is demonstrably suggested. LAs are defined in terms of the player's peers, not the specific player.

But Law 73C just says that the player "must carefully avoid taking any advantage from the UI". This is often paraphrased as "bend over backwards".

I wasn't flexible enough to do that fifty years ago. I am considerably less flexible now.

barmar, on 2015-April-30, 10:10, said:

The problem is that 73C is easy for players to understand, while 16B1 is complicated, so 73C is how most of them understand their obligations. When they get ruled against, it seems like an accusation that they didn't take the care that they were supposed to.

That's because the TD doesn't explain the law (16B1) under which he is ruling when he makes his ruling. This is so common that actually doing it right and explaining the relevant law is viewed as bizarre and, by many players, a waste of time. It's not. It's the right thing to do.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-30, 10:27, said:

That's because the TD doesn't explain the law (16B1) under which he is ruling when he makes his ruling. This is so common that actually doing it right and explaining the relevant law is viewed as bizarre and, by many players, a waste of time. It's not. It's the right thing to do.

Explaining it won't make it any more understandable. That's why no one understands why "I was always going to..." doesn't work.

I've often given advice that players should not try to figure out what their 16B1 limitations are -- it's just too hard to do in the heat of play, especially if you also want to maintain proper tempo. Can most people really put themselves objectively in the shoes of their peers, considering all the LAs, rather than thinking that what they were going to do is obviously the only one?

So instead I recommend that they just try to follow 73C, and do their best to pretend they didn't get the UI. In cases where this is consistent with 16B1, they're fine. If not, the TD may rule against them.

Now this is where they're supposed to understand that the ruling is not an accusation of trying to get away with something, any more than the revoke penalty is. But people aren't always rational, and it feels wrong.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2015-April-30, 10:54, said:

So instead I recommend that they just try to follow 73C, and do their best to pretend they didn't get the UI. In cases where this is consistent with 16B1, they're fine. If not, the TD may rule against them.

'Pretend you didn't get the UI' is IMO the wrong instruction, as that's not what 73C says. Players should just ask themselves 'might making the call I want to make be construed as having taken advantage of UI?'

barmar, on 2015-April-30, 10:54, said:

Now this is where they're supposed to understand that the ruling is not an accusation of trying to get away with something, any more than the revoke penalty is. But people aren't always rational, and it feels wrong.

'People aren't always rational'. Yeah, you got that right.

Perhaps we should read

Quote

[The Laws] are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged. Players should be ready to accept gracefully any rectification or adjusted score awarded by the Director.

to the entire field at the beginning of every session and as part of every ruling until they accept that rulings are not accusations.

I can envision this conversation after a quite ordinary UI ruling and score adjustment:

Player: I don't like being accused of cheating.
Director: If I thought you were cheating, you'd be headed for a disciplinary committee hearing.

[DaveB]

Quote

Players should just ask themselves 'might making the call I want to make be construed as having taken advantage of UI?'

Not sure that that is the right question either.
Take an auction 1♠ Pass 3♠ Pass where 3♠ is invitational and slow.
Now Pass MIGHT be the suggested action and 4♠ MIGHT be the suggested action, but you have to do something.

The appropriate question is DOES the UI suggest an action NOT MIGHT it suggest an action.

[Trinidad]

DaveB, on 2015-May-10, 09:23, said:

Not sure that that is the right question either.
Take an auction 1♠ Pass 3♠ Pass where 3♠ is invitational and slow.
Now Pass MIGHT be the suggested action and 4♠ MIGHT be the suggested action, but you have to do something.

The appropriate question is DOES the UI suggest an action NOT MIGHT it suggest an action.

No, neither pass, nor 4♠ is the suggested action. It is not true that they might be suggested. Neither one of them is.

Partner's pause might be caused by partner considering a GF raise and it might be caused by partner considering a simple raise.

But the fact that partner's pause might be caused by A or B doesn't mean that this pause might suggest pass or might suggest 4♠. The pause itself does not suggest pass over 4♠ or the other way around*. Only if partner, in addition to the pause, would put on his "I am overbidding"-face or his "I am underbidding"-face then the UI is suggesting something.

Rik

* But we need to keep the case simple and only consider 4♠ and pass.

[blackshoe]

DaveB, on 2015-May-10, 09:23, said:

The appropriate question is DOES the UI suggest an action NOT MIGHT it suggest an action.

Not according to the law.

[Zelandakh]

mikeh, on 2015-April-29, 09:26, said:

North had three messages he could convey over 6♥:
1. I want to defend: double
2. I want to play slam: bid
3. I am interested in slam but don't want to make the decision: pass

Sorry Mike but I think you are betraying your level here. Do you really believe that a club partnership that does not understand Law 16 and is unsure about the forcing nature of 5♠ has a solid understanding of forcing passes in an auction of this type? Your logic is firmly based on the assumption that the pair have a level of understanding somewhere within your ballpark and I would suggest that the evidence strongly contradicts that.