[dburn]

It may help to consider jdonn's argument in the more familiar context of 1M-slow 3M (limit raise).

Assume that opener has a hand that would (if such things were legal) bid three (or even two) over a raise to 2.5 but bid four (rather than three) over a raise to 3.5.

Assume also that opener has no knowledge whatsoever of partner's tendencies - that is, a slow raise to three is exactly as likely to be a raise to 2.5 as a raise to 3.5.

Now, the UI in itself does not demonstrably suggest one thing (passing three) over the other (bidding four). But the IMP scale does, when combined with the UI - the reward for bidding four is greater when right than the cost when wrong (especially vulnerable).

That is why we say that even when other things may be equal, what is "demonstrably suggested" by a slow raise is that partner bids on.

In the actual case, where the question is not game but slam, the IMP scale is less decisive - the reward for bidding a slam when right is equal to the cost for bidding one when wrong. However, since even when partner was thinking of passing three, you might still make six (imagine partner with ♠KQ10xx ♥xx ♦xxx ♣xxx for example), bidding six is still with the odds and still "demonstrably suggested".

[peachy]

DBurn made a convincing argument why 6H should not be allowed.

[gerry]

Call me cynical, but one things for sure, this pair now knows what to do next time they have a 4.5 raise.

[jdonn]

Dburn is a smart cookie, he knows what I'm thinking better than I do. My argument could also be considered using logic rather than math. If partner makes his 4♥ bid out of tempo he was considering something that isn't 4♥. Therefore doing something that isn't 4♥ must be more likely to work well than otherwise.

And I didn't forget the possibility of being doubled Mike, I used many simplifying assumptions. One of them is that with AKJTxx of trumps that has been raised and not missing 2 aces we are unlikely to be doubled in slam, just because the opponents have extra queens and jacks in the side suits. Lazy, I know. Not to mention that I did address the fundamental issue that the tank could be based on a weak hand. I simply rejected it as much less likely in this case and gave plenty of reasons for doing so.

[jdonn]

pran, on May 11 2010, 05:09 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 11 2010, 10:46 PM, said:

pran, on May 11 2010, 04:40 PM, said:

So "nobody" would bid 6♥?

After the start 1♥ 1♠ 3♥ 4♥? I'm willing to bet none of the pairs got there that way. There were probably at least 12 or 13 different auctions perpetrated by those 18 pairs.

I never said they did, in fact I don't know how the different auctions went by.

But can you find a "better" (more reasonable) way of reaching the various contracts above 4♥?

Sure.

West could consider his hand a game force and, as many people at least in my circles do with this shape, begin with a game forcing 2♣ (or 2NT) response.

West could cuebid 4♦ over 3♥, showing his slam interest through an actual bid rather than a hesitation.

East could consider his hand a game force after a 1♠ response, upgrading his excellent heart suit and spade fit, and rebid 3♣ or 4♥ or something artificial that he plays to force to game. This might well convince west to head toward slam.

All of those judgments are completely plausible. In fact I even agree with certain ones of them. I mean heck, if west bid blackwood over 3♥ that would be a clear overbid but at least not inherently wrong, by which I mean you would have to look at his hand to know he misbid whereas in the actual auction you wouldn't have to see opener's hand to know he misbid.

[jdonn]

gerry, on May 11 2010, 08:08 PM, said:

Call me cynical, but one things for sure, this pair now knows what to do next time they have a 4.5 raise.

They sure do...

[gerry]

Scoring: IMP

(3♣)-p-(p)-?

---

the other weekend (not at my table, there would have been bloodshed) a player found a double with this. Now this was a senior event and the pair involved are moderately successful in bullshit local mp events but have no decent results at imps.

Now this pair are well known bum-shifters (at least among the better players, they are a bit subtle for the bunnies) and the double was spectacularly successful -pd had

K87 A9 KJ9 KJ873 !

now this didn't even make it to a director because the BIT was 'masked' by the stop card.

How bad does it have to be before there is a prima facia case of UI?

[kenrexford]

Actually, I just thought of a reason why 6♥ could be deemed "clearly indicated."

Suppose you have a PERFECT 3♥ call. Exactly what you should have.

Partner, who always bids WRONG after a hesitation, bids 4♥ after a hesitation. So, you are POSITIVE that 4♥ is the wrong contract.

The right contract, per the hesitation, is either 3♥ or 6♥. You don't know which. But, you cannot get back to 3♥.

So, you either pass for a zero because it makes 6♥, pass for a zero because you will be down one, bid 6♥ for a zero, because you will be down three, or bid 6♥ for an average.

6♥ clearly wins.

[Phil]

mikeh, on May 11 2010, 03:44 PM, said:

1. One man's impossible bid is another's ignorance or lack of skill. I accept that to any decent player 6♥ is either impossible or a silly gamble...the two are not the same. Some people love the thrill of a gamble that to others seems stupid. Some people simply have no clue

(Snip)

Another example might help. What if the EW pair could show that they had had this situation, with BIT, a dozen times that session and that they had swung high every time, and got 8 bad boards and 4 good ones? Do we still assume that the BIT showed extras? it turns out that it had, 5 times (4 earlier and this one time) but had been on weakness 8 times. Surely the correct view is that the BIT suggested pass!

Every time Mike? I think this is a heavy burden to be placed on this pair. But if you want to place this on them, I would be curious to know every time they didn't 'swing high' and gamble a slam, or a game, or double a part score.

[pran]

jallerton, on May 12 2010, 12:00 AM, said:

As in all potential UI cases, the TD should ask the 6♥ bidder why he chose this call. [If the TD did not ask this question, then the AC should make sure that they do so.] 

Unfortunately, the opening post does specify whether or not East was asked this question and, if it was asked, what reply was given.

Whilst the TD might well conclude that there has been no breach of Law 16A (as nothing was demonstrably suggested) he might also decide, having heard the player's reasoning, that there has been a breach of Law 73C.

Law73C said:

Player Receives Unauthorised Information from Partner
When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorised information.

Assuming that the TD judges East to be good enough to appreciate that it is highly unusual to make any call other than pass over 4♥, then he might reasonably conclude that East has not "carefully avoided taking any advantage from that unauthorised information".

"I was assessing my cards to be a very tough slam (and I usually bid them as well)"

There are two conditions neccessary for an adjustment:
1: There must be UI that demonstrably suggests a particular type of action.
2: Partner must have had available at least one logical alternative action not suggested by the UI that would have been less successful than the (suggested) action he selected.

As already stated we eventually agreed with TD that although the BIT created UI this UI did not demonstrably suggest any particular type of action. Therefore condition 1 above was not satisfied.

I am worried by those comments that seem to say: The BIT resulted in UI and the subsequent action by partner was successful so we adjust. They see only condition 2 and forget condition 1; according to my experience a very common mistake.

[peachy]

pran, on May 12 2010, 03:03 AM, said:

There are two conditions neccessary for an adjustment:
1: There must be UI that demonstrably suggests a particular type of action.
2: Partner must have had available at least one logical alternative action not suggested by the UI that would have been less successful than the (suggested) action he selected.

On 1: The law does not say "demonstrably suggest", it says "could demonstrably suggest". In the given case the UI certainly *could* suggest that the player take another call. In several posters' opinion, it definitely suggested it.
On 2: All requirements were satisfied.

[Cascade]

peachy, on May 12 2010, 08:11 PM, said:

pran, on May 12 2010, 03:03 AM, said:

There are two conditions neccessary for an adjustment:
1: There must be UI that demonstrably suggests a particular type of action.
2: Partner must have had available at least one logical alternative action not suggested by the UI that would have been less successful than the (suggested) action he selected.

On 1: The law does not say "demonstrably suggest", it says "could demonstrably suggest". In the given case the UI certainly *could* suggest that the player take another call. In several posters' opinion, it definitely suggested it.
On 2: All requirements were satisfied.

It seems convenient to your argument that you leave out demonstrably when you emphasize "could" by saying "*could* suggest".

Of course anything 'could suggest' some actions or another. The law requires that this that 'could be suggested' is able to be demonstrated. Further I believe the qualifier 'could' applies to 'demonstrably' and not to 'suggested'. That is we need something that it is possible to demonstrate what is suggested rather than something that is possibly suggested.

[pran]

Cascade, on May 12 2010, 11:53 AM, said:

Further I believe the qualifier 'could' applies to 'demonstrably' and not to 'suggested'. That is we need something that it is possible to demonstrate what is suggested rather than something that is possibly suggested.

Precisely!

[aguahombre]

Is it true that Pran and his committe based their decision on the wording, "suggests a particular action", while those of us who disagree with the TD and the AC are saying that the UI suggested not making a particular call (Pass)?

The UI could suggest either making a slam try or bidding the slam. But, since we can't determine which particular one of those actions the UI suggested, the condition is not satisfied?

Anyway, that is exactly what he says in his second to last post. A good job, worthy of the Supreme Court.

[TimG]

jdonn, on May 11 2010, 02:26 PM, said:

So if 6♥ made in this example opposite Kxxxx Qx xxx xxx then I wouldn't punish the player simply due to his 6♥ bid working out, as we would have clear evidence the BIT doesn't suggest extras for this pair.

It sounds to me like you are saying that you would adjust if responder holds Qxxx xx AKxx QJx, but not if responder holds Kxxxx Qx xxx xxx. You seem to be saying that a hesitation in this situation, for this player, always means the same thing and that the actual hand shows whether or not this same things is extras.

Even if I were willing to agree that a specific player had a tendency in this situation, it would be impractical for a director or committee to determine what the tendency is. Perhaps that is why you are comfortable always ruling against the side that breaks tempo.

But, it seems to me that responder's hand is irrelevant to the ruling. And, if used as evidence is a case of too small a sample size to be useful.

As an aside, I would expect a slow 4♥ to express doubt about strain rather than suggest minimum or extras. In my experience, players tend to make the level decisions more easily than the strain decisions. I'd expect a singleton heart and something of a dubious stopper, or perhaps a 41(53)/41(62) type hand where responder thinks a minor might be the best strain, but not know how to get there after this start.

Tim

[cherdanno]

I assume this was played without screens?
Of those who think adjusting is wrong, have you never played with a partner where, during his tanks, you could tell whether he was thinking about trying for slam (he really looks interested in the hand) or thinking of passing a highly invitational bid (he looks frustrated and bored)? Or some who only tank when they are thinking of a complicated bid (exploring slam) but never when they are faced with a simple judgment problem (pass or raise 3H)?

Do you think such players exist? If yes, do you agree that their partner will be much more likely to pick up such tellls/tendencies than their opponents? If you agree, how do you think the law should be enforced against such partnerships? By asking them about their tendencies for tanking/facial expressions? Seriously? (Remember that such partnerships don't typically make a conscious decision to cheat, but rather take advantage of it without really thinking about it.)
Finally, don't you think that the combination of West having extra values on the actual hand, and East making a strange 6H bid, should be allowed as evidence towards the possibility of such tells/tendencies?

[Sorry Josh if I am just repeating your points, I haven't read every single post in this thread.]

[gwnn]

No, you're repeating my points, but in a more cogent way.

[peachy]

Cascade, on May 12 2010, 05:53 AM, said:

peachy, on May 12 2010, 08:11 PM, said:

pran, on May 12 2010, 03:03 AM, said:

There are two conditions neccessary for an adjustment:
1: There must be UI that demonstrably suggests a particular type of action.
2: Partner must have had available at least one logical alternative action not suggested by the UI that would have been less successful than the (suggested) action he selected.

On 1: The law does not say "demonstrably suggest", it says "could demonstrably suggest". In the given case the UI certainly *could* suggest that the player take another call. In several posters' opinion, it definitely suggested it.
On 2: All requirements were satisfied.

It seems convenient to your argument that you leave out demonstrably when you emphasize "could" by saying "*could* suggest".

Of course anything 'could suggest' some actions or another. The law requires that this that 'could be suggested' is able to be demonstrated. Further I believe the qualifier 'could' applies to 'demonstrably' and not to 'suggested'. That is we need something that it is possible to demonstrate what is suggested rather than something that is possibly suggested.

For me, a non-linguist and non-native English speaker, the law text translates it this way:

Demonstrably suggests = it appears clear what action the UI suggests and this action should be ruled against if it is successful.

Demonstrably could suggest, or Could demonstrably suggest = there is ambiguity what the UI suggests but it could be demonstrated to suggest certain action, and if the action is selected by the player and it is successful, it should be ruled against.

I don't like to play on words or "conveniently" or otherwise, to omit or add something that supports my arguments, or use verbal trickery when discussing the laws. I should hope I am above that.

[awm]

I think this should be rolled back to 4♥.

However, I disagree with some of the arguments presented in favor of this position. Partner's actual hand should not have any effect on the ruling -- either the BIT suggests bidding 6♥ or it doesn't; whether partner actually holds extras or not is irrelevant. Also, I'm not sure the IMP table is relevant here. The IMP scores are already built in to each bidder's actions -- the question is not whether bidding 6♥ has a positive IMP expectation or not (doesn't matter) but whether the IMP expectation for bidding 6♥ given the BIT is greater or smaller than it would otherwise be. This is mostly a function of the success probability. Note that opener's hand is good enough that 4♥ will probably make opposite a lot of "borderline raise/pass" hands partner could hold too -- there's no reason that the only likely possibilities are "4♥ is down or 6♥ is making."

The main issue is criterion 1, does the UI demonstrably suggest bidding 6♥? I don't think this means that 6♥ has to be the "best action" given the UI -- it just means that the odds of 6♥ being right have to be substantially higher (given the UI) than they would be (in the same auction without the UI).

Since arguably no good player would ever bid 6♥ here, it's not surprising that (without the UI) the odds of 6♥ being right are quite small. It's easy to construct many totally normal 4♥ bids where 6♥ is horrible. Also, the fact that 3♥ (invitational) was bid at the previous turn suggests that even this player does not think 6♥ is odds on -- why is this a "three or six" hand where we can never play 4♥?

Of course, we cannot punish someone for just being a bad bidder. Just because 6♥ is very rarely successful (without the UI) does not mean we should penalize someone who bids it. However, the issue is whether 6♥ is much more likely to be successful (even if still less likely to be right than passing 4♥) given the UI. I think this is the case -- the odds that partner has a "borderline slam try" for his BIT are not 100%, but even if they are only 25% this is surely higher than the a priori odds of 6♥ being right opposite a "normal 4♥ bid." Thus we have Pr[6♥ is right given the BIT] >> Pr[6♥ is right given only the hand and auction]. This should be sufficient to roll back the result.

[Cascade]

peachy, on May 13 2010, 05:05 AM, said:

Cascade, on May 12 2010, 05:53 AM, said:

peachy, on May 12 2010, 08:11 PM, said:

pran, on May 12 2010, 03:03 AM, said:

There are two conditions neccessary for an adjustment:
1: There must be UI that demonstrably suggests a particular type of action.
2: Partner must have had available at least one logical alternative action not suggested by the UI that would have been less successful than the (suggested) action he selected.

On 1: The law does not say "demonstrably suggest", it says "could demonstrably suggest". In the given case the UI certainly *could* suggest that the player take another call. In several posters' opinion, it definitely suggested it.
On 2: All requirements were satisfied.

It seems convenient to your argument that you leave out demonstrably when you emphasize "could" by saying "*could* suggest".

Of course anything 'could suggest' some actions or another. The law requires that this that 'could be suggested' is able to be demonstrated. Further I believe the qualifier 'could' applies to 'demonstrably' and not to 'suggested'. That is we need something that it is possible to demonstrate what is suggested rather than something that is possibly suggested.

For me, a non-linguist and non-native English speaker, the law text translates it this way:

Demonstrably suggests = it appears clear what action the UI suggests and this action should be ruled against if it is successful.

Demonstrably could suggest, or Could demonstrably suggest = there is ambiguity what the UI suggests but it could be demonstrated to suggest certain action, and if the action is selected by the player and it is successful, it should be ruled against.

I don't like to play on words or "conveniently" or otherwise, to omit or add something that supports my arguments, or use verbal trickery when discussing the laws. I should hope I am above that.

Fair enough and your English is very good certainly much better than my fluency in any other language.

However when the law says "could demonstrably suggest" and you write "could suggest" with some emphasis on "could" I think you change from the emphasis and meaning of the phrase in the law.

Certainly to me the two phrases in your later post "could demonstrably suggest" and "demonstrably could suggest" have significantly different meanings. It occurs to me that some seem to interpret the law as though the later wording was in affect when in fact the former wording is what is written in the law. The later wording emphasizes the ambiguity over what is suggested. To me the former does not have the emphasis on that ambiguity.