[pran]

dburn, on May 13 2010, 12:43 PM, said:

nige1, on May 12 2010, 10:56 PM, said:

Sven and Bluejak to be right in law because, in theory, partner is almost as likely to be dithering about passing 3♥ as trying for 6♥.

If that were actually the case, Sven and Bluejak would be wrong in law; if the probability that partner is thinking about bidding six outweighs the probability that he is thinking of passing three, then bidding six is demonstrably suggested.

However, even if it were the case that the two probabilities are equal, Sven and Bluejak would still be wrong in law; as jdonn and I and others have pointed out, the mere fact that partner is thinking of doing one thing or the other makes bidding six more likely to win IMPs (or avoid losing IMPs) than bidding four, and is therefore also demonstrably suggested.

The actual expectation for bidding six is of course P[you can make six] * P[the score will not be adjusted to making four with overtricks]. The latter probability is of course 1 if you cannot make six, but at least in Norway it is now known also to be 1 if you can.

Be aware that this case is not a matter of law, it is a matter of judgement.

The law is clear and I resent any accusation of either TD or AC (or even both) being wrong in law. Such accusation simply reveals ignorance of the laws. We may of course have been wrong in our judgements, that is an entirely different matter.

TD must first find the correct law; this law instructs him to judge if the UI could demonstrably suggest East to go for slam. He judged negative, although with some (expressed) doubt.

An AC is not allowed to overrule the TD on a point of law or regulations (see Law 93B3) and this was never any question.

We discussed thoroughly if the BIT in this situation could demonstrably suggest going for slam. We eventually found that as it looked from East's side of the table the BIT could at least equally well be caused by doubt whether to park in 3NT or even to pass out the 3♥ bid rather than to make a try for slam, and therefore if anything suggested pass to the 4♥ bid.

Consequently we sustained the TD ruling.

(The result at the other table was never considered as it was completely irrelevant for the appeal, but I see that it was 5♥ East made with 11 tricks.)

[kenrexford]

See, this is where I find that people have losts their minds.

To me, this is much clearer of a UI-based 6♥ call than, for example, a situation where one partner hesitates as a clear indication of extras and the partner has what appears to be a borderline decision as well.

Suppose, for instance, that 3♥ was limited but forcing, and set trumps 100%, such that the hesitation before bidding 4♥ could not be be anything except consideration of making a slam move. IUn that situation, Opener might have a hand where bidding again seems to one person clear but to another seems questionable. The rules seem to force a pass if the option of passing is plausible.

However, interpretation of when pass is plausible is subject to all sorts of judgment analysis. One person's "clear bid" might be another's "uncertain." This gets tough and touchy-feely.

The actual 6♥, however, is not a reasonable alternative. Had the 4♥ call been made with unduly FAST tempo, no one would force Opener to bid 6♥ as a reasonable alternative to the FAST 4♥, because that would be deemed insane.

So, whereas on the one hand, plausible option analysis in the face of a clear suggestion from the hesitation seems tough. In this situation, clear reliance on an ambiguous hesitation seems easy to me.

[awm]

Looking at Cascade's post... I really don't think all these calculations are relevant here.

Suppose that the following were true:

(1) Without the UI, the chances of 6♥ making are 10%. By bidding 6♥, the offending side will win 11 imps 10% of the time and lose 11 imps 90% of the time to a table that stops in four, yielding an expected result of lose 8.8 imps.

(2) With the UI, the chances of 6♥ making are 30%. By bidding 6♥, the offending side will win 11 imps 30% of the time and lose 11 imps 70% of the time to a table that stops in four, yielding an expected result of lose 4.4 imps.

Note that in neither case is 6♥ the percentage action. Nonetheless, I think it's clear (from these numbers) that the UI could demonstrably suggest bidding 6♥, or at least that bidding 6♥ is more likely to be successful than it would be without the UI. An adjustment should not require that 6♥ is the "best bid" -- only that the UI makes it a much "better bid" than it would be otherwise.

Of course, I pulled these percentages out of thin air, but my point is that it seems clearcut that the chances of 6♥ making (given the UI) are better than the chances of 6♥ making (with no UI) even though it's far from clear whether bidding 6♥ is a percentage action (even given the UI).

The reasoning I've described is a lot more clear in situations where there's more than one logical alternative. For example, suppose we have the auction 1♥-P-3♥ (limit raise) - 3♠ and opener makes a slow penalty double. This is passed back to responder who has a number of options including perhaps pass, 3NT, and 4♥. The UI suggests "don't pass" -- a responder who chooses not to pass when a substantial number of his peers would should have his score adjusted to 3♠X regardless of whether he picks the higher percentage alternative out of 3NT and 4♥.

In many ways this case is actually easier, because a crazy bid was made that "can't possibly be right" without the UI. It should be routine to roll such fliers back.

[blackshoe]

pran, on May 13 2010, 10:38 AM, said:

The law is clear and I resent any accusation of either TD or AC (or even both) being wrong in law.

You were, it seems, replying to Burn. He didn't say anyone was wrong in law, much less "accuse" anyone of such a heinous crime. He said "If someone was wrong in law, then..."

Perhaps you and I understand "resent" differently, but I don't see any reason to feel indignant about such posts - or to read into them an accusation that isn't there.

[blackshoe]

awm, on May 13 2010, 12:32 PM, said:

In many ways this case is actually easier, because a crazy bid was made that "can't possibly be right" without the UI. It should be routine to roll such fliers back.

It hesitated. Shoot it.

[awm]

blackshoe, on May 13 2010, 12:21 PM, said:

awm, on May 13 2010, 12:32 PM, said:

In many ways this case is actually easier, because a crazy bid was made that "can't possibly be right" without the UI. It should be routine to roll such fliers back.

It hesitated. Shoot it.

People say this as if it means something. But it really doesn't.

You have the following sequence of events:

(1) There was a hesitation.
(2) A crazy bid was made that no good player would ever make without the hesitation; the a priori chances of this bid working given the auction must be vanishingly small.
(3) The hesitation dramatically increases the chances of the crazy bid working (even if still less than even odds).
(4) If the player in question is able to get a good "read" on his partner's reason for hesitating, then the chances of the crazy bid working given this read could easily be greater than even odds.
(5) The crazy bid worked.

What more do you possibly need to adjust? It seems more like the people arguing the other way are expressing an attitude that taking advantage of partner's BIT to reach better contracts is "just bridge.".

[mikeh]

awm, on May 13 2010, 01:07 PM, said:

blackshoe, on May 13 2010, 12:21 PM, said:

awm, on May 13 2010, 12:32 PM, said:

In many ways this case is actually easier, because a crazy bid was made that "can't possibly be right" without the UI. It should be routine to roll such fliers back.

It hesitated. Shoot it.

People say this as if it means something. But it really doesn't.

You have the following sequence of events:

(1) There was a hesitation.
(2) A crazy bid was made that no good player would ever make without the hesitation; the a priori chances of this bid working given the auction must be vanishingly small.
(3) The hesitation dramatically increases the chances of the crazy bid working (even if still less than even odds).
(4) If the player in question is able to get a good "read" on his partner's reason for hesitating, then the chances of the crazy bid working given this read could easily be greater than even odds.
(5) The crazy bid worked.

What more do you possibly need to adjust? It seems more like the people arguing the other way are expressing an attitude that taking advantage of partner's BIT to reach better contracts is "just bridge.".

Adam: most of your posts make sense to me, but this last one doesn't. I really think you are screwing up when you assert that a priori the leap to 6♥ had a 'vanishingly small' chance of being successful. Are we even looking at the same hands?????? I would conservatively estimate the chances of making 12 tricks opposite a smooth raise at 20% or more. I am not going to waste time by giving examples: everyone here can quickly come up with hands for responder on which slam has play and on which no-one would try for slam as responder.

Then you assert, with zero evidence, that opener may have got a 'good read' on what the hestitation meant. That argument is crap.

In real life, we MIGHT know whether that may have been the case, and as a committee we'd ask a lot of questions aimed at that issue, but it is wrong to raise this as an argument in favour of an adjustment when we don't have ANY reason (other than the horrific rule of coincidence) for assuming it. And if we had actual evidence, then that would probably be all we'd need in order to make an adjustment.

As for your assertion, made numerous times, that the hestitation, even if we can't define whether made from weakness or strength or choice of strain issues, makes blasting more attractive: well, some pretty good players disagree with you on that and even your approach only shows a 'dramatic' increase because your numbers are biased in favour of that conclusion....and you admit that your numbers are pure guesses.

A lot of your argument turns on assuming that the chances of slam making on a non-hesitation auction are somewhere between vanishingly small (your current position) and 10%...your previous position. And much of the rest is based on the assumption that the odds go up to 60% on the borderline slam hands.

Change the a priori to 20%, and the arithmetic greatly reduces the perceived benefit arising from the BIT.

In addition, I think we agree that the BIT is most probably induced by holding one of four hand-types: P/4♥; 3N/♥; 3♠/4♥; slamtry/4♥.

Assume that they occur with equal frequency (statistically, when we hold 17 hcp, partner will far more often hold one of the other 3 than the slam try, so this assumption is in your favour).

Assume that opposite the P/4♥ hand the chances of slam are essentially nil, and that there are some risks that we get doubled and go -300 (I will use NV numbers here), such that the average loss by bidding slam on those hands will be, say, 11.5 imps.

Assume that opposite the choice of strains hands, the chances of slam are reduced slightly from the a priori odds....the a priori odds are based on a set of hands that include near slam try holdings, and those are not in the sets of choice of games. So we will assign a 10% chance of the neutral hands making slam.

On the strong 25%, slam makes 60%, resulting in a gain on average of 2.2 imps per board, while a priori bidding slam results in a loss of 6.6 for a swing of 8.8

On the weak 25%, slam never makes and we lose 11.5 imps as per the above. A priori our loss is only 6.6, so we are worse off by 4.9 imps

On the neutral 50%, we lose 8.8 by bidding with the BIT, and 6.6 a priori, so we are worse off by 2.2 imps.

Summed over 40 boards, 10 of each category, we win 88 imps when partner has the strong hand, lose 49 when he has the weak, and lose 44 when he has the borderline hand.

Net, bidding slam after the BIT costs us 5 imps over 40 boards, compared to our expectation with no BIT.

Are my numbers better than yours? I happen to think they are, but so what? If you agree that a reasonable expert could adopt this view, then it becomes clear that it is reasonable for an expert to conclude that the BIT doesn't demonstrably suggest bidding slam.

BTW, it is not difficult to nudge these figures to show that the BIT dramatically diminishes the chance that slam makes. Lower the likelihood of the slam try hand to 20% as an example....and we win only 70 imps (approx) while losing about 100.

Increase the a priori odds of slam making (I repeat: did you see how good that E hand is?), and the numbers swing again towards my view.

[kenrexford]

Well, I personally have seen enough detail to the respective arguments that convince me of conclusions.

There cannot be any movement in position. Each side has hammered the point to the point of being ridiculous. No additional fine point will move either side.

Furthermore, I am thoroughly convinced that the side with which I disagree is either intellectually dishonest or intellectually challenged. I, of course, may be either in the view of these folks, as may others on my side, but we should probably agree on that idea: one side or the other is intellectually dishonest or intellectually challenged.

So, let us embrace that agreement.

[Cascade]

kenrexford, on May 14 2010, 08:20 AM, said:

one side or the other is intellectually dishonest or intellectually challenged.

Is those not a prerequisits for posting on forums?

[awm]

Well let's see what we need for 6♥ to make...

Assuming anything like a normal 4♥ bid, there's no way partner is covering all our side suit losers. In other words, partner will not have all of the ♣K, the ♦A, and good enough spades for us to have twelve tricks. So we will need to avoid a trump loser to make 4♥.

If partner has a small singleton heart, our chances are quite lousy. If partner has a small doubleton heart, we are on a finesse at best -- of course there are many hands where we can't make 6♥ even if hearts play for no losers, or where there are entry/timing issues that prevent us from picking up queen-fourth of hearts onside.

My view is that we need partner to have at minimum 8 hcp outside the diamond suit for slam to have any significant play. Even many of these hands make slam poor (especially those involving a small singleton heart like ♠KQJxx ♥x ♦xxx ♣Kxxx or involving club duplication like ♠Qxxx ♥Qx ♦xxxx ♣KQx). Since an in-tempo 4♥ bid usually involves only 8-10 hcp total, our chances of finding a partner with "no wasted values" seem remote. Yes, people have given "example hands" but these tend to be real perfectos, still make slam only about half the time, and many of us have commented that you can prove anything with example hands. I'd expect that if you simulate a bunch of partner hands with 8-10 hcp, 4+ spades, and 1-2 hearts you will not find many where 6♥ makes.

Further, it seems that when this player rebid 3♥ he didn't think his hand was that good. After all, he didn't bother to force to game. What about partner's simple raise to 4♥ caused him to re-evaluate into a slam force, if not the break in tempo?

Don't you find it very suspicious that a player in possession of UI selected a call that virtually no bridge player would make (forcing to slam after partner merely accepted his non-forcing game invitation) and then found partner with the magic hand?

Sure, perhaps these two are bad players... but even bad players don't usually jump to slam on this auction. Something very fishy has gone on here! This is not a case where one of several LA was selected and it happened to work out, and we can argue about whether lots of people would have made that bid anyway or whether the UI suggested that LA as opposed to another. This is a case where there is really only one LA (PASS) and the option selected seems quite illogical, hard to explain by any reasoning other than the UI, and worked out.

Honestly I think this is closer to a procedural penalty for totally ignoring the UI obligations than it is to allowing the table result to stand.

[dburn]

awm, on May 13 2010, 08:44 PM, said:

My view is that we need partner to have at minimum 8 hcp outside the diamond suit for slam to have any significant play.

Not really. ♠Kxxxxxx ♥Q and the rest at your discretion is enough.

[kenrexford]

I'm curious, just for S&G, why our 6♥ bidder didn't try 4NT, or 5♥.

[mikeh]

Adam: you (and some others) seem fixated on the erroneous inference drawn from the hands 'matching' the info you feel was conveyed. I know my math isn't great, and maybe I am overstating matters in my discussions of selection bias...but nobody, who has commented on that topic, disagrees that there is selection bias.

Thye ONLY reason the hand is in front of the committee is that there was a BIT, which in and of itself was neutral as to information, followed by an 'impossible' bid, that worked.

If the bid hadn't worked or if the BIT was on a normal hand that just fit well, the committee wouldn't see it.

So your inference boils down to this: this hand came to committee, therefore we can infer that they are guilty.

It's as if the criminal court should assume that anyone charged with an offence is guilty...else, why are they here?

[dburn]

mikeh, on May 13 2010, 09:48 PM, said:

nobody, who has commented on that topic, disagrees that there is selection bias.

I have not commented on the issue of selection bias because (as the original arbitrators considered, and as is true) the issue is not particularly relevant. It may or may not be the case that this West bids 4♥ slowly only when he has a marginal slam try; that the Norwegian federation actually has the resource to follow this West around for many years and observe his tendencies in similar positions is [a] unlikely and [b] immaterial.

Sure, many cases come to committee purely because the NOS got a bad result at the table and bring the case to court only on the grounds that, as A P Herbert remarked, "it is a principle of [English] law that a person who appears in a police court has done something undesirable..."

He continued: "...and citizens who take it upon themselves to do unusual actions which attract the attention of the police should be careful to bring these actions into one of the recognizable categories of crimes and offences, for it is intolerable that the police should be put to the pains of inventing reasons for finding them undesirable."

Now, the auction 1♥-1♠-3♥-4♥-6♥ is certainly an unusual action which will attract the attention of the police. True, it will almost always attract such attention only if 6♥ makes (a vigilant North or South should bring the matter to the attention of the police even if 6♥ is doubled and down three, but not all bridge players are so public-spirited).

But the police will (rightly) not concern themselves with the question of whether West's actual BIT was based on a putative slam try or a putative pass; they will (and did) concern themselves only with the question of what West's BIT "demonstrably suggested" to East that he should do.

Sven and others argue that the BIT, in and of itself, contained no suggestion as to how East should act one way or the other. But under these assumptions (the first of which is proven, albeit a posteriori, the second of which is arguable but not really all that arguable):

[1] If East bids 6♥, then whether he makes it or not, the result will be allowed to stand;

[2] 6♥ will "almost always" make if West has a marginal slam try;

then a game-theoretic East "should" bid 6♥ since his expectation from doing so (as opposed to passing 4♥) is positive, because 6♥ will make some of the time even when West has a marginal pass of 3♥. Perhaps this is what East had in his subconscious mind when he said words to the effect that it might be "a tough slam" but that he "always bid those".

In short: bidding 6♥ is a logical alternative demonstrably suggested by the UI from West's BIT, even though the BIT conveys no information at all about the actual content of the West hand. Blackshoe's apologetic to the contrary, that is what I meant when I said that the actual ruling was wrong in law; what Sven has not fully grasped is that the question is not actually one of pure "bridge judgement".

[MarkDean]

mikeh, on May 13 2010, 07:48 PM, said:

Adam: you (and some others) seem fixated on the erroneous inference drawn from the hands 'matching' the info you feel was conveyed. I know my math isn't great, and maybe I am overstating matters in my discussions of selection bias...but nobody, who has commented on that topic, disagrees that there is selection bias.

Thye ONLY reason the hand is in front of the committee is that there was a BIT, which in and of itself was neutral as to information, followed by an 'impossible' bid, that worked.

If the bid hadn't worked or if the BIT was on a normal hand that just fit well, the committee wouldn't see it.

So your inference boils down to this: this hand came to committee, therefore we can infer that they are guilty.

It's as if the criminal court should assume that anyone charged with an offence is guilty...else, why are they here?

Mike, I agree, there is selection bias in the way you suggest. However, that does not change the fact that the West hand having extras suggests East may be able to read his partner. Sure, it lessens the probability, but it does not make them 0.

Just as the committee only gets the hands where it makes, an East player who can read his partner's hesitations ends up in committee more often than one who just randomly makes truly terrible bids every once in a while.

Obviously we can all come up with our own probabilities which create different pictures, but I think we can agree that your selection bias argument is a reason that makes it less likely that East read his partner's tempo correctly, and that West's hand makes it more likley.

As for my opinion on the ruling, I am not a law expert, but if East is a competant player, I would be tempted to throw the book at him.

[mjj29]

dburn, on May 13 2010, 10:49 PM, said:

In short: bidding 6♥ is a logical alternative demonstrably suggested by the UI from West's BIT, even though the BIT conveys no information at all about the actual content of the West hand.

This statement seems to me ridiculous. If the BIT conveys no information about partner's hand it cannot suggest any bid over any other bid.

I'm still interested in whether there is any situation where there was a BIT leading to a successful action with an LA where you would consider the successful action not demonstratably suggested.

[pran]

awm, on May 14 2010, 02:44 AM, said:

Well let's see what we need for 6♥ to make...

Assuming anything like a normal 4♥ bid, there's no way partner is covering all our side suit losers. In other words, partner will not have all of the ♣K, the ♦A, and good enough spades for us to have twelve tricks. So we will need to avoid a trump loser to make 4♥.

If partner has a small singleton heart, our chances are quite lousy. If partner has a small doubleton heart, we are on a finesse at best -- of course there are many hands where we can't make 6♥ even if hearts play for no losers, or where there are entry/timing issues that prevent us from picking up queen-fourth of hearts onside.

My view is that we need partner to have at minimum 8 hcp outside the diamond suit for slam to have any significant play.

To you and others who assume what is needed in West for 6♥ to make (apparently in order to assess the sanity of bidding 6♥?):

May I suggest an inspection of the actual hands and results? (Everything has been posted on this thread.)

You will for instance find that West held just 4HCP outside his diamonds and just two small hearts. Still 12 tricks were made at the majority of the tables, at three tables even 13 tricks were made (Once in NT, twice in ♥).

There is a theory in navigation that when the terrain doesn't match the map there is a very high probability that the wrong map is used.

(Of course the actual cards held by West is not a question for TD or AC when ruling whether the 6♥ bid could demonstrably have been suggested by the BIT. But notice that West did not have the extra values to corroborate an assertion that he really could be considering going towards slam.)

[kenrexford]

Why are you people continuing to talk about West's actual hand?!?!?

6♥ is an absurd bid if blind.

6♥ makes some sense after a hesitation.

6♥ makes a lot of sense after a hesitation by a regular partner who can be read like a book.

Look at East's hand only, and this is easy.

[dburn]

mjj29, on May 14 2010, 02:42 AM, said:

dburn, on May 13 2010, 10:49 PM, said:

In short: bidding 6♥ is a logical alternative demonstrably suggested by the UI from West's BIT, even though the BIT conveys no information at all about the actual content of the West hand.

This statement seems to me ridiculous. If the BIT conveys no information about partner's hand it cannot suggest any bid over any other bid.

I'm still interested in whether there is any situation where there was a BIT leading to a successful action with an LA where you would consider the successful action not demonstratably suggested.

Many things seem to you ridiculous that are in fact true, and many things seem to you true that are in fact ridiculous. You cannot help this, but you should perhaps make some effort not to flaunt the matter in so public a fashion.

It is trivially true that the knowledge "partner has a problem" can suggest a bid over another bid even though you do not know what partner's actual problem is. As I have said, if you hear the auction 1♠-3♠ and do not know whether partner had acted aggressively or conservatively, it is clearly correct (if you can get away with it) to bid game.

You will need to rephrase the second paragraph of your post; I am afraid that as it stands, it makes no sense to me at all.

[Lanor Fow]

But surely the information that partner has a problem gives information about his hand, in that he doesn't have a straight down the line limit raise. Though we may not be able to know the exact problem, we still have information about partners hand. In many cases the information can be slight, or inexact, but even so there is still some.

If a break in tempo truely conveys no information (which could well be argued to rarely, if ever, happen at the table), then it is surely axiomatic that this is not a UI situation, as there is no information to be unaurtharised.