[mikeh]

dburn, on May 14 2010, 06:44 PM, said:

mikeh, on May 14 2010, 06:11 PM, said:

Suffice it to say that even you will, I suggest, accept that a BIT based on weakness lowers the a priori odds of slam being good...and lowers them considerably. Which was the point I tried to make.

If it makes you feel any better, I am happy to concede that if West has a bad hand, East will probably not make six hearts. I do not believe I have ever denied it, but if you think that I have, I hereby set the record straight with apologies for any confusion I may have caused.

But none of this matters. The question is simply: given that East knows (illegally) that West has a hand on which 4♥ is not a clear action, what should East do to maximize his expected score on the deal given also that if he bids a slam, his bid will not be cancelled by the authorities? The answer to that is obvious: he should bid a slam, because it will make considerably more than half the time.

Here's the nub.

If we agree that the BIT makes bidding slam a net winner compared to the a priori probability of it being a winner, then, subject to a concern I will get to in a moment, you and I have no fight at all. In those circumstances, the hesitation could demonstrably suggest that bidding slam was the best move.

The only concern I have is that my reading of the law suggests (I think it is ambiguous) that we should consider the level of skill of E when we assess this question. We certainly have to, when considering what logical alternatives should be considered by him.

If the BIT does demonstrably suggest that bidding on is the best move, then we may have to consider whether this particular East is sophisticated enough (or perhaps inexperienced enough to always think that BITs show extras, but that's a different issue) to work that out.

However, the difference between us is more basic. I simply don't think that the BIT demonstrably suggests that bidding on is rendered, on a net basis, more attractive than the a priori odds.

My analysis, based on what I see as reasonable estimates, is that the BIT renders bidding slam LESS attractive than a priori, and Cascade, using yet different figures, agrees with me.

I am no neophyte. I am not a wanna-be expert who has never won an event. I am a regular member of committees, including committees in my country's team trials. I state this not to try to assert authority...I recognize that many of the posters here have equal or better credentials. I state mine only in the hope of persuading you that while your view might be proven right after a huge amount of work that neither of us are likely to do, it should be possible for you to admit that my view is as valid as yours.

In that case, it seems to me, that it is impossible to conclude, as a matter of fact, that the BIT demonstrably suggested that 6♥ was now a better proposition...which in turn means that it is impossible to make the pre-requisite finding, based solely on what the OP stated, that the impugned call was demonstrated to be suggested.

The Law requires a positive finding of demonstrability. When a substantial number of experts argue that they simply don't find any internal evidence of demonstrability, it is unsafe and unfair for those who disagree to ignore their opponents. It is NOT a case in which I, listening to everyone, would be prepared to state categorically: not demonstrated. It is a case where I say: not shown to be demonstrated. That is a narrow, perhaps fine, distinction, but this is a Law we are discussing and all laws admit of and need, in order to work, fine distinctions.

Now, having said that...and I am repeating myself...if I were on the committee I'd be asking some pointed questions of EW. But those questions would not start from the premise that the BIT demonstrated anything other than that he had a hand that made slam worse or better.....if EW confessed to anything that suggested a tendency towards this kind of BIT with extras, or there was evidence that the BIT player's hand strayed towards the bidding box...the area containing bids, not passes, and seemed to be choosing between bids, not calls...and so on...then the result gets rolled back. Now, we are dealing with external evidence that could cause us to conclude that for this pair on this board, the BIT did demonstrate that 6♥ had become more attractive.

[dburn]

mikeh, on May 14 2010, 07:14 PM, said:

My analysis, based on what I see as reasonable estimates, is that the BIT renders bidding slam LESS attractive than a priori, and Cascade, using yet different figures, agrees with me.

Well, Cascade's post says (inter alia) that:

Cascade said:

Now for p>50% we need P(partner thinking of slam try) * P(12 tricks given that partner was thinking of making a slam try) > 50%

but this is simply false. The truth is that:

for p>50% we need

[P(partner thinking of slam try) * P(12 tricks given that partner was thinking of making a slam try)]

plus

[P(partner not thinking of slam try) * P(12 tricks given that partner was not thinking of making a slam try)]

> 50%.

It is this second factor that, as it seems to me, you and Cascade have vastly underrated. I understand the difference between "zero" and "effectively zero", but I also understand the extent to which 43% is greater than 0%.

Still, as you say, we do not appear to have much quarrel with respect to the legal principles involved. As to my own credentials, I have won an event or two and I have for quite some time been a member of (and a quondam chairman of) the Laws and Ethics Committee in England. David Stevenson even bought me a drink once. I must return the kindness some day.

[Echognome]

mikeh, on May 14 2010, 05:14 PM, said:

The Law requires a positive finding of demonstrability. When a substantial number of experts argue that they simply don't find any internal evidence of demonstrability, it is unsafe and unfair for those who disagree to ignore their opponents. It is NOT a case in which I, listening to everyone, would be prepared to state categorically: not demonstrated. It is a case where I say: not shown to be demonstrated. That is a narrow, perhaps fine, distinction, but this is a Law we are discussing and all laws admit of and need, in order to work, fine distinctions.

This quote addresses your views on Law 16C.

What about Law 73C?

[cherdanno]

mikeh, on May 14 2010, 07:14 PM, said:

The Law requires a positive finding of demonstrability.

Really? Law 73F.1 says:

Quote

If the Director determines that a player chose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the like, he shall award an adjusted score.

[aguahombre]

I would define Pass as "no action", and anything else as "action". Then I would say "action" is illogical on the auction and that the BIT could be the only reason for action.

Let the offending side explain how an accepted invite to game invites slam. Am all ears to that one. Maybe I won't be invited to another committee; but oh, well.

[mikeh]

cherdanno, on May 14 2010, 10:26 PM, said:

mikeh, on May 14 2010, 07:14 PM, said:

The Law requires a positive finding of demonstrability.

Really? Law 73F.1 says:

Quote

If the Director determines that a player chose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the like, he shall award an adjusted score.

The same word 'could' is used in Law 16.

It is a classic instance of poor drafting. 'could' means 'possible', at least on one common meaning, and anything is 'possible'.

The word 'demonstrable' seems to me to import into both laws a requirement that the BIT point more towards the outlawed logical alternative. My view, which I know is not accepted even tho no-one save adam has even attempted the analysis (which might be viewed as meaning you're all acting on intuition rather than reason) is that the BIT doesn't point towards bidding...it actually makes passing clearer than a priori. In that sense, the BIT actually suggests passing!!!

My attempt at quantifying the effect of the BIT on the decision to bid slam suggests that bidding slam was discouraged. Accept that my arithmetic was accurate...just for the sake of argument. Now, passing is demonstrably enhanced/suggested by the BIT...so should a committee make him bid?

Of course not. Why not?

[MarkDean]

mikeh, on May 14 2010, 11:03 PM, said:

cherdanno, on May 14 2010, 10:26 PM, said:

mikeh, on May 14 2010, 07:14 PM, said:

The Law requires a positive finding of demonstrability.

Really? Law 73F.1 says:

Quote

If the Director determines that a player chose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the like, he shall award an adjusted score.

The same word 'could' is used in Law 16.

It is a classic instance of poor drafting. 'could' means 'possible', at least on one common meaning, and anything is 'possible'.

The word 'demonstrable' seems to me to import into both laws a requirement that the BIT point more towards the outlawed logical alternative. My view, which I know is not accepted even tho no-one save adam has even attempted the analysis (which might be viewed as meaning you're all acting on intuition rather than reason) is that the BIT doesn't point towards bidding...it actually makes passing clearer than a priori. In that sense, the BIT actually suggests passing!!!

My attempt at quantifying the effect of the BIT on the decision to bid slam suggests that bidding slam was discouraged. Accept that my arithmetic was accurate...just for the sake of argument. Now, passing is demonstrably enhanced/suggested by the BIT...so should a committee make him bid?

Of course not. Why not?

Because bidding is not a logical alternative.

[mjj29]

dburn, on May 14 2010, 06:29 PM, said:

But perhaps you mean "if the UI were followed by a successful action, I would always rule that the action must have been influenced by the UI even though there was no component of the UI that demonstrably suggested the successful action".

If this is actually your point, perhaps I can answer it simply by saying that: if in the case of 1♠-slow 3♠ the form of scoring were matchpoints (or BAM), I would not necessarily rule that a 4♠ bid on a marginal hand should be disallowed if game were to make. That is, I might be persuaded by an argument of the form "I did not know whether partner's BIT indicated that his call was aggressive or conservative, so when I bid game I was just guessing."

Chances are that I would not be so persuaded, because my (fairly extensive) experience leads me to conclude that almost no one ever acts slowly in the hope that partner will "guess" to pass; the slower a call, the less happy its perpetrator is with the notion that it should be the final call. But I do not discount the possibility altogether.

That is the point which I was making and thank you for conceding one example where you would believe the 'demonstratably suggested' criteria was not met. The fact that even in that one case you would still need convincing suggests to me, however, that you are attaching far less weight to this criteria that the law makers and hence than you should. The law includes "demonstratably suggested" for a reason. After an natural takeout of 1N-X alerted as a transfer to hearts, rebidding 5 to the 9 when you have Qxx in hearts is demonstratably suggested. In this case, I'm not so sure.

OTOH, I might have more sympathy for adjusting under L73 unless they could give me a good reason why they chose such a ridiculous call on that hand.

[jeremy69]

Quote

Let the offending side explain how an accepted invite to game invites slam. Am all ears to that one. Maybe I won't be invited to another committee; but oh, well.

You'd be very welcome on one of mine!

[Cascade]

dburn, on May 15 2010, 11:44 AM, said:

he should bid a slam, because it will make considerably more than half the time.

I remain unconvinced that this is demonstrable.

[cherdanno]

I guess once we get to the point where someone argues that one of the most frequently cited sentences of the laws is so poorly phrased that it does not mean what it says it means, the discussion has officially become ridiculous.

[bluejak]

cherdanno, on May 15 2010, 04:26 AM, said:

mikeh, on May 14 2010, 07:14 PM, said:

The Law requires a positive finding of demonstrability.

Really? Law 73F.1 says:

Quote

If the Director determines that a player chose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the like, he shall award an adjusted score.

I think you will find that this is not in the current Law book.

[cherdanno]

bluejak, on May 15 2010, 11:35 AM, said:

cherdanno, on May 15 2010, 04:26 AM, said:

mikeh, on May 14 2010, 07:14 PM, said:

The Law requires a positive finding of demonstrability.

Really? Law 73F.1 says:

Quote

If the Director determines that a player chose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the like, he shall award an adjusted score.

I think you will find that this is not in the current Law book.

Thanks for pointing that out. Still, the current laws (16B1a) have the same phrasing ("could demonstrably have been suggested"), which is implicitly referred to in 16B3 ("The Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender.").

[pran]

cherdanno, on May 15 2010, 05:50 PM, said:

bluejak, on May 15 2010, 11:35 AM, said:

cherdanno, on May 15 2010, 04:26 AM, said:

mikeh, on May 14 2010, 07:14 PM, said:

The Law requires a positive finding of demonstrability.

Really? Law 73F.1 says:

Quote

If the Director determines that a player chose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the like, he shall award an adjusted score.

I think you will find that this is not in the current Law book.

Thanks for pointing that out. Still, the current laws (16B1a) have the same phrasing ("could demonstrably have been suggested"), which is implicitly referred to in 16B3 ("The Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender.").

This is, and has to my knowledge never been neither what this (or any previous corresponding) law says (or said) nor what is or ever has been intended.

This law is explicitly about using UI, not any other irregularity, and it applies when it is deemed that an action chosen after receiving UI from partner:
1: Was not the only logical alternative action available
2: Could demonstrably have been suggested by the UI
and
3: That opponents have been damaged by the chosen action.

[cherdanno]

I don't even understand what you are disagreeing with.

[awm]

dburn, on May 14 2010, 08:35 PM, said:

The truth is that:

for p>50% we need

[P(partner thinking of slam try) * P(12 tricks given that partner was thinking of making a slam try)]

plus

[P(partner not thinking of slam try) * P(12 tricks given that partner was not thinking of making a slam try)]

> 50%.

I don't think the standard is actually this high.

The wording "could have been suggested" doesn't imply that bidding 6♥ has to be the best bid in order to be rolled back. It should be sufficient for:

P[partner thinking of slam try] * P[12 tricks given that partner was thinking of slam try]
+
P[partner not thinking of slam try] * P[12 tricks given partner not thinking of slam try]
>
P[12 tricks opposite normal in-tempo 4♥ raise]

In other words, even if 6♥ is a net loser of IMPs, if it's much less of a net loser of IMPs opposite a slow 4♥ than it would be opposite an in-tempo 6♥, it should be rolled back because it was suggested by the BIT. Again, this is more obvious when there are three logical alternatives, two of which are improved by the BIT, and the player in question chooses the LA which is worse of the two improved by the BIT.

It's also interesting that the laws say that if a player "chooses, from among logical alternatives..." and don't really say anything about what happens if a player chooses a bid that isn't a logical alternative at all.

[blackshoe]

awm, on May 15 2010, 10:25 PM, said:

It's also interesting that the laws say that if a player "chooses, from among logical alternatives..." and don't really say anything about what happens if a player chooses a bid that isn't a logical alternative at all.

This is something that's been bothering me for a long time. I've been informed by several pundits, including David Stevenson and Grattan Endicott, that this law does not mean what it literally says, and that if a player who has UI chooses an action that is not an LA, and that action is successful, he has violated this law, even though a literal reading would say otherwise.

[dburn]

blackshoe, on May 15 2010, 09:46 PM, said:

awm, on May 15 2010, 10:25 PM, said:

It's also interesting that the laws say that if a player "chooses, from among logical alternatives..." and don't really say anything about what happens if a player chooses a bid that isn't a logical alternative at all.

This is something that's been bothering me for a long time. I've been informed by several pundits, including David Stevenson and Grattan Endicott, that this law does not mean what it literally says, and that if a player who has UI chooses an action that is not an LA, and that action is successful, he has violated this law, even though a literal reading would say otherwise.

The ACBL now has a regulation to the effect that any action chosen at the table is a logical alternative, because it seemed logical to the player who chose it, and that player is a representative of his class of player.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on May 16 2010, 03:46 AM, said:

This is something that's been bothering me for a long time. I've been informed by several pundits, including David Stevenson and Grattan Endicott, that this law does not mean what it literally says, and that if a player who has UI chooses an action that is not an LA, and that action is successful, he has violated this law, even though a literal reading would say otherwise.  

Haven't we covered this ground more than once? The call a person actually chose is deemed to count among the logical alternatives. This makes sense, because after all, this is not just a bid that some small number of the player's peers might hypothetically choose; it is the bid that the player in question (his own #1 peer?) actually made.

Does anyone want for there to be a loophole in the Laws such that, if you are in receipt of unauthorised information you are allowed to take an "illogical" action? This would become a standard tactic for those who feel they would not be permitted to "get away with" the suggested action, when they are sure that it is best and that they will get a poor score if they choose a "logical" alternative.

This is especially odious when combined with the fact that:

jdonn, on May 10 2010, 08:11 PM, said:

This is just one of those cases where in the abstract the UI could suggest either weakness or strength but where a partnership will be much better at interpreting its own 'black magic' than any director arguing in theory could.

I have always agreed wholeheartedly with the above, which is why I am inclined to rule harshly against pairs who, in receipt of UI, "get it right".

EDIT: Sorry if the beginning of the above seems a little repetitive; I had my window open a long time and missed Mr Burn's post.

[pran]

cherdanno, on May 16 2010, 12:26 AM, said:

I don't even understand what you are disagreeing with.

Maybe I misunderstood your post?
I am not aware of any reference to Law 16 from Law 12, neither express nor implied.