[nickf]

Cascade, on Feb 6 2008, 12:27 PM, said:

Perhaps Nick can confirm from which round this occurred. My understanding is that by the time screens were used in the knockout rounds VPs which the penalty was measured in were irrelevant. The knockout was based solely on IMPs.

Hence I am not sure if his screen comment was just a hypothetical question.

You're right Wayne, the match occurred during the Swiss, without screens, but I think the bidder (and Director and Appeals committee) has to look at the alternatives as well in the absence of UI and that either player could have thought before the tray was returned.

My suggestion was hypothetical.

nickf
sydney

[jdonn]

I would pass/bid 4♠. But also I would be quite surprised if that was anywhere near unanimous, I feel I'm going out on a limb to bid that way.

Seeing the actual hand, why didn't partner make his auto-double? Sickening.

[Rebound]

Perhaps this is well understood by all of you who have posted already, but the thing that bothers me about this entire process is that, in such situations, break in tempo almost guarantees a favorable result for the opponents. As mentioned above, let's say neither 4H nor 4S makes. Then, if one passes, again one can be accused of using UI to make the decision. In some similar cases, it could be that pass, double, and 4S are all LA. How are you to know which to choose to avoid a ruling against you? I don't think you can. No matter which you choose, if it proves to be a good result for your side it seems you are doomed to an unfavorable adjustment. At the higher levels of competition is any break in tempo inexcusable? That doesn't make sense to me.

[Codo]

Rebound, on Feb 6 2008, 11:48 PM, said:

Perhaps this is well understood by all of you who have posted already, but the thing that bothers me about this entire process is that, in such situations, break in tempo almost guarantees a favorable result for the opponents. As mentioned above, let's say neither 4H nor 4S makes. Then, if one passes, again one can be accused of using UI to make the decision. In some similar cases, it could be that pass, double, and 4S are all LA. How are you to know which to choose to avoid a ruling against you? I don't think you can. No matter which you choose, if it proves to be a good result for your side it seems you are doomed to an unfavorable adjustment. At the higher levels of competition is any break in tempo inexcusable? That doesn't make sense to me.

In the actual scenario this should have been no big deal.
When my lho jumps to 3 HEart and uses a stop card, I have time to think what I will do after a possible pass or 4 HEart bid from rho, so I should be prepared.

And you are not always have a bad result if you have a BIT. If you bid, there is (in most cases) no penalty and if you pass and partner has an obvious bid there is no penalty either.
So the risk is there but not as high as you seem to belive.

[Codo]

Funnily in the given hand some very strong players like MFA and Cascade share the view that 4 Spade is automatic and others like MikeH and JLall disagree more or less strongly.

So at least the Appeal without merrit was pure nonsense. If players who played for there country do disagree about this, how could an appeal been without merrit?

After all an AC made from MFA, Cascade, echognome, lamford and me etc. had restored the table score.

[Rebound]

I may have neglected to say so in my previous post, but this ambiguity and subjective application of the laws is part of the problem I have with how this works. I know it makes sense that there has to be some way to address the possibility of a player taking unethical advantage of UI, intentionally or not. And I know I have little experience in these matters, I admit that. But if the numerous threads on this forum debating committee decisions is anything to judge by, it's a system in serious need of a rethink.

Edit: I didn't see you post, Cascade, before I posted mine, but, as I said, the number of debates on this subject I have seen here and elsewhere would seem to contradict that.

[Cascade]

Rebound, on Feb 7 2008, 03:48 AM, said:

Perhaps this is well understood by all of you who have posted already, but the thing that bothers me about this entire process is that, in such situations, break in tempo almost guarantees a favorable result for the opponents. As mentioned above, let's say neither 4H nor 4S makes. Then, if one passes, again one can be accused of using UI to make the decision. In some similar cases, it could be that pass, double, and 4S are all LA. How are you to know which to choose to avoid a ruling against you? I don't think you can. No matter which you choose, if it proves to be a good result for your side it seems you are doomed to an unfavorable adjustment. At the higher levels of competition is any break in tempo inexcusable? That doesn't make sense to me.

Its plain wrong.

The break in tempo must suggest one action over another to bar you. Its not a matter of what happens to work out after the fact.

[hrothgar]

Echognome, on Feb 6 2008, 02:42 AM, said:

I think the difficulty with determining the logical alternatives is to really find the set of players whom would pass the round before. If they all passed with the intention of bidding again had 4♥ come back to them, then pass simply isn't a logical alternative.

Of course we should start by finding a set of peers and then ask them what they would call the round before (and really any prior rounds). If we can then get a set of players who would have passed the round before, then we can ask them what they would do the next round. Finally, we can determine what the LA's are.

We are really being asked our opinion on the above set of LA's in a highly biased environment. The added difficulty online is capture a two-part bidding question. What would you bid now? and if you passed now, what would you bid if 4♥ came around to you? I believe this is one of the problems with polling as well. If you give it to players as a problem, they are more likely to anticipate further complications on the hand and they might not do that at the table. It is only made worse if you give them the problem already with the stipulation that if they pass, then they will have to decide what to do next round with 4♥ coming back to them (as it was only a possibility before).

For what its worth, I have (occasionally) wondered whether it would be worthwhile to design a web site specifically for the purpose of polling bridge players for Committees and the like.

Imagine a web based forum in which individual players could register to serve as members of a polling group. Players could enter individual attributes describing their geographical location, systems played, skill levels, etc. Over time, cluster algorithms could be used tofurther refine peer groups. (Assume that you claim to be an intermediate at card play, however, your judgement and performance consistently matches that of experts...) Real time feeds could be used to notify players when a new polling problem became available.

I think that the web site would provide value added through two primary avenues

1. The ability to quickly / conveniently poll large numbers of peers (this might prove particuarly useful for small congresses and the like)
2. Reduced bias

Assume for the moment, that we have a large number of players registered in the system. Using this case as an example, we'd follow a process much like the one the the Gnome describes.

A poll member is initial presented with the following hand. He knows only that he is White V Red and that he holds

♠ 6432
♥ Q
♦ Q97
♣ 98543

He then learns that partner opened 1♠, RHO overcalled 3♥, and that he needs to choose a bid. In an ideal world, the player doesn't know whether there is a hesitation problem, a UI problem, or whether its an early round of the auction. (In reality, experienced players will probably have no trouble figuring out when the UI was introduced)

Only those players who chose to pass make their way into the next round of the auction...

[han]

Very nice idea Richard.

[jdonn]

Why can't that idea be implemented in real life? Give the problem over 3♥, and only if they pass to you continue the auction for another round, otherwise you thank them and go find someone else.

In fact isn't that what SHOULD happen?

[Echognome]

Codo, on Feb 6 2008, 08:18 AM, said:

After all an AC made from MFA, Cascade, echognome, lamford and me etc. had restored the table score.

I don't think I implied this.

I merely implied what should constitute a logical alternative. I would have personally either bid 3♠ immediately or rested my peace. So as a bridge judgment side of things, I would only have had that to go upon.

[benlessard]

Pass is surely LA. The slow tempo suggest extra lenght in spades or shortness in H or solid 2nd suit or extra strenght. The extra strenght might suggest that 4H is going down but its also suggest that the sacrifice will be cheap. Therefore the hesitation is inviting a 4S bid. IMHO its not clear enough to give an AWM but at the same time if i have done the appeal i wouldnt be suprised to get it back AWM.

[Cascade]

benlessard, on Feb 7 2008, 09:09 PM, said:

Pass is surely LA. The slow tempo suggest extra lenght in spades or shortness in H or solid 2nd suit or extra strenght. The extra strenght might suggest that 4H is going down but its also suggest that the sacrifice will be cheap. Therefore the hesitation is inviting a 4S bid. IMHO its not clear enough to give an AWM but at the same time if i have done the appeal i wouldnt be suprised to get it back AWM.

A sacrifice is not cheap if the opponent's contract is going down unless of course we can make ours.

[benlessard]

Quote

A sacrifice is not cheap if the opponent's contract is going down unless of course we can make ours.

The extra strenght is suggesting the % of them going down to go up, but also that the sacrifice will be cheaper. IMHO we cannot say they completly cancel each other but they cancel each other do to a certain part. If you think of making 4S on that deal it mean you have clearly taken the hesitation of your partner into account. Had partner made a tempo pass you would bid 4S as a sac and nothing else. (plus its a bit inconsequent to expect to make 4S sometimes and not being able to bid 3S over 3H)

So the more important remaining cause for hesitation can only be for extra shape wich can only suggest bidding 4S. I consider the appeal would have less then 5% of success but it isnt an AWM.

Its going to take some serious new argument to change my view on this 1.

[Cascade]

benlessard, on Feb 8 2008, 07:29 PM, said:

Quote

A sacrifice is not cheap if the opponent's contract is going down unless of course we can make ours.

The extra strenght is suggesting the % of them going down to go up, but also that the sacrifice will be cheaper. IMHO we cannot say they completly cancel each other but they cancel each other do to a certain part. If you think of making 4S on that deal it mean you have clearly taken the hesitation of your partner into account. Had partner made a tempo pass you would bid 4S as a sac and nothing else. (plus its a bit inconsequent to expect to make 4S sometimes and not being able to bid 3S over 3H)

So the more important remaining cause for hesitation can only be for extra shape wich can only suggest bidding 4S. I consider the appeal would have less then 5% of success but it isnt an AWM.

Its going to take some serious new argument to change my view on this 1.

I haven't seen anything in this forum or in other forums to convince me that partner's slow pass "demonstrably suggests" pass over 4♠.

Sure the sacrifice is better if we are down one or down two instead of down two or down three but all of that is for nothing if they cannot make their 4♥.

I just had a thought to do an interesting pair of simulations since I am fond of simulations. On the condition that partner had a fairly normal 1♠ opening but not extra values and shortish hearts suitable for some action over 4♥ with the opponents having a heart pre-empt and either great heart support of significant values.

The second simulation was similar but you knew that partner had extra values (15+).

In the first simulation bidding 4♠ gained around 5 IMPs on average and in the second bidding 4♠ lost 3 IMPs on average.

This seems to clearly indicated that bidding 4♠ is right without additional information and that it is not indicated by the extra information that partner has extra values.

Here are the exact conditions I put in the simulation:

Partner has five or six spades (he is more likely to do something himself with more);
Partner has 12-19 hcp (11-18 if a six-card suit);
Partner either has three or more hearts or fewer than 16 hcp.

RHO has 7 hearts;
RHO has 6-9 hcp;

LHO has 3+ hearts or 13+ hcp;

We have the actual hand given.

In the second simulation everything was the same except that Partner had shown (by the hesitation) say 15+ hcp but not a hand short in hearts that might have made a takeout double.

I'd be happy to vary these parameters to see how they change the outcome.

However don't expect instant results as I will be away until Sunday evening.