[blackshoe]

The question, I think, is what the BIT would mean to his partner, not to the person who made the BIT or the TD or a committee member. The accepted way to determine that is to poll the partner's peers.

[crazy4hoop]

Thank you all for the input (and I still welcome more). In my opinion, this pair has probably never even heard of what a forcing pass is so I surmised that the BIT suggested not passing. Passing 5♥ seemed like it could work out just as much as bidding on or doubling so I did in fact adjust the result to 5♥ played by the nonoffenders (down 2 on the unfortunate, but at all probable, trump lead). I guess what I'm getting at is was I wrong?

[blackshoe]

"Surmised" is unfortunate wording. You can't guess — the law says that the player cannot choose an LA that "could demonstrably have been suggested" so you have to be able to demonstrate that it could have been suggested. That said, it's a judgement call, and in making such, you do the best you can, tell the players they can appeal, and if an AC overrules your judgement, learn from it.

[TimG]

bluejak said:

TimG said:

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that actions must be considered pairwise.  That is, action (5S or DBL) is suggest over a LA (pass) is irrelevant.  Rather where the Law is concerned the chosen action (5S) must be demonstrably suggested over the LA (pass) in order for adjustment.

Yes. Law 16B1A reads in part "... may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." I think that means you have to look at each pair separately.

Could comment on Appeal Case 7 (which can be found on page 4 of this Daily Bulletin from Washington, DC)?

In this case, the auction started:

1♠-(P)-2♠-(P)
P-(DBL)-P-(3♣)
P*

* alleged BIT

It seems to me that the BIT suggests taking action rather than passing. But, the BIT could have meant:

1) opener was thinking about doubling; or
2) opener was thinking about competing to 3♠.

Considered pairwise:

3♠ v Pass, if opener's hesitation was because he was thinking about doubling, then 3♠ is not suggested over Pass;

DBL v Pass, if opener's hesitation was because he was thinking about bidding 3♠, then DBL is not suggested over pass.

Perhaps DBL is suggested over pass because it allows for either 3♣X or 3♠, so caters to whatever opener was thinking about. But, surely the BIT does not suggest bidding 3♠ over the LA of Pass.

[blackshoe]

TimG, on Aug 1 2009, 11:17 AM, said:

Considered pairwise:

3♠ v Pass, if opener's hesitation was because he was thinking about doubling, then 3♠ is not suggested over Pass;

DBL v Pass, if opener's hesitation was because he was thinking about bidding 3♠, then DBL is not suggested over pass.

Perhaps DBL is suggested over pass because it allows for either 3♣X or 3♠, so caters to whatever opener was thinking about. But, surely the BIT does not suggest bidding 3♠ over the LA of Pass.

I'm not sure this is the correct approach. The law (16A) specifies what sources of information are authorized to a player, and that he may not base a call or play on other information, such other information being designated extraneous. 16B1{a} says that when a player receives such extraneous information (EI), if it may suggest a call or play, he cannot choose that call or play if it demonstrably could have been suggested by the EI. So the question is "what is the information transmitted by the BIT?" It is that he was thinking about something. We (including the player in receipt of the EI) cannot be sure what that thing was, but as you have demonstrated, we can narrow it down. Since he might have been thinking about bidding 3♠, I think demonstrably the EI could suggest that his partner bid it. We've already decided that Pass is an LA, so the criteria of 16B1{a} are met, and 3♠ cannot be chosen over pass.

I could be wrong about this - I"m still not convinced I truly understand this law - but I'm sure if I am, David will correct me.

[TimG]

Blackshoe,

How is this different from the classic case of 1♠-3♠ where 3♠ is a slow limit raise?

If opener bids 4♠, we can argue that responder might have been thinking about taking stronger action than the limit raise so that 4♠ has been suggested (over pass) by the BIT.

If opener passes, we can argue that responder might have been thinking about taking weaker action than the limit raise so that pass has been suggested (over 4♠) by the BIT.

Using your "might have been thinking about" approach would mean that opener in this case can neither pass nor bid 4♠.

Tim

[hotShot]

I think this case is simpler.

We have to consider 2 cases:

1) the systemic meaning of pass was forcing. Than we have to decide between dbl and 5♠ which is demonstrably suggested.

Fortunately we don't need to discuss this case since the OP redefined the problem that pass is not forcing. So we take a look at case 2:

2) the systemic meaning of pass was nonforcing
Any hesitation prior to a nonforcing pass, can only mean that partner thought about bidding something. So bidding is suggested over passing. Both dbl and 5♠ are suggested and if pass is a LA the player has to choose pass unless he has enough extra strength to eliminate pass as an LA. In this case he is not that strong so pass is an LA.

[bluejak]

peachy, on Jul 29 2009, 05:51 PM, said:

Before going straight to "What are the LA's?"  we have to determine what the UI from the BIT is.

No, a common mistake. To adjust for UI you need:

• UI from partner, and
  
• an LA to the chosen action, and
  
• the chosen action to be suggested by the UI, and
  
• damage caused by the choice

Now, since you need all of them, it is very reasonable to look at any one first. So, for eample, if you determine there are no LAs to the chosen action you need go no further: no adjustment.

Despite often seeing in print an order as how you should approach UI, that is wrong: you look at whichever feature is easiest in case that is enough to decide no adjustment.



When a BIT shows extra values it can suggest either doubling or going on rather than passing: so then the pairing method may be unnecessary.

[TimG]

bluejak, on Aug 1 2009, 02:59 PM, said:

• the chosen action to be suggested by the UI, and

You quoted "could demonstrably have been suggested " before, which seems different than "to be suggested", the former allowing for the possibility, the latter saying it was so.

[blackshoe]

TimG, on Aug 1 2009, 02:52 PM, said:

Blackshoe,

How is this different from the classic case of 1♠-3♠ where 3♠ is a slow limit raise?

If opener bids 4♠, we can argue that responder might have been thinking about taking stronger action than the limit raise so that 4♠ has been suggested (over pass) by the BIT.

If opener passes, we can argue that responder might have been thinking about taking weaker action than the limit raise so that pass has been suggested (over 4♠) by the BIT.

Using your "might have been thinking about" approach would mean that opener in this case can neither pass nor bid 4♠.

Tim

Well, no. He can only do whichever thing does not damage the opponents. We can't determine damage until he's decided what he's going to do. If 4♠ makes, and he bids it, we adjust. If he passes, we don't. If 4♠ goes down, and he passes, we adjust. If he bids it, then we don't. At least, I think that's how it's supposed to work.

[barmar]

Is that the old "If it hesitates, shoot it" approach?

[blackshoe]

No, I don't think so.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on Aug 1 2009, 06:08 PM, said:

TimG, on Aug 1 2009, 02:52 PM, said:

Blackshoe,

How is this different from the classic case of 1♠-3♠ where 3♠ is a slow limit raise? 

If opener bids 4♠, we can argue that responder might have been thinking about taking stronger action than the limit raise so that 4♠ has been suggested (over pass) by the BIT.

If opener passes, we can argue that responder might have been thinking about taking weaker action than the limit raise so that pass has been suggested (over 4♠) by the BIT.

Using your "might have been thinking about" approach would mean that opener in this case can neither pass nor bid 4♠.

Tim

Well, no. He can only do whichever thing does not damage the opponents. We can't determine damage until he's decided what he's going to do. If 4♠ makes, and he bids it, we adjust. If he passes, we don't. If 4♠ goes down, and he passes, we adjust. If he bids it, then we don't. At least, I think that's how it's supposed to work.

Are you sure here?

Can you demonstrate to me what action (Pass or 4♠) is suggested after 1♠- tank..3♠?

You need to be able to demonstrate that it was(*) suggested before you can adjust.

Rik

(*) The laws are written a little more complex. They state that it "could be" demonstrably suggested. The idea behind the "could be" is that the offending player need not have been aware that he was using UI (or that there was UI) when he made the bid for the TD to adjust. That saves the TD from the impossible task of proving what was going through the offender's mind.

In other words, the "could be" means that the player doesn't have to be able to demonstrate anything. But if the TD is able to demonstrate that an action is suggested over the other it is sufficient to adjust.

[hotShot]

blackshoe, on Aug 2 2009, 12:08 AM, said:

Well, no. He can only do whichever thing does not damage the opponents. We can't determine damage until he's decided what he's going to do. If 4♠ makes, and he bids it, we adjust. If he passes, we don't. If 4♠ goes down, and he passes, we adjust. If he bids it, then we don't. At least, I think that's how it's supposed to work. 

I'm not sure you are right here.
The laws are about restoring equity. So if the bidding goes:
1♠ - 3♠
?

Now if 3♠ promises 10-12 HCP and 3-4 ♠ we would expect opener to bid:
- 4♠ with 15+ HCP
- pass with 11-12 HCP

With 13-14 HCP opener would judge his hand and pass with some hands and bid 4♠ with others.

If responder hesitates prior to his bid, one would expect that he somehow stretched his hand to make that bid. Off cause you need to know what alternative bids like 2NT, 4♠ or 2♠ would have shown.

The systemic meaning of 3♠ e.g. 10-12 HCP 4+♠ is allowed information to opener.
The fact that partner stretched is UI. So if responder has the choice between pass and 4♠ (or any slam move he might want to make) he is not allowed to pass.

If opener had the choice and is forced to bid 4♠ and it makes, than he did not use the UI.
So there is no infraction and the score stands.

Remember the laws allow to create UI but forbid it's use.

[Trinidad]

hotShot, on Aug 2 2009, 04:36 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Aug 2 2009, 12:08 AM, said:

Well, no. He can only do whichever thing does not damage the opponents. We can't determine damage until he's decided what he's going to do. If 4♠ makes, and he bids it, we adjust. If he passes, we don't. If 4♠ goes down, and he passes, we adjust. If he bids it, then we don't. At least, I think that's how it's supposed to work. 

I'm not sure you are right here.
The laws are about restoring equity. So if the bidding goes:
1♠ - 3♠
?

Now if 3♠ promises 10-12 HCP and 3-4 ♠ we would expect opener to bid:
- 4♠ with 15+ HCP
- pass with 11-12 HCP

With 13-14 HCP opener would judge his hand and pass with some hands and bid 4♠ with others.

If responder hesitates prior to his bid, one would expect that he somehow stretched his hand to make that bid. Off cause you need to know what alternative bids like 2NT, 4♠ or 2♠ would have shown.

How do you know that responder stretched?

The point of this auction (and the reason why it is given as an example) is that the UI tells you that responder doesn't have a "middle of the road" invitation. But you don't know what side of the road his invitation is. It could be an overbid (a stretch, where responder was thinking of making a single raise) or an underbid (where responder was considering a GF raise). But you can't tell which one it is.

So, if you hold the 13-14 point hand, you are free to bid whatever you like. Both passing and bidding 4♠ are logical alternatives (LA's). But the UI ("I don't have a middle of the road invitation") doesn't make one LA demonstrably more attractive than the other.

Rik

[bluejak]

TimG, on Aug 1 2009, 10:12 PM, said:

bluejak, on Aug 1 2009, 02:59 PM, said:

• the chosen action to be suggested by the UI, and

You quoted "could demonstrably have been suggested " before, which seems different than "to be suggested", the former allowing for the possibility, the latter saying it was so.

I post a lot in these forums and on RGB [rec.games.bridge], also I answer a lot of queries by email and phone. I deliberately do not use the same language every time: it makes my posts boring and stale.

In fact I very rarely say anything should be 'demonstrably suggested': are you sure you are not confusing me witrh my friend Ed who usually does write that in his posts?

We are not legal eagles: we leave that to BLML [bridge-laws mailing list]. We do not need to use exact wording in every case, and I certainly do not.

[hotShot]

Rik,

first of all my point was that, if you did not use the UI, there is no legal base to correct your score, if it happens to be good for your side.

How do i know that responder stretched?

- When you look at the statistics. e.g. when opener has 13 HCP, the other 3 player have an average of 9 HCP. Roughly estimated holding 9 HCP has 11% while holding 13 HCP has only 7.3%. Without considering sense, it's about 30% more likely to be 9 HCP than 13 HCP.
- It does not make sense to make a nonforcing raise when your are strong enough to bid game yourself.

Now what if responder has the wrong shape.
How can having to much trump support be a problem? It's more likely to cause consideration, if you're only having an 8-card fit instead of the promised 9-card fit.

So I would think that a stretch is more likely, than deliberately trying to miss game/slam by making a nonforcing bid.

But if you can give me a good reason to do so, I'm willing to change my mind.

[Trinidad]

hotShot, on Aug 2 2009, 06:46 AM, said:

Rik,

first of all my point was that, if you did not use the UI, there is no legal base to correct your score, if it happens to be good for your side.

How do i know that responder stretched?

- When you look at the statistics. e.g. when opener has 13 HCP, the other 3 player have an average of 9 HCP. Roughly estimated holding 9 HCP has 11% while holding 13 HCP has only 7.3%. Without considering sense, it's about 30% more likely to be 9 HCP than 13 HCP.

Your statistical argument makes sense, but not enough.

You play that a limit raise shows 10-12. Let's just keep this range for simplicity's sake. After the hesitation, it is unlikely to be 11 and more likely to be 10 or 12. So far, we agree (I think).

Your conclusion is that it must be 10. After all, given that we have 13-14 ourselves(otherwise there is no problem), the average strength for the other players must be (40-13)/3=9. And if 9 is the average then 10 will be more likely than 12. Sounds good, but...

you make 2 assumptions:
1) You are playing with a 40 point deck. Most deals have more points, particularly when there is a fit (as in this case). This means that you underestimate the expected strength in partner's hand.
2) You assume that the opponents can have all possible hands. If the opponents know how to play bridge, they can't. LHO is unlikely to have a good hand, since he passed the 1♠ opening. You can add to that the possibility that 1♠ may have been a second seat opening and it is clear that, again, you underestimate the strength in partner's hand.

All in all, I think that the probability that partner has 10 is about equal to the probability that partner has 12. Anyhow, the difference is too small to calculate at the table.

If you still disagree with me on this then just assume, for the sake of argument, that the probabilities are equal. After all, the 1♠-3♠ auction was used as an example of how you should reason when you don't know which of the alternatives is made more attractive by the UI. Do you allow both LA's or forbid both of them and adjust?

Quote

- It does not make sense to make a nonforcing raise when your are strong enough to bid game yourself.

The point is that partner wasn't strong enough to bid game. He was considering whether he was strong enough to bid game and concluded that he wasn't.

The key is that partner can have two hands. On the one side partner may have stretched. He has considered a single raise, but thought he was just a bit too strong for that (say 9 really nice points, reevaluated to 10). On the other side partner may have been considering a game forcing raise and concluded that he wasn't good enough for that (12 nice points, but after consideration not nice enough to force game). The UI told you that partner is unlikely to have the straight down the middle 11 point hand.

Rik

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on Aug 2 2009, 02:55 AM, said:

Are you sure here?

Of course not. I said so, didn't I?

Quote

Can you demonstrate to me what action (Pass or 4♠) is suggested after 1♠- tank..3♠?

You need to be able to demonstrate that it was(*) suggested before you can adjust.

When I wrote that to which you responded, it was in the assumption that the criterion regarding suggestion had been met.

Quote

(*) The laws are written a little more complex. They state that it "could be" demonstrably suggested. The idea behind the "could be" is that the offending player need not have been aware that he was using UI (or that there was UI) when he made the bid for the TD to adjust. That saves the TD from the impossible task of proving what was going through the offender's mind.

In other words, the "could be" means that the player doesn't have to be able to demonstrate anything. But if the TD is able to demonstrate that an action is suggested over the other it is sufficient to adjust.

I think it's important to keep this in mind. I see a lot of posts that start from "it suggests such and such" without any "demonstration" at all. Maybe that's because the poster believes it's obvious, but that doesn't mean it's obvious to anyone else.

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on Aug 2 2009, 09:35 AM, said:

The key is that partner can have two hands. On the one side partner may have stretched. He has considered a single raise, but thought he was just a bit too strong for that (say 9 really nice points, reevaluated to 10). On the other side partner may have been considering a game forcing raise and concluded that he wasn't good enough for that (12 nice points, but after consideration not nice enough to force game). The UI told you that partner is unlikely to have the straight down the middle 11 point hand.

This line seems to say that we cannot demonstrate that the UI suggests partner has a particular hand, only that he has one of two possible hands (and not, in this case, a third). So the question is whether a particular call which caters for one possibility but not the other is allowed, or whether a call must be chosen which does not cater for either possibility (if there is one). And what do we do if there isn't such a call? Absent UI, on the auction 1♠-3♠, opener might pass, might bid game, or might make a slam try. If he passes, the "if it hesitates, shoot it" crowd will argue that he's catering for responder to have stretched to bid 3, and want to adjust. If he bids game or makes a slam try, they'll argue that he's catering for responder to have undervalued his hand, and argue to adjust. Assuming the chosen action works, of course. If it was the right choice, then, goes the argument, the opponents were damaged, so we must adjust. This cannot be the right approach because, as someone pointed out upthread, it will mean there are hands the recipient of UI cannot bid at all.

I would also say that what the responder actually has in his hand is not an indicator to what is demonstrably (or otherwise) suggested. Nobody else knows what he has, they can only guess.