[karen4]

I've been requested to post this hand from the YC last Monday.

Scoring: MP

---

P     1♦      P        1♥
1♠     P    2♦(1)    3♣(2)
P    P(3)    3♠      5♣
all pass

[1] UCB [2] Later said to be forcing by South [3] Slow, admitted reluctantly

Any thoughts

[jeremy69]

I was given this hand after the duplicate on Monday(I wasn't playing in the session). My thoughts were that to say later 3C was forcing was not borne out either by the hand or by the fact the North passed slowly. When north passed slowly he might have been thinking of whether it was forcing or indeed the price of fish but the likelihood was that he was considering bidding on when he clearly thought it was not forcing. He couldn't have long, good diamonds or he would have bid them again and he preferred clubs to hearts and he had not bid 3NT so he was likely thinking of raising clubs. I was expecting the questioner to tell me that the next bid from South was 4C when he told me it was 5C.
I don't see why pass from South is not a logical alternative.

[Cyberyeti]

Is there a lot of damage here, N surely either doubles or bids 4♣ so it will play in 3♠X or 5♣, not sure how many 3♠X goes off, but it doesn't look pretty on a club lead, and S might remove the double, if he goes to 4♣, N might bid 5 anyway, or S can bid 5♣ immediately.

[nigel_k]

I'm not sure that the slow pass demonstrably suggests bidding 5♣. 5♣ is a good contract only because North has so much in clubs and just an ace outside. West having no club to lead and being unable to reach his partner also helps. There are lots of other hands where North might think before passing and 5♣ would be very poor. I don't agree that he was likely thinking of raising clubs.

[MFA]

North could be thinking about a lot of different things, but only if he was immediately sure 3♣ was NF and was considering a constructive move, it would be helpful for the 5♣ bid.

It seems equally likely that North was wondering if 3♣ was forcing or that he was thinking about getting away from clubs (by bidding 3♦ or 3♥). Those things don't suggest bidding 5♣.

So I'm inclined to say result stands.

[blackshoe]

The law says that if an action "could demonstrably have been suggested", then that suggestion is UI. If the mannerism, BIT, or whatever "could demonstrably have suggested" action A, or could have equally likely suggested action B, then both fit the criterion of Law 16B1{a}. Or so it seems to me. So I don't think "Actions A and B were equally suggested by the UI" leads to the conclusion "result stands".

[jeremy69]

Quote

he was thinking about getting away from clubs (by bidding 3♦ or 3♥)

He didn't bid 3H so presumably has better clubs than hearts. He doesn't have 6 decent diamonds else he would have bid 2D a round earlier.

[nige1]

From South's point of view, what does North's hesitation mean?

• If South's 3♣ is forcing and North knows it, then North has psyched or has such a weak misfit, that he took the risk of passing a forcing bid. Hence, if 3♣ really is forcing then both pass and 4♣ must be logical alternatives for South. In that case, 5♣ is legally OK -- even if it is illogical.
  
• Arguably more likely, North believes 3♣ to be non-forcing. Nevertheless, North is still thinking of bidding. In that case, his hesitation suggests that South bid 5♣. So South should choose a logical alternative like pass or 4♣. If the director so judges, then he should rule against North-South. It is not clear-cut that East-West were damaged but the director might adjust the result to 4♣+1.

[jdonn]

nige1, on Sep 30 2009, 07:45 PM, said:

From South's point of view, what does North's hesitation mean?

• If South's 3♣ is forcing and North knows it, then North has psyched or has such a weak misfit, that he took the risk of passing a forcing bid. Hence, if 3♣ really is forcing then both pass and 4♣ must be logical alternatives for South. In that case, 5♣ is legally OK -- even if it is illogical.
  
• Arguably more likely, North believes 3♣ to be non-forcing. Nevertheless, North is still thinking of bidding. In that case, his hestiation suggests that South bid 5♣. So South should choose a logical alternative like pass or 4♣. If the director so judges, then he should rule against N-S. For example, he might adjust the result to 4♣+1.

How about the hesitation could mean north didn't know whether 3♣ was forcing or not?

[nigel_k]

blackshoe, on Oct 1 2009, 10:22 AM, said:

The law says that if an action "could demonstrably have been suggested", then that suggestion is UI. If the mannerism, BIT, or whatever "could demonstrably have suggested" action A, or could have equally likely suggested action B, then both fit the criterion of Law 16B1{a}. Or so it seems to me. So I don't think "Actions A and B were equally suggested by the UI" leads to the conclusion "result stands".

Then we have a fundamental disagreement.

I think 'suggested' ought to be interpreted as meaning that the action is made more attractive than it would be without the UI. It would be unusual, if not impossible, for UI to make both bidding and not bidding more attractive.

Certainly there are situations where partner's slow pass could have been made on a hand where bidding on will succeed, and could also have been made on a hand where bidding on will not succeed. But the slow pass can 'suggest' at most one of those actions.

[nige1]

jdonn, on Sep 30 2009, 07:47 PM, said:

How about the hesitation could mean north didn't know whether 3♣ was forcing or not?

I agree that doubt about the forcing nature of an auction is a possible explanation for most hesitations

[peachy]

I cannot come up with any possible connection between the slow pass and 5C. Or, what the hesitation could demonstrably suggest. Result stands.

[blackshoe]

nigel_k, on Sep 30 2009, 08:56 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Oct 1 2009, 10:22 AM, said:

The law says that if an action "could demonstrably have been suggested", then that suggestion is UI. If the mannerism, BIT, or whatever "could demonstrably have suggested" action A, or could have equally likely suggested action B, then both fit the criterion of Law 16B1{a}. Or so it seems to me. So I don't think "Actions A and B were equally suggested by the UI" leads to the conclusion "result stands".

Then we have a fundamental disagreement.

I think 'suggested' ought to be interpreted as meaning that the action is made more attractive than it would be without the UI. It would be unusual, if not impossible, for UI to make both bidding and not bidding more attractive.

Certainly there are situations where partner's slow pass could have been made on a hand where bidding on will succeed, and could also have been made on a hand where bidding on will not succeed. But the slow pass can 'suggest' at most one of those actions.

Do we? Perhaps we aren't talking about the same thing. I postulated (based on an earlier post by someone, possibly you) a situation in which two actions were each equally suggested by UI. You postulate here a different scenario. I don't see how this different scenario is relevant to my point.

The partner of the slow passer has not seen his partner's hand, so the idea that what is suggested to him by the BIT depends on what is actually in that hand makes no sense to me at all. "He might have had X, in which case A is suggested" and "He might have had Y, in which case B is suggested" are both possible inferences. It is true that he can't have both X and Y, but I don't see how that's relevant.

[campboy]

If we follow that interpretation, a situation can arise when Law 16B forbids a player from choosing any logical alternative. Surely that cannot be what is meant.

[aguahombre]

campboy, on Oct 1 2009, 11:16 AM, said:

If we follow that interpretation, a situation can arise when Law 16B forbids a player from choosing any logical alternative. Surely that cannot be what is meant.

Sure, it means that when there are two possible logical actions, you must choose a third, illogical action ---then take your zero and not bother with a director call.

[peachy]

aguahombre, on Oct 1 2009, 12:01 PM, said:

campboy, on Oct 1 2009, 11:16 AM, said:

If we follow that interpretation, a situation can arise when Law 16B forbids a player from choosing any logical alternative. Surely that cannot be what is meant.

Sure, it means that when there are two possible logical actions, you must choose a third, illogical action ---then take your zero and not bother with a director call.

Except that if the"illogical alternative" gives you a top, it will be ruled away. There was a thread long time ago in another forum where the case was 1S-...3S-7S

By a miracle, it made (or maybe it was 6S, I don't remember). It was ruled back because the illogical alternative bid was "caused" by the UI. Apparently the opener was frustrated that whatever he did and it was successful, ie. pass the game invite or bid a game, it would be ruled against so he decided to take an alternative that could not possibly have been suggested by the UI...

[MFA]

blackshoe, on Oct 1 2009, 12:22 AM, said:

The law says that if an action "could demonstrably have been suggested", then that suggestion is UI. If the mannerism, BIT, or whatever "could demonstrably have suggested" action A, or could have equally likely suggested action B, then both fit the criterion of Law 16B1{a}. Or so it seems to me. So I don't think "Actions A and B were equally suggested by the UI" leads to the conclusion "result stands".

I would say that "an action could have been suggested by" is just the usual gentle wording of the laws that allows us to rule against a player without accusing him of having done anything unethical.

"Demonstrably" is the word that requires the UI to be clear as to direction/usefulness.

I agree that more than one action (LA) could be illegal. But then it would be actions along the same line, for instance different slam tries (as opposed to passing partner's sign off).

There is by definition always one LA that is legal, since the illegal ones are the ones that "demonstrably could have been suggested over another LA".

[MFA]

peachy, on Oct 1 2009, 07:28 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Oct 1 2009, 12:01 PM, said:

campboy, on Oct 1 2009, 11:16 AM, said:

If we follow that interpretation, a situation can arise when Law 16B forbids a player from choosing any logical alternative. Surely that cannot be what is meant.

Sure, it means that when there are two possible logical actions, you must choose a third, illogical action ---then take your zero and not bother with a director call.

Except that if the"illogical alternative" gives you a top, it will be ruled away. There was a thread long time ago in another forum where the case was 1S-...3S-7S

By a miracle, it made (or maybe it was 6S, I don't remember). It was ruled back because the illogical alternative bid was "caused" by the UI. Apparently the opener was frustrated that whatever he did and it was successful, ie. pass the game invite or bid a game, it would be ruled against so he decided to take an alternative that could not possibly have been suggested by the UI...

There is no escape, since the bid chosen is always regarded as a LA for that player .

I can understand the frustration. There are many cases where the TD has been too quick to establish that the UI did point towards the action chosen by the player. And where one could reasonably suspect that had the player done the exact opposite, the TD would have ruled that as influenced by the UI as well.

[axman]

campboy, on Oct 1 2009, 11:16 AM, said:

If we follow that interpretation, a situation can arise when Law 16B forbids a player from choosing any logical alternative. Surely that cannot be what is meant.

I'm not sure the antecedent to which you refer, so for the sake of demonstration consider UI that has numerous possible inferences- some mutually exclusive and others not necessarily mutually exclusive -and for the player his hand suggests exactly two calls that are logical within system. Inference A suggests action X and inference B suggests action Y [demonstrably so].

whether or not the inferences describe in fact some aspect of the the partner's hand/reason for thinking, one and or the other COULD describe in fact some aspect of the partner's hand/reason for thinking, AND they are present.

In this situation inference A demonstrably suggest X over Y; while inference B demonstrably suggests Y over X .

And a reasonable person would believe that L16 says that taking either X or Y is forbidden. And, if that reasonable person was a bridge player he would not like that state of affairs.

[blackshoe]

campboy, on Oct 1 2009, 12:16 PM, said:

If we follow that interpretation, a situation can arise when Law 16B forbids a player from choosing any logical alternative. Surely that cannot be what is meant.

Law 16B doesn't forbid a player from doing anything — it says that if he chooses an LA that could demonstrably have been suggested by UI, the TD shall adjust the score. I would think it rare in practice for all LAs to fit the bill, but if they do, so be it. If the lawmakers wish the law to be interpreted differently, they're going to have to say so.