[lamford]

jallerton, on Mar 5 2010, 02:33 PM, said:

Note that Law 73C does not require you to "carefully avoid taking any action which might appear to take advantage"; it merely requires you to "carefully avoid taking any advantage".

The other point I forgot to make is that while I agree with the player's required ethics under 73C, for practical purposes if the action might appear to take advantage, the player should be ruled against. Unfairly, perhaps, but the TD has to judge on the balance of probability.

[Pict]

I think here we reach the vanishing point of this line of argument.

UI and MI/disclosure are (IMO) the only general issues of importance in the regulation of the game.

[Vampyr]

Pict, on Mar 5 2010, 10:43 PM, said:

But the opponents can call the TD.  The TD can consult and confound your personal conclusion. Why is there a problem about people acting ethically/reasonably, but being judged by their peers to have been wrong?  Do we always have to be able to know we are right?

We should make a big effort to be right, because when we are wrong we will get the worst of it. If we take an action that is suggested by UI, we will get to keep our result only if our action was unsuccessful. Better to take our medicine and hope that it leads to a decent score.

[mycroft]

"you cannot possibly be taking any advantage of the UI if you do what you would have done anyway."

It has been re-proven to me over the last month, somewhat embarrassingly, that everybody "bids what they would have anyway", intuitively incorporating the UI, and can rationally (to themselves) explain it to themselves, even when they know better. At least the calls seemed to be automatic when I made them...afterward, not so much, of course.

Yes, if you can prove that you would always have bid that way, then by bidding that way you are carefully avoiding taking advantage of the UI. But everybody (for bridge values of "every") who says "I would always bid that" come up with the same type of rationale as I did. The people who can actually satisfy the law tend to say things like "that's systemically forcing, I can't pass", or "there's no other logical way to do this", or "but partner can't have that hand, he would have..."

Back a few years ago, there were a lot of people who *said*, publicly, that they used to try to work out if <the right decision> is going to be 70%; they were clearly not "carefully avoiding taking advantage", they were "carefully seeing if they could get away with taking advantage". At the time, in the EBU, it was almost impossible to meet 73C and fail 16B; in fact, as those "lot of people" proved, it was very possible to fail 73C and pass 16B.

The "new" definition of LA (to EBU, but not to me in the ACBL, of course) does, I know from experience (I discount mine - the examples above were clearly self-convincing, in hindsight), make it possible to meet 73C and fail 16B; one takes it with good grace. To my eyes (which, of course, are coloured by the fact that the law for me didn't change in 200x), the laws are no less complementary and no more contradictory than they were; but the boundaries (simplifying the problem to a one-dimensional one for effect) have swapped places - now you're likely to hit the LA boundary before the carefully avoid boundary.

[hotShot]

Do you still discuss the OP?

The situation seems quite simple.
There is a undisputed BIT.
What are the pairs methods? Thats unspecified in the OP, but assumed t/o.
What are the LA's?
Most consider 3NT to be LA, some consider pass or few think about 5♣.

Is the BIT suggesting anything?
Up to now most posters were unsure what the BIT suggests.

[jallerton]

The hesitation implies that the doubler does not hold a standard take-out double.

One eminent poster infers from the hesitation that his partner must hold a distributional hand not suitable for defending, and decides that because of the UI he has to change his call from 3NT to Pass.

However, I have some evidence to the contrary. A few weeks ago, my partner made a slow double on the same auction (2♠-P-3♠-?). On that occasion, he held a 3334 19-count and if I had found the winning action of passing the double holding ♠Ax the opponents would quite rightly have asked questions.

When partner doubles slowly in this auction we cannot tell in what way his double is flawed. It could be more or less suitable than normal for defending. Therefore I agree with:

Helene said:

I think pass is an LA but I don't see why 3NT or pass is suggested by the BIT.

[lamford]

jallerton, on Mar 6 2010, 05:36 PM, said:

The hesitation implies that the doubler does not hold a standard take-out double.

This is agreed. The bid that I would make opposite a standard takeout double is 3NT. Let us look at the possible hands for partner that would cause a problem:

a) the (3334) 19 count. Presumably partner did not have a spade stop or he would have bid 3NT. If that is all he was looking for, we can oblige. I don't understand why he would take such a long time over this, however.

b ) some distributional hand that is interested in higher things, or is uncertain whether 4m would be a Roman non-jump. That is an interesting issue in itself, and I think that it should show 5 bid m and 5 hearts. But I agree the very slow double is much more flexible. 3NT now caters for this hand; although slam might be on, it is going to be hard to find it.

c) a hand too good to bid 4H, or 5C. This is quite likely. Partner will not now pass 3NT and we have kept the bidding alive, whereas Pass might be really bad.

I cannot think of any other hand, but Pass is the bid that does not cater for partner's BIT, while 3NT does, in that partner is now still there. We are obliged to carefully avoid taking advantage of the BIT. The bids that do that are Pass, and, perhaps, 7S. I prefer the latter, but the former certainly complies with the Laws too.

[Vampyr]

jallerton, on Mar 6 2010, 11:36 PM, said:

When partner doubles slowly in this auction we cannot tell in what way his double is flawed.  It could be more or less suitable than normal for defending.

I think we have to look at the balance of probabilities here. Is partner more likely to have a hand with more defense, or a hand with less? If this can be determined, then I think we can decide what is suggested by the BIT. If the two possibilities are roughly even, then nothing is suggested. If one is rather more likely, it should be taken as suggesting an action.

There are, of course, problems with this approach. One is that it is rather difficult to get a sample size adequate to use for calculations. The other is that players may well have an idea of which sorts of hands their partners find difficult.

The solution, of course, is to use the STOP card for competitive auctions (or in this case, for auctions that are likely to become competitive and in which the next hand may well have problems deciding what to do). I think that the countries which have adopted this regulation are very forward-thinking.

[hotShot]

lamford, on Mar 7 2010, 01:54 AM, said:

I cannot think of any other hand, ...

What about?

d) A 2344 12-count with ♠Qx which could be wasted 2 points and unsure if dbl implies 4♥.

e) A minimum opening 2(335) hand with a bad 5 card suit, that does not have 2 places to play.

[dburn]

jallerton, on Mar 6 2010, 05:36 PM, said:

The hesitation implies that the doubler does not hold a standard take-out double.

One eminent poster infers from the hesitation that his partner must hold a distributional hand not suitable for defending, and decides that because of the UI he has to change his call from 3NT to Pass.

However, I have some evidence to the contrary.  A few weeks ago, my partner made a slow double on the same auction (2♠-P-3♠-?).  On that occasion, he held a 3334 19-count and if I had found the winning action of passing the double holding ♠Ax the opponents would quite rightly have asked questions.

When partner doubles slowly in this auction we cannot tell in what way his double is flawed.  It could be more or less suitable than normal for defending. Therefore I agree with:

Helene said:

I think pass is an LA but I don't see why 3NT or pass is suggested by the BIT.

This is an ancient (but nonetheless partially valid) argument that can be expressed more simply in these terms:

You open 1♠ and partner thinks for a while before producing a limit raise to 3♠. Now, assuming that you have no prior knowledge of partner's tendencies towards aggression or conservatism, that slow 3♠ bid could be either a 2.5♠ bid or a 3.5♠ bid - nothing is suggested either way. You have a marginal reraise to 4♠. Are you at liberty to make it, and entitled to plus 420 or 620 if successful in your contract?

Jallerton, as far as I can tell, would say yes. I would say no. In fact, I said "no" some years ago when as a member of the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee I suggested the adoption of a general principle to the effect that when someone does something slowly, the UI that someone's partner is assumed to have is that someone does not want the auction to proceed "pass-pass-pass".

This principle will not work in all cases, nor of course will it eliminate "reverse hesitations", where someone who really does want there to be no more bidding will act slowly in order to bar partner. But since one must try to impose some sort of order on the chaos that is Law 16, despite the best efforts of the Law makers to confound such an attempt by also creating Law 73, it is at any rate a starting point. The alternatives are either to allow full-scale cheating (since a slow raise to 3♠ demonstrably suggests nothing, people are at liberty to use it systemically until the officials detect a pattern, which would take years) or to cancel all good results achieved after slow actions on the basis that whatever X is, a slow action could demonstrably suggest X. Neither alternative seems to me particularly desirable.

[campboy]

I think this one, more than anything else, depends on the standard of doubler. If he is a strong player I can buy into dburn's reasoning for the likely hand he has -- he shouldn't be taking a long time to decide between double and pass. On the other hand, if he is a weak player it is much more likely that he has some marginal takeout double, in which case 3NT and 3S are probably both going off. If he is somewhere in between, who knows?

[Vampyr]

dburn, on Mar 7 2010, 04:25 PM, said:

This is an ancient (but nonetheless partially valid) argument that can be expressed more simply in these terms:

You open 1♠ and partner thinks for a while before producing a limit raise to 3♠. Now, assuming that you have no prior knowledge of partner's tendencies towards aggression or conservatism, that slow 3♠ bid could be either a 2.5♠ bid or a 3.5♠ bid - nothing is suggested either way. You have a marginal reraise to 4♠. Are you at liberty to make it, and entitled to plus 420 or 620 if successful in your contract?

Jallerton, as far as I can tell, would say yes. I would say no. In fact, I said "no" some years ago when as a member of the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee I suggested the adoption of a general principle to the effect that when someone does something slowly, the UI that someone's partner is assumed to have is that someone does not want the auction to proceed "pass-pass-pass".

I think that this is right. And I would go further. There have been too many cases posted recently where the general consensus is "partner's eg slow pass may mean he was thinking of doubling or thinking of bidding on; I cannot tell which, so the UI does not suggest anything". I have always maintained that it means at least that partner is not crazy about defending the current contract undoubled, so any action other than pass is suggested.

[lamford]

hotShot, on Mar 7 2010, 02:14 AM, said:

lamford, on Mar 7 2010, 01:54 AM, said:

I cannot think of any other hand, ...

What about?

d) A 2344 12-count with ♠Qx which could be wasted 2 points and unsure if dbl implies 4♥.

e) A minimum opening 2(335) hand with a bad 5 card suit, that does not have 2 places to play.

OK, I accept those two, although I am not sure why partner would double very very slowly, which is what we are told in the OP. The only choice is between pass and double in each case.

But even then, surely 3NT is the most likely contract. On a spade lead we can duck the first round, as spades are going to be 2-2-6-3 round the table. We might only fail when the weak two bidder has a certain entry in clubs and we are forced to play on the suit.

So, your "extra" hands merely reinforce my argument - that 3NT is demonstrably suggested. And I would back partner to have a singleton spade after the raise - for which most lawful people would want three cards in the suit.

[bluejak]

dburn, on Mar 7 2010, 04:25 PM, said:

... or to cancel all good results achieved after slow actions on the basis that whatever X is, a slow action could demonstrably suggest X.  Neither alternative seems to me particularly desirable.

I have always wondered a little about this which is perceived wisdom. A slow 3♠ may be 2.5♠ or 3.5♠, that is true in general.

But is it true in particular? If one player always hesitates when considering bidding more, and his partner always acts as though it is a 3.5♠ bid, he will be quite successful. But if the next player along only really thinks before making an optimistic call, then if after thought his partner assumed a 2.5♠ bid he will be relatively successful.

I know the arguments against "If it hesitates, shoot it" but there is one obvious argument for such an approach: the actual partner may have a good idea what a hesitation means [even if only on a subconscious level]. The only way to deal with this may be to assume that success should not be allowed.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on Mar 8 2010, 12:42 AM, said:

dburn, on Mar 7 2010, 04:25 PM, said:

... or to cancel all good results achieved after slow actions on the basis that whatever X is, a slow action could demonstrably suggest X.  Neither alternative seems to me particularly desirable.

I have always wondered a little about this which is perceived wisdom. A slow 3♠ may be 2.5♠ or 3.5♠, that is true in general.

But is it true in particular? If one player always hesitates when considering bidding more, and his partner always acts as though it is a 3.5♠ bid, he will be quite successful. But if the next player along only really thinks before making an optimistic call, then if after thought his partner assumed a 2.5♠ bid he will be relatively successful.

I know the arguments against "If it hesitates, shoot it" but there is one obvious argument for such an approach: the actual partner may have a good idea what a hesitation means [even if only on a subconscious level]. The only way to deal with this may be to assume that success should not be allowed.

I think that this is actually a reasonable approach for this sort of auction. What I and all of my partners do, if we realise that we have taken a long time over a bid, is make the final decision for the partnership.

However, in competitive auctions, especially at high levels, it is much more difficult to make a decision on your own. This is why I am a strong advocate of using the Stop card in such situations even when there is not a jump. I hope that the L&E Committee will consider such a regulation.

[axman]

bluejak, on Mar 7 2010, 06:42 PM, said:

dburn, on Mar 7 2010, 04:25 PM, said:

... or to cancel all good results achieved after slow actions on the basis that whatever X is, a slow action could demonstrably suggest X.  Neither alternative seems to me particularly desirable.

I have always wondered a little about this which is perceived wisdom. A slow 3♠ may be 2.5♠ or 3.5♠, that is true in general.

But is it true in particular? If one player always hesitates when considering bidding more, and his partner always acts as though it is a 3.5♠ bid, he will be quite successful. But if the next player along only really thinks before making an optimistic call, then if after thought his partner assumed a 2.5♠ bid he will be relatively successful.

I know the arguments against "If it hesitates, shoot it" but there is one obvious argument for such an approach: the actual partner may have a good idea what a hesitation means [even if only on a subconscious level]. The only way to deal with this may be to assume that success should not be allowed.

Actually, the prescription found in L16, if followed, leads to shooting after the hesitation except in rare circumstances.

The reason that L16 is not enforced as written very often is that it is viewed as too onerous.

[pwg]

Law 16 includes the word *demonstrably* as in: "partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information". In normal parlance that implies at least a fairly high degree of certainty, not just a possibility.

How then should we interpret "demonstrably" in this context? If the extraneous information is that the doubler is not sure that this is the best call, how do we demonstrate that this suggests one LA over another?

[hotShot]

lamford, on Mar 7 2010, 09:34 PM, said:

OK, I accept those two, although I am not sure why partner would double very very slowly, which is what we are told in the OP. The only choice is between pass and double in each case.

But even then, surely 3NT is the most likely contract. On a spade lead we can duck the first round, as spades are going to be 2-2-6-3 round the table. We might only fail when the weak two bidder has a certain entry in clubs and we are forced to play on the suit.

So, your "extra" hands merely reinforce my argument - that 3NT is demonstrably suggested. And I would back partner to have a singleton spade after the raise - for which most lawful people would want three cards in the suit.

Now that we have agreed on possible hands, lets take a look at Law 16:

Law 16B said:

B. Extraneous Information from Partner
1. (a) After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

A t/o-dbl is a request to bid on, if a slow t/o dbl would suggest bidding on, there is no extraneous information.
To play 3NT partner could bid that himself, if he has sufficient ♠ stopper, or he could make the only bid available to him that does not bypass 3NT.
Partners dbl (slow or fast) is massive suggestion to play 3NT, if my hand has sufficient ♠ stopper. What extraneous information does the hesitation carry?

[bluejak]

axman, on Mar 8 2010, 03:28 AM, said:

Actually, the prescription found in L16, if followed, leads to shooting after the hesitation except in rare circumstances.

The reason that L16 is not enforced as written very often is that it is viewed as too onerous.

I do not believe this at all.

[lamford]

hotShot, on Mar 8 2010, 08:02 AM, said:

What extraneous information does the hesitation carry?

As jallerton said, "that the hand is not a standard takeout double"