[Pict]

So in this case, let's say I follow the logic that leads to passing.

The TD is called, and asks me why I passed. I am to reply that I passed partner's double because he hesitated and I decided he didn't have a normal takeout double.

So far I am just not convinced by the arguments from vague interpretations of partner's tempo, and I am certainly not putting myself in the position of explaining myself to the Director as above or anything like it.

[aguahombre]

lamford, on Mar 8 2010, 09:33 AM, said:

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"

Ok, so if I make the call which I would make if it were a standard takeout double (3NT), and explain to the TD or a committee just that....then my explanation is, of course, self-serving. But it is also correct. From what I see here, it is also the likely call that would be chosen by my peers and by the committee members.

If I were to Pass, for whatever noble reasons, that would be a call influenced by the BIT, and hard to defend if it worked out well. If I get lawyer'd against for making the call my hand and the auction suggest to me --without regard to the BIT-- at least my conscience will be clear.

[dburn]

aguahombre, on Mar 8 2010, 09:17 PM, said:

If I were to Pass, for whatever noble reasons, that would be a call influenced by the BIT, and hard to defend if it worked out well.  If I get lawyer'd against for making the call my hand and the auction suggest to me --without regard to the BIT-- at least my conscience will be clear.

I have a lot of sympathy with this argument - it is the one Jeff Rubens used to advance in the Bridge World for just "doing what you would do anyway" even in the presence of UI from partner. This strategy is now considerably more strongly supported by Law 16 than it used to be, but it remains counter-indicated by Law 73 (which is why I remark that these two Laws are self-contradictory - or more exactly, why taken together they create a body of Laws that is self-contradictory; as was correctly pointed out to me the other day, neither actually contradicts itself).

If, as aquahombre and others remark, you make the "normal" call having taken care to convince yourself that it really is normal, you are not necessarily in violation of L16, for to you there are no logical alternatives to the call you made. Of course, your peer group may consider that (in effect) there were, and you should of course submit to such a judgement.

But suppose that I held this hand, and suppose my partner doubled very slowly. Now, maybe he had some 12-count with ♠Qx and only three hearts, and maybe he was doubling very slowly because he was screwing his courage to the sticking-point and beyond before he doubled. If he has such a hand, surely I should pass - we won't make anything, and they won't make 3♠ doubled.

That's not likely, though - the opponents won't often have only eight spades for this auction, and besides, partner would double only moderately slowly (or not at all) with some shapeless junk, not double very slowly. Far, far more often than that my guy will be doubling very slowly because he has some 0=4=(5-4) or 0=3=(6-4) monster hand and is terrified that I will leave the double in, so I should not.

That is why I consider that although L16 does not oblige me to pass, L73 might oblige me to pass, especially since some very strong players in their contributions to this thread have remarked that pass "could work" or "is reasonable", or words to that effect. A poll of such players per L16 would not provide evidence for enforcing a pass, since none of them actually would pass, but if bidding scored 2140 in 7♣ while pass scored 100 against 3♠ doubled, I might still consider that the opponents had a case under L73.

[lamford]

dburn, on Mar 9 2010, 07:31 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Mar 8 2010, 09:17 PM, said:

If I were to Pass, for whatever noble reasons, that would be a call influenced by the BIT, and hard to defend if it worked out well.  If I get lawyer'd against for making the call my hand and the auction suggest to me --without regard to the BIT-- at least my conscience will be clear.

I have a lot of sympathy with this argument - it is the one Jeff Rubens used to advance in the Bridge World for just "doing what you would do anyway" even in the presence of UI from partner. This strategy is now considerably more strongly supported by Law 16 than it used to be, but it remains counter-indicated by Law 73 (which is why I remark that these two Laws are self-contradictory - or more exactly, why taken together they create a body of Laws that is self-contradictory; as was correctly pointed out to me the other day, neither actually contradicts itself).

If, as aquahombre and others remark, you make the "normal" call having taken care to convince yourself that it really is normal, you are not necessarily in violation of L16, for to you there are no logical alternatives to the call you made. Of course, your peer group may consider that (in effect) there were, and you should of course submit to such a judgement.

But suppose that I held this hand, and suppose my partner doubled very slowly. Now, maybe he had some 12-count with ♠Qx and only three hearts, and maybe he was doubling very slowly because he was screwing his courage to the sticking-point and beyond before he doubled. If he has such a hand, surely I should pass - we won't make anything, and they won't make 3♠ doubled.

That's not likely, though - the opponents won't often have only eight spades for this auction, and besides, partner would double only moderately slowly (or not at all) with some shapeless junk, not double very slowly. Far, far more often than that my guy will be doubling very slowly because he has some 0=4=(5-4) or 0=3=(6-4) monster hand and is terrified that I will leave the double in, so I should not.

That is why I consider that although L16 does not oblige me to pass, L73 might oblige me to pass, especially since some very strong players in their contributions to this thread have remarked that pass "could work" or "is reasonable", or words to that effect. A poll of such players per L16 would not provide evidence for enforcing a pass, since none of them actually would pass, but if bidding scored 2140 in 7♣ while pass scored 100 against 3♠ doubled, I might still consider that the opponents had a case under L73.

I love it. Indeed partner's hesitation suggests that he may have ♠ none ♥ AQxx ♦xxx ♣AKxxxx. That is a really awkward hand; Double is flawed, but so is everything else; you don't want partner to pass, but you don't want to bid anything other than double either. In fact the slow double is ideal, as nobody passes the hand opposite. Note that nothing is demonstrably suggested, but over our slow 3NT he can bid 4C to show something like this, and while we will probably only reach 6C that is better than the likely five (or six) tricks against 3S doubled.

My conscience would not be clear ...

[aguahombre]

and who suggested a slow 3NT after the slow double? 3NT in tempo, and if the same hand who bid the slow double wants to bid on, so what? He merely knows I chose a takeout to 3NT.

[dburn]

aguahombre, on Mar 9 2010, 09:55 PM, said:

and who suggested a slow 3NT after the slow double? 3NT in tempo, and if the same hand who bid the slow double wants to bid on, so what?  He merely knows I chose a takeout to 3NT.

Oh, no one is suggesting that you should bid 3NT slowly. The point is that you should choose pass instead of 3NT, perhaps because the UI from partner's very slow double demonstrably suggests that you should not choose pass. The further point is that even if no one would actually pass with your hand over an in-tempo double, L16 then says that it is OK for you to bid, but L73 says (or perhaps says) that it is still mandatory for you to pass over a very slow double.

[aguahombre]

If that is the case, then I should just call the director myself and tell him to make the bid he wants, because I won't make a wrong call based on a slow anything by partner.

[dburn]

aguahombre, on Mar 10 2010, 12:55 AM, said:

If that is the case, then I should just call the director myself and tell him to make the bid he wants, because I won't make a wrong call based on a slow anything by partner.

I am not sure you have understood anything I have said, and I do not particularly blame you for that - these are deep waters.

What I say, to clarify, is that in the context of Law 16 you and jdonn are both right when you say in effect (as you both did say) that "if no one would pass [an in-tempo double] then we shouldn't make anyone pass".

But in the context of Law 73, then if I and jdonn say in effect (as we both did say) that "I think pass is very reasonable. Why should we have 9 fast tricks, one spade stopper is very scary?" then although neither of us would pass an in-tempo double, both of us should pass a very slow double if we are convinced that a very slow double can only be based on a hand that really does not want us to pass it.

Of course, we (by which I mean I - jdonn never errs) may be wrong - I in particular live in the constant dread that the Original Poster will tell us that partner actually had a weak no trump, and that my hand passed his very slow double, and the score wasn't adjusted to 3NT down two as it should have been... but to return to the main stream of this evening's symposium:

Now, I don't care whether they rewrite L16 or L73. I think that your (aquahombre's) point of view (bid 3NT) is entirely reasonable, and that it is entirely ridiculous that the present L16 and the present L73 should co-exist. I also think (how could I think otherwise?) that my point of view (pass) is entirely reasonable, and that it is entirely ridiculous that the present L16 and the present L73 should co-exist. And furthermore, I think that Carthage ought to be destroyed...

[Pict]

I believe (or suffer the delusion) that I understand dburn's argument, even if I don't agree with it.

There is one point that I think needs clarification.

dburn seems to have abandoned the defined meaning of 'logical alternative' and replaced it by 'reasonable alternative', or perhaps a bid that has some logic.

Ignoring the meaning of logical alternative in the Laws seems to cut Laws 73 and 16 adrift from each other, creating the possibility of adopting more extreme criteria for complying with 73C. Reintroducing the meaning of logical alternative appears (to me) to remove the supposed overall incoherence.

[lamford]

dburn, on Mar 10 2010, 02:40 AM, said:

both of us should pass a very slow double if we are convinced that a very slow double can only be based on a hand that really does not want us to pass it <snip>

I would go further. Both of you should pass a very slow double if you think it is more likely than not to be based on a hand that really does not want us to pass it.

You must carefully avoid taking ANY advantage from the UI.

On another forum, I discussed what to bid on Axx Axx Axx Axxx third in hand after a very slow pass from partner as dealer. Only The Abbott, partnering Brother Anthony, would select 3NT, and therefore it is not a logical alternative, so 16B does not prevent me selecting it. Were it not for Law 73C, I would be permitted to have a shot at it, as partner's most likely hand type is a flawed pre-empt somewhere, or an off-centre weak two.

[Pict]

lamford, on Mar 10 2010, 06:51 AM, said:

On another forum, I discussed what to bid on Axx Axx Axx Axxx third in hand after a very slow pass from partner as dealer. Only The Abbott, partnering Brother Anthony, would select 3NT, and therefore it is not a logical alternative, so 16B does not prevent me selecting it. Were it not for Law 73C, I would be permitted to have a shot at it, as partner's most likely hand type is a flawed pre-empt somewhere, or an off-centre weak two.

You may have argued this, but I am surprised that you gained agreement to your proposition that 16B let's you choose a bid no-one else would choose, where your actions are being queried after a justified suggestion by opponents that you used UI.

I don't believe that view is standard, and personally would be dismayed to find it was.

I am not absolutely sure why 73C has survived, but I am convinced that it is not solely to prevent you from using UI to punt 3NT.

[blackshoe]

Pict, on Mar 10 2010, 07:23 AM, said:

lamford, on Mar 10 2010, 06:51 AM, said:

On another forum, I discussed what to bid on Axx Axx Axx Axxx third in hand after a very slow pass from partner as dealer. Only The Abbott, partnering Brother Anthony, would select 3NT, and therefore it is not a logical alternative, so 16B does not prevent me selecting it. Were it not for Law 73C, I would be permitted to have a shot at it, as partner's most likely hand type is a flawed pre-empt somewhere, or an off-centre weak two.

You may have argued this, but I am surprised that you gained agreement to your proposition that 16B let's you choose a bid no-one else would choose, where your actions are being queried after a justified suggestion by opponents that you used UI.

I don't believe that view is standard, and personally would be dismayed to find it was.

I am not absolutely sure why 73C has survived, but I am convinced that it is not solely to prevent you from using UI to punt 3NT.

I have been taught, by more than one expert on the laws, that we do not treat the words "from among logical alternatives" in Law 16B1{a} literally. Instead, we treat any action chosen by the recipient of UI as a logical alternative, regardless of the definition of that term in Law 16B1{b}. I've never received a rational explanation why we do this, I've just been told "that's what we do". OTOH, in other cases, I've been taught that we follow the law literally. Why? Because "that's what we do". I don't like it. It's inconsistent. It makes no sense.

Maybe I've completely misunderstood the position of "standard practice", but if not it seems to me somebody needs to smack "standard practice" upside the head a couple of times. And if I have, I wish somebody would explain it to me in terms that make sense. "It's what we do" won't cut it.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on Mar 10 2010, 09:30 AM, said:

I have been taught, by more than one expert on the laws, that we do not treat the words "from among logical alternatives" in Law 16B1{a} literally.

I think you have been taught correctly, as otherwise the Law becomes unworkable. 16b is quite specific however, so you are stuck with "it's what we do". And that is used to explain all sorts of anomalies in the Laws. The wording of 16b is just a blunder, as there is a greater use of UI if you select a bid that is not even a logical alternative.

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on Mar 10 2010, 02:30 PM, said:

I have been taught, by more than one expert on the laws, that we do not treat the words "from among logical alternatives" in Law 16B1{a} literally. Instead, we treat any action chosen by the recipient of UI as a logical alternative, regardless of the definition of that term in Law 16B1{b}.

Indeed, we appear to treat the law as if it reads something like: "the partner may not choose a call or play when there are logical alternatives and the call or play chosen could demonstrably have been suggested over a logical alternative by the extraneous information".

I am happy with that but it would be better if the law said so.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on Mar 10 2010, 09:57 AM, said:

I think you have been taught correctly, as otherwise the Law becomes unworkable.

Does it? How so?

Quote

16b is quite specific however, so you are stuck with "it's what we do". And that is used to explain all sorts of anomalies in the Laws. The wording of 16b is just a blunder, as there is a greater use of UI if you select a bid that is not even a logical alternative.

Not good enough.

[Pict]

If we consider examples such as pulling a hesitant double, or bidding game after a try and hesitant sign off from partner, then I would say we know that the intention is not to allow those actions because no-one else would bid that way without UI - quite the contrary.

It is perfectly reasonable to challenge poor drafting of the rules, and especially if you have a strong professional concern for those rules. That is not the same as harbouring any real doubt about the intention and the way that consultation and logical alternatives are used in practice.

So I would argue that it is beyond sense to damage my team/partnership interests by an interpretation of the rules that is so extreme, almost no opponent and perhaps no Director would agree with that interpretation.

[blackshoe]

If you're responding to me, Pict, I don't know what you're trying to say.

[Vampyr]

Pict, on Mar 10 2010, 11:43 AM, said:

There is one point that I think needs clarification.

dburn seems to have abandoned the defined meaning of 'logical alternative' and replaced it by 'reasonable alternative', or perhaps a bid that has some logic.

I believe that dburn has said that bids were considered "reasonable" because he was quoting or paraphrasing people. The term, in any case, strengthens his arguments, because "logical alternatives" would include any bids that can be described as "reasonable", as well as others.

[Pict]

Vampyr, on Mar 10 2010, 11:55 AM, said:

Pict, on Mar 10 2010, 11:43 AM, said:

There is one point that I think needs clarification.

dburn seems to have abandoned the defined meaning of 'logical alternative' and replaced it by 'reasonable alternative', or perhaps a bid that has some logic.

I believe that dburn has said that bids were considered "reasonable" because he was quoting or paraphrasing people. The term, in any case, strengthens his arguments, because "logical alternatives" would include any bids that can be described as "reasonable", as well as others.

Yet in this case we were discussing whether there was any logical alternative to 3NT - in the sense of a bid that would be made by some peers...

It is not clear there is an alternative in that sense, but it is clear pass is reasonable. So I don't see how dburn's argument is strengthened in the context of this thread.

[Pict]

blackshoe, on Mar 10 2010, 11:28 AM, said:

If you're responding to me, Pict, I don't know what you're trying to say.

No, I wasn't responding to you.