[JanM]

One point about what might be suggested by a slow double is that assuming this occurred without screens, the DBLer's partner often has additional information from the doubler's body language while s/he was thinking. That information might well be subconscious, not something of which the player is aware, but it's surely there.

My law's expert says that any bid the person at the table makes must be a logical alternative because it was actually made by a "peer" of the player involved.

[mycroft]

blackshoe, on Mar 10 2010, 09:11 AM, said:

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?

Reading it the other way allows the "illogical alternative" - "I know that the UI says bid 4S instead of (3NT/passing the double/whatever). But making the 'logical alternative not suggested by the UI' call guarantees me a zero. So, I'll bid 6S instead. That's not even sane, but there's a chance, if partner's got a perfecto and the cards all align right, that it will make - and my zero becomes a top. When they claim I can't make that call, I'll get them to prove that the call I took was a logical alternative. Since they can't, because it clearly isn't, I'll get to keep my top."

Quote

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.

Very much agree. But the alternative is worse, and the chance of it getting fixed before 2018 is "not a logical alternative".

[blackshoe]

Fair enough — although I still don't know what you're trying to say.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on Mar 10 2010, 03:13 PM, said:

But the alternative is worse, and the chance of it getting fixed before 2018 is "not a logical alternative".

Well, I can't disagree with that!

[lamford]

JanM, on Mar 10 2010, 02:31 PM, said:

My law's expert says that any bid the person at the table makes must be a logical alternative because it was actually made by a "peer" of the player involved.

A logical alternative is defined in 16B1b, and my English expert thinks that the person at the table cannot constitute a "significant proportion of such players" on his own. Now if a well-known London player who has appeared on T-shirts showing his prowess were to make the bid, it is possible that the peer group would be only one, and he would be its only member, in which case I might agree. But in that case, peer has the meaning most often used in clues to Private Eye crosswords.

Why don't we all just admit 16B1a has been FUBAR, and get on with applying what we know it should say?

[blackshoe]

Because if "we" can apply that to 16B1, "we" (for values of "we") can apply it to any law - and then the chance of consistency in rulings in bridge drops to roughly zero.

[Vampyr]

Pict, on Mar 10 2010, 06:04 PM, said:

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...

Do not forget that this in in the ACBL. If I am not mistaken, their regulation
does not require a peer to actually make a call before designating it a logical alternative. To consider and reject it is enough.

[blackshoe]

What regulation is that?

The ACBLScore Tech Files say

Quote

The ACBL Laws Commission has been asked for an interpretation of the phrase "logical alternative" as used in law 16.  A logical alternative is a call that would be seriously considered by at least a substantial minority of equivalent players, acting on the basis of all the information legitimately available.

and I suppose many ACBL TDs still use it. But the Tech Files are not regulations, and while an LC interpretation is binding on TDs, it is not clear if this interpretation still stands, since it predates the current laws, and the laws now explicitly define "logical alternative" — and this interpretation is inconsistent with that definition.

[FrancesHinden]

lamford, on Mar 10 2010, 12:43 AM, said:

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 ...

All this comment tells me is that a slow double doesn't suggest anything unless you know your partner well.

Without having read this thread I was given your sample hand as a problem after 2S P 3S and I doubled with no difficulty, thinking it blindingly obvious. The person who gave me the hand also thought double obvious.

I am sure there are also hands that I would find difficult on this auction where you would find the choice of call easy.

[jallerton]

Vampyr, on Mar 7 2010, 01:22 AM, said:

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.

I agree. Sometimes we might judge that a slow pass from partner was 90% likely to have been based on thinking of bidding on and 10% likely to have been based on thinking of doubling for penalties. In such a scenario, bidding on could be demonstrably suggested by the UI and we should not be able to use the "partner might have been thinking of doubling" argument.

In the present case, it is not at all clear to me which is more likely out of "more suitable for defending" and "less suitable for defending". Even if some Lamfordian simulation performed a few days later suggested that one was 55% and the other 45%, it would not matter as the results of such a simulation would not be available to a player at the table. Advice available on the ACBL website supports this view:

ABCL, on Duplicate-Decisions-2008, said:

The use of the word “DEMONSTRABLY” is intended to remove from consideration logical alternatives that are not obviously suggested over another by the unauthorized information.
The Director should not change a result unless the action chosen can be shown (demonstrated) to have been suggested. The actions that will now be removed by Law have to be suggested in an obvious, easily understood way— it must be readily apparent rather than a product of some subtle bridge argument.

It is interesting to note the ACBL's guidance on Law 73:

ABCL, on Duplicate-Decisions-2008, said:

When a violation of the Proprieties as described in this Law results in damage to an innocent, the Director may:
1. .......
2. award an adjusted score (Law 12) if a player has chosen from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested by his partner’s tempo, manner or remark.

So the ACBL seems to regard Laws 16B and 73C as complementary.

Quote

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.

Well in this case, 4th hand might have used the time profitably when partner was obeying the STOP warning over 2♠; a raise to 3♠ should not have been regarded as an unexpected development. Of course this does assume that 2nd hand did take the ACBL recommended 8-10 seconds before calling; I know that not everybody does.

Dburn said:

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.

Lamford said:

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

I am surprised by these arguments. Do you play double of 3♠ as "optional"? I play double as take-out, showing values and (ideally) a 3-suiter with shortness in the suit doubled. The 0436 hand quoted above looks like a completely obvious take-out double. If partner decides to pass, I'm not ashamed of my lack of defence; I do have 2 aces after all. Of course it might work out badly, particularly if partner has subsidiary club length, but that it why the opponents pre-empt!

Hands which are not 3-suiters or 1-suiters are the more difficult ones to bid after this auction (and hence far more likely to cause partner to hesitate) as there is no obvious call available to show them.

[lamford]

duplicated

[jallerton]

mycroft, on Mar 10 2010, 08:13 PM, said:

Reading it the other way allows the "illogical alternative" - "I know that the UI says bid 4S instead of (3NT/passing the double/whatever). But making the 'logical alternative not suggested by the UI' call guarantees me a zero. So, I'll bid 6S instead. That's not even sane, but there's a chance, if partner's got a perfecto and the cards all align right, that it will make - and my zero becomes a top. When they claim I can't make that call, I'll get them to prove that the call I took was a logical alternative. Since they can't, because it clearly isn't, I'll get to keep my top."

Well this is a good example of a case where, whilst it could be argued that Law 16B has not been breached, Law 73C certainly has been.

If Law 16B has not been breached, we can use Law 12A1 to adjust the score for a breach of Law73C, so the 6♠ bidder does not get to keep his top once the TD has given his ruling.

[barmar]

Is a wild gamble really "taking advantage from the UI"? It seems like the opponents get an automatic double shot from this: if it goes down they get a good board, if it makes they can call the TD and get it adjusted. This seems like just another version of "if it hesitates, shoot it", because once there's a hesitation there's almost no way for that side to get a good board. The receiver of the UI knows that he's can't take the normal action, so his choices are to take the contraindicated action (which he's pretty sure will result in a bad board) or take a flyer and pray.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 11 2010, 05:20 PM, said:

All this comment tells me is that a slow double doesn't suggest anything unless you know your partner well.

Well, your hand, which is authorised, tells you quite a lot, but you are not allowed to discern the reasons for the BIT from your hand, in my opinion. The opponents have bid and raised spades which tells you that your partner is likely to have short spades. Now, you know from the BIT that he does not have ♠ x ♥ AQxx ♦Qxxx ♣AKJx. You might indeed know which hand partner will double on and which he will not, and that is authorised. What is not authorised is for you diagnose the most likely reason for the BIT, which is exactly the reason specified by dburn. It is much more likely (not 55% - 45% as jallerton suggested) that partner has a distributional hand and could not find anything better than double.

If you can suggest a hand that would double slowly that wants you to Pass, then I am happy to hear about it.

[mjj29]

lamford, on Mar 11 2010, 06:24 PM, said:

Note that 73C does not say "some" or "a tiny amount of" or "a significant proportion of ". It says ANY. And I submit that bidding 3NT does take SOME (however small) advantage of the UI. I struggle to think of hands that will double slowly and want me to pass. I can think of many that will double slowly and not want me to pass. But you are quite entitled to see it differently. And no, I don't play double as optional.

And I see your reasoning on 73C as leading to the conclusion that one must always bid 7 of ones shortest suit after any UI has been transmitted this way, surely this law must be taken with some common sense....

[lamford]

mjj29, on Mar 11 2010, 07:21 PM, said:

And I see your reasoning on 73C as leading to the conclusion that one must always bid 7 of ones shortest suit after any UI has been transmitted this way, surely this law must be taken with some common sense....

I hope you realised that my suggestion to bid 7S was rather tongue-in-cheek. Yes, there must be some practical limits to the application of ANY. But that does not extend to making one's normal bid.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 11 2010, 05:20 PM, said:

Without having read this thread I was given your sample hand as a problem after 2S P 3S and I doubled with no difficulty, thinking it blindingly obvious. The person who gave me the hand also thought double obvious.

I tried a few strong players on OKB and they thought double had the big disadvantage on the hand I quoted, that partner might pass. But even if you think double is automatic on that hand, if you transfer a diamond to any other suit, you have a big problem. Your point actually reinforces my view that partner is probably more distributional than that, as you doubled rather quickly on the 0-4-3-6 example I gave.

And the idea that you might argue that you have done nothing wrong because some simulation was not available to you is ridiculous. If you think it is slightly more likely that partner has a hand that does not want you to pass, then I think that you have to pass as you must not take ANY advantage of the UI.

Note that 73C does not say "some" or "a tiny amount of" or "a significant proportion of ". It says ANY. And I submit that bidding 3NT does take SOME (however small) advantage of the UI. I struggle to think of hands that will double slowly and want me to pass. I can think of many that will double slowly and not want me to pass. But you are quite entitled to see it differently. And no, I don't play double as optional.

[dburn]

Suppose that instead of merely saying "double", partner says "double, but please don't leave this one in".

Now, L16 says that (in effect) you may bid if among players of your class using the methods of your partnership:

[a] only an insignificant number would consider passing, or

[b] although a significant number would consider passing, fewer than "some" would actually pass.

Exactly what constitutes "a significant number", and "fewer than some", is left as an exercise for the reader (or for the Regulating Authority). However, if either of the conditions [a] and [b] above is met, then passing is not considered a logical alternative to bidding, and you are not obliged to pass.

L73 on the other hand says that (in effect) you should pass if bidding could be construed as taking "any advantage" of the unauthorized information from your partner's extraneous remark. This to me implies that unless it is completely obvious from your hand that to pass would be ridiculous, you are obliged to pass.

The question is, then, to what extent a very slow double in fact carries the unspoken message "but please don't leave this one in". It is my belief that this is the overwhelmingly likely meaning of a very slow double (as opposed to merely a slow double, which may simply convey the unspoken message "I don't have a hand that would double in tempo", and says nothing about whether the hand is more or less suitable for having partner leave the double in).

That is: since I and others have described pass as "reasonable" rather than "ridiculous", I believe that although L16 says I may bid, L73 says I must pass. Of course I need not jump to seven of my shortest suit - that is not the issue. But if I did jump to 7♥ and it made, I believe that the score should still be adjusted not under L16 (7♥ is certainly not a logical alternative suggested over anything by the unauthorized information) but under L73 (which compels me to pass).

[jallerton]

dburn, on Mar 12 2010, 12:50 AM, said:

L73 on the other hand says that (in effect) you should pass if bidding could be construed as taking "any advantage" of the unauthorized information from your partner's extraneous remark. This to me implies that unless it is completely obvious from your hand that to pass would be ridiculous, you are obliged to pass.

That is: since I and others have described pass as "reasonable" rather than "ridiculous", I believe that although L16 says I may bid, L73 says I must pass.

I understand your point, but the law-makers may take the view that they have tried to set the definition of logical alternative such that an action is deemed to be one unless it is completely obvious that the action is ridiculous.

There are circumstances (some of which have been mentioned upthread) where a player has obeyed one of these Laws but not the other. However, most of the time, if you are obeying Law 16B you are probably also obeying Law 73C, and vice versa.

Quote

The question is, then, to what extent a very slow double in fact carries the unspoken message "but please don't leave this one in". It is my belief that this is the overwhelmingly likely meaning of a very slow double (as opposed to merely a slow double, which may simply convey the unspoken message "I don't have a hand that would double in tempo", and says nothing about whether the hand is more or less suitable for having partner leave the double in).

I am pleased to note your agreement that a double being merely "slow" does not make it more or less attractive to pass.

I am fascinated by your suggestion that a "very slow" double must convey a message about the suitability of the hand for defending, but I disagree. [In the opening post, the double was described as "very, very slow". Does that make a difference?]

Whilst the (extreme) slowness of the double might be because:

[a] partner has relatively poor defence,

it might equally be because:

[b/c/d] partner's holding in hearts, diamonds or clubs is significantly worse than you would normally expect for a double, and that he is concerned that you make take out his take-out double into his weakness.

It might even be because:

[e] he is relatively light in high cards and fears a 3NT bid from you; if you were allowed to know this information (for example, temporarily imagine that partner is a passed hand) you might well decide that 3NT is unlikely to make and that the percentage action at matchpoints is to pass.

In the absence of extensive partnership experience on breaches of tempo in this type of sequence, there is no reason to expect the explanation for the slowness to be [a] any more than it might be [b], [c], [d] or even [e].

As [a], [b], [c], [d] and [e] each suggest different actions may be successful, no call is suggested by the UI and hence (in Law 73 parlance) there is no call which takes any advantage of it.

[dburn]

jallerton, on Mar 13 2010, 06:03 AM, said:

Whilst the (extreme) slowness of the double might be because:

[a] partner has relatively poor defence,

it might equally be because:

[b/c/d] partner's holding in hearts, diamonds or clubs is significantly worse than you would normally expect for a double, and that he is concerned that you may take out his take-out double into his weakness. 

It might even be because:

[e] he is relatively light in high cards and fears a 3NT bid from you; if you were allowed to know this information (for example, temporarily imagine that partner is a passed hand) you might well decide that 3NT is unlikely to make and that the percentage action at matchpoints is to pass.

The difficulty I have with this kind of reasoning is that no break in tempo (or other way of conveying unauthorized information) ever seems to suggest anything to you. Since there are almost always (at least) two conflicting reasons why someone might do something slowly, his partner can always argue "well, it might have been this, or it might have been that, or it might have been..." and (as far as I understand your argument) do whatever he likes without fear of breaking Law 73C.

This in effect renders Law 73C inoperative. Not that I would have any objection to rendering it completely inoperative by removing it from the Laws altogether, since I consider that its existence renders Law 16B1 inoperative - but your argument appears to me also to do that. I have sympathy with the notion that all questions of whether unauthorized information has been used should be resolved by considering what the peer group of the player concerned would do in the absence of such information, and that is the way in which Law 16B1 is currently implemented. Thus I would prefer to retain Law 16B1 and to remove Law 73C, but I understand the opposite view.

What I would prefer does not matter, of course. Since both Laws currently exist, cases must currently be judged under both Laws. Experience suggests - nay, demonstrably suggests - that the slower a player's action, the less happy that player is at the thought that it will conclude the auction, and in general rulings under L73C are given on that basis.

I observe in passing that in your cases [b], [c] and [d], the suggestion from the break in tempo is still to bid, just as it is in case [a]; if partner's holding in, say, hearts or clubs is "significantly worse than I would normally expect", the opponents will be able to add several tricks in that suit to the several tricks they have in spades, and 3♠ doubled will easily make. Only if I knew that case [e] obtained - partner only doubles very, very slowly when he has shape-suitable rubbish opposite which I will not make 3NT with this hand - would the suggestion be to pass (and then I would bid, because that is what L73C says I must do).