Either 2S or double might lead to a worse score, but both are more likely to lead to a better score, Nothing is cast iron in bridge. The hesitation suggests that action will probably work better than passing.
@weejonnie said:
The difficulty I have is that V is not specifically mentioned under law 16.
V?
Formatting - I gave the option of ..'pass' .. or .. 'not pass' - but I put them in angled brackets.
Thanks. So what you said was "The difficulty I have is that Pass vs Not Pass is not specifically mentioned under law 16"?
I think that double is suggested over pass, 2S is suggested over pass, and it is not necessary to determine whether double is suggested over 2S, or vice versa, or neither. That's what is meant by not passing being suggested over passing.
Oh I understand that - but 'not passing' is not classified as a logical alternative. It may be logic chopping but
"(a) A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by
unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative."
uses both in the singular.
It is perfectly possible for a poll to suggest that the UI from the BIT suggests ONE of TWO possibilities so that we agree that at least one action other than pass will prove more successful, as you state. BUT we do not know which one - and thus it is not demonstrably suggested. ONLY if BOTH 2S and X are demonstrably suggested by the UI do we forbid both - and IMHO you can't pick and choose what possible UI to apply - since the player at the table may, justifiably, state that they thought that the BIT indicated the alternative UI and they were being careful to act against it - yes it may be self-serving but that ipso facto does not demolish the argument.
I think it may depend on skill levels and bidding styles.
For example, in my improvers class yesterday, one of the ladies (played for about 5 or more years already) after a 1H open from partner and a direct overcall of 1S, stopped and considered bidding 2D (with 3 points and 5 diamonds), then passed. The hesitation here showed no extra values.
For myself, I rarely pause for thought and I am known for never underbidding. So, should I ever hesitate at some point in the future and then support my partners spades to the 3 level, it would not suggest that I was close to bidding 4S, but rather that I was close to passing or bidding just 2S.
I don't know how others bid, but my style is to bid the highest possible bid that I can with the values/shape I have. This is why I feel that a hesitation does not always show extra values, when in my case it would not. Admittedly, I would never think about something and then pass, unless I would be the 3rd pass.
I was not really thinking that many people would hesitate on purpose to force partner to pass... but in this example, lets say every other pair plays in 2S 1-off. Except our pair that hesitates, so they play in 1H as the partner of the BIT thinks that taking action is suggested over passing and so passes. 1H goes one off and they get a top, now what?
Ops say that hesitation gave an advantage and check the scorecard and see that every other table played in 2S. Ask for logical alternatives for a room that exclusively bid 2S and now what? Now we adjust to 2S -1, or let the result stand?
It is "Pass" - a singular action - that is the Logical alternative that we are considering.
(the existence of other alternatives is a distraction).
The action chosen (in this case 2S) is also a singular action.
Pass is a logical alternative to 2S (as determined by the poll).
The UI suggests that 2S is likely to be more successful than Pass.
@weejonnie said:
Oh I understand that - but 'not passing' is not classified as a logical alternative. It may be logic chopping but
"(a) A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by
unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative."
uses both in the singular.
And as stated, I believe double to be suggested over pass. I also believe bidding 2S to be suggested over pass. Each in the singular! So, if passing is a logical alternative, it is clear that neither double nor 2S would be allowed.
You have a ten-count, and they have only over-called at the 2-level. It seems likely that partner had enough to bid something but had a choice of calls. Often, slow passes are a choice between defending, or bidding some number of no-trumps; they don't want the auction to end however. If partner had a raise to 2S he would have made it. After thought, partner decided to pass, so he would almost certainly be passing a takeout double and that might be very bad. Even three trump tricks might not be enough to beat it. But that is using the UI that partner may well have a marginal penalty pass. 2S will probably get partner bidding 3NT. Double will probably get partner passing. Pass will end the auction, of course. I think they are the only three LAs. Which is demonstrably suggested over the others? As others say, we poll to find that out and I think all three will get votes, so they all are. Vulnerability and form of scoring play a big part here, and I really don't know what is demonstrably suggested and I would poll peers of the player. If I had to guess partner's hand it would be something like the following: S x H KT9x D AJxx C Axxx. And I have no idea which action will work!
Everybody here is suggesting a poll but we are all 'carefully avoiding' saying how each one of us would respond to a poll if asked.
Assume that NS are playing (a minor variation of) Precision without too many bells and whistles, the only systemic calls available to S being a negative double (up to 2S) and a cue bid. N bids and makes 2S when East can make 3H.The TD approaches you with the N hand and the auction without the hesitation and asks what calls you would consider and which of them you would select. How would you respond? Would a sufficient number of us acknowledge that we would 'seriously consider' a Pass and of these, a sufficient number acknowledge that they would actually Pass, thus making it a Logical Alternative where the TD can adjust the score?
The reason I am persisting with this is because I was sitting West, playing not Directing, and the TD when called allowed the 2S bid to stand. It was a club game so no polling was done. We got a poor score. Since the TD and I were not able to resolve our difference over the ruling, I am seeking other opinions.
For what it's worth, if I had been directing and had to give a ruling without being able to poll I would have disallowed the 2S call for the reasons I have given in an earlier post and adjusted the score to 2H=+1 by E.
@Vlad said:
Everybody here is suggesting a poll but we are all 'carefully avoiding' saying how each one of us would respond to a poll if asked.
I would bid 2S. I would consider double only very briefly, in order to dismiss it on the basis of my weak hand, good suit and void heart. I would consider passing but I would not select it. I still definitely think bidding 2S is suggested over passing and I also, despite foxymoron's argument, think double is suggested over passing, though his argument may sway me towards thinking that bidding 2S could be suggested over doubling.
However I don't find his example hand terribly likely, since I think anyone with that hand who had broken tempo would then do something other than passing: bidding 3NT or making a negative double are both plausible actions in that position.
Vlad I think you have not taken into account Gordon's first comment to this thread. Any comment is likely to be tainted. However, having said that and having been pushed, if polled without knowing the pause I would be inclined to bid 2 Spades with the north hand.
1) I can't stand a heart contract
2) Ron K says don't sell out at the 2 level, I was willing to play in 1 Spade then I will always be willing to try 2 Spades. So Pass would not be an alternative for me
3) will East take the "push".
This seems to agree with Gordon and ais523.(I haven't the time to go through all the responses but I suspect that others have probably made the same consideration with more words).
So in effect there have been "careful" responses to a poll if it had been asked.
To say that you haven't resolved your differences with the director is not helpful. The club director has made a decision and if you do not agree then you should have appealed the decision with the appropriate authority. It is unfair on the director and this forum to garner opinion with which you might attempt to show that the director is in error. S/he is only doing their best, probably in dificult circumstances.
@Vlad said:
Assume that NS are playing (a minor variation of) Precision without too many bells and whistles,
I think that you should have mentioned this in the original post!
I was also under the misapprehension that you had already done a poll of players yourself (with a 50% result, which surprised me). I realise now that this was a hypothetical poll.
As many have already pointed out, the original post is not the way that you should have conducted a poll.
Nevertheless, the fact that we are playing precision doesn't change my personal view as a player:
I wouldn't even consider passing. I consider that "balancing" in this situation is virtually automatic, whatever system you play - unless your opening bid already promised a six-card spade suit and shortage in hearts.
The only question is whether to balance with 2S or double. But that is probably irrelevant here (I can think of reasons why it could be relevant).
@Martin said:
It seems to me to be a matter of ideology that a slow pass shows more values, or that a slow raise to 3Major shows close to bidding 4. Why not shows close to passing or close to a raise to only 2Major?
I don't think it is the case that a slow invitational bid demonstrably suggests extras, at least in theory. You are perfectly correct that in principle it could be an overbid or an underbid.
In practice, however, regular partnerships will normally know partner's habits, so will be aware whether a slow invitation is likely to be heavy or a stretch. My regular partner's slow invitations are almost invariably a stretch. Heavy invitations make Landy game tries.
But slow sign-offs logically show extras, slow penalty doubles poor trumps, slow passes in competition nearly the values to act (often with undisclosed support), slow takeout doubles are offshape, etc., etc.
@weejonnie said:
The difficulty I have is that V is not specifically mentioned under law 16.
[Edited, having seen subsequent posts on page 2. D'oh]
The fact that Law 16 mentions specific calls or plays rather than combinations of possibilities is also my difficulty under the 2017 wording, a difficulty which I did not have under the 2007 wording.
@weejonnie said:
If a poll suggests that the person who hesitates either has good hearts but not good enough to double OR has high cards in the other suits but not adequate trump support then NEITHER double, NOR 2S are demonstrably suggested since either may lead to a worse score than 2H.
Nearly all actions at the bridge table could work out badly. Just because a particular action could lead to a worse score doesn't mean it isn't demonstrably suggested.
@weejonnie said:
My current opinion is that if partner takes some action then they are not 'carefully avoiding' taking advantage that partner has some values.
Absolutely. Always remember that Law 73C requires a player to make a subjective choice not to take advantage. It is perfectly possible to conclude that a player is in breach of Law 73C even if when objectively considered the action he has taken does not fall to be disallowed under Law 16B.
If one gave this in a bidding challenge in Bridge magazine or Bridge World, I would expect something like 2S 10, Double 5, Pass 1. I am unclear what the current requirement is for a logical alternative. It was, for a while, 30% of those polled would select it (the so-called 70% rule), but now the guidelines are something like 20% would seriously consider it (according to the White Book), and, it has been mooted, 1 in 10 would select it, although the laws do not give a figure. I polled 10 of my club members (matchpoints, love all) and none passed, with eight selecting 2S, and a couple (the lower ranked, surprisingly) doubling. So, I don't think pass is an LA. Other polls might be different.
@foxymoron said:
If I had to guess partner's hand it would be something like the following: S x H KT9x D AJxx C Axxx. And I have no idea which action will work!
I'm afraid it wouldn't occur to me for a moment that partner had that hand. Partner might hesitate, and what he might choose would depend on the methods in use, but why would he pass? Most players know whether this is a penalty double of 1 !h for them (and therefore a pass if playing negative doubles). And even players who have to think because they think it is borderline whether to play for penalties should realise that if they pass after long thought, partner will very likely be crucified by UI. Surely a player who had found himself in the tank on this hand would take the safety play of choosing between 2NT (if natural), 2 !c or a takeout double (which would be my choice given that I not only have 4-4 in the unbid suits but because in my methods where 2NT is a spade raise I have to double first in order to bid a natural 2NT on the next round).
@16248 said:
In Oliver Twist Mr Bumble is often quoted for saying : "The Law is a ass!"
I think he was talking about Law 16B1(a)
Do you say this because you don't understand that law, or because you don't like what it says?
If the latter, do you think that players should have free rein to take advantage of any extraneous information given by partner? Or do you think that the law isn't hard enough on transgressors?
Apart from being complicated and very difficult to administer, it's very unfair. I'm happy with the idea that players should not use UI but this law goes way beyond that. It says that you can't make an obvious bid that almost everyone would bid if a small number of people who may not fully understand your system would think about another bid before agreeing with you.
I have been in the position where I knew what I would bid before my partner took a few seconds longer than he might have done to pass. When I tried to point this out to the Director I was just told to be quiet and let her get on with the decision. A good result was then adjusted to a bad one. This was several years ago, some time before I started Directing but I will always remember the injustice of it. Alan
This is where I see the problem lies - lets say that there is a hesitation, lets say that partner feels that they cannot bid now and so passes.
Then they get a top - they took action based only on the BIT of their partner and achieved a good score on the back of that pass, that they otherwise would not have done.
What should happen now. How can we tell the difference between a deliberate BIT and an incidental one?
Lets say that the non offenders look at the hand and appeal as bidding 2S is a clear bid in their opinion and that they only passed on the back of the hesitation.
Presumably we can complete a poll and seek answers.
However the level of proof required is really low, so that you can envisage something along the lines of most people consider 2S and pass. In practice some choose to bid 2S and some choose to pass. (This may not meet the original hand as I think that is more a clear cut 2S bid)
So we have a situation with the exact same holding by the partner of the BIT player we can have 4 possible outcomes:
They bid 2S and get a bad score
They bid 2S and get a good score
They pass and get a bad score
They pass and get a good score
In both cases where they get a bad score, there is no appeal and result stands.
In both cases where they get a good score the ops appeal to the director for an adjusted score.
In both appeals we complete a poll and in both cases we can rule against their chosen action (either bid or pass) and adjust the score. So, the poll result is 100% consider both possible calls and 50% actually bid each one.
This would mean that the BIT results in a guaranteed bad score, either by way of table result or by adjusted score.
This doesn't sound fair and seems to be against the principle of trying to get a real bridge result.
I am not saying that anything goes, but I am not convinced that the laws are quite correct.
(perhaps the BITer, should sit there for as long as it takes for someone to prompt them with, 'its your bid' or whatever, then say, 'ah I was waiting for east, I missed their bid', then pause 5 seconds and pass? Problem solved?)
Perhaps I should put on the card - NEVER let the ops play at the 1 or 2 level unless it really suits me.
Then, if there is a questionmark over a bit, it is part of the system so that passing cannot be a LA using my methods
I do not think we should start discussing why we do not like the laws, in this forum. Many bridge laws forums have become useless because every thread descends into how the laws should be different. We want this forum to help TDs (and players) to understand how to operate the laws (as they stand).
The intent of Law 16 has remained much the same since the 1987 laws and we should focus on the players responsibilities when in receipt of unauthorised information and how a TD should proceed.
Hi Robin... I very much agree with the sentiment. I guess that what is happening here is that some directors do not necessarily agree with all aspects of the law. This then makes it difficult to 1) apply the law correctly 2) explain it to the table when you dont agree with your own ruling :)
It is not to say that the law is wrong (nor the reasoning behind it), but perhaps the application of this, particularly in a mixed standard and social club setting.
@16248 said:
It says that you can't make an obvious bid that almost everyone would bid if a small number of people who may
not fully understand your system would think about another bid before agreeing with you.
Not quite true - the law says
(b) A logical alternative is an action that a significant proportion of the class of players in
question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, .and some
might select
The white book adds 8.16.6.1
Again the laws do not specify a figure for ‘some’, and the TD should assume that it means more than just an isolated exception.
If no one or almost no one would choose the action having considered it, the action is not a logical alternative.
. . .
So there is some protection against the obvious bid not being allowed. (And obviously the bid you make must be demonstrably suggested by the UI).
@CMOT_Dibbler said:
Vlad I think you have not taken into account Gordon's first comment to this thread. Any comment is likely to be tainted. However, having said that and having been pushed, if polled without knowing the pause I would be inclined to bid 2 Spades with the north hand.
1) I can't stand a heart contract
2) Ron K says don't sell out at the 2 level, I was willing to play in 1 Spade then I will always be willing to try 2 Spades. So Pass would not be an alternative for me
3) will East take the "push".
This seems to agree with Gordon and ais523.(I haven't the time to go through all the responses but I suspect that others have probably made the same consideration with more words).
So in effect there have been "careful" responses to a poll if it had been asked.
To say that you haven't resolved your differences with the director is not helpful. The club director has made a decision and if you do not agree then you should have appealed the decision with the appropriate authority. It is unfair on the director and this forum to garner opinion with which you might attempt to show that the director is in error. S/he is only doing their best, probably in dificult circumstances.
CMOT_Dibbler
To remind you all, if you remember my introductory post, I am in India. The only one here who has attended courses outside the country (EBU) and obtained certifications. Our NBO has no system of training or certifying directors, they have to learn on the job. Consequently I find myself differing from the others fairly often. This is the first time, since joining the forum, that I was unsure of my stand and sought your opinion, which tells me that I would be wrong in ruling in favour of Pass. Thank you for that. Every judgement ruling is a learning experience.
Over here we do not follow the practice of polling except in high level tournaments. In club and a level higher games the Director gives his ruling based on his own judgement and it has to be accepted, even if you disagree with it. The director's ruling is treated as final. There are no appeals at the club level.
To respond to your last point, there is absolutely no question of my using this forum to garner opinion to show that the director was in error. Whenever I raise a similar issue in future it will only be for my personal benefit, to learn. In any case, I enjoy very cordial relations with the director in question and even if I were to tell him that the forum disagreed with him it would result in a friendly debate, as is indeed happening in this forum, not to score a point.
I accept that when making a post like this in future I should not mention the cause of the UI, as it influences your responses. Point taken.
By the way, I had added a smiley after the words 'carefully avoiding' in my post to indicate a light hearted comment, but it seems not to have gone through.
Thank you all for taking the trouble to give your views.
@16248 said:
Apart from being complicated and very difficult to administer, it's very unfair.
I'm happy with the idea that players should not use UI but this law goes way beyond that.
Well, it's not as draconian as it used to be, as we have gone from "could reasonably have been suggested" (1987) through "could demonstrably have been suggested" (1997) to "is demonstrably suggested" (2017).
I'm still a bit exercised in my mind as to the motivation for, and the consequences of, the last change of wording.
@Martin said:
Perhaps I should put on the card - NEVER let the ops play at the 1 or 2 level unless it really suits me.
Then, if there is a questionmark over a bit, it is part of the system so that passing cannot be a LA using my methods
By putting in the qualifier "unless it really suits me" you would effectively negate the rest.
@Vlad said:
Over here we do not follow the practice of polling except in high level tournaments. In club and a level higher games the Director gives his ruling based on his own judgement and it has to be accepted, even if you disagree with it. The director's ruling is treated as final. There are no appeals at the club level.
If there is going to be no poll and there is going to be no appeal, then it is important that the director makes a considered decision. This decision should not be hurried and should be discussed with someone, at the end of the session when it is possible to make the decision free from distractions of other calls on the director.
Comments
Either 2S or double might lead to a worse score, but both are more likely to lead to a better score, Nothing is cast iron in bridge. The hesitation suggests that action will probably work better than passing.
V?
Formatting - I gave the option of ..'pass' .. or .. 'not pass' - but I put them in angled brackets.
Thanks. So what you said was "The difficulty I have is that Pass vs Not Pass is not specifically mentioned under law 16"?
I think that double is suggested over pass, 2S is suggested over pass, and it is not necessary to determine whether double is suggested over 2S, or vice versa, or neither. That's what is meant by not passing being suggested over passing.
Oh I understand that - but 'not passing' is not classified as a logical alternative. It may be logic chopping but
"(a) A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by
unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative."
uses both in the singular.
It is perfectly possible for a poll to suggest that the UI from the BIT suggests ONE of TWO possibilities so that we agree that at least one action other than pass will prove more successful, as you state. BUT we do not know which one - and thus it is not demonstrably suggested. ONLY if BOTH 2S and X are demonstrably suggested by the UI do we forbid both - and IMHO you can't pick and choose what possible UI to apply - since the player at the table may, justifiably, state that they thought that the BIT indicated the alternative UI and they were being careful to act against it - yes it may be self-serving but that ipso facto does not demolish the argument.
I think it may depend on skill levels and bidding styles.
For example, in my improvers class yesterday, one of the ladies (played for about 5 or more years already) after a 1H open from partner and a direct overcall of 1S, stopped and considered bidding 2D (with 3 points and 5 diamonds), then passed. The hesitation here showed no extra values.
For myself, I rarely pause for thought and I am known for never underbidding. So, should I ever hesitate at some point in the future and then support my partners spades to the 3 level, it would not suggest that I was close to bidding 4S, but rather that I was close to passing or bidding just 2S.
I don't know how others bid, but my style is to bid the highest possible bid that I can with the values/shape I have. This is why I feel that a hesitation does not always show extra values, when in my case it would not. Admittedly, I would never think about something and then pass, unless I would be the 3rd pass.
I was not really thinking that many people would hesitate on purpose to force partner to pass... but in this example, lets say every other pair plays in 2S 1-off. Except our pair that hesitates, so they play in 1H as the partner of the BIT thinks that taking action is suggested over passing and so passes. 1H goes one off and they get a top, now what?
Ops say that hesitation gave an advantage and check the scorecard and see that every other table played in 2S. Ask for logical alternatives for a room that exclusively bid 2S and now what? Now we adjust to 2S -1, or let the result stand?
It is "Pass" - a singular action - that is the Logical alternative that we are considering.
(the existence of other alternatives is a distraction).
The action chosen (in this case 2S) is also a singular action.
Pass is a logical alternative to 2S (as determined by the poll).
The UI suggests that 2S is likely to be more successful than Pass.
And as stated, I believe double to be suggested over pass. I also believe bidding 2S to be suggested over pass. Each in the singular! So, if passing is a logical alternative, it is clear that neither double nor 2S would be allowed.
You have a ten-count, and they have only over-called at the 2-level. It seems likely that partner had enough to bid something but had a choice of calls. Often, slow passes are a choice between defending, or bidding some number of no-trumps; they don't want the auction to end however. If partner had a raise to 2S he would have made it. After thought, partner decided to pass, so he would almost certainly be passing a takeout double and that might be very bad. Even three trump tricks might not be enough to beat it. But that is using the UI that partner may well have a marginal penalty pass. 2S will probably get partner bidding 3NT. Double will probably get partner passing. Pass will end the auction, of course. I think they are the only three LAs. Which is demonstrably suggested over the others? As others say, we poll to find that out and I think all three will get votes, so they all are. Vulnerability and form of scoring play a big part here, and I really don't know what is demonstrably suggested and I would poll peers of the player. If I had to guess partner's hand it would be something like the following: S x H KT9x D AJxx C Axxx. And I have no idea which action will work!
Everybody here is suggesting a poll but we are all 'carefully avoiding' saying how each one of us would respond to a poll if asked.
Assume that NS are playing (a minor variation of) Precision without too many bells and whistles, the only systemic calls available to S being a negative double (up to 2S) and a cue bid. N bids and makes 2S when East can make 3H.The TD approaches you with the N hand and the auction without the hesitation and asks what calls you would consider and which of them you would select. How would you respond? Would a sufficient number of us acknowledge that we would 'seriously consider' a Pass and of these, a sufficient number acknowledge that they would actually Pass, thus making it a Logical Alternative where the TD can adjust the score?
The reason I am persisting with this is because I was sitting West, playing not Directing, and the TD when called allowed the 2S bid to stand. It was a club game so no polling was done. We got a poor score. Since the TD and I were not able to resolve our difference over the ruling, I am seeking other opinions.
For what it's worth, if I had been directing and had to give a ruling without being able to poll I would have disallowed the 2S call for the reasons I have given in an earlier post and adjusted the score to 2H=+1 by E.
I would bid 2S. I would consider double only very briefly, in order to dismiss it on the basis of my weak hand, good suit and void heart. I would consider passing but I would not select it. I still definitely think bidding 2S is suggested over passing and I also, despite foxymoron's argument, think double is suggested over passing, though his argument may sway me towards thinking that bidding 2S could be suggested over doubling.
However I don't find his example hand terribly likely, since I think anyone with that hand who had broken tempo would then do something other than passing: bidding 3NT or making a negative double are both plausible actions in that position.
Vlad I think you have not taken into account Gordon's first comment to this thread. Any comment is likely to be tainted. However, having said that and having been pushed, if polled without knowing the pause I would be inclined to bid 2 Spades with the north hand.
1) I can't stand a heart contract
2) Ron K says don't sell out at the 2 level, I was willing to play in 1 Spade then I will always be willing to try 2 Spades. So Pass would not be an alternative for me
3) will East take the "push".
This seems to agree with Gordon and ais523.(I haven't the time to go through all the responses but I suspect that others have probably made the same consideration with more words).
So in effect there have been "careful" responses to a poll if it had been asked.
To say that you haven't resolved your differences with the director is not helpful. The club director has made a decision and if you do not agree then you should have appealed the decision with the appropriate authority. It is unfair on the director and this forum to garner opinion with which you might attempt to show that the director is in error. S/he is only doing their best, probably in dificult circumstances.
CMOT_Dibbler
I think that you should have mentioned this in the original post!
I was also under the misapprehension that you had already done a poll of players yourself (with a 50% result, which surprised me). I realise now that this was a hypothetical poll.
As many have already pointed out, the original post is not the way that you should have conducted a poll.
Nevertheless, the fact that we are playing precision doesn't change my personal view as a player:
I wouldn't even consider passing. I consider that "balancing" in this situation is virtually automatic, whatever system you play - unless your opening bid already promised a six-card spade suit and shortage in hearts.
The only question is whether to balance with 2S or double. But that is probably irrelevant here (I can think of reasons why it could be relevant).
I don't think it is the case that a slow invitational bid demonstrably suggests extras, at least in theory. You are perfectly correct that in principle it could be an overbid or an underbid.
In practice, however, regular partnerships will normally know partner's habits, so will be aware whether a slow invitation is likely to be heavy or a stretch. My regular partner's slow invitations are almost invariably a stretch. Heavy invitations make Landy game tries.
But slow sign-offs logically show extras, slow penalty doubles poor trumps, slow passes in competition nearly the values to act (often with undisclosed support), slow takeout doubles are offshape, etc., etc.
[Edited, having seen subsequent posts on page 2. D'oh]
The fact that Law 16 mentions specific calls or plays rather than combinations of possibilities is also my difficulty under the 2017 wording, a difficulty which I did not have under the 2007 wording.
Nearly all actions at the bridge table could work out badly. Just because a particular action could lead to a worse score doesn't mean it isn't demonstrably suggested.
Absolutely. Always remember that Law 73C requires a player to make a subjective choice not to take advantage. It is perfectly possible to conclude that a player is in breach of Law 73C even if when objectively considered the action he has taken does not fall to be disallowed under Law 16B.
If one gave this in a bidding challenge in Bridge magazine or Bridge World, I would expect something like 2S 10, Double 5, Pass 1. I am unclear what the current requirement is for a logical alternative. It was, for a while, 30% of those polled would select it (the so-called 70% rule), but now the guidelines are something like 20% would seriously consider it (according to the White Book), and, it has been mooted, 1 in 10 would select it, although the laws do not give a figure. I polled 10 of my club members (matchpoints, love all) and none passed, with eight selecting 2S, and a couple (the lower ranked, surprisingly) doubling. So, I don't think pass is an LA. Other polls might be different.
I'm afraid it wouldn't occur to me for a moment that partner had that hand. Partner might hesitate, and what he might choose would depend on the methods in use, but why would he pass? Most players know whether this is a penalty double of 1 !h for them (and therefore a pass if playing negative doubles). And even players who have to think because they think it is borderline whether to play for penalties should realise that if they pass after long thought, partner will very likely be crucified by UI. Surely a player who had found himself in the tank on this hand would take the safety play of choosing between 2NT (if natural), 2 !c or a takeout double (which would be my choice given that I not only have 4-4 in the unbid suits but because in my methods where 2NT is a spade raise I have to double first in order to bid a natural 2NT on the next round).
In Oliver Twist Mr Bumble is often quoted for saying : "The Law is a ass!"
I think he was talking about Law 16B1(a)
Alan
Do you say this because you don't understand that law, or because you don't like what it says?
If the latter, do you think that players should have free rein to take advantage of any extraneous information given by partner? Or do you think that the law isn't hard enough on transgressors?
I'm happy with the idea that players should not use UI but this law goes way beyond that.
It says that you can't make an obvious bid that almost everyone would bid if a small number of people who may not fully understand your system would think about another bid before agreeing with you.
I have been in the position where I knew what I would bid before my partner took a few seconds longer than he might have done to pass. When I tried to point this out to the Director I was just told to be quiet and let her get on with the decision. A good result was then adjusted to a bad one. This was several years ago, some time before I started Directing but I will always remember the injustice of it.
Alan
Alan
This is where I see the problem lies - lets say that there is a hesitation, lets say that partner feels that they cannot bid now and so passes.
Then they get a top - they took action based only on the BIT of their partner and achieved a good score on the back of that pass, that they otherwise would not have done.
What should happen now. How can we tell the difference between a deliberate BIT and an incidental one?
Lets say that the non offenders look at the hand and appeal as bidding 2S is a clear bid in their opinion and that they only passed on the back of the hesitation.
Presumably we can complete a poll and seek answers.
However the level of proof required is really low, so that you can envisage something along the lines of most people consider 2S and pass. In practice some choose to bid 2S and some choose to pass. (This may not meet the original hand as I think that is more a clear cut 2S bid)
So we have a situation with the exact same holding by the partner of the BIT player we can have 4 possible outcomes:
They bid 2S and get a bad score
They bid 2S and get a good score
They pass and get a bad score
They pass and get a good score
In both cases where they get a bad score, there is no appeal and result stands.
In both cases where they get a good score the ops appeal to the director for an adjusted score.
In both appeals we complete a poll and in both cases we can rule against their chosen action (either bid or pass) and adjust the score. So, the poll result is 100% consider both possible calls and 50% actually bid each one.
This would mean that the BIT results in a guaranteed bad score, either by way of table result or by adjusted score.
This doesn't sound fair and seems to be against the principle of trying to get a real bridge result.
I am not saying that anything goes, but I am not convinced that the laws are quite correct.
(perhaps the BITer, should sit there for as long as it takes for someone to prompt them with, 'its your bid' or whatever, then say, 'ah I was waiting for east, I missed their bid', then pause 5 seconds and pass? Problem solved?)
Perhaps I should put on the card - NEVER let the ops play at the 1 or 2 level unless it really suits me.
Then, if there is a questionmark over a bit, it is part of the system so that passing cannot be a LA using my methods
I think this topic has lost its way.
I do not think we should start discussing why we do not like the laws, in this forum. Many bridge laws forums have become useless because every thread descends into how the laws should be different. We want this forum to help TDs (and players) to understand how to operate the laws (as they stand).
The intent of Law 16 has remained much the same since the 1987 laws and we should focus on the players responsibilities when in receipt of unauthorised information and how a TD should proceed.
1) apply the law correctly
2) explain it to the table when you dont agree with your own ruling :)
It is not to say that the law is wrong (nor the reasoning behind it), but perhaps the application of this, particularly in a mixed standard and social club setting.
Not quite true - the law says
(b) A logical alternative is an action that a significant proportion of the class of players in
question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, .and some
might select
The white book adds 8.16.6.1
Again the laws do not specify a figure for ‘some’, and the TD should assume that it means more than just an isolated exception.
If no one or almost no one would choose the action having considered it, the action is not a logical alternative.
. . .
So there is some protection against the obvious bid not being allowed. (And obviously the bid you make must be demonstrably suggested by the UI).
This looks a bit odd, as a statement.
Can I suggest: and obviously, none of this is relevant unless the bid you want to make is demonstrably suggested by the UI (over Pass, say).
To remind you all, if you remember my introductory post, I am in India. The only one here who has attended courses outside the country (EBU) and obtained certifications. Our NBO has no system of training or certifying directors, they have to learn on the job. Consequently I find myself differing from the others fairly often. This is the first time, since joining the forum, that I was unsure of my stand and sought your opinion, which tells me that I would be wrong in ruling in favour of Pass. Thank you for that. Every judgement ruling is a learning experience.
Over here we do not follow the practice of polling except in high level tournaments. In club and a level higher games the Director gives his ruling based on his own judgement and it has to be accepted, even if you disagree with it. The director's ruling is treated as final. There are no appeals at the club level.
To respond to your last point, there is absolutely no question of my using this forum to garner opinion to show that the director was in error. Whenever I raise a similar issue in future it will only be for my personal benefit, to learn. In any case, I enjoy very cordial relations with the director in question and even if I were to tell him that the forum disagreed with him it would result in a friendly debate, as is indeed happening in this forum, not to score a point.
I accept that when making a post like this in future I should not mention the cause of the UI, as it influences your responses. Point taken.
By the way, I had added a smiley after the words 'carefully avoiding' in my post to indicate a light hearted comment, but it seems not to have gone through.
Thank you all for taking the trouble to give your views.
Well, it's not as draconian as it used to be, as we have gone from "could reasonably have been suggested" (1987) through "could demonstrably have been suggested" (1997) to "is demonstrably suggested" (2017).
I'm still a bit exercised in my mind as to the motivation for, and the consequences of, the last change of wording.
By putting in the qualifier "unless it really suits me" you would effectively negate the rest.
If there is going to be no poll and there is going to be no appeal, then it is important that the director makes a considered decision. This decision should not be hurried and should be discussed with someone, at the end of the session when it is possible to make the decision free from distractions of other calls on the director.