BBO Discussion Forums: Money Forfeited - BBO Discussion Forums

The problem with Steve Bloom's analysis is that, as I read the WBF alert regulation, his first premise is flawed: West does have UI, from East's failure to alert 3♣. So there is a question whether West has alternatives to 3NT over 3♠ or to pass over 4♣X, and whether the alternatives he chose demonstrably could have been suggested by the UI. I don't think so, but I haven't consulted on the question.

IMO 3♦ is an alternative to 3♠ (for East). It may not be an LA for anyone here, but based on the bidding at the table, none of us here are peers of this EW.

AFAIK, 3♣ wasn't alerted at all.

bluejak, on 2012-December-27, 15:56, said:

No, it wasn't alerted as a spade fit. However, there is such a thing as logic. If my partner limits his hand (balanced, 15-17) and I tell him that I want to play in spades at the 2 level, he is supposed to pass. The only way that he is not going to pass is when his hand suddenly looks a lot better, not when it looks worse. He will be asking me if I could imagine playing at game level anyway, despite my earlier decision. The only way for his hand to look better is when he has spade support. I don't need to have a specific agreement, whether explicit or implicit, about this.

Since this is not based on a partnership agreement, I do not think that the fact that 3♣ (or any call other than pass) shows spades requires an alert. After all, I do not know more than my opponents, there is no agreement, it is not related to system, it is entirely due to logic.

bluejak, on 2012-December-27, 15:56, said:

If you give a PP for bidding 3♠, it needs to be an infraction. As long as there is no LA to 3♠ there is no infraction. If you want to give a PP for "unauthorized panic" you have to start by making sure that there were LAs to 3♠.

There are reasons why you might give EW a PP in this case (giving MI, failure to alert), but I don't see why East should get one for bidding 3♠.

Rik

I was again reviewing the actions taken by west and some more points came to my mind :

1) Does the inability of alerting the 3C bid ( which is good club according to their methods ) by his P is an UI for him.
2) Whether he has the UI or not, is the 3NT bid logical over 3S after knowing P has 6C and 4S or he selected that since he
guessed ( HOW ? ) that P does not have C and they were undergoing a misunderstanding.
3) Even if I assume that he did not do anything irrational till his P bids 4S, how can he pass 4S double, it is very difficult
to construct hands where 4S will make (especially after the double ) and 5C will go down.I do not know that if someone is
allowed to say that he guessed that something was going wrong and took a gamble, because then the next question will be how
he guessed and he has to provide some reasoning that can be logically derived from the auction to support the guess
work ( I do not think there was any because he alerted 4S as 6C + 5S ).If someone can not state anything then he must not be
allowed to pass 4S as we should assume then that the decision was influenced by some out of bridge indications like mannerism
from the partner, facial expressions or quickness of the S bids.

1) according to my reading of the WBF Alerting regs, yes, the failure to alert is UI, unless West did not expect an alert - and MI to the opponents.
2) You haven't listed enough options here. Bad players bid 3NT because they have a balanced hand and "only" two spades. From the looks of things, these are bad players.
3) Bad players aren't logical, and they don't construct hands; they have a hard enough time evaluating the hand they can see. Rulings are about evidence, not assumptions. You've presented no evidence that West has UI other than from the failure to alert 3♣ - and if these are bad players, they may not know that an alert is required. You can ask West why he bid 3NT; you can ask East why he bid 3♠ and 4♠ and why he didn't bid 3♦ or 4♦. The answers to these questions are evidence, but you can't assume West has UI (other than from the failure to alert 3♣) unless you get evidence that East did or said something to transmit such UI.

Years ago, Edgar Kaplan used to say "decide what ruling you want to make, and then find a law to support it". These days, that approach is deprecated. Instead, we follow the evidence, and the laws.

blackshoe, on 2012-December-28, 09:54, said:

I am not sure but according to me it is not the responsibilty of the appeallant/appeal committe to prove that UI was used rather accused side should have the responsibilty to prove that they did not use the UI.

It's not a matter of proof, it's a matter of gathering evidence — something both the TD and the AC are tasked to do — and of basing a decision on the preponderance of the evidence. See Law 85A1.

It's awfully hard to prove a negative. Your approach seems equivalent to "if it hesitates, shoot it" — to ruling that if there was UI, it was perforce used. This is not an acceptable approach these days.

kaustabh, on 2012-December-28, 06:37, said:

I don't think there is much UI from the lack of an alert of 3C, showing good clubs. Often there are tempo and mannerism indications that a wheel has come off, however, and these also provide UI. If there were, then we should be told so, but it would be wrong to infer just from the auction that there might have been. If the methods were different over a penalty double of 1NT and an artificial double of 1NT, West might guess to pass 4S because a wheel might have come off. Always providing he has no other UI.

But we do not need to query West's actions to adjust. East's only two sensible LAs over 3C are 3D and 3S. Post-Reveley, we disallow 3S entirely as it is demonstrably suggested. West will surely accept the game try, as he thinks his partner has 4-6 or 5-6 in the minors. Over West's 5C, East will correct to 5D (North will not double 5C as that would ask for a club lead). West will treat that, as I said earlier, as a grand-slam try and sign off in 6C. East will bid 6D and that will be doubled and I agree it is down 4, for +800 N/S. In fact it is hard to see any other contract being reached, but I would accept any sensible weighted score (but 0% of 3S of course). And as for retaining the deposit ...

Trinidad, on 2012-December-27, 19:17, said:

You should be taking gordontd's new classes in which 3C shows that you have psyched 1NT with a weak-two in clubs and intended to pass Stayman.

lamford, on 2012-December-29, 05:46, said:

Now that would be fielding a psyche. Why would I assume partner has psyched if his bidding is perfectly possible in the system that (I think) I am playing?

Rik

lamford, on 2012-December-29, 05:43, said:

Why do you think that 3♦ is an LA?

From East's pont of view, West has made a try for 4♠. West had 5 game tries available: 2NT, 3♣, 3♦, 3♥ and 3♠. Obviously, the meaning of 3♣ depends on your general style in game tries.

There are three common types:

• Help suit tries. West has a poor club holding. In that case, the East hand is gold. There is only one LA: 4♠
  
• Short suit game tries. I wouldn't have the agreement to let a 1NT opener show a singleton, but it's not uncommon to show a small doubleton (Jx or worse). Again, the East hand is gold and there is only one LA: 4♠
  
• Value showing game tries. West has a side suit with soft values: KJxx, KQxx, AQxx. He wants to hear about fitting honors. Opposite this kind of a game try, the East had is awful. Again, there is only one LA, but now it is 3♠.

The point is that West could have made many types of game tries. Opposite many of these you might want to make some kind of counter try. But if West tries with 3♣, you will know more than enough and you will never make a counter try.

If you would switch the hearts and clubs in the East hand, then a counter try in diamonds would be a good idea. But as it is, making a counter try is a really bad idea, IM (not so) HO.

Rik

East has a clear sign-off for me. Steve Bloom's suggested hand (KQxx xxx Ax AKxx) does not resonate. Partner bids a suit in which he requires no help yet I am supposed to bid ten to five?

PhilKing, on 2012-December-29, 21:04, said:

We'd bid on that hand and would bid 3♦ or 3♥ in response arguable which.

I'm not sure that even if I gave NS their wish that EW played in 5♦, I'd give them 500, They'd get some of 500, but J♣ is also a reasonably natural lead and now they're getting 100 at most.

Trinidad, on 2012-December-27, 19:17, said:

I think you are just not putting yourself into the mind of the average player. Of course a good player will assume 3♣ shows a club fit. But the below average player - and quite possibly an average player - will not think any such thing. Absent some agreed convention like splinters or Bergen, the way to show a spade fit in the lesser player's mind is to bid spades. The way to show clubs is to bid clubs.

I made the mistake about 40 years ago in explaining the logic behind certain responses to 1NT to the editor of a bridge magazine in a letter for publication. He explained quite kindly that what seemed logical to me [and presumably to Kaplan from where the ideas had come] was not logical to the next person along. That was very true.

Consequently, an agreement based on your view of logic is alertable if not natural because other people will not see it the same way, and 3♣ here is undoubtedly alertable if it does not just show clubs.

The evidence we have does not suggest these are very good players. I think there is no reason at all to suppose that 3♣ shows spades, and that is strengthened by the lack of an alert.

Trinidad, on 2012-December-27, 19:17, said:

3♦ is clearly an LA for the lesser player. Your "logic" will not be his: to him, absent UI, 3♣ is meaningless and he will normally pass it. But he will bid 3♦ because of the void. 3♠ is based on UI, ie it is unauthorised panic.

Trinidad, on 2012-December-29, 12:25, said:

Maybe it is not possible. You tend to put logical deductions to sequences where a lot of people just think "I do not know what he is doing, but if he bids a suit, he has that suit." 1NT - 2♠ is a complete and inviolable signoff to a lot of people who do not play transfers, and for them 1NT - 2♠ - 3♣ is impossible, but clearly suggests playing in clubs. With no agreements whatever, a psyche or semi-psyche are two of the most likely possibilities.

I'm not exactly sure what to call what you're talking about here, David, but "logic" ain't it. A logical argument is logical whoever is looking at it. Turn it around: if an argument is logical, and someone "can't see it", the failure is in the observer, not the argument.

Absolutely. Although it could be that the failure is in the unspoken (because "obvious") assumptions that the arguer knows the observer "knows". Which I think is a lot of what David is saying here and elsewhere - what's blindingly obviously logical to us is not going to be got to by some players - weaker or newer or both - who just don't, or can't, or don't have the background to, think about it. I'm sure that there's stuff that's "obvious by logic" to JLall et al(l) that *I* don't think about because I don't have the underpinnings, and that the argument, post facto would make clear.

And unfortunately, our job as TDs is to do our best to put our minds in the headspace of the people holding the cards, not the people we play with and against. Sometimes we succeed.

blackshoe, on 2012-December-31, 15:44, said:

Ok, so what Trinidad is saying is not logical by your definition.

But I think your definition of a logical argument is wrong. If I say that all cows are brown, and I can see a white animal, therefore it is not a cow, that is logical. But not everyone can see it [think child aged less that five years, or someone whose mental faculties are seriously disturbed].

A logical argument is one that follows logically, not one that every one can follow the logic.

David, you're saying exactly what I said. If a five year old or a mental defective cannot follow the logic, the fault is in them, not in the logic.

The problem with your cow argument is that the premise is demonstrably false. However, if you accept the premise, the conclusion does follow logically from it.

If I understand what you're getting at, in order to refute Rik's argument, you'd have to demonstrate that one or more of his premises is false. Or perhaps the problem is that his argument depends on premises which he did not state, and which others would not necessarily assume. Is that it?

bluejak, on 2012-December-31, 15:36, said:

I assume you mean spade fit.

bluejak, on 2012-December-31, 15:36, said:

Why do you automatically assume that EW are beginners?

The point is that these people clearly are playing transfers, in general. If they would never play transfers, they wouldn't have had a misunderstanding about whether transfers apply after an intervening double, would they?

So, we are not talking about rank beginners. In fact, we are dealing with players who play four suit transfers and therefore might know that there is such a thing as super-accepting. As a matter of fact, they even seem to play the -relatively unusual, but expert- method of super-accepting transfers to minors that Barry Rigal advocates (super-accept by bidding the suit, rather than the standard way of super-accepting by bidding the in-between suit). I would say that if you are advanced enough to use the Barry Rigal method to super-accept transfers to minors, you certainly do know what a super-accept for a transfer to a major is.

Therefore, we can safely assume that -in the system that East thought he was playing- 3♣ shows a spade fit while focusing on clubs. (Of course, he knew from the UI that that was not the intended meaning of 3♣, and it may not even have been the correct meaning of 3♣, but it would be the meaning that East would assume, since the alert of 2♠ is UI.)

Rik

Rik: I disagree. Rank beginners are taught transfers in response to opening 1NT. Rank beginners would be confused as to whether they applied when the 2nd chair has made a call which didn't interrupt anything.

I missed this earlier.

Trinidad, on 2012-December-27, 15:56, said:

This was in response to my assertion that East violated Law 73C when he bid 3♠.

Law 73C doesn't say anything about LAs. It says players in receipt of UI must carefully avoid taking advantage of it. I submit that by its very nature, "unauthorized panic" takes advantage of UI. If there is no LA, the TD may rule that there should be no adjustment, as the criteria of Law 16 have not been met, but that doesn't meant there's been no infraction of 73C.