[lamford]

PhilKing, on 2014-October-11, 03:27, said:

The reason for the BIT may have been that which you suggest, but to adjust we would need to demonstrate that the BIT suggests a grand slam try over other explanations. IMO the bit in itself does not really suggest anything at all.

To quote GGWhizz, "there was a hesitation but no thinking was involved."

No. To adjust all we need to establish is that bidding 7H is an LA to 6H (or Pass), that it is less successful (it will go down in practice), and that a significant number of peers would seriously consider 7H and some would select it. Not bidding 7H is demonstrably suggested by the BIT, as an immediate 5H could equally have been a failed attempt to bid 6H.

[PhilKing]

lamford, on 2014-October-11, 04:11, said:

No. To adjust all we need to establish is that bidding 7H is an LA to 6H (or Pass), that it is less successful (it will go down in practice), and that a significant number of peers would seriously consider 7H and some would select it. Not bidding 7H is demonstrably suggested by the BIT, as an immediate 5H could equally have been a failed attempt to bid 6H.

No. You first have to establish that the BIT demonstrably suggests the chosen action over less successful choices. LA's are not relevant until then.

Besides, only a lunatic would bid a grand slam here.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2014-October-11, 04:11, said:

Not bidding 7H is demonstrably suggested by the BIT, as an immediate 5H could equally have been a failed attempt to bid 6H.

My emphasis. I don't think your conclusion results from your premise.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2014-October-11, 02:30, said:

The reason for any BIT is always assumed to be that partner was thinking of bidding something other than 5H.

Always? Why?

[pgrice]

ggwhiz, on 2014-October-10, 17:56, said:

ONLY when the 5♥ bid is accepted (Why?). Smells like a dumb 4nt bid and now we have hearts but are off 2 key cards (I've done it!).

If a Director was called I would say yes, there was a hesitation but no thinking was involved.

It seemed to me that if I didn't accept the 5♥ bid it would be made good with 6♥ … and give me less justification to ask the question in the OP.

[lamford]

PhilKing, on 2014-October-11, 04:32, said:

No. You first have to establish that the BIT demonstrably suggests the chosen action over less successful choices. LA's are not relevant until then.

Besides, only a lunatic would bid a grand slam here.

No. You first select the LAs. Then you decide which ones are demonstrably suggested and you disallow them. The players are clearly lunatics, so we should indeed poll from a suitable group of people. If a significant number of lunatics bid 7H, then it becomes an LA. Then you decide which of the LAs are demonstrably suggested by the BIT. The fact that it was insufficient is not an infraction (it became legal when it was accepted), so that part is irrelevant. What we should be asking ourselves is what we would do over a slow 6D. I submit that bidding 7♥ is automatic. You have raised to 4♥ with a huge hand, and partner has made a GS-try (which anything other than 6♥ must be). Making an insufficient bid has not changed the principle one iota.

[PhilKing]

lamford, on 2014-October-11, 17:17, said:

No. You first select the LAs. Then you decide which ones are demonstrably suggested and you disallow them. The players are clearly lunatics, so we should indeed poll from a suitable group of people. If a significant number of lunatics bid 7H, then it becomes an LA. Then you decide which of the LAs are demonstrably suggested by the BIT. The fact that it was insufficient is not an infraction (it became legal when it was accepted), so that part is irrelevant. What we should be asking ourselves is what we would do over a slow 6D. I submit that bidding 7♥ is automatic. You have raised to 4♥ with a huge hand, and partner has made a GS-try (which anything other than 6♥ must be). Making an insufficient bid has not changed the principle one iota.

It's almost as if you actually believe this.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2014-October-11, 04:11, said:

No. To adjust all we need to establish is that bidding 7H is an LA to 6H (or Pass), that it is less successful (it will go down in practice), and that a significant number of peers would seriously consider 7H and some would select it.

PhilKing, on 2014-October-11, 04:32, said:

No. You first have to establish that the BIT demonstrably suggests the chosen action over less successful choices.

Actually it doesn't matter in which order you do it: if it's not demonstrably suggested you don't need to consider the LAs; if there are no LAs you don't need to consider whether it was suggested.

[jallerton]

gordontd, on 2014-October-12, 00:51, said:

Actually it doesn't matter in which order you do it: if it's not demonstrably suggested you don't need to consider the LAs; if there are no LAs you don't need to consider whether it was suggested.

Indeed. In UI cases, The TD should should adjust only when several conditions are all satisfied. As soon as the TD finds that any one of the conditions is not satisfied he can stop worrying and rule that the table result stands. So I would advise TDs to consider the easier questions first. Sometimes this approach will save several paragraphs of Lamfordian-like analysis.

[Aardv]

It seems to me that there are three possible explanations for partner's insufficient bid:

1) He thought I'd bid 5♣ or 5♦. Then I've got extra controls for him and should bid 6♥.
2) He made a mechanical error, and didn't know he was allowed to correct it. In that case I should do it for him.
3) He had a problem on the hand, who knows what, and while he was thinking about it he forgot that 5♥ was insufficient. In that case, the insufficient bid couldn't have happened without the break in tempo, so the break in tempo carries no additional information and I can make whatever call I choose.

In either (1) or (2), the break in tempo suggests that a grand-slam try might be advisable, so I would consider disallowing one.

Paul Lamford's argument seems to be that either a slow or a quick 5♥ is a grand-slam try, but the slow one is weaker, so I am legally constrained to accept it on a marginal hand or better. I don't begin to follow the logic of that.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2014-October-12, 00:51, said:

Actually it doesn't matter in which order you do it: if it's not demonstrably suggested you don't need to consider the LAs; if there are no LAs you don't need to consider whether it was suggested.

The problem with that approach is that any call is usually suggested over some other call, but that is not relevant if the call it is suggested over is not an LA. The order does not matter if a call is not demonstrably suggested over all other calls. For example, we often have a choice between double, pass and bid on. We should first establish which of those are LAs. If we do not then how can we decide whether a person "selected from LAs" one that could demonstrably have been suggested by the UI?

[lamford]

PhilKing, on 2014-October-11, 17:32, said:

It's almost as if you actually believe this.

It is how I believe we should rule. We poll 10 lunatics without the UI. We need to find those that would raise to 4H. We then ask them what they would bid. If any lunatic passes or bids 7H we impose that, as bidding 6H is demonstrably suggested over both of those and is more successful.

[lamford]

Aardv, on 2014-October-12, 06:12, said:

Paul Lamford's argument seems to be that either a slow or a quick 5♥ is a grand-slam try, but the slow one is weaker, so I am legally constrained to accept it on a marginal hand or better. I don't begin to follow the logic of that.

No, it is not. Any bid other than 6H is a GS-try. In the same way as bidding 5NT promises all the key-cards. If it is also slow, then the possibility that it was not a grand-slam try, but for some other reason, must be discounted. We just present the authorised auction (and the IB is now authorised because it has been rendered legal) and ask peers what they would bid. Another reason to bid a grand is that partner might have intended to bid 5NT over 5S, but went backwards by mistake. In my experience, around 10% of auctions which begin 1m-(1S)-1H are people going backwards.

It feels like I only go backwards baby
Every part of me says "go ahead".
I got my hopes up again, oh no... not again.
Feels like we only go backwards darling. - Tame Impala

[PhilKing]

lamford, on 2014-October-13, 09:27, said:

Any bid other than 6H is a GS-try.

You keep saying this as if it is a self evident fact, yet astonishingly, almost no one agrees.

[lamford]

PhilKing, on 2014-October-13, 09:35, said:

You keep saying this as if it is a self evident fact, yet astonishingly, almost no one agrees.

In certain situations a bid between 5♠ and 6♥ could be a choice of slams. I tend to think we are playing in hearts on this one. Perhaps you play with your regular partner that 5NT is pick-a-slam here, or even natural and non-forcing, but I doubt whether this pair play it that way. I shall survey some players and ask them what they bid over 5♥. And campboy, whose opinion most of us respect, stated: "so the UI suggests 7♥ if anything."

I trust you have noticed that 5♠ commits us to slam, as your comment suggests that you have overlooked this. And, out of interest, how would you rule if the player had bid a slow 5NT, folded his cards, and wrote 5NT on his scoresheet?

[nige1]

lamford, on 2014-October-13, 10:19, said:

In certain situations a bid between 5♠ and 6♥ could be a choice of slams. I tend to think we are playing in hearts on this one. Perhaps you play with your regular partner that 5NT is pick-a-slam here, or even natural and non-forcing, but I doubt whether this pair play it that way. I shall survey some players and ask them what they bid over 5♥. And campboy, whose opinion most of us respect, stated: "so the UI suggests 7♥ if anything."

IMO

• A poll would establish that among LAs are Pass, 6♥ and, perhaps, 7♥.
• The chosen alternative, 6♥ damaged opponents.
• Whether the hesitation demonstrably suggests 6♥ over less successful LAs is a matter for director-judgement. FWIW, I guess it does but I think that Pass is the main logical alternative.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2014-October-13, 10:19, said:

In certain situations a bid between 5♠ and 6♥ could be a choice of slams. I tend to think we are playing in hearts on this one. Perhaps you play with your regular partner that 5NT is pick-a-slam here, or even natural and non-forcing, but I doubt whether this pair play it that way. I shall survey some players and ask them what they bid over 5♥. And campboy, whose opinion most of us respect, stated: "so the UI suggests 7♥ if anything."

Yes, I did. Isn't that the opposite of what you are arguing? I think 7♥ is suggested over 6♥ (which I believe is an LA). I would therefore disallow 7♥ (if successful) but allow 6♥ (since I don't think it is suggested).

If partner has misread the auction or simply intended to bid 6♥, I expect the IB to be in tempo. It wasn't, and that suggests it was more likely to be a grand-try or an "oh dear we're off two keys" panic bid. That is why I think 6♥ is the non-suggested LA.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2014-October-13, 11:59, said:

Yes, I did. Isn't that the opposite of what you are arguing? I think 7♥ is suggested over 6♥ (which I believe is an LA). I would therefore disallow 7♥ (if successful) but allow 6♥ (since I don't think it is suggested).

I understand. I agree that 6♥ is an LA. I presume you think 7♥ is also an LA. I think the UI tells you that partner is not making a GS-try, or he would have bid 6♥ immediately. I think people are getting confused by the IB which has become a legal call and has created Pass as an LA. We should pretend that partner made a slow 5NT bid. Now the UI tells us that partner is not making a GS-try, or he would surely have just bid 6H immediately but we have an obvious acceptance of one. So, I think we should disallow 6♥ and impose 7♥ unless the latter is unsuccessful. I don't think you can argue that the BIT suggests he is actually making a GS-try; only a lunatic would attempt a grand here, we are told.

[FrancesHinden]

lamford, on 2014-October-13, 14:38, said:

We should pretend that partner made a slow 5NT bid. Now the UI tells us that partner is not making a GS-try, or he would surely have just bid 6H immediately but we have an obvious acceptance of one.

I see absolutely no reason to pretend that partner made a bid which he didn't make.
Even if we do so, the auction 1H - 4H - 4NT - 5S - 5NT (slow) does not give UI that partner is not making a GS try. Almost no-one bids 5NT quickly here; a slow 5NT bid gives no UI.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2014-October-13, 15:06, said:

I see absolutely no reason to pretend that partner made a bid which he didn't make.
Even if we do so, the auction 1H - 4H - 4NT - 5S - 5NT (slow) does not give UI that partner is not making a GS try. Almost no-one bids 5NT quickly here; a slow 5NT bid gives no UI.

I would agree that if partner did bid 5NT, I would expect him or her to take some time about it. However, it still conveys the UI that we are not off a keycard, or partner would surely bid 6H immediately. The argument that everyone takes some time after some auction like 1H - (1S) - 4H - (4S) does not mean that a BIT does not convey UI. It is the same as a hesitation Blackwood sequence. If we were off one or more key cards, partner would (or should) bid 6H immediately. Instead partner bid something else, when we were already committed to 6H. That was indeed 5H. The same arguments apply as to 5NT, which is why I asked readers to "pretend" that he had chosen that. Partner was intending to make a sufficient bid other than 6H, which can only be construed as a GS-try. I am astonished that people are allowing someone to make a slow IB and get away with it. I would be more inclined to give the 5H bidder a PP for the breach of 72B1, but I would want to cross-examine him using thumbscrews first. And any suggestion that 6H is demonstrably suggested over 7H is poppycock. If, however, not enough lunatics peers bid 7♥ then it is indeed not an LA. I have no evidence either way, yet.