logical alternative?
Mark Dean
I had this come up in a regional swiss in the ACBL yesterday. Red on
red, I dealt and held:
63
QJT753
6
T762
I was playing with a new partner, we had filled out a card in about 10
minutes, but this was the last match of the day - so far no agreement
issues.
I passed and the following auction occured:
P P 1C 1D!
1H 1NT x* 2S
P 3S P 4S
P P x** P
P xx AP
Notes: They play system on over 1C, so 1D = he would have opened 1D
* about 120 seconds - by far the longest pause I had seen by partner
all day. We agreed to support doubles through 2H, but clearly had not
discussed this auction.
** about 15 seconds
Without tempo issues, I would have pulled the double - do you think I
was allowed to with the hesitations? If not, does the redouble change
things?
I passed, which earned us -1480 while 5 hearts had chances, and
definitely was not worse than -1.
Thanks in advance,
Mark
Adam Beneschan
> Hello all,
>
> I had this come up in a regional swiss in the ACBL yesterday. Red on
> red, I dealt and held:
>
> 63
> QJT753
> 6
> T762
>
> I was playing with a new partner, we had filled out a card in about 10
> minutes, but this was the last match of the day - so far no agreement
> issues.
>
> I passed and the following auction occured:
>
> P P 1C 1D!
> 1H 1NT x* 2S
> P 3S P 4S
> P P x** P
> P xx AP
>
> Notes: They play system on over 1C, so 1D = he would have opened 1D
> * about 120 seconds - by far the longest pause I had seen by partner
> all day. We agreed to support doubles through 2H, but clearly had not
> discussed this auction.
> ** about 15 seconds
>
> Without tempo issues, I would have pulled the double - do you think I
> was allowed to with the hesitations?
No. With the first hesitation "suggesting" that partner may have had
some heart support, and the second hesitation suggesting doubt about
the double, I think you had too much UI to pull.
> If not, does the redouble change things?
Now I think it's a lot closer whether passing is a logical alternative
or not. I think at the table, I might have pulled (to 5C), but I
wouldn't be surprised if the pull was ruled to be illegal.
I would have bid 2H, not 1H, and then partner would have had a better
idea of what to do.
-- Adam
Kieran Dyke
"Mark Dean" <Mark...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168889104.4...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Absent the hesitations, he might have had five defensive tricks for the
double of 4S. Pass is clear, although there's a better solution.
As is usual with a very bad hand with offensive tricks and no defense,
everything is better if you spell out all of these things as soon as
possible. I guess that vulnerable you might not find an opening bid on this,
but if you were non-vul a 3H opening solves your later bidding problems by
spelling out everything that you are worrying about. Here, your best
solution, if systemically available, is a weak jump shift in hearts at your
first turn. Now if he doubles 4S (or, indeed, 2S) you can relax and know
that he's beating it on his own.
It does rather seen as though his double of 4S was foolish.
Tiggrr
ted
My first caveat is that I am not a director. Having said that I think
you might be constrained to passing the X but I don't think you have to
sit for the XX.
David Stevenson
What does the redouble mean? It is by advancer, and it is difficult
to see how he can be making anything. If you ask me, redoubler is
relying on the slowness of the double to make him - or you - panic and
run.
I cannot see anything in the auction to stop partner having
KQJ
x
AKxx
xxxxx
except that he needs more: his first double shows a stronger hand.
I would pass the redouble in sleep, and if it makes, tough.
In the long run, trusting the opponents and not partner is a losing
proposition, even if successful on an odd occasion.
That means that if pass of the double is an LA - which I believe it is
- pass of the redouble is doubly an LA - an LALA!
Mind you, I agree completely with Kieran - you should *show* this
hand. Apart from opening 2H or 3H, surely over 1D you play 2H or 3H as
weak? Even if not, you just about have what you showed, do you not?
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<bri...@blakjak.com> bluejak on OKB
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm
Substitute .org for .com else eddresses/URLs will fail this year
ted
I didn't want to sit for the first X but felt constrained by partner to
do so. Mainly because we apparently have a double fit in clubs and
hearts and I have overbid my hand with zero defense. So now you are
telling me I have to take additional punishment?
Bill Jacobs
38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
You did well. Be honest, in retrospect, don't you feel really good about
your actions?
Cheers ... Bill.
David Stevenson
>David Stevenson wrote:
>> I would pass the redouble in sleep, and if it makes, tough.
>>
>> In the long run, trusting the opponents and not partner is a losing
>> proposition, even if successful on an odd occasion.
>>
>> That means that if pass of the double is an LA - which I believe it is
>> - pass of the redouble is doubly an LA - an LALA!
>
>I didn't want to sit for the first X but felt constrained by partner to
>do so. Mainly because we apparently have a double fit in clubs and
>hearts and I have overbid my hand with zero defense. So now you are
>telling me I have to take additional punishment?
Why punishment? Unless you are using UI deliberately, you should be
expecting it to go off. Why not?
Anyway, this game is no fun whatever if you do not play ot win fairly,
and that means taking the odd gross result when partner has screwed you.
To pull now is illegal, unethical, and shows a complete lack of faith in
partner.
Adam Beneschan
> > I passed, which earned us -1480 while 5 hearts had chances, and
> > definitely was not worse than -1.
> You did well. Be honest, in retrospect, don't you feel really good about
> your actions?
I don't know how Mark feels. But I've been in a situation where, after
UI, I went too far to bend over backwards not to take advantage, and
made a bid that was probably not required by the Laws, and got a big
minus unnecessarily. In a Swiss, LHO opened 2C (strong, artificial).
Partner doubled, which we were playing as a red or black 2-suiter; I
alerted, and he made a expression that made it clear he had forgotten
the convention. RHO did not pass. We were red vs. white, and I really
had no logical alternative to passing throughout the rest of the
auction, but I talked myself into thinking I had to save, and ended up
-2000 instead of -450. And I do *not* feel good about having done
that. I most assuredly do not try to "get away" with anything when I
have this sort of UI, but that doesn't mean I have to feel good about
taking a dive when I'm not ethically required to.
-- Adam
JeffM1817
First, I wonder why you did not consider 2H as your initial salvo.
Partner's first hesitation does not convey much beyond wondering
whether support doubles are in play.
As to the final double --- expert partnerships do not go for a
one-trick set here, and partner clearly does not have a trump stack.
My partnerships pass to defeat the contract and double with hands that
might go either way -- usually with convertible values.
For UI to be in play it has to convey some real information. Here it
seems to be whether the convertible values are enough. I see no
problem in pulling this to 5H, especially after a redouble.
Hesitations do not mean that you are barred....
raija d
"Kieran Dyke" <tig...@idx.com.au> wrote in message news:45abe1f4$1@news1...
This is what I was going to say, including the bit about opening first seat.
.
>
JeffM1817
Having now read the replies, I am surprised to find myself disagreeing
with David. I do not find the posited hand to be credible on this
auction. Why would partner double 1nt?
John Schuler
wrote:
This post sums it up weil. As other posters have noted, TWO Hearts
would have told your story and you could sit fot the redouble
confident that your partner isn't going to play you for any defensive
tricks.
Kieran Dyke
"JeffM1817" <jmi...@newarc.com> wrote in message
news:1168923660.3...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Read the line after the posted hand.
Tiggrr
Bill Jacobs
news:1168916482....@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com:
"A board is just a board, but your integrity is for ever."
I just made that up - hope it catches on :) Yes, I know, I have to work
harder on my aphorisms.
Cheers ... Bill.
Dave Flower
This hand raises an interesting legal point.
For the purposes of this discussion, assume the following:
1) That there was a clear agreement that the first double was support
2) That the slow support double indicated that the hand might not hold
as many as three hearts
3) That therefore, the slowness of the support double was UI against
running to 5H (or 5C for that matter)
4) That the slowness of the penalty double was UI in favour of running
to 5H
Now, the above assumptions may be wrong, but if they are true then the
hand cannot be bid without violating L16A . . ' which is absurd
Dave Flower
David Stevenson
>David Stevenson wrote:
>> What does the redouble mean? It is by advancer, and it is difficult
>> to see how he can be making anything. If you ask me, redoubler is
>> relying on the slowness of the double to make him - or you - panic and
>> run.
>>
>> I cannot see anything in the auction to stop partner having
>>
>> KQJ
>> x
>> AKxx
>> xxxxx
>>
>> except that he needs more: his first double shows a stronger hand.
>>
>> I would pass the redouble in sleep, and if it makes, tough.
>>
>> In the long run, trusting the opponents and not partner is a losing
>> proposition, even if successful on an odd occasion.
>>
>> That means that if pass of the double is an LA - which I believe it is
>> - pass of the redouble is doubly an LA - an LALA!
>>
>> Mind you, I agree completely with Kieran - you should *show* this
>> hand. Apart from opening 2H or 3H, surely over 1D you play 2H or 3H as
>> weak? Even if not, you just about have what you showed, do you not?
>Having now read the replies, I am surprised to find myself disagreeing
>with David. I do not find the posited hand to be credible on this
>auction. Why would partner double 1nt?
He wouldn't, which is why I then wrote:
>>except that he needs more
But giving him a hand which beats 4S redoubled and then saying he
needs more hardly is a reason to pull it.
Adam Beneschan
> This hand raises an interesting legal point.
>
> For the purposes of this discussion, assume the following:
>
> 1) That there was a clear agreement that the first double was support
>
> 2) That the slow support double indicated that the hand might not hold
> as many as three hearts
>
> 3) That therefore, the slowness of the support double was UI against
> running to 5H (or 5C for that matter)
>
> 4) That the slowness of the penalty double was UI in favour of running
> to 5H
>
>
> Now, the above assumptions may be wrong, but if they are true then the
> hand cannot be bid without violating L16A . . ' which is absurd
I think in a case like this, where you would have two pieces of UI that
seem to suggest contradictory things, you have to take all of the UI
together and determine what that UI, taken as a whole, suggests, which
in this case would be "nothing". Or, I suppose, the UI taken together
suggests 5C over either of the other logical alternatives (pass or 5H).
So this means you can choose either pass or 5H without violating the
Laws. If, however, you have a sense that one instance of UI means more
than the other, then ethically you have to avoid the action suggested
by the UI that you think means more. But I don't think there's
anything in the Laws that says that you *must* treat each piece of UI
individually and then combine the resulting restrictions---that would
indeed be an absurd interpretation of the Laws, and an unnecessary one
since a better interpretation is certainly available.
-- Adam
Adam Beneschan
> As to the final double --- expert partnerships do not go for a
> one-trick set here, and partner clearly does not have a trump stack.
> My partnerships pass to defeat the contract and double with hands that
> might go either way -- usually with convertible values.
>
> For UI to be in play it has to convey some real information. Here it
> seems to be whether the convertible values are enough. I see no
> problem in pulling this to 5H, especially after a redouble.
You have a good point here---if the last double is not a "pure penalty"
double, then passing it may not be a logical alternative. However, the
partnership in the original post was a new partnership, so there
probably wouldn't have been any discussion about this issue. Given
that, I think it's unlikely that you could convince a TD/AC that
passing is not a LA.
-- Adam
ted
> > MarkThis hand raises an interesting legal point.
>
> For the purposes of this discussion, assume the following:
>
> 1) That there was a clear agreement that the first double was support
this is the part that may have caused the hesitation, uncertainty that
the double was support rather than penalty
Yury
"David Stevenson" <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eHe$kfCzhO...@post.demon.co.uk...
Why would someone redouble without KQJ in trumps ?
David Stevenson
>>>Having now read the replies, I am surprised to find myself disagreeing
>>>with David. I do not find the posited hand to be credible on this
>>>auction. Why would partner double 1nt?
>>
>> He wouldn't, which is why I then wrote:
>>>>except that he needs more
>>
>> But giving him a hand which beats 4S redoubled and then saying he needs
>> more hardly is a reason to pull it.
>
>Why would someone redouble without KQJ in trumps ?
Because he is afraid he is going off, and he wants to persuade the
obviously nervous opponents to pull.
Dave Flower
Just a thought; L16 prohibits the selection from logical alternatives
any action suggested by UI. It seems to me that the logical
alternatives on this hand are pass, 5C and 5H.
So, it would appear that 6H is not prohibited, at least by L16 -
indeed, with 5S making, it appears to be the par contract!
A 6H bid feels unethical to me - any comments out there
Dave Flower
Yury
> Yury wrote
>>"David Stevenson" <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> JeffM1817 wrote
>
>>>>Having now read the replies, I am surprised to find myself disagreeing
>>>>with David. I do not find the posited hand to be credible on this
>>>>auction. Why would partner double 1nt?
>>>
>>> He wouldn't, which is why I then wrote:
>>>>>except that he needs more
>>>
>>> But giving him a hand which beats 4S redoubled and then saying he
>>> needs
>>> more hardly is a reason to pull it.
>>
>>Why would someone redouble without KQJ in trumps ?
>
> Because he is afraid he is going off, and he wants to persuade the
> obviously nervous opponents to pull.
...after 2-minutes hesitation ? Thinking "let them pull double, and if 4S
doesn't make, it's OK, but if it does - still OK, I'll get it back from the
director" ?
Adam Beneschan
> Mark Dean wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I had this come up in a regional swiss in the ACBL yesterday. Red on
> > red, I dealt and held:
> >
> > 63
> > QJT753
> > 6
> > T762
> >
> > I was playing with a new partner, we had filled out a card in about 10
> > minutes, but this was the last match of the day - so far no agreement
> > issues.
> >
> > I passed and the following auction occured:
> >
> > P P 1C 1D!
> > 1H 1NT x* 2S
> > P 3S P 4S
> > P P x** P
> > P xx AP
> >
> Just a thought; L16 prohibits the selection from logical alternatives
> any action suggested by UI. It seems to me that the logical
> alternatives on this hand are pass, 5C and 5H.
>
> So, it would appear that 6H is not prohibited, at least by L16 -
> indeed, with 5S making, it appears to be the par contract!
Sigh... It seems like I've gone over this a dozen times. But despite
the wording of the Laws, I believe it is illegal to make a call that is
suggested by UI even if that call is not considered a logical
alternative.
The example I usually use: You open 1NT, 16-18, but partner announces
it as 10-12. He then bids 3NT. Now you figure out how many points
partner has, given what he thinks your notrump range was, and then bid
6NT. When the opponents complain, you tell the TD that your bid was
legal because 6NT is no way nohow a logical alternative after 1NT-3NT.
So should the TD adjust?
I think the answer is clearly "yes", plus you get cordially invited to
a Conduct & Ethics Committee meeting. If nothing else, the TD can say
you've blatantly violated Law 73C. I do wish, though, that they'd
tweak the Laws to cover this situation so that the question doesn't
keep coming up.
But I do think 6H in the given auction is prohibited.
-- Adam
David Stevenson
>
>"David Stevenson" <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:luuhufLz...@post.demon.co.uk...
>> Yury wrote
>>>"David Stevenson" <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> JeffM1817 wrote
>>
>>>>>Having now read the replies, I am surprised to find myself disagreeing
>>>>>with David. I do not find the posited hand to be credible on this
>>>>>auction. Why would partner double 1nt?
>>>>
>>>> He wouldn't, which is why I then wrote:
>>>>>>except that he needs more
>>>>
>>>> But giving him a hand which beats 4S redoubled and then saying he
>>>> needs
>>>> more hardly is a reason to pull it.
>>>
>>>Why would someone redouble without KQJ in trumps ?
>>
>> Because he is afraid he is going off, and he wants to persuade the
>> obviously nervous opponents to pull.
>
>...after 2-minutes hesitation ? Thinking "let them pull double, and if 4S
>doesn't make, it's OK, but if it does - still OK, I'll get it back from the
>director" ?
Why does he need such silly notions? If your opponents doubles slowly
and worriedly, try redoubling. Someone often panics.
I think this idea that every normal bridge action involves someone
thinking about the Laws is not very much like bridge as it is played.
David Stevenson
>Sigh... It seems like I've gone over this a dozen times. But despite
>the wording of the Laws, I believe it is illegal to make a call that is
>suggested by UI even if that call is not considered a logical
>alternative.
>
>The example I usually use: You open 1NT, 16-18, but partner announces
>it as 10-12. He then bids 3NT. Now you figure out how many points
>partner has, given what he thinks your notrump range was, and then bid
>6NT. When the opponents complain, you tell the TD that your bid was
>legal because 6NT is no way nohow a logical alternative after 1NT-3NT.
>So should the TD adjust?
>
>I think the answer is clearly "yes", plus you get cordially invited to
>a Conduct & Ethics Committee meeting. If nothing else, the TD can say
>you've blatantly violated Law 73C. I do wish, though, that they'd
>tweak the Laws to cover this situation so that the question doesn't
>keep coming up.
The Laws do cover it: we have case Law and interpretations: there is
no need ot worry because every few months someone brings it up: there is
no doubt of the ruling.
David Stevenson
>Just a thought; L16 prohibits the selection from logical alternatives
>any action suggested by UI. It seems to me that the logical
>alternatives on this hand are pass, 5C and 5H.
>
>So, it would appear that 6H is not prohibited, at least by L16 -
>indeed, with 5S making, it appears to be the par contract!
>
>A 6H bid feels unethical to me - any comments out there
This has been discussed so many times in so many places, including
many many times here on RGB. People will give all sorts of opinions
ranging from fatuous to clever. But at the end of the day, players who
choose actions which are suggested by UI will get ruled against whether
they are LAs or not, and correctly so.
rhm
> But giving him a hand which beats 4S redoubled and then saying he needs more hardly is a reason to pull it.
What I do not understand why after UI Pass is always considered ethical
and legal, even though logical alternatives to pass exist just as much.
This approach to UI just invites unethical behaviour, but very hard to
detect. If you have a clear penalty double just hesitate slightly and
your partner will not take it out even if it gets redoubled and partner
can even claim how ethical he behaves. If your penalty is dubious
double quickly.
Do not get me wrong, I know this is unethical and I do not try to be
unethical and I know very few people want to win that way.
But I still consider it a silly and worrisome concept to UI.
Much better to take your normal action and let a committee decide
whether the bid was unduely influenced by UI. But this applies as much
to PASS.
Rainer Herrmann
rhm
What about the follwoing scenario:
You fell obliged to pass 4S RDBL against your better instincts.
Due to some lucky coincidence it turns out 4S RDBL is down and 5H would
also have been down.
Now what? Opponents have no redress for an adjusted score, even though
you admit you would have taken out to 5H if there would not have been
hesitation?
Are the opponents now not damaged by the hesitation?
I know your behaviour follows established rules for "ethical" behaviour
and is probably your only chance to end up with a decent score, however
unlikely, with most committees.
I am not so sure whether these rules have more to do with ethics than
with masochism. What I know is that it is not Bridge.
Rainer Herrmann
Derek Broughton
> David Stevenson wrote:
>
>> But giving him a hand which beats 4S redoubled and then saying he
>> needs more hardly is a reason to pull it.
>
> What I do not understand why after UI Pass is always considered ethical
> and legal, even though logical alternatives to pass exist just as much.
It's not true, though. I recall a time that my partner called the director
after her LHO had a long hesitation followed by passes all round. RHO was
incensed, and said that RHO couldn't have done anything wrong because she
passed. Director disagreed.
--
derek
Ron Sperber
The problem with this is that the rules are that you are actually
supposed to bend over backwards to avoid using UI. The question isn't
just "what is a logical alternative" but rather "If the UI suggests an
action and you have a logical alternative to that action, you can't take
that action". You're correct that an unethical player with a hand like
KQJx x Axxx Axxx could go into the tank to prevent partner from taking
the double out, but the presumption must be that players are ethical and
that hesitations come from actually having a problem. Hesitating when
you have nothing to think about (other than over a skip bid warning) is
unethical no matter what.
Adam Beneschan
> David Stevenson wrote:
>
> > But giving him a hand which beats 4S redoubled and then saying he needs more hardly is a reason to pull it.
>
> What I do not understand why after UI Pass is always considered ethical
> and legal, even though logical alternatives to pass exist just as much.
You've been misinformed if you think this. There are situations where
passing is illegal.
The reason they don't come up as much is because the typical hesitation
situation is: One player thinks for some time, then passes. Clearly,
he was thinking about doing something positive (bidding or doubling).
So the hesitation suggests that perhaps *you* should bid or double,
since partner was thinking about doing that---so pass ends up being the
call least suggested by the hesitation. This is by far the most common
hesitation situation; and because it's so common, it's led some people
to believe that, after a hesitation, passing is always ethical and
legal, or even that you're *required* to pass after a hesitation.
While this may be true in most of the situations that come up in
practice, it's not true in all.
And, by the way, I'm just talking about hesitations---not other forms
of UI. After getting UI that partner has misunderstood your bid, for
example, passing can frequently be illegal.
-- Adam
Adam Beneschan
> Hesitating when
> you have nothing to think about (other than over a skip bid warning) is
> unethical no matter what.
*Almost* true. But some experts have recommended making a slight
hesitation (not a big long one) before *every* call, to reduce the
possibility that a slight hitch will transmit UI to partner. And in
the play, if my partner makes the opening lead, dummy comes down, and
declarer plays quickly from dummy, I will hesitate regardless of
whether I have anything to think about.
Also, the phrase "other than over a skip bid warning" isn't quite
accurate, either; "other than over a skip bid" would be better, at
least in the ACBL, and probably in most other places. Here, we're
expected to pause over any skip bid whether warned or not. (Although I
may be the only person I know who routinely hesitates after
1NT-pass-3NT- to me.)
-- Adam
raija d
"rhm" <r...@softwareag.com> wrote in message
news:1169120854.6...@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> David Stevenson wrote:
>
>> But giving him a hand which beats 4S redoubled and then saying he
>> needs more hardly is a reason to pull it.
>
> What I do not understand why after UI Pass is always considered ethical
> and legal, even though logical alternatives to pass exist just as much.
> Rainer Herrmann
>
You are mistaken if you think Pass is always considered ethical and legal.
There is no such Law, such concept, or such practice existing.
Bill Jacobs
news:1169125797.7...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:
> you admit you would taken out to 5H if there would not have been
> hesitation?
>
> Are the opponents now not damaged by the hesitation?
>
> I know your behaviour follows established rules for "ethical"
> behaviour and is probably your only chance to end up with a decent
> score, however unlikely, with most committees.
>
> I am not so sure whether these rules have more to do with masochism
> than with ethics. What I know is, it is not Bridge.
>
> Rainer Herrmann
>
If partner's slow double was slow with an intent to ethically shut you up
(because partner clearly wants to defend), then that is tantamount to
cheating. Difficult to prove in a court of law.
If partner's slow double was because he did have a difficult decision, and
you ethically passed, then that is your good luck and the opponents' bad
luck.
Cheers ... Bill.
David Stevenson
If you want to deliberately disobey the Laws, feel free: I hope I
never play against you, and I shall not play with you. Where you know
that an action is gaining from the UI you may not take it as a matter of
Law. It is not acceptable to deliberately break the Law and hope you do
not get caught.
Of course, in the messy cases where it is not clear what is allowed,
and what not, no-one has acted wrongly in any way if they get it wrong:
but even in those cases a player who makes no effort to follow the Laws
of the game is anathema.
David Stevenson
>What about the follwoing scenario:
>
>You fell obliged to pass 4S RDBL against your better instincts.
>Due to some lucky coincidence it turns out 4S RDBL is down and 5H would
>also have been down.
>
>Now what? Opponents have no redress for an adjusted score, even though
>you admit you would taken out to 5H if there would not have been
>hesitation?
>
>Are the opponents now not damaged by the hesitation?
>
>I know your behaviour follows established rules for "ethical" behaviour
>and is probably your only chance to end up with a decent score, however
>unlikely, with most committees.
>
>I am not so sure whether these rules have more to do with masochism
>than with ethics. What I know is, it is not Bridge.
Following the laws of the game is not bridge? What is, finger
signals?
Thomas Dehn
"rhm" <r...@softwareag.com> wrote:
> What I do not understand why after UI Pass is always considered ethical
> and legal, even though logical alternatives to pass exist just as much.
Pass is not always considered ethical and legal.
Example: Partner opens 2D, a strong two in D. You hold
two keycards, and good hand, and blast 4NT. Partner, after
a long hesitation, bids 5D, showing 0 or 3 keycards.
If you pass now, and partner shows up with 0 keycards for
his hesitation, you will be in deep trouble.
> This approach to UI just invites unethical behaviour, but very hard to
> detect. If you have a clear penalty double just hesitate slightly and
> your partner will not take it out even if it gets redoubled and partner
> can even claim how ethical he behaves. If your penalty is dubious
> double quickly.
Ah, the ole reverse hesitations approach.
Feel free to try that if you want to get banned for a few years.
Thomas
rhm
First of all Mr Stevenson,
Laws are made by parlliaments and games are played by rules not by
laws.
Since I suspected that there may be some like you, who try to
misinterpret any statementn made, I cite again what I wrote
"Do not get me wrong, I know this is unethical and I do not try to be
unethical and I know very few people want to win that way".
>From this alone it is evident that I have no intention not obeying the
rules of the game and nowhere did I hint that I would not try to
follow the rules of the game in any way.
However, it must be possible to discuss the rationality of some rules
and procedures and whether they are well thought out. And it must be
possible in a free discussion to suggest alternatives to the current
rules and procedures.
That is all what I did, nothing else..
You clearly misrepresent what I said .
Rainer Herrmann
raija d
(snipped much)
>
> First of all Mr Stevenson,
>
> Laws are made by parlliaments and games are played by rules not by
> laws.
>
> Since I suspected that there may be some like you, who try to
> misinterpret any statementn made, I cite again what I wrote
>
> "Do not get me wrong, I know this is unethical and I do not try to be
> unethical and I know very few people want to win that way".
>
>>From this alone it is evident that I have no intention not obeying the
> rules of the game and nowhere did I hint that I would not try to
> follow the rules of the game in any way.
>
> However, it must be possible to discuss the rationality of some rules
> and procedures and whether they are well thought out. And it must be
> possible in a free discussion to suggest alternatives to the current
> rules and procedures.
> That is all what I did, nothing else..
>
> You clearly misrepresent what I said .
>
> Rainer Herrmann
I hate to butt in as the conversation between you and David already is
inflamed, but you actually said:
> >Much better to take your normal action and let a committee decide
> >whether the bid was unduely influenced by UI.
For a player of your level and of your knowledge, I see this as intentional
disregard of the Laws and the ethics of the game, not spoken out of
ignorance or inexperience, nor as a discussion starter on how the Laws
pertaining to UI should be changed in your opinion. I am sure you will
correct me if I am wrong, but I can only go by what you have written so far.
Raija
.
rhm
This is O N L Y a suggestion how to change a rule, which I consider
flawed. I never said or hinted in any way I would not respect the
current rule as long as it stands. From what do you get the notion I
want to disregard it?
I am not the only one, who thinks the current procedure that you should
usually PASS after hesitation is flawed.
If I remember correctly I read first time about the above suggestion in
the Brdige World put forward by Jeff Rubens, whose ethics, I hope, are
not in doubt.
You may disagree with me and find this suggestion silly. But why do you
question my respect for the "LAWS" " and ethics of the game, if I
suggest that a rule or procedure should be changed?
Rainer Herrmann
Adam Beneschan
> This is O N L Y a suggestion how to change a rule, which I consider
> flawed. I never said or hinted in any way I would not respect the
> current rule as long as it stands. From what do you get the notion I
> want to disregard it?
>From the wording of your previous post. It looked like you were making
a suggestion for how players should act (under the current rules), and
there wasn't anything in there that indicated that you were speaking
about how you would change the rules. Maybe you *intended* to post
about changing the rule, but that's not what it looked like. I realize
it may not be your fault, really, since English is presumably not your
first language; however, the rest of us can read only what we see on
the screen---we can't read your mind.
But even if you're suggesting this as a rule change: I don't think that
will fly. In an ideal world, I think everyone would *like* the rule to
be as you suggested---if there's UI, just pretend it doesn't exist, and
if your bid is influenced by it, it's illegal. But this rule is
unworkable, because (1) it's unenforceable and (2) it doesn't actually
give players any guidance as to what they may or may not bid. It's too
easy for the human mind to be influenced by UI and then come up with
reasons to justify a bid to convince themselves that it wasn't
influenced by UI. That's why we have the rule we do---it's the closest
we could come and still come up with an objective, enforceable
standard. Perhaps we can change the rule to your suggestion, but only
when we develop the technology to scan players' brain waves to
determine whether they were unduly thinking about the UI when they bid
(which will take decades) and convince the players to allow all their
thoughts to be monitored by this technology (which will happen when
hell freezes over, give or take a few years).
-- Adam
raija d
*** This is not the current procedure, never has been.***
> If I remember correctly I read first time about the above suggestion in
> the Brdige World put forward by Jeff Rubens, whose ethics, I hope, are
> not in doubt.
>
> You may disagree with me and find this suggestion silly. But why do you
> question my respect for the "LAWS" " and ethics of the game, if I
> suggest that a rule or procedure should be changed?
>
> Rainer Herrmann
I can only go by what you write, I do not read minds. In your post, I did
not see anything that indicates you meant the statement as "how the Laws
should read or how they should be changed." It reads (to me) like
advocating on how to act at the table when there is UI present. If it had
been such advice, it would be advocating breaking the Laws which I am sure
we both agree, would be unethical.
Happy to hear your corrections.
Raija
nige1
> I can only go by what you write, I do not read minds. In your post, I did
> not see anything that indicates you meant the statement as "how the Laws
> should read or how they should be changed." It reads (to me) like
> advocating on how to act at the table when there is UI present. If it had
> been such advice, it would be advocating breaking the Laws which I am sure
> we both agree, would be unethical.
[nige1]
I understood Rainer's posts to mean what he says he intended them to
mean; and I agree with his arguments.
[A] For the purposes of this discussion let's define *rules* to mean
WBF Bridge laws, Local regulations, Official interpretaions, Official
minutes, Conditions of contest, and so on ad nauseam.
[B] We should comply with the rules however daft.
[C] We should positively criticise any rule that we deem to be daft;
for example, Rainer and Jeff Rubens suggest that the rule *should be*
that a player makes the bid he would have made without being the
recipient of unauthorised information.
[D] Nowadays, if an expert breaks tempo, he more often wants his
partner to *pass* than to bid. (Directors rarely penalize a pass after
unauthorised information).
[E] Similarly, if an expert asks about a specific suit bid, he more
often wants partner to lead a *diffferent* suit. (Again rarely
penalized).
[F] In any case, experienced partnerships do better than chance in
discerning the meaning of unauthorised information. Take a typical
dilemma:
Is a slow bid a stretch or an invitation to bid on? To a a director
this may seem a complete guess but in an established partnership the
message is usually clear (For example, if the hesitator tends to
underbid, his bid is more likley to be invitational; if he tends to
overbid, it is more likely to be a sign-off, but there will usually be
other more subtle clues).
[G] Hence, it is arguable that it would be simpler and fairer to
penalise the tempo-breaker himself, rather than to try to guess whether
his partner has taken advantage. To do this systematically you would
need timers to record whether a bid or play was too quick or too slow.
So would involve a lot of palaver :(
raija d
"nige1" <nigel....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1169271085.1...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> [raija d]
>> I can only go by what you write, I do not read minds. In your post, I
>> did
>> not see anything that indicates you meant the statement as "how the Laws
>> should read or how they should be changed." It reads (to me) like
>> advocating on how to act at the table when there is UI present. If it
>> had
>> been such advice, it would be advocating breaking the Laws which I am
>> sure
>> we both agree, would be unethical.
>
> [nige1]
>
> I understood Rainer's posts to mean what he says he intended them to
> mean; and I agree with his arguments.
***Then you can read intentions while I cannot. I read what is actually
written. ***
(snips)
> [D] Nowadays, if an expert breaks tempo, he more often wants his
> partner to *pass* than to bid. (Directors rarely penalize a pass after
> unauthorised information).
>
> [E] Similarly, if an expert asks about a specific suit bid, he more
> often wants partner to lead a *diffferent* suit. (Again rarely
> penalized).
>
*** Have you any evidence to support your statements where you lump experts
together and defame them all. Then lump TD's together and imply they are
not ruling correctly for some reason when an expert is at the table...
I know from reading your posts over the years that you have a chip on your
shoulder, though some of what you write makes sense (to me), but what made
you think all experts are crooks who use tempo breaks and cryptic questions
AND train their partner/client to participate in the illegal and unethical
acts? ***
rhm
I do not claim to be an authority on the interpretation of the current
rules of the game, but I have more than 30 years of tournament
practice, though I have not played much lately.
To my knowledge, the written rules do not enforce PASS after
hesitation.
You are free to bid what you think is best. This is not an infraction
nor is it unethical.
But the ethics require you to ignore any undue influence by UI and this
may be subject to later scrutiny, not by brain waves, but by bridge
logic. I am aware that this is all messy and difficult.
If that interpetation is correct, I agree completely.
It has only become practice that many experienced people like you think
it is best to forget about your better instincts, avoid all the trouble
of later scrutiny and just pass or take some other action against your
real bridge judgement. After all Pass after hesitation is almost never
scrutinized.
I do not like this, I think it is misguided and I do not think it is in
the spirit of the game. In a second contribution I have given a
scenario, where I tried to show to what, in my view absurd,
consequences this may lead to..
However, in no way do I question your motives.
So my suggestion in fact does not even require a rule change, at least
not on the written rules, but it suggests a different attitude, which
you may consider impractical. But it is certainly not unethical and it
does not give anybody any right to question my integrity as one expert
on the interpretation of the rules has just tried to do for no good
reason.
Rainer Herrmann
rhm
> If partner's slow double was because he did have a difficult decision, and
> you ethically passed, then that is your good luck and the opponents' bad
> luck.
>
> Cheers ... Bill.
This is the root of the matter:
Is it really bad luck if the non-offending opponents get a bad result
when you feel compelled to follow a rule against your bridge judgement?
Consider the following scenario for comparison.
In the old days when you revoked the nonoffending side received 2
tricks in return.
Then the following scenario occured: Someone unintentionally revoked by
not following to trumps and later ruffed dummy's establsihed side suit,
which cost declarer more than 2 tricks.
Was that just bad luck for the nonoffending side?
I would say it had nothing to do with luck.
It was an anomaly of the revoke rule at that time.
The rules were changed thereafter.
Today you can get more than 2 tricks if the revoke damaged you that
much. .
Rainer Herrmann
rhm
Oh come on. We all try not to read only, we always interpret, what has
been written. And interpretations are not as objective as you pretend.
Some try hard to understand what the author wants to say and some try
equally hard to misinterpret and misrepresent what somebody wants to
say for whatever reason and will later defend their initial impression
to death.
If I write
"Do not get me wrong, I know this is unethical and I do not try to be
unethical and I know very few people want to win that way"
and someone immediately starts to question my ethics then I doubt that
he only reads what has been written on the screen.
English is in deed not my mother tongue but it is the language of my
mother and I think I have a reasonable grasp of the language
Rainer Herrmann
nige1
> > [D] Nowadays, if an expert breaks tempo, he more often wants his
> > partner to *pass* than to bid. (Directors rarely penalize a pass after
> > unauthorised information).
> >
> > [E] Similarly, if an expert asks about a specific suit bid, he more
> > often wants partner to lead a *diffferent* suit. (Again rarely
> > penalized).
[raija d]
> *** Have you any evidence to support your statements where you lump experts
> together and defame them all. Then lump TD's together and imply they are
> not ruling correctly for some reason when an expert is at the table...
>
> I know from reading your posts over the years that you have a chip on your
> shoulder, though some of what you write makes sense (to me), but what made
> you think all experts are crooks who use tempo breaks and cryptic questions
> AND train their partner/client to participate in the illegal and unethical
> acts? ***
[nige2]
I admit to bees in my bonnet but not to a chip on my shoulder :) I'm
afraid that Raija will continue to misinterpret contributors'
intentions if she does not read what they write.
[a] I certainly don't lump experts togather and defame them all. As
Raija is well aware, under current rules, it is OK for a player to
break tempo, whether or not he is an expert, provided he does not
intend to influence his partner's actions. Raija will agree that it is
manifestly against the law, however, to try to communicate with partner
via unauthorised information.
IMO An expert is more likely to want partner to pass than to bid, when
he hesitates during the auction,.
Similarly, when he asks about a specific suit bid, he is more likely to
want the lead of another suit.
Obviously, however, in most cases, the hesitation, question (or
whatever) is quite innocent. The player has no intention of influencing
his partner at all.
IMO, sophisticated transgressions are more common among experienced
players.
[b] Like most peope, Bridge players rationalise, so I doubt that any of
them regard themselves as cheats.
[c] Raija introduces the peculiar idea that an expert would need to
train his client to participate in such an infraction but the ploy
works with a law-abiding client.
(d) As explained at length in my earlier post, directors face a
diffficult task but they do their best to rule according to the law.
[e] Evidence?
UI cases are common but I haven't read an officially documented case
(eg appeal committtee report) of a director ruling against a player
(expert or not) who passed after partner's hesitation -- or led a
different suit after partner's enquiry.
I play bridge and talk to other players, and that is our experience in
the UK.
I am surprised that Raija hasn't encountered more such evidence.
Peter Smulders
news:vKish.272$Ou1...@newsfe04.lga:
As I see it, all that statement [D] says is that statistically speaking an
expert who breaks tempo more often wants his partner to pass then to bid.
I think this is also true for non-experts, and a result the fact that a
bid after UI is often penalized, whereas a pass is usually allowed.
Therefore when you have a difficult decision and you want to leave partner
a choice you will try to avoid thinking for a long time, whereas when you
want to make the final bid you might take your time. This does not imply
that experts are crooks or TD's are incompetent.
I don't understand what is meant by [E], it is probably specific to EBU
land where *asking* questions is considered UI.
raija d
"nige1" <nigel....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> [nige2]
>
> I admit to bees in my bonnet but not to a chip on my shoulder :) I'm
> afraid that Raija will continue to misinterpret contributors'
> intentions if she does not read what they write.
Apologies for my shortcomings.
Your contributions are always legible and well written and as far as I can
tell I have had no trouble understanding them in the past - but who knows,
judging by yesterday ...heheh...
English is not my first language but I get on well enough.
This is what you wrote earlier:
>> > [D] Nowadays, if an expert breaks tempo, he more often wants his
>> > partner to *pass* than to bid. (Directors rarely penalize a pass after
>> > unauthorised information).
>> >
>> > [E] Similarly, if an expert asks about a specific suit bid, he more
>> > often wants partner to lead a *diffferent* suit. (Again rarely
>> > penalized).
Whoever would do this, is acting in conflict with the ethics of the game,
but I see you only attribute it to experts which made me wonder what you
have against experts in general. I used the word defame, which is too
strong an expression.
I do not believe that experts break the laws/regs in this regard or any
other regard more often than non-experts. I could be persuaded to believe
they do it less because many of them are more knowledgeable about laws/regs.
I would hope nobody does what you described in [D] and [E], but maybe you
have indeed observed it often enough at expert tables that you can
confidently say, based on the sheer number of such actions you have seen,
that *it is rarely penalized* .
Cheers,
Raija
Hans Georg Schaathun
<must...@charter.net> wrote:
: > I am not the only one, who thinks the current procedure that you should
: > usually PASS after hesitation is flawed.
:
: *** This is not the current procedure, never has been.***
It is not the _correct_ procedure, never has been; of that there
is no doubt.
However, what _current_ procedure is, is much less clear. It is
not necessarily correct, and not necessarily uniform. Indeed it
does not look as if the current procedure is correct in every
club across the country.
:-- George
ted
On Jan 20, 8:37 am, "nige1" <nigel.guth...@googlemail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> IMO An expert is more likely to want partner to pass than to bid, when
> he hesitates during the auction,.
IMO this has some validity as the current application of the laws tends
to make good tournament players make snap decisions in tempo rather
than risk UI consequently when they do hesitate partner will have to be
able to eliminate pass as a LA before acting.
>
> Similarly, when he asks about a specific suit bid, he is more likely to
> want the lead of another suit.
Similar arguments apply here supporting the validity of this.
>
> Obviously, however, in most cases, the hesitation, question (or
> whatever) is quite innocent. The player has no intention of influencing
> his partner at all.
agreed
>
> IMO, sophisticated transgressions are more common among experienced
> players.
> [snip]
David Stevenson
>To my knowledge, the written rules do not enforce PASS after
>hesitation.
True.
>You are free to bid what you think is best. This is not an infraction
>nor is it unethical.
Not true. You are required by the Laws not to make calls that might
gain from the UI.
>But the ethics require you to ignore any undue influence by UI and this
>may be subject to later scrutiny, not by brain waves, but by bridge
>logic. I am aware that this is all messy and difficult.
>If that interpetation is correct, I agree completely.
>
>It has only become practice that many experienced people like you think
>it is best to forget about your better instincts, avoid all the trouble
>of later scrutiny and just pass or take some other action against your
>real bridge judgement. After all Pass after hesitation is almost never
>scrutinized.
No, what we do is follow the laws of the game. That is a requirement.
>I do not like this, I think it is misguided and I do not think it is in
>the spirit of the game. In a second contribution I have given a
>scenario, where I tried to show to what, in my view absurd,
>consequences this may lead to..
>However, in no way do I question your motives.
>
>So my suggestion in fact does not even require a rule change, at least
>not on the written rules, but it suggests a different attitude, which
>you may consider impractical. But it is certainly not unethical and it
>does not give anybody any right to question my integrity as one expert
>on the interpretation of the rules has just tried to do for no good
>reason.
You suggested not following Law 73C. Whether you meant to break the
law [as your post certainly seemed to read, as you can tell from the
responses] or whether you really want to change the Law so that players
get an advantage from UI from their partner I do not know, but I
strongly disapprove in either case.
I do not see why players get so aerated over this: do they really want
to win at this game unfairly? Well, using UI, whether accidentally or
not, leads to unfair advantages. So why do players not just accept it
is tough? After all, they can always tell the partner not to give them
UI in future.
rhm
I never wrote that I want to profit from UI, I know it is not ethical
and I am aware that it would spoil the game and I do not suggest in any
way it should be allowed.
This was never my point.
I will try one more time by an example what my point is:
Assume opponents sacrifice against your spade game.
Your judgement, whether right or wrong, but within bridge reason, is
that you believe you have a good hand for the bidding so far and decide
on a pass then pull action to invite six.
Now an unforseen problem happens: Partner takes some time to work out
that your pass must be forcing before he doubles.
Quite a few player would now change their mind and play 5H doubled and
believe this is good ethics.
Your right bridge action, however, is to pull, since this is the
bidding decision n o t influenced by the hesitation.
You made up your mind before the hesitation occured.
In fact the PASS is influenced by the hesitation not the pull action
and removing the double is in my mind the ethical action.
However, I am pretty certain if you do not pull nobody will call the
director and nothing will happen and some will congratulate you for
four nice ethics even though the bidding and the contract played has
clearly been influenced by the hesitation.
And if you get a good board because it turns out that your judgement
was wrong and 5S would already have gone down, some argue here that the
nonoffending opponents are in bad luck.
I would claim they have been damaged by the hesitation and this is my
point in this whole discussion.
However, if you pull the double to 5S, it is certain that the director
will be called.
You will have a hard time in front of a comittee, because quite a few
will argue, passing the double would have been a logical alternative
with your hand. True, some experts may judge the value of your hand
differently as any such scenario in a bidding forum shows.
And if you argue you made up your mind before the hesitation many will
claim this is only a statement to protect yourself. You were only
prepared to pull a "slow double".
Something is wrong here and this is the point I am arguing about.
I started in my first contribution to this thread with the sentence:
"What I do not understand why after UI Pass is always considered
ethical and legal, even though logical alternatives to pass exist just
as much."
I maintain that this is what is happening in practice.
Rainer Herrmann
David Stevenson
>I never wrote that I want to profit from UI, I know it is not ethical
>and I am aware that it would spoil the game and I do not suggest in any
>way it should be allowed.
>
>This was never my point.
Good. A pity that your suggested not following the Laws, whether to
break them or change them. Ok, let's move on.
>I will try one more time by an example what my point is:
>
>Assume opponents sacrifice against your spade game.
>
>Your judgement, whether right or wrong, but within bridge reason, is
>that you believe you have a good hand for the bidding so far and decide
>on a pass then pull action to invite six.
>
>Now an unforseen problem happens: Partner takes some time to work out
>that your pass must be forcing before he doubles.
>
>Quite a few player would now change their mind and play 5H doubled and
>believe this is good ethics.
>
>Your right bridge action, however, is to pull, since this is the
>bidding decision n o t influenced by the hesitation.
>You made up your mind before the hesitation occured.
It may be right, but the fact that you made your mind up before
partner hesitated is not good enough: you have to be in a position where
it is definitely correct to pull. At all times your actions must be
legal.
>In fact the PASS is influenced by the hesitation not the pull action
>and removing the double is in my mind the ethical action.
It's irrelevant: if you are not gaining form the UI then you may pull.
>However, I am pretty certain if you do not pull nobody will call the
>director and nothing will happen and some will congratulate you for
>four nice ethics even though the bidding and the contract played has
>clearly been influenced by the hesitation.
If you have done the right thing ethically, good.
>And if you get a good board because it turns out that your judgement
>was wrong and 5S would already have gone down, some argue here that the
>nonoffending opponents are in bad luck.
If you have done the right thing ethically, that's true.
>I would claim they have been damaged by the hesitation and this is my
>point in this whole discussion.
Tough. You play the game legally and ethically. If, because of luck
that happens to benefit you, that's the effect of the laws, and is not
oyur affair: you did not write the laws.
>However, if you pull the double to 5S, it is certain that the director
>will be called.
Oh, rubbish. Where do you play? There is no certainty about it at
all. If you explain ot the opponents the effect of pass and pull
showing a good hand, many opponents will not call the TD.
>You will have a hard time in front of a comittee, because quite a few
>will argue, passing the double would have been a logical alternative
>with your hand.
As with many other posts on RGB, you seem to jump the TD stage. Why?
If you have your call legally you will be ruled in favour.
> True, some experts may judge the value of your hand
>differently as any such scenario in a bidding forum shows.
>And if you argue you made up your mind before the hesitation many will
>claim this is only a statement to protect yourself. You were only
>prepared to pull a "slow double".
They can argue anything they like: your previous intention is
irrelevant to whether your call was legal.
>Something is wrong here and this is the point I am arguing about.
The things that are wrong are as follows:
First, unless you play somewhere pretty terrible, when your action is
legal, you will often get no TD call whatever.
Second, unless you play somewhere pretty terrible, when your action is
legal, you will often not need to go to an AC.
Third, it is not particularly likely that you will have a difficulty in
front of an AC.
Fourth, all this assumes your call is legal. If it is not, then you
should be ruled against. What's wrong with that?
>I started in my first contribution to this thread with the sentence:
>
>"What I do not understand why after UI Pass is always considered
>ethical and legal, even though logical alternatives to pass exist just
>as much."
Unfortunately that is total rubbish, which is part of the reason your
later contributions have not had the support you feel you should be
getting.
>I maintain that this is what is happening in practice.
If it is where you are then your TDs and ACs want proper training.
nige1
> As I see it, all that statement [D] says is that statistically speaking an
> expert who breaks tempo more often wants his partner to pass then to bid.
> I think this is also true for non-experts, and a result the fact that a
> bid after UI is often penalized, whereas a pass is usually allowed.
> Therefore when you have a difficult decision and you want to leave partner
> a choice you will try to avoid thinking for a long time, whereas when you
> want to make the final bid you might take your time. This does not imply
> that experts are crooks or TD's are incompetent.
Thank you Peter, I agree with you about how hard the director's task
is..
[Peter Smulders]
> I don't understand what is meant by [E], it is probably specific to EBU
> land where *asking* questions is considered UI.
[nige1[
In the EBU (and in most other jurisdictions) you may ask about the
auction as a whole, but you tend to avoid asking about the bid of a
suit that you would like to be led,
Many exerienced players lean over backwards to avoid such questions.
Hence when they do ask about a specific suit bid they rarely want that
suit led. Again it does not mean they are being intentionally unethcal.
Although of coause, if they do it deliberately to inhibit the lead,
that is manifestly illegal.
Thomas Dehn
"rhm" <r...@softwareag.com> wrote:
> I will try one more time by an example what my point is:
>
> Assume opponents sacrifice against your spade game.
>
> Your judgement, whether right or wrong, but within bridge reason, is
> that you believe you have a good hand for the bidding so far and decide
> on a pass then pull action to invite six.
>
> Now an unforseen problem happens: Partner takes some time to work out
> that your pass must be forcing before he doubles.
I am having a hard time conjuring up a hand which starts a pass-and-pull
auction, and later would consider passing partner's double a logical
alternative.
I thus can't see your problem, especially not if you have forcing pass
situations documented on your CC.
Thomas
nige1
> I would hope nobody does what you described in [D] and [E], but maybe you
> have indeed observed it often enough at expert tables that you can
> confidently say, based on the sheer number of such actions you have seen,
> that *it is rarely penalized* .
[nige1]
(D) and (E) are quite common in our (UK) experience (and also,
apparently in the
experience of other contributors to this thread. They are rarely
reported and
rarely penalised.
*rarely* is an underbid :)
Although UI cases are common I haven't read an official report (eg
appeal
committee) where a player was penalized after UI for either
(A) *passing* or
(B) leading a *different* suit that of the bid about which his partner
asked.
nige1
> Apologies for my shortcomings.
> Your contributions are always legible and well written and as far as I can
> tell I have had no trouble understanding them in the past - but who knows,
> judging by yesterday ...heheh...
> English is not my first language but I get on well enough.
[nige1]
Thank you Raija.
As far as I am concerned, you have no reason to apologise for anything.
And if I gave that impression it is I who crave forgiveness. I find
your contributions stimulating and interestings and your English is
better than mine. What is (are) your first language(s)?
JeffM1817
On Jan 17, 7:32 pm, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> Dave Flower wrote
>
> >Just a thought; L16 prohibits the selection from logical alternatives
> >any action suggested by UI. It seems to me that the logical
> >alternatives on this hand are pass, 5C and 5H.
>
> >So, it would appear that 6H is not prohibited, at least by L16 -
> >indeed, with 5S making, it appears to be the par contract!
>
> >A 6H bid feels unethical to me - any comments out there This has been discussed so many times in so many places, including
> many many times here on RGB. People will give all sorts of opinions
> ranging from fatuous to clever. But at the end of the day, players who
> choose actions which are suggested by UI will get ruled against whether
> they are LAs or not, and correctly so.
>
> --
> David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
> Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
> <brid...@blakjak.com> bluejak on OKB
> Bridgepage:http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm
> Substitute .org for .com else eddresses/URLs will fail this year
David wisely notes that there is plenty of case law on UI and LA.
So partner hesitates in an undiscussed support double situation.
There is no big surprise in this. It has not been discussed, so both
players might well mentally review the context of their agreements.
What if the double had been prompt? You would still not know how the
agreement was being interpreted.
There is also substantial case law about hesitations that show NO
information. In this case, you know from the pause that partner is
uncertain about the agreement. If partner had bid promptly, what more
would you know? You still would not have a clue whether he had some
big hand or support.
Directors have gone much too far in disallowing ANY action after a
pause, even when the pause might suggest either bidding or passing.
Let's leave some room for playing bridge....
I sat on a committee with Eric Rodwell some years ago. It was a
Blackwood auction, in the days shortly after many players had adopted
1430. Eric's view was that one was allowed some time to be careful.
Whenever there is a question about agreements, a pause does not show a
particular hand type -- it may well show uncertainty about method.
There is really no UI.
There is something wrong with an application of the laws that says
that anything one does after a hesitation is wrong.
David Stevenson
>There is something wrong with an application of the laws that says
>that anything one does after a hesitation is wrong.
Of course there is, and all competent TDs realise that.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<bri...@blakjak.com> bluejak on OKB
Arthur Hoffman
"David Stevenson" <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:OfX7ylKH$UvF...@post.demon.co.uk...
> JeffM1817 wrote
>>There is something wrong with an application of the laws that says
>>that anything one does after a hesitation is wrong.
>
> Of course there is, and all competent TDs realise that.
Could you clarify? Which "wrong" are you agreeing with, the first or the
second?
David Stevenson
>>>There is something wrong with an application of the laws that says
>>>that anything one does after a hesitation is wrong.
>> Of course there is, and all competent TDs realise that.
>Could you clarify? Which "wrong" are you agreeing with, the first or the
>second?
OK.
TDs do not assume that anything after a hesitation is wrong.
A suggestion of that sort is wrong.
JeffM1817
hesitations. It is not surprising that sometimes people go too far.
My experience is that even competent directors and committees now
react very aggressively in hesitation situations. Rich Colker wrote a
series in the ACBL Bulletin about this a few years ago -- "If it
Hesitates, Shoot it"
I am commenting to the general community, not to David, who knows
about this as well as the history of such cases in the U.S. He was
one of the guru's commenting on the published committee decisions.
This system helped to educate committees, and to improve the process.
But the original question of this thread is, IMHO, posed in a biased
way. It asks about logical alternatives. The first question should
be what is the UI? I am not going to repeat my earlier comment (since
anyone interested can check it easily) but I do not think that the
original hesitation conveyed UI.
Mark Dean certainly got his money's worth from this discussion. I
wonder if he might post partner's hand.
Jeff
On Jan 29, 5:41 pm, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> Arthur Hoffman wrote
>
> >"David Stevenson" <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> JeffM1817 wrote
> >>>There is something wrong with an application of the laws that says
> >>>that anything one does after a hesitation is wrong.
> >> Of course there is, and all competent TDs realise that.
> >Could you clarify? Which "wrong" are you agreeing with, the first or the
> >second? OK.
>
> TDs do not assume that anything after a hesitation is wrong.
>
> A suggestion of that sort is wrong.
>
> --
> David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
> Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
> <brid...@blakjak.com> bluejak on OKB
JeffM1817
none of whom follow this group. I gave them the hand and the auction,
without any hesitations, which I think is the best way to present
problems, and inquired about the meaning of the bids. Then I gave
them the hesitations.
No one was very troubled by the first hesitation. My group was more
inclined to view the final double as I did, but the two experts, for
whom I have great respect, just thought it was penalty. The hands
they had in mind were similar to those suggested by David -- a couple
of sure trump tricks and a couple of aces.
Everyone wanted to bid 2H right away, of course. One idea was that if
partner wanted to compete, taking some action over 3S was better than
waiting for 4S.
One should not ask for opinions without being willing to be shown
wrong, and I guess my thinking on the final double is mistaken.
I hope that others also learned something from the problem.
Jeff
rhm
What I learned from this discussion is that there are two types of
people
One, who play the game for pleasure and for its intellectual
challenge.
And then there are the lawyers of the game, who seem to derive a very
different pleasure from it, like lecturing others about the ethics of
the game.
Rainer Herrmann
David Stevenson
>"I hope that others also learned something from the problem."
>
>What I learned from this discussion is that there are two types of
>people
>
>One, who play the game for pleasure and for its intellectual
>challenge.
>And then there are the lawyers of the game, who seem to derive a very
>different pleasure from it, like lecturing others about the ethics of
>the game.
In fact there are two sorts of people who play the game.
1 The actively ethical types who try to play ethically. Confident as
they are in their own ethics and their partner's, if they get ruled
against in a judgement situation, they shrug their shoulders and move
on.
2 The people who like to have an edge, whether in a minimum level of
active ethics, or in any other way. When they get rulings in their
favour, they crow, but when against, they whinge and explain it ruins
the game.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<bri...@blakjak.com> bluejak on OKB
Derek Broughton
> "I hope that others also learned something from the problem."
>
> What I learned from this discussion is that there are two types of
> people
>
> One, who play the game for pleasure and for its intellectual
> challenge.
> And then there are the lawyers of the game, who seem to derive a very
> different pleasure from it, like lecturing others about the ethics of
> the game.
As always in this sort of categorization, there are not only two types.
There are also those who play the game for please, and find the legal
aspects equally interesting.
--
derek
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world -
those who understand binary, and those who don't
raija d
You are beyond reach.
Mark Dean
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am not sure this is 100% correct because it is from memory, but I
believe that partner's hand was Kxx AKx xxx AKQx - it was certainly
that shape and 19 HCP. Declarer was 5071 with AK of diamonds, and
AJTxx of spades, and dummy had Qxx xxxx Qx J98x. Our teammates played
in 4Sx and were surprised to have lost quite a few IMPs on the
board.
Mark
JeffM1817
Thanks, Mark.