[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-February-17, 16:45, said:

Imagine that screens are in use and that North and South have access to an E/W system file. Responder has bid hearts naturally, his LHO has bid clubs in response to RHO's take-out double and partner has now jumped to 3♠. If RHO really has a strong jump overcall he will surely double 3♠ (whatever 3♠ means).

Firstly, you do not bid as though screens are in use. You have UI, which you normally do not have with screens, and you have additional duties under 16B and 73C. And let us say that RHO does have long spades - he has heard them bid on his left and raised on his right, why on earth would he want to double 3S - surely they have somewhere better to play? And a double would almost certainly cause one or other opponent to realise that a wheel has come off.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-February-17, 16:59, said:

As this fine convention was on their convention card, it seems very likely that North was "woken up" by the alert and remembered at that point that they had indeed agreed to play this convention. Law 20 tells us that players have the obligation to explain their partnership agreements to their opponents. This applies even though, for the purposes of his own bidding, partner's alert and explanation are unauthorised information.

Here you are correct, assuming 3NT was intended as natural. But you are just echoing the response I gave to RMB some moments ago.

[campboy]

dburn, on 2011-February-17, 18:46, said:

But in the actual case where screens are not in use, North is in duty bound to act as though he had bid hearts to show hearts, and his partner had jumped to three spades knowing that North had hearts. That is: if it is not completely impossible that the opponents had failed to bid spades thus far despite having ten of them, South must place that construction upon the auction. Not "unlikely", not "very implausible" (as helene suggested), but "completely impossible". At least, that is the way I understand the Laws and the way I have always ruled on committees.

Surely not "completely impossible". If it is sufficiently unlikely that it becomes illogical to cater for the possibility, that is enough.

(I do not intend to suggest that it is sufficiently unlikely in this case; I would certainly be adjusting unless N/S could convince me they had some agreement such as "can't splinter in competition in a suit oppo have not bid".)

[lamford]

dburn, on 2011-February-17, 18:46, said:

I am not sure I understand this - North-South are the people who have no idea what they are doing, while East-West are the people who need access to a North-South system file in order to work out what is going on.

Perhaps jallerton is confused by the new hand diagrams on this forum. They do have the letters, N, E, S and W as well as North, East, South and West, in the normal clockwise manner. Or maybe he is confused by the fact that everyone at the table has spades and he cannot work out which pair actually bid them.

[lamford]

Aardv, on 2011-February-17, 17:13, said:

Before splinters became popular the meaning of an unnecessary jump was a cue for partner's suit: why should that not apply here?

Exactly - but for jallerton that is not even a logical alternative. If I had to guess an alternative to a splinter, I would go for this as being the second favourite. In which case 3NT is just ridiculous.

[dburn]

campboy, on 2011-February-17, 18:58, said:

Surely not "completely impossible". If it is sufficiently unlikely that it becomes illogical to cater for the possibility, that is enough.

(I do not intend to suggest that it is sufficiently unlikely in this case; I would certainly be adjusting unless N/S could convince me they had some agreement such as "can't splinter in competition in a suit oppo have not bid".)

Law 16 requires only that it be "illogical" to play the opponents for ten spades. Law 73, on the other hand, requires (more or less) that it be "completely impossible" to play the opponents for ten spades. This discrepancy has been highlighted before, and will be highlighted again, but nothing very much will be done about it.

[campboy]

dburn, on 2011-February-17, 19:13, said:

Law 16 requires only that it be "illogical" to play the opponents for ten spades. Law 73, on the other hand, requires (more or less) that it be "completely impossible" to play the opponents for ten spades. This discrepancy has been highlighted before, and will be highlighted again, but nothing very much will be done about it.

If it more or less requires that it be completely impossible, is that stronger or weaker than completely requiring that it be more-or-less impossible?

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-February-17, 19:19, said:

If it more or less requires that it be completely impossible, is that stronger or weaker than completely requiring that it be more-or-less impossible?

I assume you are being flippant. But in case you are not ... the relevant clause is "he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information." (my emphasis). So if there would be a 1% chance of a bid being natural without the UI, and the UI tells you that there is a 0% chance that the bid is natural, then you must not take any advantage, and must assume the alternative that is least palatable.

[Vampyr]

campboy, on 2011-February-17, 19:19, said:

If it more or less requires that it be completely impossible, is that stronger or weaker than completely requiring that it be more-or-less impossible?

It is much stronger. The adjective "completely" is in the first case modifying "impossible". But I suspect that English is your native tongue, and that you know that, and are kidding.

(Also, of course, "requires" doesn't need the modifier "completely". Something is required or it is not. That is all.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2011-February-17, 19:28, said:

I assume you are being flippant. But in case you are not ... the relevant clause is "he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information." (my emphasis). So if there would be a 1% chance of a bid being natural without the UI, and the UI tells you that there is a 0% chance that the bid is natural, then you must not take any advantage, and must assume the alternative that is least palatable.

I wasn't (just) being flippant; I think it absurd of DBurn to base a precise requirement on an approximation of what the law says. So, on to the actual law...

I don't think you gain an advantage by not doing something which you would not have done anyway. If you have to choose between two possibilities, one having a 99% chance and the other having a 1% chance, and the payoffs being comparable, do you not choose the 99% shot 100% of the time? If you have secret knowledge that actually the 99% chance is coming in, that doesn't change how you bet so it doesn't change your result so you haven't gained anything.

[campboy]

Vampyr, on 2011-February-17, 19:33, said:

Something is required or it is not. That is all.

That was, in fact, the point I was making. How can something be "more or less" required?

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-February-17, 19:46, said:

I don't think you gain an advantage by not doing something which you would not have done anyway. If you have to choose between two possibilities, one having a 99% chance and the other having a 1% chance, and the payoffs being comparable, do you not choose the 99% shot 100% of the time? If you have secret knowledge that actually the 99% chance is coming in, that doesn't change how you bet so it doesn't change your result so you haven't gained anything.

On your basis if there is a 51% chance of something meaning one thing leading to you making one bid, and a 49% chance of it meaning something else, leading to you making another bid, you would guess that it meant the former. We know that 16B states that you are obliged to choose the latter, if you think the former is demonstrably suggested, even though it is what you would choose anyway. Dburn is right that there is a conflict between 16B and 73C. The former normally sets the bar at bids that 20% would consider and 10% of them would choose, or something like that. I can accept that 73C should not be more restrictive.

[Vampyr]

campboy, on 2011-February-17, 19:52, said:

That was, in fact, the point I was making. How can something be "more or less" required?

Ah yes. My guess is that dburn didn't want the discussion to get mired down in whatever exceptions or loopholes someone might be able to find.

[dburn]

dburn, on 2011-February-17, 19:13, said:

Law 16 requires only that it be "illogical" to play the opponents for ten spades. Law 73, on the other hand, requires (more or less) that it be "completely impossible" to play the opponents for ten spades. This discrepancy has been highlighted before, and will be highlighted again, but nothing very much will be done about it.

campboy, on 2011-February-17, 19:19, said:

If it more or less requires that it be completely impossible, is that stronger or weaker than completely requiring that it be more-or-less impossible?

Yes and no, up to but not necessarily beyond a point that might or might not be established or even apparent.

The truth is that, just as it was shortly after the epic voyage of Harold Vanderbilt on the SS Finland, whether or not you're as bent as a nine-bob note is still largely a matter of perception. Consider what a pair of out-and-out benders would do on this deal.

After 1♦-Dble, North bids 1♥ thinking (however temporarily) that this shows hearts. South informs the assembled company that 1♥ in fact shows spades. East bids 2♣, South bids 3♠, West passes and North... well, what's his problem? Partner has a spade stop, so North bids 3NT. Acts of nitwittery subsequently occur when somebody doubles and nobody defends, but these are not particularly relevant.

Now, when something happens that is exactly what would have happened had North-South been Bonnie and Clyde or Henry Gondorff and Johnny Hooker, East-West are entitled to call in the constabulary. Should North, they enquire, be allowed to bid 3NT? Should South be allowed to pass it?

Various learned arguments are advanced to the effect that once East bid clubs, South bid 3♠ and West did not double, North had sufficient AI to know that he had cocked up the auction, and that South might therefore not have what he would have if he had (say) explained 1♥ on request as showing hearts. The merits of those arguments rely on East-West's tendency to bid as you or I would bid if we had spades - but they are under no obligation to do that.

Various other learned arguments are advanced to the effect that from North's point of view, South might well have explained 1♥ as showing hearts, but have bid 3♠ anyway because he had lots of spades and lots of diamonds and lots of points (too many of either or both to bid a mere 2♠.) The merits of those arguments rely on the extent to which South, East and West are prepared to go into the witness box and certify themselves as lunatics (how can West have a double, East a free bid, South a jump reverse, and North what he has?) But no one is under any obligation to be sane either, so these arguments have about the same force as those above.

Still, if you are inclined to credit any of the above arguments, you will be inclined to support the view that the table result should stand. Your view may be reinforced when you learn that North-South "do not play splinters in competition" and "play 2♠ as natural and non-forcing in the sequence 1♦-Double-1(natural)♥-2♣-2♠". If you happen to be the Tournament Director or the Appeals Committee in this case you will rule accordingly, and the strains of Scott Joplin's "The Entertainer" will accompany your entrance while the strains of his "The Easy Winners" will accompany your exit.

If on the other hand you believe as I do that North took it upon himself to correct South's impression that North had spades by bidding as he would not have bid if under the impression that South knew North had hearts, you will... well, you may someday finish fourth in the Tollemache. But you'll sleep at night.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2011-February-17, 20:00, said:

On your basis if there is a 51% chance of something meaning one thing leading to you making one bid, and a 49% chance of it meaning something else, leading to you making another bid, you would guess that it meant the former. We know that 16B states that you are obliged to choose the latter, if you think the former is demonstrably suggested, even though it is what you would choose anyway. Dburn is right that there is a conflict between 16B and 73C. The former normally sets the bar at bids that 20% would consider and 10% of them would choose, or something like that. I can accept that 73C should not be more restrictive.

I don't think that first sentence is necessarily true. There is some uncertainty in my estimate of their probabilities and I imagine that if they were as close as that I would get them wrong a fair proportion of the time. And of course that is in line with the definition of LA; I need to carefully consider which is more likely, and I may get it wrong.

The conflict (I think that is too strong a term really) between 16D and 73C comes in in two ways. Firstly even if I know I would not have done somthing (say when I have already decided on my next call before making this one) law 16D may require me to make it because it doesn't take that into account. And that is how it should be: law 16D is written in such a way that the TD can apply it without needing to know my state of mind. The second way is where I know that I might have done something even though it probably doesn't meet the definition of LA; then law 73C places a stricter requirement on me than the TD can reliably enforce.

[Poky]

jallerton, on 2011-February-17, 16:34, said:

Bluejak has already stated his view on the case in this thread, Poky. Unfortunately, it got buried in between a lot of fairly irrelevant arguments.

In my view, Bluejak tells us exactly the right approach to adopt in this type of case.

True. I didn't notice it. TY.

[Poky]

lamford, on 2011-February-17, 18:36, said:

The opinion of Wank seems spot on: "I think in the circumstances it seems perfectly reasonable for people to be a little incredulous concerning the suggestion it would be natural." Dburn has already explained to you why you cannot draw inferences from your own spade holding. You know that it is not natural, dburn knows it is not natural, Frances knows it is not natural (modifying her opinion with 'probably') ". Please don't try to treat the readers of this forum as imbeciles by writing such nonsense.

Well, I'm not so sure that someone treating himself as an imbecile is proper behavior either... But, that's just my opinion. To be worth more than 1 penny firstly I have to learn the difference between truth and nonsense, probably... Or not?

[lamford]

dburn, on 2011-February-17, 20:13, said:

Still, if you are inclined to credit any of the above arguments, you will be inclined to support the view that the table result should stand. Your view may be reinforced when you learn that North-South "do not play splinters in competition" and "play 2♠ as natural and non-forcing in the sequence 1♦-Double-1(natural)♥-2♣-2♠".

As I agree with ChrisL that judgement rulings are only a small part of bridge, and the game itself has some importance, maybe I can be excused for drifting off-topic for a moment. I think that a sensible use for the sequences 1♣ - 1♥ - 3♠ or 1♣ - 1♠ - 3♥, with or without competition, is to play them as three-way. One of:
a) a splinter in that major
b) a cue bid agreeing the other major
c) a hand too good to raise to four of a major
Partner puppets with 3NT and opener passes ... er, sorry, he bids 4♣ with the splinter, 4♦ with the cue, and 4 other major with the hand too good to raise to four major.

The disadvantage of this method is that we have to play the jump shift or reverse as natural and forcing, so that may be too avant garde for some. But not for this North-South who play lots of "stuff".

[mjj29]

lamford, on 2011-February-17, 20:00, said:

On your basis if there is a 51% chance of something meaning one thing leading to you making one bid, and a 49% chance of it meaning something else, leading to you making another bid, you would guess that it meant the former. We know that 16B states that you are obliged to choose the latter, if you think the former is demonstrably suggested, even though it is what you would choose anyway. Dburn is right that there is a conflict between 16B and 73C. The former normally sets the bar at bids that 20% would consider and 10% of them would choose, or something like that. I can accept that 73C should not be more restrictive.

I believe it's possible to apply L16B and not L73C and also (in other cases) to apply L73C and not L16B.

To my mind, L73C is as campboy suggested. If I genuinely believe I would always make an action and I take that action, I don't see how I can be in breach of L73C. I may still have my score adjusted under L16B if it is judged that my peers may sometimes make another action, and that is fine.

L73C should be applied where we believe that the player has taken the suggested action when they _wouldn't_ have made it 'all the time'. In those cases L16B will also apply and will be our route of choice.

When L73C could be applied alone are the rare cases where the player does something off-the-wall because of the UI and so L16B does not apply.

Matt

[lamford]

mjj29, on 2011-February-18, 05:54, said:

When L73C could be applied alone are the rare cases where the player does something off-the-wall because of the UI and so L16B does not apply.

This was Grattan Endicott's response to deal with someone who does not select among logical alternatives, because nobody would choose the bid. He saw 73C as a stopgap to deal with that, although some argue that the bid chosen must always be a logical alternative. Say somebody opens 3NT fourth in hand after three passes, on Axx Axx Axx Axxx and his partner, who broke tempo, has a flawed pre-empt somewhere and the contract makes. I hope we would all adjust under 73C if we feel that we cannot catch him under 16B.

Correcting 16B to add "(which always include the bid chosen)" after "logical alternatives" in a couple of places would eliminate this anomaly.