[nige1]

SchTsch, on Apr 2 2008, 04:53 AM, said:

Let's say you are elected for the appeal committee and have to handle the following appeal:
pass - 1♠ - 2♦ - dble
pass - 3♣ - pass - 3♦
dble - 4♣ - pass - 5♣(*)
pass - 6♣ - all pass
Result: 6♣=
There was a 2 minutes break before the 5♣ bid.
Hand that bid 6♣ is: ♠ AK109xx ♥ Kx ♦- ♣ Jxxxx
TD decided to leave the result made at the table.

Directors who consult me about logical alternatives, never seem to do it fairly.

IMO, if possible, the TD should ask a sample of peers both the following questions:

• What are the logical alternatives?
  
• What call does the unauthorised information suggest?

IMO it is important to ask these questions before revealing

• The call actually made.
  
• The playing result

Otherwise there is a danger that a player will be ruled against, no matter what successful action he takes.

In a 50-50 decision, however, IMO, the TD should rule against alleged offenders, because, usually the message imparted by a hesiitation (or whatever) is clearer to partner than to opponents or to a TD.

IMO, this is the protocol that should be detailed in the law-book, or failing that, in local regulations.

In this case, I agree with Paul that pass is a logical alternative; and that the hesitation suggested extra values, making 6♣ more attractive. Adjustment to 5♣+1 seems reasonable.

[benlessard]

Quote

This is really being overthought. Bidding slam could CLEARLY be wrong, and the tank CLEARLY showed interest in bidding it. This is one of the easier decisions ever to move back to 5♣.

Agree 100%.

[dburn]

SchTsch, on Apr 2 2008, 04:53 AM, said:

Let's say you are elected for the appeal committee and have to handle the following appeal:

pass - 1♠ - 2♦ - dble
pass - 3♣ - pass - 3♦
dble - 4♣ - pass - 5♣(*)
pass - 6♣ - all pass

Result: 6♣=

There was a 2 minutes break before the 5♣ bid.
The hand that bid 6♣ is:
AK109xx
Kx
-
Jxxxx

TD decided to leave the result made at the table.

If you require an additional info for your decision post a question and I will try to gather that info.

Did anyone ask the player (or the partnership) what the holder of this hand would be expected to bid over 3♦ with, say:

♠KQ876 ♥K7 ♦J2 ♣QJ65

Maybe the answer to that would have been 3♥, or 3♠, or 3NT, but I'm pretty sure that if I held that hand I would bid 4♣. If partner is prepared to bid 5♣ when this is the kind of hand I could have, I ought to bid 6♣ with the hand I actually do have.

[glen]

jdonn, on Apr 2 2008, 12:37 PM, said:

... Bidding slam could CLEARLY be wrong ...

I have yet to see an example hand that would negative double, then cuebid (not bid 3NT) and then raise 4♣ to 5, where slam is CLEARLY wrong

[jdonn]

officeglen, on Apr 2 2008, 12:39 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 2 2008, 12:37 PM, said:

... Bidding slam could CLEARLY be wrong ...

I have yet to see an example hand that would negative double, then cuebid (not bid 3NT) and then raise 4♣ to 5, where slam is CLEARLY wrong

x QJxx Axx KQxxx

[glen]

jdonn, on Apr 2 2008, 01:42 PM, said:

x QJxx Axx KQxxx

And opener with Axxxxx x x Axxxx is now expected to bid 6 opposite your example hand and given the bidding?

[awm]

Is it necessarily clear that 3♦ is some kind of huge club raise? It seems like it could be just angling for the best contract, maybe trying to get a 3NT bid. What about some hand like:

xx
QJxx
Axxx
AQx

I guess you might bid 3NT with this, but it's easy to envision 4♠ or 5♣ or 3NT from pd's side being a better spot.

Qx
AQJx
xxxx
Axx

Seems worth a game bid, but who knows where? It's easy to imagine 4♠ as the right spot if partner has six (hey on the actual hand 4♠ is the right spot) or even 4♥ could be right if partner has king-third and a diamond void. Maybe this hand bids 3♠ over 3♣ (but that's probably NF?) or 4♠ over 4♣ (but that might be a cue?) but it seems reasonable to cuebid and then raise partner's 4♣ to 5♣.

I agree with Josh Donn on this one.

[jtfanclub]

jdonn, on Apr 2 2008, 12:42 PM, said:

x QJxx Axx KQxxx

Then what would 4♦ have shown over 4♣?

I guess what I'm looking for is a hand that...

Makes a negative double
Makes a cue bid,
Bypasses 4♦ and 4♥
in order to raise 4♣ to *6*

He got bored all the sudden? He thought QJT9 of hearts wouldn't be any losers? What?

How could responder possibly be considering 6♣?

[awm]

Well what do you do with a hand like:

♠Qx
♥QJT9
♦xxx
♣AKQx

You could easily be on for 6♣ (in fact it's cold on the actual hand). But you don't have any controls outside the club suit to cuebid. You know that if you bid 5♣, partner will have a tough time bidding on because he is missing all the top trump honors. Blasting six clubs seems risky too though, since partner could have some lousy diamond or heart holding that leaves you off two quick losers (say AKxxx Kx x JTxxx). So what do you do? Well you think about this annoying problem for a while, then you bid 5♣, and partner knows you have a problem so maybe he finds a six club bid with a control rich minimum that includes lousy trumps......

[jdonn]

officeglen, on Apr 2 2008, 12:53 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 2 2008, 01:42 PM, said:

x QJxx Axx KQxxx

And opener with Axxxxx x x Axxxx is now expected to bid 6 opposite your example hand and given the bidding?

I don't understand what point you are trying to make. That bidding is not a perfect science? I didn't even say bidding slam is wrong, I just said passing could clearly be right. Do you disagree that the hand I gave is possible (and not some ridiculous construction that shouldn't be considered)? If so then that's your case, if not then I don't see what your case is.

[cherdano]

jdonn, on Apr 2 2008, 10:37 AM, said:

This is really being overthought. Bidding slam could CLEARLY be wrong, and the tank CLEARLY showed interest in bidding it. This is one of the easier decisions ever to move back to 5♣.

Your argument is pretty irrelevant. Say opener is an expert bidder, and all experts agree that while there are hands where slam has no play, it is with the odds to bid the slam, than passing is not a logical alternative.
(I read somewhere that bidding is not an exact science.)

[jdonn]

cherdano, on Apr 2 2008, 02:24 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 2 2008, 10:37 AM, said:

This is really being overthought. Bidding slam could CLEARLY be wrong, and the tank CLEARLY showed interest in bidding it. This is one of the easier decisions ever to move back to 5♣.

Your argument is pretty irrelevant. Say opener is an expert bidder, and all experts agree that while there are hands where slam has no play, it is with the odds to bid the slam, than passing is not a logical alternative.
(I read somewhere that bidding is not an exact science.)

That would require a group of experts who agree with the previous bidding, which I believe you would be hard-pressed to find. It's irrelevant for a pollee to say "I have underbid before so of course I make up for it now" as the player at the table must have thought his earlier bids were correct.

By the way, you didn't make a case that my argument was irrelevant, you just made a case that I was misdefining logical alternative. I'm sure technically I did, although committees often demonstrate logical alternatives with example hands or statements that something else could easily have worked.

[glen]

jdonn, on Apr 2 2008, 03:16 PM, said:

I don't understand what point you are trying to make. That bidding is not a perfect science? I didn't even say bidding slam is wrong, I just said passing could clearly be right. Do you disagree that the hand I gave is possible (and not some ridiculous construction that shouldn't be considered)? If so then that's your case, if not then I don't see what your case is.

Given that a 8 point hand makes slam but can't get there opposite your example hand and the given bidding, the example hand you gave would not bid that way - that is the example hand is not possible. Hands with a good ♣ fit and the ♦ ace have to cuebid 4♦ over 4♣, since 3♦ was just a general force, not a bid that showed first round ♦ control. I'm still waiting to see an example hand that would bid the way that was given, and that slam does not have chances.

[Fluffy]

A bit off topic, but I have a question.

Lets say that 6♣ makes, but that it is a horrible contract that needs 3 good breaks and 2 fineses, would you still rule back to 5♣+1?

[jdonn]

officeglen, on Apr 2 2008, 05:12 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 2 2008, 03:16 PM, said:

I don't understand what point you are trying to make. That bidding is not a perfect science? I didn't even say bidding slam is wrong, I just said passing could clearly be right. Do you disagree that the hand I gave is possible (and not some ridiculous construction that shouldn't be considered)? If so then that's your case, if not then I don't see what your case is.

Given that a 8 point hand makes slam but can't get there opposite your example hand and the given bidding, the example hand you gave would not bid that way - that is the example hand is not possible. Hands with a good ♣ fit and the ♦ ace have to cuebid 4♦ over 4♣, since 3♦ was just a general force, not a bid that showed first round ♦ control. I'm still waiting to see an example hand that would bid the way that was given, and that slam does not have chances.

Your "8 count" would make slam opposite x xxxx Axx Kxxxx so according to you this hand "has to" bid 4♦ there? Sorry but you can't get to every 15 point slam, and every random 12 count without much extra shape can't just keep cuebidding over and over in case opener has some fluke 6-5 both suits to the ace.

To Fluffy: That would have no bearing at all on the decision. As far as I know the laws are clear on that point, and the only one who disagrees is Bobby Wolff.

[glen]

jdonn, on Apr 2 2008, 06:44 PM, said:

Your "8 count" would make slam opposite x xxxx Axx Kxxxx so according to you this hand "has to" bid 4♦ there?

No, your x xxxx Axx Kxxxx is clearly silly since it would not cue 3♦.

[dburn]

Jlall, on Apr 2 2008, 05:42 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Apr 2 2008, 05:15 PM, said:

A bit off topic, but I have a question.

Lets say that 6♣ makes, but that it is a horrible contract that needs 3 good breaks and 2 fineses, would you still rule back to 5♣+1?

Yes of course. The fact that the offending side puts themselves in a no win position by cheating should not really disturb you.

You need to be a bit careful about this sort of thing. The Law says this:

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may
suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a
question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis,
tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose
from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have
been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who
had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been
suggested by such information, he should summon the Director
forthwith. The Director shall require the auction and play to continue,
standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an
infraction of law has resulted in damage.

Now, if 6♣ was a horrible contract, what information would you say that the player who bid it had received, and what information would you say that his partner had made available?

If his partner had, instead of merely bidding slowly, been illegally communicating every detail of his hand via some electronic device (or, now that these are banned in the United States, by some tried and trusted method such as signalling with his fingers), the player would never have bid 6♣.

So when he did bid it, he was clearly not acting on the basis of any actual information about his partner's actual hand. What offense, then, has the partnership committed, other than that of being lucky (which as yet the ACBL has not forbidden, although I understand that Larry Cohen is on the case)?

[mikeh]

dburn, on Apr 2 2008, 06:01 PM, said:

Jlall, on Apr 2 2008, 05:42 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Apr 2 2008, 05:15 PM, said:

A bit off topic, but I have a question.

Lets say that 6♣ makes, but that it is a horrible contract that needs 3 good breaks and 2 fineses, would you still rule back to 5♣+1?

Yes of course. The fact that the offending side puts themselves in a no win position by cheating should not really disturb you.

You need to be a bit careful about this sort of thing. The Law says this:

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may
suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a
question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis,
tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose
from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have
been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who
had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been
suggested by such information, he should summon the Director
forthwith. The Director shall require the auction and play to continue,
standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an
infraction of law has resulted in damage.

Now, if 6♣ was a horrible contract, what information would you say that the player who bid it had received, and what information would you say that his partner had made available?

If his partner had, instead of merely bidding slowly, been illegally communicating every detail of his hand via some electronic device (or, now that these are banned in the United States, by some tried and trusted method such as signalling with his fingers), the player would never have bid 6♣.

So when he did bid it, he was clearly not acting on the basis of any actual information about his partner's actual hand. What offense, then, has the partnership committed, other than that of being lucky (which as yet the ACBL has not forbidden, although I understand that Larry Cohen is on the case)?

I hestitate to argue the law with david, whose knowledge (of bridge law as well, I suspect, of many other things) surpasses mine, but I think that this post is mistaken.

Assume, for these purposes, that the hesitation conveyed the information that bidder was heavy for his bid.

Opener then bids what turns out to be a poor slam that makes.

In my view, the innocent side has been injured: had there been no hestitation, the offending side may well not have bid this lucky slam. The hestitation was improper, the taking advantage of it was improper, and damage flowed.

The fact that the hestitator may have less values than his partner would think 'appropriate' for a hestitation is meaningless.

Let's say that responder read into the 4♣ bid extra values and the opener felt that 4♣ showed a minimum. Now responder has a hand that, opposite significant extras, is worth a slam move, but, on reflection decides not to play partner for a perfecto and bids a slow 5♣. His hand is such that opposite opener's 'good minimum' the slam is ugly, yet it makes. He would not have hesitated had he been on the same page as opener. Opener would not have taken advantage of the hestitation had he realized that responder was already playing him for a good hand. But opener 'read' the hesitation as suggesting slam opposite a good minimum, while it was 'intended' (and I stress, neither opener nor responder need consciously 'intend' any of this) slam opposite a lot of extras.

In these circumstances, it is still demonstrable that 'absent the taking advantage of the hesitation', the innocent side would be defending 5♣+1. So damage was resulted.

The point about 'intention' is important: a lot of players, even experienced ones, get hot and bothered when ruled against in hestitation situations, thinking that their integrity is being impugned. The Director and the Committee never (well, supposedly never) consider whether the hestitation or the taking of improper action was consciously done. A player is DEEMED to have taken advantage, and no conscious or ethical considerations apply to either player.