[Cascade]

mikeh, on Apr 3 2008, 12:22 PM, said:

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

This is a big assumption for this and similar complex auctions.

[Cascade]

Jlall said:

You need to think of this not as a specific hand but as a range of hands that partner can have.

I agree with this.

Jlall said:

If partner bid 5C WITH a hesitation his range of hands would look like this {x}. x is a tighter range than y that does not include the worst 70 % of hands in y, and includes some hands that were not in y that make slam very good. Opposite range x I make slam about 70 % of the time.

I don't agree with this. There are many other reasons why partner might make a slow 5♣ bid ~ choice of contracts; unsure whether 4♣ is forcing; wondering whether 4NT would be natural etc etc.

The specific hand that partner has might give a clue as to what they were thinking but even that in its self is not sufficient evidence to determine that the UI may have demonstrably suggested one action over another.

[Cascade]

FrancesHinden, on Apr 3 2008, 04:28 AM, said:

These rulings are very hard, because we can't help but put our own interpretation on the auction - really we have no choice in doing so.

In order to make a sensible ruling this is exactly what we need to not do.

Logical Alternatives and what has been Demonstrably Suggested will both be influenced by any spin observers put on the auction had at the table.

What is relevant is only what the auction meant for the pair at the table.

Twice in one day recently I had rulings of this nature made at my table. On the first one where where I made a cue-bid the director in his ruling said "some partnerships would play that as a general slam try" which is not our agreement and may have materially affected the LAs and what was Demonstrably Suggested. On the second occasion partner made a slow high-level double in a situation in which our notes (CC) say "convertible values" and the example hand referenced was only one card different than the actual hand held. I had shown five spades but actually had six spades and a side five-card heart suit that I would normally not have. I had little or no defense (I would need to look up the actual hand). The director accepted an argument from my opponents that most player would play 'penalty doubles' and ruled on logical alternatives etc on that erroneous basis.

To make a decent ruling in these situations we must at least attempt to establish what the bidders' methods are and only on that basis determine what is suggested and what the alternatives are.

[nige1]

Jlall, on Apr 2 2008, 06:09 PM, said:

dburn, I think you are totally wrong. I think a much better way of looking at it is this: If partner bid 5C without any hesitation, his range of hands would look like this {y}. Opposite range y, I make slam about 30 % of the time. If partner bid 5C WITH a hesitation his range of hands would look like this {x}. x is a tighter range than y that does not include the worst 70 % of hands in y, and includes some hands that were not in y that make slam very good. Opposite range x I make slam about 70 % of the time.  Because of the hesitation, there is a much better chance of making slam thus you can take advantage of the UI by bidding slam. Now, just because partner HAPPENS to have a hand at the bottom of range x making slam very poor, that doesn't mean you didn't take advantage of the UI to bid slam. It just means you got unlucky in your cheating. This doesn't entitle you to keep the result of 6C making 6. You need to think of this not as a specific hand but as a range of hands that partner can have.

I agree with the JLall's argument but go even further IMO, it doesn't matter what hand partner actually held; or what he was really thinking about; it matters only that (arguably) his hesitation suggested a call that turned out to be more successful than a non-suggested logical alternative.

But I'm concerned about the jocular inference that the 6♣ bidder "cheated" I feel that we should be wary of such remarks, even in jest

[glen]

Jlall, on Apr 2 2008, 07:09 PM, said:

dburn, I think you are totally wrong. I think a much better way of looking at it is this:

If partner bids 5C without any hesitation, his range of hands would look like this {y}. Opposite range y, I make slam about 30% of the time.

If partner bids 5C WITH a hesitation his range of hands would look like this {x}. x is a tighter range than y that does not include the worst 70% of hands in y, and includes some hands that were not in y that make slam very good. Opposite range x I make slam about 70% of the time.

Because of the hesitation, there is a much better chance of making slam thus you can take advantage of the UI by bidding slam. Now, just because partner HAPPENS to have a hand at the bottom of range x making slam very poor, that doesn't mean you didn't take advantage of the UI to bid slam. It just means you got unlucky in your cheating. This doesn't entitle you to keep the result of 6C making 6.

You need to think of this not as a specific hand but as a range of hands that partner can have.

What happens if this is the more likely case:

If partner bids 5♣ without any hesitation, his set of hands would look like this {y}. Opposite set y, I make slam about 70% of the time.

If partner bids 5♣ WITH a hesitation his set of hands would look like this {x}. x is a tighter set than y that does not include the best 70% of hands in y, and includes some hands that were not in y that make slam very bad. Opposite set x I make slam about 30% of the time. Because of the hesitation, there is a much worse chance of making slam thus you can take advantage of the UI by not bidding slam. You need to think of this not as a specific hand but as a set of hands that partner can have.

Now you might wonder how the slow set x hands can be worse for slam than the in-tempo set y hands. The in-tempo 5♣ hands are hands that can't make a red suit cuebid, and thus are game forcing hands that have values in ♣s and ♠s - these are great for slam. However a lot of the slow 5♣ hands are hands that could have cuebid on the 4 level but don't have a lot of extra values - a whole bunch of these that could have cuebid ♦s are bad for slam purposes.

[dburn]

nige1, on Apr 2 2008, 08:41 PM, said:

Jlall, on Apr 2 2008, 06:09 PM, said:

dburn, I think you are totally wrong. I think a much better way of looking at it is this: If partner bid 5C without any hesitation, his range of hands would look like this {y}. Opposite range y, I make slam about 30 % of the time. If partner bid 5C WITH a hesitation his range of hands would look like this {x}. x is a tighter range than y that does not include the worst 70 % of hands in y, and includes some hands that were not in y that make slam very good. Opposite range x I make slam about 70 % of the time.  Because of the hesitation, there is a much better chance of making slam thus you can take advantage of the UI by bidding slam. Now, just because partner HAPPENS to have a hand at the bottom of range x making slam very poor, that doesn't mean you didn't take advantage of the UI to bid slam. It just means you got unlucky in your cheating. This doesn't entitle you to keep the result of 6C making 6. You need to think of this not as a specific hand but as a range of hands that partner can have.

I agree with the JLall's argument but go even further IMO, it doesn't matter what hand partner actually held; or what he was really thinking about; it matters only that (arguably) his hesitation suggested a call that turned out to be more successful than a non-suggested logical alternative.

But I'm concerned about the jocular inference that the 6♣ bidder "cheated" I feel that we should be wary of such remarks, even in jest

This is isomorphic to the idea that once partner hesitates, you cannot get a good result, "because" to hesitate is to cheat. This idea is the result of deeply muddled thinking, compounded by the notion that Bobby Wolff (and Bobby Goldman) must be wrong.

The Laws do not ban thinking. What they ban is actions based on unauthorised information, and to rule that a player has used unauthorised information, one needs to establish that some transfer of information has taken place.

To see this, consider:

♠AQ3 ♥K64 ♦QJ95 ♣A62

You open 1NT, 15-17. Partner thinks, then bids 2NT (natural and invitational). What call do you make?

Now, I do not very much care how the super-theorists would evaluate this hand, nor do I care whether you have methods that distinguish some raise to 2NT from some other raise to 2NT. Nor do I want anyone to run a simulation based on how often this hand will make 3NT facing an average raise to 2NT. No doubt these are valuable contributions to theory, but I am not talking about theory - I am talking about the law.

The Guthrie-Lall conjecture states that at this point, you cannot get a good result on this deal. Suppose you pass. Partner puts down a hand opposite which 3NT will make about 70% of the time, but on this occasion it fails. The opponents complain that partner's slow 2NT could have suggested that he had a marginal raise, so you ought to have ignored that putative suggestion, bid 3NT, and gone down.

Suppose you bid 3NT. Partner puts down a hand with which he might very well have passed 1NT, but 3NT makes on a couple of finesses and a 3-3 break. The opponents complain that partner's slow 2NT could have suggested that he had a hand almost worth 3NT, so you ought to have ignored that putative suggestion, passed 2NT, and made three.

Again, I want you to consider this argument without reference to your own personal tendencies towards "open aggressively, raise conservatively" or the converse. If you do so, I hope you will realise that the Guthrie-Lall conjecture is essentially no more than "if it hesitates, shoot it" and, more importantly, has nothing to do with what the law actually requires of players or of arbiters.

As to what the law actually does require - well, as Ambrose Bierce remarked, "it has been defined by five hundred lawyers in three volumes each. So how can anyone know?" But as an exercise, consider this thought experiment:

♠AKQJ109876543 ♥2 ♦None ♣None

Before you can open the bidding with 4NT, partner blurts out "this is the first hand tonight when I have had the ace of hearts".

You, being hard of hearing, believe him to have blurted out "this is the first hand tonight when I haven't had the ace of hearts".

RHO, who is actually the dealer, opens 6♦. What call do you make? You may say "I call the Director", but there is none. This is a private game among honourable people, and it is up to you to act in accordance with the law.

[jtfanclub]

officeglen, on Apr 2 2008, 08:51 PM, said:

Now you might wonder how the slow set x hands can be worse for slam than the in-tempo set y hands. The in-tempo 5♣ hands are hands that can't make a red suit cuebid, and thus are game forcing hands that have values in ♣s and ♠s - these are great for slam. However a lot of the slow 5♣ hands are hands that could have cuebid on the 4 level but don't have a lot of extra values - a whole bunch of these that could have cuebid ♦s are bad for slam purposes.

At this point, I'm honestly expecting a twist on this....

"In reality, opener didn't bid 6♣. He passed 5♣. His partner tabled...

Qx
AQJx
Qxx
Qxxx

and it made exactly. The actual appeal was that, without the hesitation, 6♣ was automatic. With the hesitation, opener could figure that partner had a red suit control but didn't bid it due to poor trumps. The hesitation demonstrably suggested passing".

[jdonn]

dburn, on Apr 2 2008, 10:22 PM, said:

This is isomorphic to the idea that once partner hesitates, you cannot get a good result, "because" to hesitate is to cheat. This idea is the result of deeply muddled thinking, compounded by the notion that Bobby Wolff (and Bobby Goldman) must be wrong.

The Laws do not ban thinking. What they ban is actions based on unauthorised information...

You are misinterpreting. Justin's point was that it makes no difference if the hand partner holds matches the unauthorized information. He is presupposing that the hesitiation does suggest bidding on in this case. If, hypothetically, we can agree that partner's long tank in the problem as originally stated suggests bidding 6♣, then their point is that it would make no difference if 6♣ turned out to be a terrible contract. The only thing that would matter is that the unauthorized information suggested bidding it, and that UI was taken advantage of.

They are saying one thing and you are refuting another. And neither side is wrong at all, except you about what you believe you are arguing against.

[jtfanclub]

Sorry, was going to add to my last post, but I see somebody replied in the meanwhile.

I think part of what people are missing is that extra values makes it *less likely that slam will make*.

That doesn't seem to make any sense, but think about it.

If partner has extra values, then he surely could have bid 4 of a red suit. But he didn't. The most likely reason? Because his clubs are crap. And with crappy clubs, you aren't making slam across Jxxxx.

A hand with extra values and a club control doesn't sign off no matter how long the person thinks about it. So if you think the delay showed extra values, then you know for a fact that 6♣ will go down.

Examples:

Qx
QJxx
xx
AKxxx

This hand has an easy 5♣ bid. There's no other bid that would even be on the radar. And it makes six.

Qx
AQJx
xxx
Axxx

This hand has an easy 4♥ bid, so he doesn't have this sort of hand.

Qx
AQJx
AKQ
Qxxx

Well, there's extra values for you. It's a 20 count. But it isn't going to make slam, and there's no good way to bid it where you won't get way over your head. So this hand would think for two minutes and then bid 5♣.

[dburn]

I think that perhaps it may help to separate discussion of the actual hand from discussion of the legal principle involved. Some of jtfanclub's analysis above is, I confess, too abstruse for me, as is jdonn's notion that information may not correspond to that which is being informed about.

Mind you, the latter may be a matter of semantics only. If I say to you "I have the ace of hearts" when in fact I do not have the ace of hearts, have I informed you that I have the ace of hearts?

[benlessard]

The laws arent that complicated and this is a fairly simple example.

If the 5C club bid would have been bid in tempo, is passing 5C a logical alternative ?

The hesitation of the 5C suggest others alternatives, does those alternative are suggesting to go higher then 5C ?

[whereagles]

ahhh.. laws threads always beat post records.. lol.

By the way, what's wrong with my idea of showing the hand to a couple peers and decide on basis of that whether it's obvious to allow 6♣?

[brianshark]

I don't agree that the 1NT-(hesitant)2NT-? auction is the same as the given auction in this thread because it seems that the hesitation in this thread can only suggest bidding on (the eventual 5♣ bid is the weakest possible bid at that point in the auction). However a hesitant 2NT in the above auction could suggest either a hand almost too weak to invite or a hand almost too good to invite or even a hand thinking of transferring or using stayman or something.

So while in principle I agree with dburn's opinion that people are way too eager to jump on the "if it hesitates, shoot it" bandwagon, I don't believe he is right in this situation because the hesitation does suggest bidding on.

The issue of whether a hesitation which suggests bidding on, acted upon and succeeding where the hesitator actually had a worse hand than demonstrated is something I'm still undecided about.

[Halo]

JLall position is definitely the mainstream interpretation IMO.

You can debate what info was passed, poll people and all that, but the principle is clear.

[badderzboy]

My take on this is ....

We should first consider what the hesitation and bidding suggests to date...
Was partner considering passing 4C we KNOW that 6C makes so we know that the person who hesitated was considering 6C but DID his partner and that is the crux of the issue. I can quite believe that they were considering 4S as well and they also failed to cue a Red suit control - both of which the 6C bidder has....

Rather than prevaricate on this surely ask peers what they would do with the 6C bidders hand and base your decision on that rather than on knowing the final result

Steve

[Fluffy]

whereagles, on Apr 3 2008, 08:49 AM, said:

ahhh.. laws threads always beat post records.. lol.

By the way, what's wrong with my idea of showing the hand to a couple peers and decide on basis of that whether it's obvious to allow 6♣?

Nothing wrong except that I doubt anyone would bid 4♣ instead of 4♦ or some spades, and that a very important fact of this question is if 4♣ is forcing or not, because if partner doesn't feel in a forcing situation, then 5♣ hesitation doesn't give away any extra info.

[Cascade]

brianshark, on Apr 4 2008, 12:16 AM, said:

I don't agree that the 1NT-(hesitant)2NT-? auction is the same as the given auction in this thread because it seems that the hesitation in this thread can only suggest bidding on (the eventual 5♣ bid is the weakest possible bid at that point in the auction). However a hesitant 2NT in the above auction could suggest either a hand almost too weak to invite or a hand almost too good to invite or even a hand thinking of transferring or using stayman or something.

So while in principle I agree with dburn's opinion that people are way too eager to jump on the "if it hesitates, shoot it" bandwagon, I don't believe he is right in this situation because the hesitation does suggest bidding on.

The issue of whether a hesitation which suggests bidding on, acted upon and succeeding where the hesitator actually had a worse hand than demonstrated is something I'm still undecided about.

I am entirely unconvinced that this particular hesitation based on the facts presented here suggests that the hesitator was considering bidding on. Its possible this is the case but I would want to know much more about the partnership experience and agreements before jumping to that conclusion.

That is the first conclusion that needs to be established. And if the actual hand doesn't match the conclusion then perhaps we need to revisit the situation and consider again what is being suggested and not assume as Justin did that we are simply at the bottom of the range of hands that would have hesitated on the assumption that our initial conclusion had been correct.

I know for me that I will reasonably often break tempo in late rounds of the bidding on complex or convoluted or unfamiliar auctions. The only conclusion that could be drawn is that I am checking the auction to make sure I have taken in all of the information. And conversely if I do not break tempo then the most likely conclusion is that I am being stupid and not playing carefully enough. When I make a slow bid I could have anything from a clear action that was unsure about the bidding to a hand with a problem that was considering some alternative action.

Another view is that I have seen many hands where partner tanks and makes some bid and then when I see her hand I think "What on earth was she thinking? She has an easy ??? bid" Where ??? is the bid she actually made. In reality I am pleased that she takes her time to make the right bid. If a problem occurred then many times it would quite wrong, especially at higher levels, to assume the slow call suggested one action over another. More so when the hand that is presented does not fit well within the group of hands that would have had the same problem that the committee believes would demonstrably suggest the action.

In practice appeal committees in my experience often seem to gloss over the requirement that a bid needs to be demonstrably suggested. This is just the first step towards if it hesitates shoot it.