[bluejak]

---

Teams of eight. When West was asked what 2♦ showed he said "Natural, a normal overcall".

What do you bid?

4♥ seems obvious, but for one thing, namely the double showing "11-13". On the other hand, whom do you trust, opponents or partner? Perhaps you only bid 3♥?

Suppose you bid 3♥ or 4♥ and it is doubled, what do you do? Nothing, of course. You are fairly happy. People seem happy to give declarer five or six tricks.

"I am too lazy to compute a weighted score". If you are too lazy to give a correct ruling, why not just give each side Average?

So how about
.. 30% of NS +300
+ 50% of NS +500
+ 20% of NS +800

[gnasher]

 lamford, on 2011-March-31, 06:38, said:

I am quite happy to allow E/W to play in 3♥x and I think you should have written "on reflection, we should give declarer only four tricks most of the time, as the defence to beat it five is pretty trivial". Perhaps the triplicate entry was caused by repeated reflection?

North will surely lead a trump, as he knows East does not have a Michaels Cue Bid (the director assumes MI rather than misbid, as the CC is essentially silent on a defence to a precision diamond). Now declarer can force South to defend well by putting in the king (when South must duck) but he will normally play low and South should win and play a second heart to cut down on ruffs. West does best to lead a diamond up, and North should win to play a spade through. South can win and push a medium club through, and then the defence exits with a trump and declarer is five off.

Yes, you're right. I thought that in this position declarer was getting two spade tricks, but I see that the defence can cunningly play the cash-winners-throw-losers coup.

[nige1]

Double post sorry

[nige1]

 gnasher, on 2011-March-31, 03:07, said:

I'm torn between 3♥x-4 and 4♥x-5. The rules require East to raise hearts, but I'm not sure whether 4♥ is a logical alternative.

 helene_t, on 2011-March-31, 06:41, said:

The ACBL rule that no cuebid is alertable would come in handy here

 lamford, on 2011-March-31, 06:46, said:

Not really; West's comment "I'm taking that as Michaels" might have been construed as UI by a perceptive TD.

In such contexts, a putative offender often argues that opponents' bidding makes it plain that his partner doesn't have his bid. That is plausible if the partner is a notorious over-bidder, ignoramus, amnesiac, idiot, or lunatic. Exceptionally, however, the director may establish that he is fairly trustworthy. Then it is about 2-1 that the misbidder is an opponent rather than partner and the director may judge 4♥XX-5.

[lamford]

 bluejak, on 2011-March-31, 08:47, said:

---

"I am too lazy to compute a weighted score". If you are too lazy to give a correct ruling, why not just give each side Average?

So how about
.. 30% of NS +300
+ 50% of NS +500
+ 20% of NS +800

Indeed. People who live in glasshouses ... The correct procedure is to decide, by polling or consulting, how often East bids 3H and how often he bids 4H and then to find normal, not double-dummy, declarer play and defence in each. I was happy to agree with gnasher that East would not bid 4H, but if you think he might do that, say 20% of the time, then the above scores are not in the ball-park. North-South will, I think, make 9 tricks at least half the time, I estimated 80%, and never fewer than 8. Best defence is as in my earlier thread, and defensive slips will normally only cost one trick. So, how about:

16% of N/S +800
68% of N/S +1100
16% of N/S +1400

That is much nearer the mark, and I agree that East will not redouble, as mooted by nigel1, but will be content (if that is what makes one happy).

[Cascade]

 gnasher, on 2011-March-31, 05:28, said:

This is a bit weird. Each time I thought I was editing my post, it created a new post. Maybe they're using Bridgemates to manage the site?

ROFL

[campboy]

 lamford, on 2011-March-31, 10:44, said:

Indeed. People who live in glasshouses ... The correct procedure is to decide, by polling or consulting, how often East bids 3H and how often he bids 4H and then to find normal, not double-dummy, declarer play and defence in each.

I am not quite sure that I have correctly interpreted what you mean here -- your later percentages are consistent with what I think you mean -- but I do not think we should be giving a weighted score which includes both 3♥x and 4♥x (or at least, not on that basis). If bidding 4♥ is an LA for East then, since 3♥ is suggested over it by the UI, bidding 3♥ is still illegal and no proportion of such an auction should be included.

[nige1]

 campboy, on 2011-March-31, 13:59, said:

If bidding 4♥ is an LA for East then, since 3♥ is suggested over it by the UI, bidding 3♥ is still illegal and no proportion of such an auction should be included.

And when 4♥ is doubled, does the UI suggest pass over redouble, assuming that both are LAs?

[campboy]

 nige1, on 2011-March-31, 14:29, said:

And when 4♥ is doubled, does the UI suggest pass over redouble assuming that both are LAs?

The same argument would apply, but, since no-one has suggested giving a weighted score involving both doubled and redoubled contracts, there is no inconsistency.

[lamford]

 campboy, on 2011-March-31, 13:59, said:

I am not quite sure that I have correctly interpreted what you mean here -- your later percentages are consistent with what I think you mean -- but I do not think we should be giving a weighted score which includes both 3♥x and 4♥x (or at least, not on that basis). If bidding 4♥ is an LA for East then, since 3♥ is suggested over it by the UI, bidding 3♥ is still illegal and no proportion of such an auction should be included.

No, I don't think bidding 3H is suggested over bidding 4H, nor is 4H suggested over bidding 3H. Failing to support hearts is suggested over doing so by the UI. How many hearts to bid is a matter of judgement with the authorised information. I have made a natural 2D overcall of a precision diamond; my partner has bid a natural 2H, which I expect him to do on AQxxxx and not much else. Bidding 4H seems a bit much, and one should poll people with the AI to see how many bid each. I fail to see why one is demonstrably suggested over the other.

But I was quite happy to go along with 100% of 3H, which seems about right, and 4H OTT. If you force the overbid of 4H on this hand, then the weighted scores would be even worse, 80% of +1100 and 20% of +1400, or something like that.

[jallerton]

 lamford, on 2011-March-31, 17:04, said:

No, I don't think bidding 3H is suggested over bidding 4H, nor is 4H suggested over bidding 3H. Failing to support hearts is suggested over all other bids by the UI. How many hearts to bid is a matter of judgement with the authorised information. I have made a natural 2D overcall of a precision diamond; my partner has bid a natural 2H, which I expect him to do on AQxxxx and not much else. Bidding 4H seems a bit much, and one should poll people with the AI to see how many bid each. I fail to see why one is demonstrably suggested over the other.

But I was quite happy to go along with 100% of 3H, which seems about right, and 4H OTT. If you force the overbid of 4H on this hand, then the weighted scores would be even worse, 80% of +1100 and 20% of +1400, or something like that.

How many hearts to bid is indeed a matter of judgement with the authorised information, but when you have UI you may not choose a LA demonstrably suggested over another.

The UI suggests that (i)both 3♥ and 4♥ will go off and hence (ii) 4♥ will go one more off than 3♥ and also (iii) 4♥ is more likely to be doubled than 3♥.

So I agree with Campboy: if 4♥ is a LA then the only weighted scores to be considered are 4♥ making the various possible numbers of tricks.

Is 4♥ a logical alternative? Bluejak thinks the bid is obvious, so perhaps the answer is yes. We need to poll a few more people to be certain.

[lamford]

 jallerton, on 2011-March-31, 17:19, said:

Is 4♥ a logical alternative? Bluejak thinks the bid is obvious, so perhaps the answer is yes. We need to poll a few more people to be certain.

gnasher was unsure whether 4♥ was even an LA. And there appears to be a volte-face from you here, where you now intend "using" the UI to decide to bid 4♥ which will go one more off. I can be persuaded that this is indeed your 73C obligation - indeed I argued so in another thread, which we no longer discuss - but I was under the perhaps false impression that your opinion was that "making the bid you would have made anyway" did not take "any" advantage of the UI and was therefore legal.

"Well, it seems to me that if a player bases his call solely on authorised information (as Law 12A3 demands) then that player is also "carefully avoiding taking any advantage" of any unauthorised information he may have (as Law 73C demands)." - jallerton - is the quote I recalled.

[campboy]

As I understand Jeffrey's position -- and if it is as I understand then I agree with it -- making the call you would have made anyway does not gain an advantage, so is not an infraction of 73C, but it may still be an infraction of 16B, as it is here*.

I do not understand the idea that 3♥ is not suggested over 4♥. Without the UI either bid might be more successful, since 4♥ might make; with the UI it is clear that 3♥ will concede a smaller penalty than 4♥.

FWIW I would not have considered 4♥ at the table (without UI).

*(edit) assuming 4♥ is an LA, which I agree is not clear.

[lamford]

 campboy, on 2011-March-31, 18:15, said:

As I understand Jeffrey's position -- and if it is as I understand then I agree with it -- making the call you would have made anyway does not gain an advantage, so is not an infraction of 73C, but it may still be an infraction of 16B, as it is here*.

I do not understand the idea that 3♥ is not suggested over 4♥. Without the UI either bid might be more successful, since 4♥ might make; with the UI it is clear that 3♥ will concede a smaller penalty than 4♥.

FWIW I would not have considered 4♥ at the table (without UI).

*(edit) assuming 4♥ is an LA, which I agree is not clear.

Yes, there are two issues; I do not regard 4♥ as an LA, but the fact that bluejak thought it plausible suggests that a poll might have enough considering and selecting it to make it so. Jeffrey's position was that one cannot "use" the UI to select a bid; if that is the case how can one conclude that 4♥ will go one more off than 3♥ - that conclusion only arises from the UI?

And it is clear that if selecting 3♥ over 4♥ is a breach of 16B, then it is also a breach of 73C, as it must take some advantage of the UI, if only to minimise the downside. I do not think there is any "use" of UI that conforms with 73C but fails under 16B only.

[campboy]

 lamford, on 2011-April-01, 04:43, said:

And it is clear that if selecting 3H over 4H is a breach of 16B, then it is also a breach of 73C, as it must take some advantage of the UI, if only to minimise the downside. I do not think there is any "use" of UI that conforms with 73C but fails under 16B only.

Then evidently we have different definitions of "advantage". If you act as you would have done without UI -- provided you know for certain what you would have done, which is of course very rarely the case -- I do not see how you can ever gain an advantage from the UI, since you will get exactly the same score with or without it. On the other hand it is certainly possible that doing what you would have done anyway can be illegal by 16B, and it frequently is.

I shall leave Jeffrey to say what his position is; certainly your statement of it in your latest post does not follow from the sentence you quoted. In my opinion 16B requires a player in receipt of UI to consider the likely consequences of it; how else can he determine which LAs are demonstrably suggested?

[Poky]

 bluejak, on 2011-March-31, 08:47, said:

---

Teams of eight. When West was asked what 2♦ showed he said "Natural, a normal overcall".

What do you bid?

4♥ seems obvious, but for one thing, namely the double showing "11-13". On the other hand, whom do you trust, opponents or partner?

Not only it isn't an obvious call, but it would be in complete collision with the rule 72A which says: "The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." Not a lower score, but a higher score.

Partner bid 2♥ after hearing the explanations. Opponents' ranges are namely 11+ and 11-13. I have 12 hcp. Therefore, partners range is around 4 hcp. Partner said just that he wants to play 2♥. It shouldn't be a surprise if he holds something like:
♠xxx
♥QJT8xx
♦-
♣xxxx
because this is what he bid - "I want to play 2♥ not giving them the opportunity to pass 2♦x out".

Bidding anything except pass (even 3♥, I mean - what do I want to achieve with this bid? What equity do I have in this hand?) is bidding against my partner. I should be very happy to hold 3 carder support in this spot.

[bluejak]

 campboy, on 2011-March-31, 18:15, said:

As I understand Jeffrey's position -- and if it is as I understand then I agree with it -- making the call you would have made anyway does not gain an advantage, so is not an infraction of 73C, but it may still be an infraction of 16B, as it is here*.

Only true where the player knows for certain what he would bid, which is very rare in a later auction.

[dburn]

It has just struck me that there may be a problem with the wording of Law 16B1b. Suppose in the present case that the partnership agreement was in fact Michaels - East had forgotten when he overcalled. Now, the Law says:

Quote

A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

When polling other players, does one give them the East hand with the explanation "your partnership method is Michaels but you have forgotten"? No - one gives them the East hand with the explanation "you are playing 2♦ as natural". Yet this seems contrary to the actual words of the Law.

In the present case, one interpretation may be that the East-West partnership methods are in fact that 2♦ is undiscussed (East thinks 2♦ is natural, West thinks it is Michaels). The convention card says "natural", to be sure, but it is not clear that the partnership actually knows what is on the convention card or has actually agreed to play what is on the convention card. Supposing that the actual meaning of 2♦ was "no agreement"; does one conduct a poll with the premise "your partnership has not discussed 2♦"? No - again, one explains "you are playing 2♦ as natural". Yet this also seems contrary to the actual words of the Law.

If I were being polled in the actual case (and assuming the situation were presented as "you are playing 2♦ as natural), then I would certainly pass 2♥. Nor would I redouble if given the opportunity - I would be pleased to put down a decent dummy, but it wouldn't particularly surprise me if partner could assemble only four or five heart tricks in his hand, a ruff in mine and the ace of spades.

[aguahombre]

David: would you agree that:
1--3D is illegal use of UI?
2--both pass and 3H are LA's, but pass might be suggested by the UI because it reduces the disaster?
3--If a poll showed a portion of players would consider 3H and some of those would bid 3H --then 3HX should be the ruling (not a weighted ruling)?

[jallerton]

Well, perhaps one could say that the "class of players in question" is limited to the players who are not classy enough to have remembered their system.