[barmar]

---

I was East. I admit that I was probably wrong in only bidding only 3♠. The only excuse I can make is that if LHO had hearts I didn't want to go higher, but it's pretty flimsy. But that's water under the bridge, the question is what could I do when the auction came back to me?

I was going to bid 4♠. But once partner hesitated (it was at least 30 seconds), I felt that this would be suggested by the UI, so I passed. Does anyone disagree with my action?

Partner had a decent 9 count (including a wasted ♣ Qxx). The hesitation was because he wasn't sure whether my 3♠ was invitational or just competing. 4♣ was down 1, but we lost the board because they made 4♠ at the other table.

[blackshoe]

Questions:

1. What could the BIT demonstrably suggest?
2. What are the LAs?
3. What did the player in receipt of UI do?
4. Where the NOS damaged?

1. After the fact, we learn that the BIT-er was unsure whether 3♠ was invitational or just competing, so it seems clear the BIT could suggest bidding on. However, East's hand is so strong opposite a raise to 2♠ that, it seems to me, pass is not a logical alternative.
2. I would say that 4♠ is certainly an LA. Some kind of slam try is also an LA. Asking for keycards is not an LA for me, and I would not think it would be for Barry. It would be for some players - those who are still stuck in the "bidding BW is a prerequisite to bidding slam" mindset. Perhaps 4♦, if that shows 2nd round control.
3. Passed — i.e., chose a call which was not an LA.
4. No, they were advantaged. Maybe (see below).

I would certainly not adjust the score, as the criteria are not met.

More on pass not being an LA: East has a four loser hand, and a ten or eleven card fit with West, who has shown eight or nine losers. The partnership is clearly in the slam zone (8+4=12 losers, which means 12 tricks are likely to be possible). Also, if West is minimum, the five level should be safe.

On whether the NOS were damaged: no doubt some would argue, based on 4♠ making at the other table (no overtricks?) that the NOS were damaged because EW did not look for slam. I don't know about that. If East control-bids 4♦ and West bids 4♠, will East make another try? Probably not. I suppose East might control-bid 5♣ for starters, but that seems a bit excessive to me, unless they're clearly playing "show aces first". So I would reject the argument here.

Aside: if it were my partnership, I would want to nail down the meaning of 3♠ in this auction, and discuss the meanings of alternative calls as well. OTOH, I have partners who either aren't interested in doing that ("let's just play bridge") or won't remember the discussion five minutes after we have it.

I think, at the table, I would have bid 4♦ in spite of the BIT. At IMPs, if 3♠ is invitational, then West probably wants to bid, but he may not if it's just competing. So it seems to me that 4♠ is suggested over a slam try, which is why I would make the slam try, pass not being a LA (which means I'm not constrained by UI to pass). So I seem to be disagreeing with Barry's pass.

Possible counterargument: bidding on at all is not "carefully avoiding taking advantage of UI", so East should pass. I don't buy it, though.

[c_corgi]

When you bid 3S you gave up on 4S. You certainly can't change your mind having recieved UI. You were right to feel constrained.

[blackshoe]

c_corgi, on 2012-October-24, 13:44, said:

When you bid 3S you gave up on 4S. You certainly can't change your mind having recieved UI. You were right to feel constrained.

This argument, if that's what it is, makes no sense to me. Whether he gave up on 4♠ depends on what 3♠ meant to him, and he may not have been sure what it meant. Certainly his partner wasn't, although his partner clearly didn't think it was forcing (neither do I, which is why I wouldn't have bid it in the first place — but that's not relevant now). Also, whether he was "constrained by UI" depends on a lot more than just "he had UI".

[c_corgi]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-24, 14:23, said:

This argument, if that's what it is, makes no sense to me. Whether he gave up on 4♠ depends on what 3♠ meant to him, and he may not have been sure what it meant. Certainly his partner wasn't, although his partner clearly didn't think it was forcing (neither do I, which is why I wouldn't have bid it in the first place — but that's not relevant now). Also, whether he was "constrained by UI" depends on a lot more than just "he had UI".

It seems clear from the OP that East thought 3S was non-forcing and East feels that it was only "probably" an underbid. Even if he has subsequently decided that it was definitely an underbid, the UI constraint surely precludes him from waking up to this.

[mycroft]

You were prepared to have partner pass 3♠, and 3♠ was competitive (right? If it it's invitational, then the fact that they think their fit is in clubs is a good sign and may override partner's refusal. Or, maybe partner's pass is forcing when we've shown inv values?). You could have made any of a number of game tries (could you over double?) You chose not to (probably because it was BAM and you didn't want to aid the defence, or you didn't know which of many game tries to make).

Given all of that, there's clearly UI that partner wants to do something other than pass (whether because she thought you had shown a stronger hand than you did (which you have) or because she was willing to compete further or double even opposite a competitive hand). Double would clearly be ruled against, both because it's a crazy bid with your hand and because it covers all the bases; 4♠ may not. It's BAM, and one thing you do know is that 4♣ undoubled isn't going to win the board - it might tie it, but it won't win it. 4♠ is certainly suggested by the UI, especially given that you probably should have bid it last round; but I'm not sure given the scoring constraints that pass is logical.

At the table, I'd probably bid it, take the TD call, explain my system and my logic showing pass wasn't logical, and take whatever ruling the TD gave. As the TD, I'd probably be polling...

[billw55]

Totally obvious that the tank suggests bidding 4♠. The hand itself justifies 4♠ but this argument won't fly after you previously bid only 3♠. You were right to feel constrained and to therefore pass. Clear adjustment if 4♠ is bid, possibly pp as well since you certainly know better.

edit: ok, I see now it's a club event, pp would be overkill.

[aguahombre]

Corgi and Bill have the philosophy right, IMO. "I was prepared to....", aka walking the dog, has this drawback (aside from annoying partner and the opponents).

I, too, feel that one's plan to be cute instead of just making the bid immediately which they know is the correct one ---in this case 4S---runs the risk of being constrained. This time you gotta pay the price and pass.

[Trinidad]

The question is whether Pass is an LA for a player who initially was happy to play 3♠ and didn't want to bid 4♠.

IMO the fact that East bid only 3♠ the previous round is a red herring. After all, there the question was: 3♠ or 4♠? Now the question is: defend 4♣ or declare 4♠? These are two completely different questions. The fact that East opted for 3♠ over 4♠ does not in any way mean that he would chose to defend 4♣ over declaring 4♠.

I don't consider pass an LA in this situation. In fact, I would still bid 5♠ over 5♣ (and I would hope to get doubled in 4♠).

Rik

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-24, 12:54, said:

Questions:

1. What could the BIT demonstrably suggest?

1. After the fact, we learn that the BIT-er was unsure whether 3♠ was invitational or just competing, so it seems clear the BIT could suggest bidding on.

This is a wrong way of reasoning. In this case it leads to the correct conclusion, but that is a coincidence.

What the BIT-er was actually thinking about is irrelevant for the question what the BIT is suggesting. The only thing that counts is what the situation looks like for the BIT-er's partner ... and nothing else matters.

Rik

[c_corgi]

mycroft, on 2012-October-24, 14:41, said:

It's BAM, and one thing you do know is that 4♣ undoubled isn't going to win the board - it might tie it, but it won't win it. 4♠ is certainly suggested by the UI, especially given that you probably should have bid it last round; but I'm not sure given the scoring constraints that pass is logical.

East has attempted to play partscore with an almost certain game on. This seems like a fundamental misjudgement, the presence of which suggests that subtleties relating to the form of scoring cannot be assumed to be acted upon.

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2012-October-24, 15:40, said:

This is a wrong way of reasoning. In this case it leads to the correct conclusion, but that is a coincidence.

What the BIT-er was actually thinking about is irrelevant for the question what the BIT is suggesting. The only thing that counts is what the situation looks like for the BIT-er's partner ... and nothing else matters.

Rik

Fair enough, but I would submit that your "nothing else matters" also applies to what the situation looks like for others, except those putting themselves in BIT-er's partner's shoes, i.e., as his peers and using his methods.

So how does this different way of looking at it affect my conclusions?

[richlp]

barmar, on 2012-October-24, 12:19, said:

---

I was East. I admit that I was probably wrong in only bidding only 3♠. The only excuse I can make is that if LHO had hearts I didn't want to go higher, but it's pretty flimsy. But that's water under the bridge, the question is what could I do when the auction came back to me?

I was going to bid 4♠. But once partner hesitated (it was at least 30 seconds), I felt that this would be suggested by the UI, so I passed. Does anyone disagree with my action?

Partner had a decent 9 count (including a wasted ♣ Qxx). The hesitation was because he wasn't sure whether my 3♠ was invitational or just competing. 4♣ was down 1, but we lost the board because they made 4♠ at the other table.

I don't think the comments about BAM are relevant. The thread title says "ACBL Club Swiss" and I've NEVER seen a Swiss played at BAM. Perhaps the phrase "we lost the board" added some confusion.

FWIW........

My feeling is that, even though you were willing to settle for 3♠ rather than 4♠, that's not your current choice. By bidding, the only losing case is when both 4♣ and 4♠ both fail (I think it's a 4 IMP loss).

If 4♣ makes and 4♠ is down 1 that's a 2 IMP pickup.

Contrast that with the substantial gain (I think 9 IMP) when 4♠ makes and I don't see pass being a logical alternative. Had you bid on I don't think I would have adjusted (although a poll could certainly change my mind about that).

[barmar]

Doesn't the fact that I felt the need to choose between Pass and 4♠ automatically make Pass an LA for me? I think there's a ruling by the WBFLC or some other body stating that actions actually considered by the player in question should be considered LAs -- that's how we avoid the "illogical alternative" conundrum when they take an action that would not have been considered at all without the UI.

I think my partner's hesitation suggests that he has more than a minimum. So it suggests that taking the high road is more likely to be successful, which is why I didn't think I could choose it.

I can't recall ever hearing of a hesitation ruling in our club. But my partner's hesitation was so eggregious, I wouldn't have felt right bidding on after it.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2012-October-25, 04:57, said:

But my partner's hesitation was so eggregious, I wouldn't have felt right bidding on after it.

And that is probably the most important reason why you should pass.

Rik

[billw55]

barmar, on 2012-October-25, 04:57, said:

I can't recall ever hearing of a hesitation ruling in our club. But my partner's hesitation was so eggregious, I wouldn't have felt right bidding on after it.

You are welcome at my table anytime.

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2012-October-25, 04:57, said:

Doesn't the fact that I felt the need to choose between Pass and 4♠ automatically make Pass an LA for me? I think there's a ruling by the WBFLC or some other body stating that actions actually considered by the player in question should be considered LAs -- that's how we avoid the "illogical alternative" conundrum when they take an action that would not have been considered at all without the UI.

It depends why you thought about it. If you considered it because you thought it might be the right bid in the absence of UI, that makes it an LA for you. If you considered it only because you thought it might be required by the laws, that doesn't make it an LA. Identifying LAs often involves thinking about some actions which you personally would never take, but the act of thinking "Is this an LA?" doesn't make it one.

Quote

But my partner's hesitation was so eggregious, I wouldn't have felt right bidding on after it.

When you say it was egregious, are you implying that he behaved improperly by pausing? If so, I don't see why: he had a bridge problem which required thought to solve, so he thought.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-October-25, 04:57, said:

Doesn't the fact that I felt the need to choose between Pass and 4♠ automatically make Pass an LA for me? I think there's a ruling by the WBFLC or some other body stating that actions actually considered by the player in question should be considered LAs -- that's how we avoid the "illogical alternative" conundrum when they take an action that would not have been considered at all without the UI.

I don't think it's automatically an LA. I get the impression that you considered passing because of the BIT. If you would not have considered it without the BIT, I don't think it's an LA. As for the ruling you mention, I'm not sure there was one, but I do remember Grattan Endicott telling me that "logical alternative" doesn't mean what it says, and that what the LC really means by that phrase is more like "plausible alternative for the class of player concerned".

barmar, on 2012-October-25, 04:57, said:

I think my partner's hesitation suggests that he has more than a minimum. So it suggests that taking the high road is more likely to be successful, which is why I didn't think I could choose it.

I can't recall ever hearing of a hesitation ruling in our club. But my partner's hesitation was so eggregious, I wouldn't have felt right bidding on after it.

If that was your thinking at the table, then I agree you should pass. But see below.

Trinidad, on 2012-October-25, 05:31, said:

And that is probably the most important reason why you should pass.

I agree, as I said above, but… the existence of UI does not always require you to shoot yourself. I gave a rationale upthread for why I believe pass is not an LA, and I still think that's valid, but Barry was thinking along different lines, so maybe I'm wrong.

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2012-October-25, 07:22, said:

It depends why you thought about it. If you considered it because you thought it might be the right bid in the absence of UI, that makes it an LA for you. If you considered it only because you thought it might be required by the laws, that doesn't make it an LA. Identifying LAs often involves thinking about some actions which you personally would never take, but the act of thinking "Is this an LA?" doesn't make it one.

I considered passing because I only bid 3 the previous round. But I probably would have decided against it in absence of UI.

Quote

When you say it was egregious, are you implying that he behaved improperly by pausing? If so, I don't see why: he had a bridge problem which required thought to solve, so he thought.

Not improper, just extremely noticeable. It was at least 30 seconds, maybe close to a minute.

The point being that he wouldn't have a problem if he had a minimum raise. He could only be thinking about bidding game because he thought I might be inviting, or doubling the opponents. And both of these imply better than a minimum, which suggests I should take action.

[lalldonn]

I can't believe there is so much discussion (and bad arguments) about such an easy case. You can argue, if you want, that 4♠ is a good bid or what you should have done last round (I would have bid it a round earlier obviously), but there isn't any reasonable argument that there is no logical alternative to bidding 4♠ for a player who bid only 3♠ the round before. You can't substitute your bridge judgment for that of a player who only bid 3♠ earlier (all of you who think it's so obvious to bid this round, you wouldn't have signed off in 3♠ the last round, right?) Failing to adjust if he bid 4♠ would be one of the worst rulings in the history of bridge, and I do not feel that is an exageration at all.

Barmar, you did exactly the right thing for exactly the right reasons. This isn't even remotely close.