[blackshoe]

wank, on 2011-November-19, 01:26, said:

of course you could ask in the laws section, but they tend to refuse to believe the facts you give them.

We tend to remember the many times we're presented with a set of facts, we give a ruling, and then it turns out there are pertinent facts we weren't told. Both David and I, at least, try to avoid running off on a tangent of 'what if…' We do see a lot of that from others, I admit.

[kenberg]

Cascade, on 2011-November-19, 03:21, said:

I do not agree with those who suggest we should simply take our normal action and let the director sort it out. Ed has mentioned Law 73C which says players must carefully avoid taking advantage of unauthorized information from partner. This is a very strong statement. The introduction to the laws say that when the laws say "must" and a player does otherwise that it is a very serious matter indeed.

Doing what you would normally do is not carefully avoiding taking advantage when there is a logical alternative that the UI suggests would be less successful. Indeed you are very likely to gain an advantage since some opponents (particularly less experienced) will not call the director and you will get away with your choice (a Law 16 infraction); some directors will rule in your favour (even when an infraction has occurred - yes directors make mistakes). The nett affect is that compared with another player who does not choose an alternative suggested by UI the player who ignores the UI and the constraints of Law 16 gains an advantage by not carefully avoiding gaining an advantage (Law 73).

I suspect that this is currently the consensus view and because of it I may feel I have to pass so that no one thinks I am cheating. Still, I am not convinced that this view is logically necessary. A reasonable interpretation of "carefully avoid taking advantage of unauthorized information" is that you do not in any way alter your course of action based on UI. My first thoughts on such matters run toward "Am I really positive that this is what I would do had there not been a hesitation?" If so, and I claim I can do this reasonably dispassionately, , then I still have to turn to practical matters: "Will I be believed?" and "Even if they believe me that this is what I would have done, might I be ruled against anyway on the grounds that someone else (a logical someone else, not a nut) might have come to a different conclusion and therefore I have an LA?". I do throw away some hands even when I am confident I would have acted, simply in deference to these practical issues. But at some point I feel I have to act, and then to just take it in good grace if a committee decides that I cannot act. I have not had a lot of my bids rolled back so maybe I have it about right.

[kenberg]

If I can say one more thing about trust:

A while back I was defending a hand and at the close declarer on my right said "You got me". "Huh?" "You hesitated and I thought you had such and such". I simply explained that no hesitation was planned and I did not think that I had, and life went on. But later I thought along the lines of "Buddy, how long have you known me?" No point in following up on it but I really thought that we knew each other long enough and well enough that he could have at least considered that whatever he read into my actions was either inadvertent or simply in his imagination.

It is different with these hesitation auctions of course. There really can be disagreements among reasonable people as to whether an action is clearcut and thus allowed or there are LAs and so not allowed.

[gordontd]

mikeh, on 2011-November-18, 10:52, said:

Maybe a director ought to roll back any good result we obain from reopening since there was a BIT and we took a call other than pass, but it would be, imo, a very poor committee that upheld that ruling.

This seems to suggest that you think TDs should make rulings that they believe ACs should not uphold.

[campboy]

kenberg, on 2011-November-19, 07:05, said:

I suspect that this is currently the consensus view and because of it I may feel I have to pass so that no one thinks I am cheating. Still, I am not convinced that this view is logically necessary. A reasonable interpretation of "carefully avoid taking advantage of unauthorized information" is that you do not in any way alter your course of action based on UI.

What you say makes sense, but there is also law 16B to consider. That law says you may not choose a call which is suggested over a logical alternative by UI. So if you believe that pass is a logical alternative you must pass on this hand, even if (say) you had already decided to double before the stop period was up.

[kenberg]

campboy, on 2011-November-19, 08:38, said:

What you say makes sense, but there is also law 16B to consider. That law says you may not choose a call which is suggested over a logical alternative by UI. So if you believe that pass is a logical alternative you must pass on this hand, even if (say) you had already decided to double before the stop period was up.

Right (or I assume you are right, I don't much study the laws). And this may be a practical approach. It's hard to tell what is in my soul so we replace it be a rather strict standard which can be (more or less) objectively applied. I'm ok with this, although asking me to really decide whether LAs exist is asking a lot. Some pretty good players on this thread disagree on whether pass is a logical choice here. Of course on this hand it is the right choice so one could argue it must be an LA, but at least at mps, which it was, I would think doubling can be expected to work out more often than passing. If everyone thinks doubling will work more often than passing, then passing seems illogical despite the fact it is the right choice on this hand. I guess I am saying that "logical alternative" has to be more than "could be right".


Anyway, I said I would double, hesitation or not, but I guess I have to acknowledge that with the hesitation I would at least consider saying "Oh hell" and passing it out. But to me, passing does not seem logical.

[blackshoe]

Any time judgement is involved in a ruling (as opposed to a straight 'read from the book' situation) you have to accept the possibility that your judgement may differ from someone else's. This is true of players, TDs, and AC members. As a player, in particular, you do the best you can with the limited information and little time available to you. The TD has more time and hopefully more information, the AC has in addition the opportunity for discussion.

If passing does not seem logical, there is nothing unethical about doubling, even if the TD or the AC later decides that in their opinion pass was an LA.

[peachy]

olegru, on 2011-November-18, 11:24, said:

Actually hesitator was not a rookie at all. He just found a way to ban partner from a very likely but unlucky balancing, hesitating with this nice collection:

♠. K96
♥. KJ9
♦. 10983
♣. K76

I was dummy (1st hand) of this board. My partner got 110 (3d made) which did not score a lot against bunch of 200.
The case of reverse hesitation. When I realise what happened in this board it was way too late to ask for adjustment.

IMO, this is so foul that it should never go without proper consequences to the "not rookie at all".

Edit:
PS. It is often said that incompetence explains many cases, but when incompetence is ruled out (as it is here), what is left?

[blackshoe]

Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. As TD, I would be asking the hesitator what he was thinking about. Also, in making a ruling, the TD must be able to point to an infraction of law, and if you're going to penalize (i.e., issue a procedural penalty for) this hesitation, you're coming awfully close to flat out saying "you're cheating", so you better be damn sure of your evidence.

[peachy]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-19, 12:01, said:

Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. As TD, I would be asking the hesitator what he was thinking about. Also, in making a ruling, the TD must be able to point to an infraction of law, and if you're going to penalize (i.e., issue a procedural penalty for) this hesitation, you're coming awfully close to flat out saying "you're cheating", so you better be damn sure of your evidence.

You are right about the accusation part. If there was any conscious or subconscious intent of "reverse hesitation", there will also be answers to TD questions which will hide that intent. Who would voluntarily 'fess up that he was cheating?

In some jurisdictions there are recorder forms for incidents where something happened though apparently no law was violated. This would be a perfect example of things to record.

[aguahombre]

peachy, on 2011-November-19, 12:22, said:

In some jurisdictions there are recorder forms for incidents where something happened though apparently no law was violated. This would be a perfect example of things to record.

Disagree on two fronts:

The recorder form is for incidents where something happened. But, IMO, unless a law might have been violated it would be pointless. Some believe recording forms are pointless and useless anyways.

Secondly, if the matter is pursued at all, it should be done formally, starting with the director.

[JLOGIC]

MrAce, on 2011-November-18, 12:26, said:

Pass is a LA. replies here proves that it is a LA.

Kind of. TD is supposed to determine if a bid is an LA for a player of your level. Polling you or me would not work if the person playing was a novice and vice versa. I would be surprised if that many experts would not balance with this hand. That said, if a poll showed that I was wrong, I would of course expect that AC to go with that. It is unfortunate that polls suffer from sample size issues, it's possible that only 1 out of 10 would pass on average, but that 1 person is in a poll of 3, but it's a flaw that we have to live with based on the realities of the polling process. I find this to be much superior than an director/AC just going with their judgement.

[JLOGIC]

MrAce, on 2011-November-18, 23:01, said:

It should not work this way imo. For example in order to think pass is not a LA, we have to believe that pass is unlogical. Eventhough it may not be the choice of majority.

You alsi mentioned that most people would open with this. I agree, and does that make passing a non LA ? I doubt it, passing an 11 balanced is always a LA imo.

I think we are looking at this from a different angle. I think we shoul question if DBL is LA or not. Of course it is, and for majority it is the correct bid but does LAW allow us to use it when pd put us in this situation ? I think we should have a hand that pass would be absurd in order to believe TD shd ignore the hesitation. We are all a bit confused about the best bid and logical alternatives here imo.

If very few or none of your peers would pass when given the hand and no UI, then passing is not a logical alternative. If 5 of your peers were polled, and all Xed, on what basis would you think an adjustment is warranted? Because sometimes it's right to pass, it suddenly becomes logical? By that nature, if you have a balanced 16 count with spades stopped and it goes 3S p p, you are not allowed to bid 3N when partner hesitates, because obviously passing out 3S could easily work out and has "logic" behind it. That would be BS of course, since all of your peers would bid 3N with that hand, because it is generally thought to be the correct bid on that hand type. This problem is the same.

[JLOGIC]

mikeh, on 2011-November-18, 13:21, said:

Only 3 out of 18 voters, so far, voted for pass absent a hesitation. I don't recall what the Laws or policy says about how popular a call must be before it is considered a LA: I have always thought of it as being a call that 25% of players (of the appropriate level) would make, and pass here is supported by significantly fewer than 25%.

I always learned and heard 25 % was the number too (I think from my parents). I think it was on the bridgebase forums that I learned that this number is not actually written anywhere, maybe it's just one of those old adages that is not rooted in fact. Put another way, say there was a poll of 5 experts, and 1 of them chose some action, the others choosing something different. Is it reasonable to say that that bid is not a LA? This was a pretty compelling way to get me to believe that 25 % is too much. I do think it would be helpful if it was written somewhere official what results constitute a bid not being an LA.

By the way, what are your views on whether or not people say a bid is close or not. Let's say 1 expert out of 5 passed but found it very close. 4 experts doubled and found it automatic. Compare this to 1 expert finding pass automatic, and 4 doubling and finding it extremely close. Is pass not an LA in 1, but an LA in 2? It is easy to say "yes" and I think most people would, but fwiw I don't think how close people find it should factor in, I think it should just be what people would choose to bid at the table. This is largely because I think people confuse "close." For instance, opening a bad 12 count, almost all experts do it, but people might say it's "close" as in, if you changed my hand very slightly I'd pass, or wow I hate opening this crap but I would I guess, but I have a lot of sympathy for passing it or... Of course, that is wrong. Marginal actions/minimum hands can also be automatic. This kind of hand is similar, I believe people may say it's close because if it was any worse it would be a pass, but almost all of my peers would do it, making passing not a logical alternative.

[mikeh]

JLOGIC, on 2011-November-20, 08:42, said:

I always learned and heard 25 % was the number too (I think from my parents). I think it was on the bridgebase forums that I learned that this number is not actually written anywhere, maybe it's just one of those old adages that is not rooted in fact. Put another way, say there was a poll of 5 experts, and 1 of them chose some action, the others choosing something different. Is it reasonable to say that that bid is not a LA? This was a pretty compelling way to get me to believe that 25 % is too much. I do think it would be helpful if it was written somewhere official what results constitute a bid not being an LA.

By the way, what are your views on whether or not people say a bid is close or not. Let's say 1 expert out of 5 passed but found it very close. 4 experts doubled and found it automatic. Compare this to 1 expert finding pass automatic, and 4 doubling and finding it extremely close. Is pass not an LA in 1, but an LA in 2? It is easy to say "yes" and I think most people would, but fwiw I don't think how close people find it should factor in, I think it should just be what people would choose to bid at the table. This is largely because I think people confuse "close." For instance, opening a bad 12 count, almost all experts do it, but people might say it's "close" as in, if you changed my hand very slightly I'd pass, or wow I hate opening this crap but I would I guess, but I have a lot of sympathy for passing it or... Of course, that is wrong. Marginal actions/minimum hands can also be automatic. This kind of hand is similar, I believe people may say it's close because if it was any worse it would be a pass, but almost all of my peers would do it, making passing not a logical alternative.

I've posted on this before: I think some people confuse 'close' with 'clear'. I have often sugested that I find a choice to be close but clear and I agree with your view on this reopening double....it is, imo, close but clear.

[blackshoe]

I suspect the lack of specific numbers in the law is deliberate. The problem is that people want numbers because then they think they don't need to use their brains, just mindlessly follow the numbers. Every case is different, so you can't just mindlessly follow some number.

The ACBL, AFAIK, doesn't provide numbers. The EBU says (in the White Book) "one in five" for "seriously consider" and for "some would choose it" say "this means more than an isolated exception". I haven't checked other RAs.

[gwnn]

Jlogic, you seem to know a lot about club player tendencies (and are good at exploiting them) on a wide range of skill and integrity. What would you say are the chances of someone hesitating with malice on a hand like this to compel their partner to pass? I am not trying to prove a point, I am just curious on your opinion.

[aguahombre]

The latest few posts by Justin have helped me understand (I think) many of his past posts.

When the rest of us have been debating something back and forth, he will weigh in with a short ".....-automatic" or something similar. Apparently that does not mean he has not read what others are saying, or that he hasn't needed to give it much thought at all; it simply means he has considered the pros and cons (now or in the past), and it might be close but that is his firm position.

[JLOGIC]

gwnn, on 2011-November-20, 09:55, said:

Jlogic, you seem to know a lot about club player tendencies (and are good at exploiting them) on a wide range of skill and integrity. What would you say are the chances of someone hesitating with malice on a hand like this to compel their partner to pass? I am not trying to prove a point, I am just curious on your opinion.

I think that I have never thought that my opponent was doing this. At the very least, it would be far more rare than a similar tactic, something like 3D p somewhat slow pass with a yarb to try and get them to not balance or w/e. In general I think assuming malice is very unwise, it is just so much more likely that they were thinking about their lunch, or the last hand, or whatever. Hell, maybe they were trying to count to ten and be in accordance with the laws! Who knows, but thinking that they're trying to bar partner just seems unlikely, especially when they hold a hand that is not awful...it's not like some desperate thing. Just imagine how much foresight you'd have to have to tank with this hand...like, hmm my hand is not great, but good enough that LHO will pass, and then maybe partner will reopen with a X as a passed hand, and then my hand is not great for that! I will slow pass! It is just really unlikely that this type of ordinary hand would trigger that kind of reaction imo. People doing this kind of thing are usually not good enough to be that thoughtful.

Basically I think people are sometimes malicious but it is never the most likely answer, and in this case it is very unlikely with such an ordinary hand and with so many things needed for the situation to come up where you gain making it an uncommon situation. It is more likely that they tanked randomly (this happens all the time at the club), caught a situation where it benefited them, and their opponent got emotionally invested in it and came up with this genius plot.

[JLOGIC]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-20, 10:03, said:

The latest few posts by Justin have helped me understand (I think) many of his past posts.

When the rest of us have been debating something back and forth, he will weigh in with a short ".....-automatic" or something similar. Apparently that does not mean he has not read what others are saying, or that he hasn't needed to give it much thought at all; it simply means he has considered the pros and cons (now or in the past), and it might be close but that is his firm position.

I often don't read other posts before giving my first reply in order to not bias myself in a bidding poll, then I read other replies and reply to them (hence double posting semi-frequently). But yes when I say something is automatic it could easily be because I have seen or thought about the decision before multiple times, and think something is clearly superior to something else based on that. The more experience you have, the less you have to think about some situations since you've probably seen it. For instance, I'm sure you never think what to do when you pick up xxx AKx AKJx xxx, but I'm sure a beginner does since they have two suits unstopped. And I'm sure you have already decided if you open 1N or 1C with AKx KTx xx AT9xx in various seats and vuls. etc.