[Cascade]

---

Could 3♣ be demonstrably suggested over pass by partner's slow pass?

[blackshoe]

Based on the evidence presented, I don't see how. BTW, I deleted the other two copies of your post.

[wank]

he's thinking of running or raising. it's pretty unlikely he was thinking about raising so he was thinking about running. does that make it more tempting to bid? well that's difficult. there has to be a good chance that partner was thinking of bidding spades in which case moving rates to be pretty bad.

[helene_t]

Yes I think so.

[mycroft]

What is XX? Run or Stay? What call is "bid your other suit?" (note: if it's 2♠, the hand with "I want to play spades, partner, don't care" is likely to be hitch-passing.)

What's my minimum shape for 2♥ all vul?

It feels to this DONT bidder (yes, I know it's different, but the same problems apply) that partner wants to run from hearts, but has one suit that if I bid it, he's going to wish we were back in 2♥X. Either that or "do I want to bid my suit, knowing I'm catching a stiff or void just like I have in hearts?"

My problem is that a happy quick pass would be floated across the room. This is one of those hitches where something is better than pass. Good luck guessing which something, though.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on 2017-February-27, 23:40, said:

Based on the evidence presented, I don't see how. BTW, I deleted the other two copies of your post.

Sorry the copies were generated because of time out errors. I was being told that bridgebase.com did not respond in time when i submitted the form. Eventually I gave up then tried to post another this morning.

[Cascade]

wank, on 2017-February-28, 07:45, said:

he's thinking of running or raising. it's pretty unlikely he was thinking about raising so he was thinking about running. does that make it more tempting to bid? well that's difficult. there has to be a good chance that partner was thinking of bidding spades in which case moving rates to be pretty bad.

2♠ would have been pass or correct.

There has to be at least as much chance that the doubler has spades in which case running could be bad. Their methods are not great if LHO has to double with any 8+.

[Cascade]

mycroft, on 2017-February-28, 10:36, said:

What is XX? Run or Stay? What call is "bid your other suit?" (note: if it's 2♠, the hand with "I want to play spades, partner, don't care" is likely to be hitch-passing.)

What's my minimum shape for 2♥ all vul?

It feels to this DONT bidder (yes, I know it's different, but the same problems apply) that partner wants to run from hearts, but has one suit that if I bid it, he's going to wish we were back in 2♥X. Either that or "do I want to bid my suit, knowing I'm catching a stiff or void just like I have in hearts?"

My problem is that a happy quick pass would be floated across the room. This is one of those hitches where something is better than pass. Good luck guessing which something, though.

The card said 5♥ and 4-6 of another. It did not specify anything based on vulnerability.

[blackshoe]

Cascade, on 2017-February-28, 15:47, said:

Sorry the copies were generated because of time out errors. I was being told that bridgebase.com did not respond in time when i submitted the form. Eventually I gave up then tried to post another this morning.

No worries, Wayne, I just wanted you to know where they went.

[mycroft]

Well, it sounds like 2♠ is P/C, and XX is - what? "we're good here"? "I have my own suit, bid 2♠ and I'll tell you where we're playing"? "I have no clue what XX would mean"?

If there is no way to bail in spades, then it's very likely that the slow pass is working that out and is 6-1. If he's 6-1-3-3, we're probably better in clubs (and if he wasn't trying to get out in spades, we're almost certainly better off in clubs, the tank means "I want to P/C, but I'm concerned partner has my other short suit".)

In similar cases, we tend to disallow the "pass-the-buck" double no matter what; so XX meaning "whatever you were thinking about, do" is right out. But a particular bid? Not sure. All I can say is that a happy "what's the double?" "8+" "okay, pass" doesn't get pulled.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on 2017-February-28, 15:58, said:

No worries, Wayne, I just wanted you to know where they went.

Meanwhile I didn't know they existed and now that I know they existed I am surprised there were not six or seven copies.

[blackshoe]

Heh.

[Cascade]

mycroft, on 2017-February-28, 16:56, said:

Well, it sounds like 2♠ is P/C, and XX is - what? "we're good here"? "I have my own suit, bid 2♠ and I'll tell you where we're playing"? "I have no clue what XX would mean"?

If there is no way to bail in spades, then it's very likely that the slow pass is working that out and is 6-1. If he's 6-1-3-3, we're probably better in clubs (and if he wasn't trying to get out in spades, we're almost certainly better off in clubs, the tank means "I want to P/C, but I'm concerned partner has my other short suit".)

In similar cases, we tend to disallow the "pass-the-buck" double no matter what; so XX meaning "whatever you were thinking about, do" is right out. But a particular bid? Not sure. All I can say is that a happy "what's the double?" "8+" "okay, pass" doesn't get pulled.

There seems to be two ways to play 2S/XX to run. XX can mean either I want to play your other suit or I have a suit of my own and 2S etc is the opposite. This pair did not mention and I suspect they had no agreement about XX.

That last point is a general problem with pairs playing such methods when they are unprepared and one or both partners are weakish and yet they land on their feet.

If as you say a happy pass never gets pulled then I think that suggests that any bid is suggested over Pass. Or if not then at least there is a L73C problem. The player is not carefully avoiding taking advantage of the slow pass. The player deduces we are in trouble in 2H, sure we might be in trouble in 3C but we might hit gold and the slow pass indicates there is an increased chance of hitting gold.

[mycroft]

That would tend to be my lede as well.

That doesn't answer your initial question, though, as to whether 3♣, specifically, is demonstrably suggested over pass. And in this auction, of course, the problem is that the tank says "something is better than 2♥x, but I Don't Know What" (or "something is better than 2♥x, and I Don't Know How To Get There"), which doesn't help explain what the UI demonstrably suggests. As I said, it could be "I want to play 2♠ on my 7=1=3=2, but I don't know how", in which case you'd better pass, fast, because He Doesn't, Trust Me; but he could have something like 6=1=(24), where he knows if he bids 2♠ to run, he isn't going to play there, and he could easily be playing the 4-2 fit doubled at the 3 level instead of the 5-1 at the 2 level. With this hand, of course, it is likely that we're going to lose fewer heart tricks in clubs than in hearts (maybe not, though; I expect that club-to-the-A, club back is going to be the defence).

As you said, we can probably say "your partner made it clear that 2♥X may get passed out, and if it does, it is likely not the best place; but that your other suit could be worse. Others would just pass this and hope for -2 into game (or -4 into slam); therefore by not passing, you were not carefully avoiding using the unauthorized information." (Law 73C violation). Whether we can effectively argue that *any action* is *demonstrably* suggested over pass by the LA, and it runs them into the no-win situation of "if it doesn't work, you get to keep your score. If it does work, we're going to roll it back to what you would have got if you'd done the right thing and ate it", is a question that I'm not sure I am capable of answering (and I am sure I am not capable of answering without consultation).

But that is where I want to be. And it crosses the streams with the conversation with Nigel, where the reason they don't understand the problem is that it's never been a problem before, and they don't notice when their opponents do it.

[nige1]

Cascade, on 2017-February-27, 22:26, said:

Could 3♣ be demonstrably suggested over pass by partner's slow pass?

---

It depends on NS understandings about South's actions over the double. Presumably there was no explicit agreement. A possible ad hoc interpretation might be.

• Pass = NAT.
• Redouble = ART. Misfit, 2 or 3 places to play, incl ♠s.
• 2♠/3♣/3♦ = NAT.
• 2N = ART. Misfit. Minors.

West's pass implies a bad-heart break. With ♥ tolerance, South would probably have smoothly passed 2♥. South's hesitation implies doubt with short ♥s, suggesting that North bid rather than pass.

With ♠s, South might have risked 2♠ because it doesn't increase the level. With ♣s or ♦s (or both) action by South would have been more fraught. Hence, IMO, South's hesitation strongly suggests that North bid 3♣ rather than pass.

In summary, in the context of this auction, if partner had passed smoothly he might well hold, say, ♠ x x x ♥ A x ♦ x x x x x x ♣ x x
His hesitation makes it less likely that he holds such a hand

[Cascade]

mycroft, on 2017-March-01, 16:21, said:

Whether we can effectively argue that *any action* is *demonstrably* suggested over pass by the LA, and it runs them into the no-win situation of "if it doesn't work, you get to keep your score.

This is the same language that the committed used or rather the negative of it. The said 3♣ is not demonstrably suggested.

However I think that is a misapplication of the law. We do not need that 3♣ "is" demonstrably suggested but that it "could demonstrably have been suggested". That is it is only required that there is a possibility that it is demonstrably suggested.

[helene_t]

I always found the wording of that law strange, but then again I think that common sense makes it quite clear what the law should have said:

- If approximately equally good arguments can be made for "BIT suggests passing" and for "BIT suggests bidding", the player is free to bid or pass
- If good arguments could be made that "BIT suggests bidding" or for "BIT does not suggest anything", but no comparably good argument could be made for "BIT suggests passing", the player must pass (if it is an LA).

Of course, "approximately equally good arguments" is a bit woolly and might need clarification, similar to the existing clarification of what LA means.

[barmar]

They're rewording it in the new laws, and there was quite a bit of discussion in the Yahoo group about it. I'm not sure what the final language is, though.

[mycroft]

The problem is how do you solve the following three issues:

• make it clear that UI makes the call (or class of calls) more likely to be successful, in a meaningful way, over others;
  
• handle the "hitch-limit-bid" situation, where it could just as easily be an "almost enough" as an "almost too much", so...; and
  
• avoid allowing "if it hesitates, shoot it" or "zero is 'some number'" arguments; or situations where there is no call where, if successful, will not be adjusted to a less successful result.

That was the change from "reasonably" to "demonstrably" 20 years ago; because whatever they did was "reasonably suggested" over whatever didn't work, in some people's eyes. We needed to be able to demonstrate how that works.

My problem is situations like this one where "Something will be better than where we are; if we guess right, great, if we guess wrong, we're not really any worse off." Unless we're allowed to say "action is suggested over inaction, and we don't have to demonstrate why *this action* specifically is suggested", then we're in the situation where we can't rule *any call* illegal per L16, because it could be the wrong one and fail spectacularly.

I guess we could have the argument that "the hesitation implies a) that he thinks 2♥x is likely to get floated, and b) if it is, there is likely to be a better place, but c) I don't know where." That leads to:

• 2♥x is getting floated, and it likely isn't the best place;
  
• I don't know where the best place is, either; but
  
• even if pulling (to anywhere) gives us a 20% chance of being right, a 20% chance of not mattering, and a 60% chance of being worse, for each of three calls, pulling *still* improves my score. At matchpoints, this can be clearer because "being worse" is likely no worse than turning a 2 into a zero on a 24 top.

Therefore *any action* is suggested over inaction (even though there is a large possibility of getting a *worse* score than I'm currently booked for); passing is clearly a LA; and there was clearly UI transmitted.

This hand is particularly complicated because of the spade void, and the system being used strongly suggests that partner wants to pull to 2♠ absolutely to play (but has no way to do it). That, actually, increases the chance that 2♥x is the best place we can land. But I tried asking a few people at the game last night about this one, and they were all both comfortable with the 2♥ call given the system, and "well, partner's happy with this, of course I pass." Which doesn't change my belief that a quick happy pass will never get pulled, so maybe *that's* the demonstration!

[nige1]

mycroft, on 2017-February-28, 16:56, said:

Well, it sounds like 2♠ is P/C, and XX is - what? "we're good here"? "I have my own suit, bid 2♠ and I'll tell you where we're playing"? "I have no clue what XX would mean"?

We aren't privy to NS methods. Had East passed then 2♠ might well be Pass/Correct. After East's double, South's suit-bids are more likely to be natural. Presumably, redouble would ask for North's 2nd suit. 2N has more than one likely meaning. Anyway, IMO, with ♥ tolerance, South would be likely to pass, in tempo.