[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-09, 23:11, said:

Again, you assert what the UI suggests, you do not demonstrate how it does so.

Some hands that would bid 3♥ opposite a weak 2♥ would bid game opposite an intermediate 3♥. That's an assertion, but I think you would struggle to find a competent player who disagreed.

Therefore the UI tells us that game is more likely to make than in a UI-free auction.

[blackshoe]

You're on the right track, I think, but you're still not quite getting it. Try this: advancer has told overcaller that advancer believes overcaller has a weak hand, and has raised 2♥ to 3. This raise could show a hand with three trumps and very little else, or it could show a hand with three trumps and some values, but not enough to suggest a game is possible. The latter possibility, given that overcaller has an intermediate hand rather than a weak hand, suggests (?) that perhaps a game is possible, so bidding 4♥ is a logical alternative that could be suggested by the UI. The problem is that there's really only two LAs in this case, the other being pass, and the UI (that advancer believes overcaller has a weak hand) demonstrably could also suggest passing, since if advancer has the first, weak, "extend the preempt" type hand, game is likely not on. So neither LA is suggested over the other.

The word "demonstrably" in the law means, to me at least, that one must construct a valid logic chain from "the explanation shows that partner believes I have X hand, when I do not" through "and in that context has shown Y hand", to "and that suggests I take action Z". We (all of us here, I think) tend to jump from "there is UI" directly to "you can't bid that" without constructing this chain. Sometimes our intuition is right, but sometimes it's wrong, and that will lead to a wrong ruling.

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-10, 09:36, said:

You're on the right track, I think, but you're still not quite getting it. Try this: advancer has told overcaller that advancer believes overcaller has a weak hand, and has raised 2♥ to 3. This raise could show a hand with three trumps and very little else, or it could show a hand with three trumps and some values, but not enough to suggest a game is possible. The latter possibility, given that overcaller has an intermediate hand rather than a weak hand, suggests (?) that perhaps a game is possible, so bidding 4♥ is a logical alternative that could be suggested by the UI. The problem is that there's really only two LAs in this case, the other being pass, and the UI (that advancer believes overcaller has a weak hand) demonstrably could also suggest passing, since if advancer has the first, weak, "extend the preempt" type hand, game is likely not on. So neither LA is suggested over the other.

The word "demonstrably" in the law means, to me at least, that one must construct a valid logic chain from "the explanation shows that partner believes I have X hand, when I do not" through "and in that context has shown Y hand", to "and that suggests I take action Z". We (all of us here, I think) tend to jump from "there is UI" directly to "you can't bid that" without constructing this chain. Sometimes our intuition is right, but sometimes it's wrong, and that will lead to a wrong ruling.

I think you're missing the point. I very much doubt the 3♥ bidder has 3 hearts and nothing due to the vulnerability, you can easily be going for 1100 against a slam or 500/800 against a game. Given that partner figures to have some values, the chance of bidding game being right materially improves therefore it is demonstrably suggested.

[c_corgi]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-08, 22:16, said:

Why doesn't partner's extension of my "preempt" suggest that he has nothing much other than three trumps, and that I should therefore pass?

His extension of your preempt (the AI) does suggest you pass. I do not see any way in which the UI supports the decision to pass, but as others have pointed out, it is very clear why it makes bidding again more attractive.

[ArtK78]

I guess I would approach this question in a much more simple manner.

Had the 2♥ bidder not heard the explanation given to the opponents, what were his logical alternatives? Clearly they are pass and 4♥. Having said that, does the information provided to the opponents (the UI) demonstrably suggest one of those alternatives over the other?

To answer this last question, one needs to determine what the raise of an intermediate 2 bid shows and what the range of the intermediate 2 bid is. I believe that we all have a pretty good idea of what types of hands partner might have for a raise of a weak 2 bid in this situation, so the question becomes what are the differences between the two raises and what is expected of the 2 bidder.

In my experience, the 2 bidder has a clear pass regardless, but I would like to hear the possibilities nonetheless.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-10, 09:36, said:

You're on the right track, I think, but you're still not quite getting it. Try this: advancer has told overcaller that advancer believes overcaller has a weak hand, and has raised 2♥ to 3. This raise could show a hand with three trumps and very little else, or it could show a hand with three trumps and some values, but not enough to suggest a game is possible. The latter possibility, given that overcaller has an intermediate hand rather than a weak hand, suggests (?) that perhaps a game is possible, so bidding 4♥ is a logical alternative that could be suggested by the UI. The problem is that there's really only two LAs in this case, the other being pass, and the UI (that advancer believes overcaller has a weak hand) demonstrably could also suggest passing, since if advancer has the first, weak, "extend the preempt" type hand, game is likely not on. So neither LA is suggested over the other.

The word "demonstrably" in the law means, to me at least, that one must construct a valid logic chain from "the explanation shows that partner believes I have X hand, when I do not" through "and in that context has shown Y hand", to "and that suggests I take action Z". We (all of us here, I think) tend to jump from "there is UI" directly to "you can't bid that" without constructing this chain. Sometimes our intuition is right, but sometimes it's wrong, and that will lead to a wrong ruling.

I think the argument is more simplistic than that.

Partner had the expectation of 8-9 tricks for the combined hands give or take a little opposite a weak overcall therefore given the hand is a trick or two stronger our combined expectation is a trick or two more than partner expects. On the other hand without the unauthorized information we would believe that partner had the expectation of (8-)9 tricks for the combined hands give or take a little opposite our stronger hand. I bracketed 8 because opposite the stronger variety it is possible that 3♥ is more constructive.

What are the suggested actions? Given the UI I can expect with an intermediate jump hand that is a trick or two better than a weak jump that based on partner's bidding we have a trick or two more than indicated. This clearly and demonstrably suggests bidding on.

4♥ may still be allowed if the hand is a normal game raise without the UI. The given hand appears to me to be nothing extraordinary for an intermediate jump - however I may be swayed by the ranges that I usually play at these colours and could be convinced otherwise if the players could offer evidence that this was a particularly good hand for 2♥ and would an at least mildly invitational 3♥.

[lalldonn]

Blackshoe you know your rulings like almost no one I have ever met. But you are being too creative on this one.

Forget the laws for a moment (which to me clearly support adjusting back to 3♥ anyway) and think about this reasoning. No one would bid game if they had the hand partner expects. Therefore if they bid game after receiving UI you can be 100% sure they are taking advantage of the UI. How can you allow someone to gain by taking advantage of UI?

I can make it even simpler. Why do you think the player at the table bid 4♥?

[aguahombre]

lalldonn, on 2012-November-10, 10:43, said:

Forget the laws for a moment (which to me clearly support adjusting back to 3♥ anyway)

I couldn't find a law disallowing 4♦, in order to forget it.

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-10, 09:36, said:

You're on the right track, I think, but you're still not quite getting it. Try this: advancer has told overcaller that advancer believes overcaller has a weak hand, and has raised 2♥ to 3. This raise could show a hand with three trumps and very little else, or it could show a hand with three trumps and some values, but not enough to suggest a game is possible. The latter possibility, given that overcaller has an intermediate hand rather than a weak hand, suggests (?) that perhaps a game is possible, so bidding 4♥ is a logical alternative that could be suggested by the UI. The problem is that there's really only two LAs in this case, the other being pass, and the UI (that advancer believes overcaller has a weak hand) demonstrably could also suggest passing, since if advancer has the first, weak, "extend the preempt" type hand, game is likely not on. So neither LA is suggested over the other.

I think this is wrong, partly because I don't think there is a hand which will bid 3♥ opposite a wjo but pass opposite an ijo, and partly because that doesn't matter. The UI takes bidding game from "obviously wrong, partner would have bid game himself if we should be in it" to "possibly right -- partner might want to be in game if he knew I was intermediate rather than weak".

[lalldonn]

aguahombre, on 2012-November-10, 10:55, said:

I couldn't find a law disallowing 4♦, in order to forget it.

Er... ok yeah good point

[blackshoe]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-November-10, 09:46, said:

I think you're missing the point. I very much doubt the 3♥ bidder has 3 hearts and nothing due to the vulnerability, you can easily be going for 1100 against a slam or 500/800 against a game. Given that partner figures to have some values, the chance of bidding game being right materially improves therefore it is demonstrably suggested.

Actually, I was making a point. See below.

c_corgi, on 2012-November-10, 09:50, said:

His extension of your preempt (the AI) does suggest you pass. I do not see any way in which the UI supports the decision to pass, but as others have pointed out, it is very clear why it makes bidding again more attractive.

I think you're confused about what I'm trying to do here. See below.

ArtK78, on 2012-November-10, 10:30, said:

I guess I would approach this question in a much more simple manner.

Had the 2♥ bidder not heard the explanation given to the opponents, what were his logical alternatives? Clearly they are pass and 4♥. Having said that, does the information provided to the opponents (the UI) demonstrably suggest one of those alternatives over the other?

To answer this last question, one needs to determine what the raise of an intermediate 2 bid shows and what the range of the intermediate 2 bid is. I believe that we all have a pretty good idea of what types of hands partner might have for a raise of a weak 2 bid in this situation, so the question becomes what are the differences between the two raises and what is expected of the 2 bidder.

In my experience, the 2 bidder has a clear pass regardless, but I would like to hear the possibilities nonetheless.

So would I.

lalldonn, on 2012-November-10, 10:43, said:

Blackshoe you know your rulings like almost no one I have ever met. But you are being too creative on this one.

Forget the laws for a moment (which to me clearly support adjusting back to 3♥ anyway) and think about this reasoning. No one would bid game if they had the hand partner expects. Therefore if they bid game after receiving UI you can be 100% sure they are taking advantage of the UI. How can you allow someone to gain by taking advantage of UI?

I can make it even simpler. Why do you think the player at the table bid 4♥?

He had an attack of what David Burn calls "unauthorized panic". But I was not saying that I would not, in the end, adjust the score. I am more concerned here with the journey than I am the destination. I do agree with your reasoning - you have simply and concisely demonstrated why bidding game could be suggested by the UI. What I have been trying to get people to see here is that even if the suggestion is obvious to them it is not correct to rule "use of UI" (Law 16) or "failure to avoid taking advantage of UI" (Law 73) without showing how you get there. If you aren't sure you can demonstrate how the UI suggests the deprecated action, you may find when someone questions your ruling that your intuition was wrong. Then, after you wipe the egg off your face, you have to amend your ruling. Better, IMO, to get it right in the first place.

campboy, on 2012-November-10, 11:45, said:

I think this is wrong, partly because I don't think there is a hand which will bid 3♥ opposite a wjo but pass opposite an ijo, and partly because that doesn't matter. The UI takes bidding game from "obviously wrong, partner would have bid game himself if we should be in it" to "possibly right -- partner might want to be in game if he knew I was intermediate rather than weak".

This is another good example of demonstrating how the UI could suggest bidding on.

[c_corgi]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-10, 13:47, said:

[post #31]

As far as I can see, the following are true:
1. The director is obviously correct.
2. Everybody here understands why this is the case.

I am still not sure what you are saying. Do you disagree with either of the above?

[blackshoe]

Yes. Delete the word "obviously", and change "everybody" to "at least some" (or perhaps even "most") and I would say no.

I have been talking about the process of arriving at a ruling, and how that is supposed to work. Does that help your understanding?

[c_corgi]

"Most" I can live with; regarding "obviously" we will have to disagree!

I agree the correct line of reasoning should be followed rather than jumping to conclusions, but I didn't notice anyone not following it: certainly by post 21 things seemed on the right track.

[lalldonn]

Phew, finally a thread where you are only correct if you are pedantic. It had been a while.

[blackshoe]

[Fluffy]

I love to preempt heavy opposite a passed hand, and might do it with this one even. If I did 4♥ would never cross my mind.