[aguahombre]

iviehoff, on 2013-October-04, 08:08, said:

Would any of these players who think they would bid 3H not have bid it on the previous round? What have you learned that makes it more attractive to bid now?

I obviously am not one of those who think it is attractive now, except to someone using the UI; however, bidding a direct 3H on the previous round is a whole different animal. East was 4th chair, not a passed hand. 3H direct would show infinitely more playing strength --it is not a prebalance. Passing and then balancing doesn't show that kind of power.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-October-04, 06:05, said:

The AI tells us that partner has values. The UI adds the information that his values are offensive. That UI demonstrably (trivially, in fact) suggests bidding over passing.

The fact that he passed adds the AI that his values are not offensive enough to bid. If his values were defensive, he might think and pass, depending on how quick he is to realise that he has no sensible bid. In my experience poor players with a weak no-trump sometimes pass slowly over a weak NT, often asking for the range to be repeated. So, one cannot conclude that someone only breaks tempo with offensive values. And when someone adds "trivially", "clearly", "obviously" or even "in fact" they are often on shaky ground.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2013-October-04, 09:11, said:

And when someone adds "trivially", "clearly", "obviously" or even "in fact" they are often on shaky ground.

Surely

[mycroft]

I would definitely wonder, especially in flight B (or my opponents, but I'm playing this as 5-5, 8-12), if the tank was "Is partner going to take double as takeout, or 'I have defence and a max pass, DSI"? Yes, we know from the auction that partner has a max pass, and certainly this hand (I have enough hearts to make 3♠ unilaterally a bad call) is a clear tank-and-pass.

It's just that there are other hands that would tank-and-pass and those may not lead to "offensive values", at least over here.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-October-04, 09:11, said:

The fact that he passed adds the AI that his values are not offensive enough to bid. If his values were defensive, he might think and pass, depending on how quick he is to realise that he has no sensible bid. In my experience poor players with a weak no-trump sometimes pass slowly over a weak NT, often asking for the range to be repeated. So, one cannot conclude that someone only breaks tempo with offensive values.

You seem to be saying that when a player hesitates before making a call, we shouldn't assume, for the purpose of UI rulings, that he was considering some other call. Would I be allowed to use that argument too, or do only bad players get the benefit of it?

Quote

And when someone adds "trivially", "clearly", "obviously" or even "in fact" they are often on shaky ground.

Perhaps some people do. Personally, when I use the word "trivially", "clearly", "obviously" or "in fact", it means that I think something is trivial, clear, obvious or a matter of fact. Are you suggesting that when I use one of these words I'm less sure of my ground than I would be if I had not used the word, or just more likely to be wrong?

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-October-04, 11:01, said:

You seem to be saying that when a player hesitates before making a call, we shouldn't assume, for the purpose of UI rulings, that he was considering some other call.

No, I was not saying that. I do not think a BIT conveys the UI of extra offence. The person might equally have a defensive hand and take time to realise that he has no sensible bid.

[nige1]

nige1, on 2013-October-03, 16:05, said:

Notice how the pernicious SEWOG rule makes it hard for North to make a tight matchpoint double of 3♥, for a top.

gnasher, on 2013-October-03, 17:38, said:

I don't notice anything of the sort. A double by North isn't close to being a serious error, wild or gambling.

On this deal, doubling 3♥ is likely to be a success (3♥X-1 or 4♣=). Assume a different layout where 3♥X makes. In other threads, where one side seems to use UI and the other side takes a subsequent unsuccessful action, posters often label the latter a SEWOG. If one of those posters were the director, you would regret your double. IMO, if the SEWOG rule were scrapped, the game would be fairer.

[lamford]

nige1, on 2013-October-04, 12:11, said:

posters often label the latter a SEWOG.

I think most people know what a SEWOG is. PhilKing thinks it is failure to execute an obvious squeeze, and ArtK78 thinks it is a double of 6NT holding AK of a suit on lead. I am surprised you think that this eminent forum has any difficulty with the term.

[c_corgi]

lamford, on 2013-October-04, 12:11, said:

No, I was not saying that. I do not think a BIT conveys extra offence. The person might equally have a defensive hand and take time to realise that he has no sensible bid. I do not think it "trivially" suggests bidding in this case.

If a player has a genuine problem he is likely to break tempo.

If a player does not have a genuine problem he is only likely to break tempo if he fails to realise that he doesn't have a problem.

Therefore if a player breaks tempo the chances of him having a genuine problem are increased. In the OP case, he only has a genuine problem if his values are offensive, so the BIT increases the chances of his values being offensive.

It might be argued that whether a problem is genuine or not depends on the class of player, but I think pretty much any player would realise offensive values were more likely to require action than defensive ones here.

[lamford]

c_corgi, on 2013-October-04, 12:27, said:

If a player has a genuine problem he is likely to break tempo.

If a player does not have a genuine problem he is only likely to break tempo if he fails to realise that he doesn't have a problem.

This is counterbalanced by the fact that if he has a genuine problem, where he was seriously considering bidding at the three-level, some of the time he will bid, so if he passes he is less likely to have a genuine problem.

[c_corgi]

lamford, on 2013-October-04, 12:43, said:

This is counterbalanced by the fact that if he has a genuine problem, where he was seriously considering bidding at the three-level, much of the time he will bid, so if he passes he is less likely to have a genuine problem.

In my experience hands which pass initially but then will actually overcall at the 3-level are vanishingly rare. It is much more common to have a passed-hand on which overcalling at the 3-level might work well.

[gnasher]

nige1, on 2013-October-04, 12:11, said:

On this deal, doubling 3♥ is likely to be a success (3♥X-1 or 4♣=). Assume a different layout where 3♥X makes.

Yes, I understood the point you were making.

Quote

In other threads, where one side seems to use UI and the other side takes a subsequent unsuccessful action, the latter is often labelled a SEWOG. If one of those posters were the director, you would regret your double.

Yes, some other actions in some other threads are sometimes labelled SEWoGs by some people some of whom may be directors. That doesn't mean that this putative action would be labelled a SEWoG by anybody who actually is a director. And even if it would, we have appeals committees to correct bad rulings.

Quote

IMO, if the SEWOG rule were scrapped, the game would be fairer.

When a rule is misapplied, the right answer is usually either better training or better wording, rather than discarding the rule entirely. I know that there are sometimes cases where the "SEWoG rule" has been misapplied (usually by people who incorrectly call it the "double shot rule") but I think you're wrong that it would be so applied to a double of 3♥ with this North hand.

[lamford]

c_corgi, on 2013-October-04, 12:49, said:

In my experience hands which pass initially but then will actually overcall at the 3-level are vanishingly rare. It is much more common to have a passed-hand on which overcalling at the 3-level might work well.

In my experience passed hands which are even considering bidding at the 3-level on this auction are rare. Presumably, a hand in between a weak two and a one-level opening is the only hand type, and for many aggressive players the hand does not exist. So, the argument about the BIT showing offensive values is unconvincing, and I do not think it "trivially, in fact" suggests bidding.

Partner could also have something like a 5-1-4-3 11-count when bidding 3H will work out badly.

[mycroft]

c_corgi, on 2013-October-04, 12:27, said:

If a player has a genuine problem he is likely to break tempo.

If a player does not have a genuine problem he is only likely to break tempo if he fails to realise that he doesn't have a problem.
Therefore if a player breaks tempo the chances of him having a genuine problem are increased.

Okay so far.

Quote

In the OP case, he only has a genuine problem if his values are offensive, so the BIT increases the chances of his values being offensive.

Flight A players? Recognized partnership? Used to playing against non-natural systems?

I would guess that 90% of Flight A in my neighbourhood have never discussed this auction, never mind how things change by a passed hand. I would guess that 80% of Flight A in my neighbourhood have never thought about this auction, and have no idea, even meta-agreements they like to play, what double means.

In this area, the person has a problem - he wants to not play 3♣ undoubled, but doesn't know whether to defend, or insist on spades, or sit for hearts. I'm quite certain he doesn't know what 3♦ will be taken as, and the difference between that and X.

Got all that worked out? Good. How much time have you hitched for? Would you have taken the same amount of time trying to work this out with KTxxx Axx x KT9x?

[nige1]

lamford, on 2013-October-04, 12:43, said:

This is counterbalanced by the fact that if he has a genuine problem, where he was seriously considering bidding at the three-level, some of the time he will bid, so if he passes he is less likely to have a genuine problem.

I agree. Assume that West is an ethical player who tanks only when he imagines he has a problem:
An inexperienced West tanks when he as values, whether they be offensive or defensive. If bidding is a close decision he may chicken out and pass.
An experienced West who has offensive values and seriously considers a bid tends to bite the bullet and make the bid because he's aware of the UI constraints that a slow pass imposes on partner. Hence, for him, a slow pass is more likely to indicate defensive values.
Arguably here, however, West's slow pass confirms the high cards that the auction merely implies he has, making it safer for East to bid his good six-card suit.

[CamHenry]

nige1, on 2013-October-03, 16:05, said:

I might pass with the East hand but FrancesHinden would always bid 3♥, so pass, 3♥ and perhaps double are likely to be LAs.

Frances' opinion on what to call with the E hand in not necessarily relevant. If the actual participants are weak, Frances is not in "the class of players in question".

[VixTD]

I took the majority view here and ruled out the 3♥ bid. I adjusted the score to 3♣(S) +1.

[nige1]

gnasher, on 2013-October-04, 12:52, said:

When a rule is misapplied, the right answer is usually either better training or better wording, rather than discarding the rule entirely. I know that there are sometimes cases where the "SEWoG rule" has been misapplied (usually by people who incorrectly call it the "double shot rule") but I think you're wrong that it would be so applied to a double of 3♥ with this North hand.

IMO: Few club directors have time for additional training on this kind of thing. After an opponent's infraction, a poor player knows that he may have taken actions that the director will regard as wild, gambling or seriously in error. A player aware of SEWOG law will be even more reluctant to call the director, knowing that he is unlikely to receive much redress, even if the director rules in his favour. The SEWOG law can add insult to injury. In effect, it further encourages infractions. The SEWOG law is one of the complex and unnecessary rules that add no value to the game.

[mycroft]

It's true, most TDs at the lower-than-tournament level will [Edit: not] understand SEWoG. I don't think that's a big problem; I don't expect they'll run into the players for whom the law was written.

I can't imagine the poor player will have a clue what SEWoG is - or "for a player at their level", what it could be. I certainly can't believe they'd fail to call the TD over it. I got into trouble once, for delivering a ruling that effectively said "If you were more experienced, you would have known this was an insane call; and were you that more experienced, you would not have got the ruling in your favour" (...for that part you were responsible for, yadda yadda, SE). She complained "why should I get away with it if you wouldn't?" (after 20 minutes explaining to her why it was SE). "Because if it took 20 minutes to explain why this was a SE to you, then it wasn't a serious error for someone at your level. Now you understand it, you won't get away with it next time. Of course, you won't *do* it next time either."

Why would I spend 20 minutes explaining this to a player? Well, I'm sure you can take a guess :-).

I disagree with your argument that the SEWoG rule will make people reluctant to call the TD. Whether or not the TD says "that call was so gambling that the damage you caused was all your own", *the opponents will get the AS they deserve for their infraction* (if any).

If you've never played with or against the kind of pros whose living demands they give their "my best bridge skill is that I have $300/session" partner monsterpoints, or the kind of pros whose living incites "I don't care if we're known as boors who skirt every possible ethical loophole, as long as we're known as *boors*who*win*", then you won't see the need for these kinds of rules (and the "failure to play bridge" regulation, and the "pro question" prohibition, and the "full disclosure required" or "convention name is not adequate disclosure" regulations, or...I guarantee that the SEWoG rule is one of those complex and *necessary* rules, that almost never come up, but when they do, do in fact add value to the game.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2013-December-09, 19:03, said:

It's true, most TDs at the lower-than-tournament level will understand SEWoG.

Is there a missing not somewhere?