[jillybean]

Dealer: West Vul: All Scoring: IMP

♠ K ♥ AKQ853 ♦ KQ ♣ QJ74

West North East South

 Pass  Pass  1♠    Dbl
 2♠    Pass  Pass  3♥
 3♠    Pass* Pass  ?

*BIT North says 5seconds, West says 15

Assuming active ethics, what is your bid?


 

[cherdano]

I pass.

[pbleighton]

Pass.

Peter

[mr1303]

Someone (Hrothgar I believe) said that when posting UI problems, you should present them without the UI, to discover whether or not something was a logical alternative.

That would be useful here. With no UI I would try 4H (might have tried it at my second go after the double).

[cherdano]

mr1303, on Mar 11 2007, 12:14 PM, said:

Someone (Hrothgar I believe) said that when posting UI problems, you should present them without the UI, to discover whether or not something was a logical alternative.

That would be useful here. With no UI I would try 4H (might have tried it at my second go after the double).

Richard has said that many many times, but that doesn't make it right...

[pbleighton]

FWIW, I would pass without the hesitation.

Listen to what partner is saying. He's not interested.

Bidding on here is a classic example of falling in love with your hand.

Peter

[hrothgar]

cherdano, on Mar 11 2007, 09:19 PM, said:

mr1303, on Mar 11 2007, 12:14 PM, said:

Someone (Hrothgar I believe) said that when posting UI problems, you should present them without the UI, to discover whether or not something was a logical alternative.

That would be useful here. With no UI I would try 4H (might have tried it at my second go after the double).

Richard has said that many many times, but that doesn't make it right...

I stand by my recommendation.

I will note in passing that this isn't a theory that I pulled out of my butt. Bobby Goldman was an active particpant on the OKB mailing listed. He was frequently asked to comment on both bidding questions and rulings. Bobby was always very explicit that UI questions should be (initially) presented as bidding/play problems.

Bobby had a very simple rational: The crux of any UI problem is whether an action was demonstrably suggested by the Unauthorized Information. The best way to determine that UI was NOT a factor is survey a group of peers sans UI. If a large enough percentage of the players would chose an action absent the UI than it probably wasn't suggested by the UI.

Equally significant, you always have the option to introduce the UI issue later on. However, once you have introduced the existence of UI you can't take it back.

[blackshoe]

The downside of posting without mentioning UI is that the replies go into flights of fancy about what UI might have been passed, by whom, when, yada, yada, yada. The thread then gets hijacked. Nonetheless, many do consider it a useful ploy.

On the hand in question, it seems to me that, as Peter says, pass is pretty clearly an LA. The UI suggests that partner either has 3 or 4 hearts, or that he has 8 or 9 points. Having inferred that, clearly 4♥ would be the right call. But it's the UI that suggests that (without the UI, for all you know, he has a flat five count (or less) with 2 hearts), so you have to pass.

[cherdano]

hrothgar, on Mar 11 2007, 12:40 PM, said:

cherdano, on Mar 11 2007, 09:19 PM, said:

mr1303, on Mar 11 2007, 12:14 PM, said:

Someone (Hrothgar I believe) said that when posting UI problems, you should present them without the UI, to discover whether or not something was a logical alternative.

That would be useful here. With no UI I would try 4H (might have tried it at my second go after the double).

Richard has said that many many times, but that doesn't make it right...

I stand by my recommendation.

I will note in passing that this isn't a theory that I pulled out of my butt. Bobby Goldman was an active particpant on the OKB mailing listed. He was frequently asked to comment on both bidding questions and rulings. Bobby was always very explicit that UI questions should be (initially) presented as bidding/play problems.

Bobby had a very simple rational: The crux of any UI problem is whether an action was demonstrably suggested by the Unauthorized Information. The best way to determine that UI was NOT a factor is survey a group of peers sans UI. If a large enough percentage of the players would chose an action absent the UI than it probably wasn't suggested by the UI.

Equally significant, you always have the option to introduce the UI issue later on. However, once you have introduced the existence of UI you can't take it back.

It really depends on what the original poster is interested in. If he is interested in finding an objective answer to the UI problem, which bids were logical alternatives, etc., then it is better not to introduce the UI beforehand. However, if the poster is mostly interested in help for "How should I decide about this at the table?", then it makes a lot of sense to put the readers of the thread in the same position as the player at the table.

[hotShot]

I will demonstrate the best way to do this using this example.

____________________________________________________________
Subject: What do you bid?

Dealer: West Vul: All Scoring: IMP

♠ K ♥ AKQ853 ♦ KQ ♣ QJ74

West North East South

Pass Pass 1♠ Dbl
2♠ Pass Pass 3♥
3♠ Pass Pass ?


What do you bid and why?

________________________________________________________________


Any bid that comes up, is a LA to consider and
this way you will get an unbiased picture of what people would do.

If they know/suspect UI, they will no longer think: "What do I bid?"
They will think: "Is there an alternative to 4♥?"
So even if they don't intend to be biased, their answer will be biased.

[helene_t]

If Kathryn is seeking advice as a TD and considers us as peers of the South player, Richard is right of course.

But maybe she doesn't consider us peers of South but rather peers of herself.

FWIW, I would pass and I think I would have done the same without the UI.

[hotShot]

helene_t, on Mar 11 2007, 09:25 PM, said:

If Kathryn is seeking advice as a TD and considers us as peers of the South player, Richard is right of course.

But maybe she doesn't consider us peers of South but rather peers of herself.

FWIW, I would pass and I think I would have done the same without the UI.

There are two problems with UI cases:
1) to figure out the LA and
2) find the least suggested one.

But if there is no LA, you don't have the 2nd problem.
And if you want to discuss which bid is more suggested by the UI you should state the alternatives.

Lets assume the bidding suggestions would be:
4♥
4♣
dbl
pass

Would you have them all on your list?

[jillybean]

hrothgar, on Mar 11 2007, 11:40 AM, said:

Bobby had a very simple rational:  The crux of any UI problem is whether an action was demonstrably suggested by the Unauthorized Information.  The best way to determine that UI was NOT a factor is survey a group of peers sans UI.  If a large enough percentage of the players would chose an action absent the UI than it probably wasn't suggested by the UI.

I don’t agree with this rationale but I’m sure I shouldn’t be disagreeing with Bobby Goldman

It is my understanding that once UI has occurred the player must not chose an option that could have been suggested by the UI. It doesn’t matter if the majority of players would bid 4♥, if pass is a LA you cannot bid 4♥.
(I realise this is not the likely outcome of this hand!)

This means that sometimes you miss an obvious contract because your p had a brain freeze in the middle of an auction or gave UI in some other form.

[barmar]

I agree with jilly.

If you're going to present the problem without mentioning the UI, then you have to ask the right question. Don't ask "what would you bid?", ask "What bids do you consider?" or "What are you 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice bids?"

Blackshoe wrote:

Quote

The UI suggests that partner either has 3 or 4 hearts, or that he has 8 or 9 points.

Can partner actually have 8-9 points on this auction? You have 20 and the opponents are both bidding, neither one preemptively. Unless opener psyched, partner has close to a Yarborough.

[cherdano]

Of course partner cannot have 8-9 points. We have shown a very big hand, and if he had that much, partner just would have to find some bid.

[jdonn]

barmar, on Mar 11 2007, 10:10 PM, said:

If you're going to present the problem without mentioning the UI, then you have to ask the right question.  Don't ask "what would you bid?", ask "What bids do you consider?" or "What are you 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice bids?"

I completely disagree for two reasons.

1) A player should never be forced to make a bid that no one would make. Any law that would require such a thing is stupid.

2) Wording the question that way makes it obvious that it's a UI problem being given without the UI and biases the answerer before he even starts.

In this case pass is obviously a LA. The spade king is completely useless, and the minor suits could well be overvalued too.

[blackshoe]

cherdano, on Mar 11 2007, 10:43 PM, said:

Of course partner cannot have 8-9 points. We have shown a very big hand, and if he had that much, partner just would have to find some bid.

At the point where partner passed 2♠, all he knows is I have roughly opening values and shortage in spades. He has no idea I have 20 points. Okay, given I do have that, and RHO opened and his partner raised, partner can't have more than a couple points. So he's got some hearts, or he wouldn't be breaking tempo over 3♠. But he still doesn't know I have 20 - I might have 17 or so and make the same call. They have nine spades, so partner has 3, and they can't be very good ones, so he can't have been contemplating a double.

But the inference that he has hearts still suggests 4♥ from me, so I can't bid it. Besides, I suspect 4♠ makes and 4♥ goes down 1 or 2. Or maybe they both make. Why take the chance of driving them into game, even if it were legal?

[cherdano]

blackshoe, on Mar 11 2007, 11:15 PM, said:

cherdano, on Mar 11 2007, 10:43 PM, said:

Of course partner cannot have 8-9 points. We have shown a very big hand, and if he had that much, partner just would have to find some bid.

At the point where partner passed 2♠, all he knows is I have roughly opening values and shortage in spades. He has no idea I have 20 points. Okay, given I do have that, and RHO opened and his partner raised, partner can't have more than a couple points. So he's got some hearts, or he wouldn't be breaking tempo over 3♠. But he still doesn't know I have 20 - I might have 17 or so and make the same call. They have nine spades, so partner has 3, and they can't be very good ones, so he can't have been contemplating a double.

But the inference that he has hearts still suggests 4♥ from me, so I can't bid it. Besides, I suspect 4♠ makes and 4♥ goes down 1 or 2. Or maybe they both make. Why take the chance of driving them into game, even if it were legal?

I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting that partner would pass 3S with 8-9 points?

[jillybean]

jdonn, on Mar 11 2007, 08:47 PM, said:

barmar, on Mar 11 2007, 10:10 PM, said:

If you're going to present the problem without mentioning the UI, then you have to ask the right question.  Don't ask "what would you bid?", ask "What bids do you consider?" or "What are you 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice bids?"

I completely disagree for two reasons.

1) A player should never be forced to make a bid that no one would make. Any law that would require such a thing is stupid.

2) Wording the question that way makes it obvious that it's a UI problem being given without the UI and biases the answerer before he even starts.

In this case pass is obviously a LA. The spade king is completely useless, and the minor suits could well be overvalued too.

1. no one is saying this ?

2. imho you must include the UI in any question -the player may not chose from alernate actions one that could have been suggested by the UI.

On this particular hand I made a bad decision and let the result stand - I wasnt clear that there was any significant bit and personally I would likely bid 4♥ (not 3) after the double.

[Sancho]

I find it somewhat obvious that pass is a logical alternative here (no matter under which jurisdiction). The interesting point is whether 4♥ (and, to some extent, 4♣) are demonstrably suggested by the UI. Is it impossible for partner to have something like ♠QJ9x (ie can't he have thought about doubling with an offensively useless hand)?

I am neither saying that bidding on is not demonstrably suggested nor that it is. I have not thought about it enough, but it seems to be the most interesting point here. So, a double should clearly be disallowed (as it caters to all possibilities), but as to 4♣ or 4♥, it isn't so clear, even when we deem pass to be an LA.

BTW, I think the worst way to present this kind of problem is to post it in a TD forum without specifing the UI-/MI-problem or whatever it is. It might be a good approach, however, to post the pure bidding problem in the appropriate strategy forum, where you will get honest replys without people speculating about the "real" problem. Then, carry the results of your poll here and post the complete case, asking for a ruling (if it is not clear after the poll).