[lamford]

bluejak, on 2012-January-18, 11:13, said:

In my view the UI does not suggest an action in OP that you would not take anyway.

The UI confirms partner has values, and almost certainly is not 3-3-4-3. Before the UI, the partner of the pre-emptor could have had a big hand with short diamonds. I bet you would pass quickly if it was the partner of the pre-emptor who hesitated!

[bluejak]

Why not 3343? Does that not give him a problem, like whether to bid 3NT? Of course it does.

Yes, if RHO hesitates, it alters the likelihood. However, that is quite irrelevant for the actual problem.

[Cascade]

bluejak, on 2012-January-15, 18:26, said:

When you have a very weak hand and partner passes over an opening bid, and RHO does, then the AI says that partner has a hand that has values but does not have a suitable bid. Sure, the UI says exactly the same.

bluejak, on 2012-January-17, 11:18, said:

But when the information from the AI is the same or includes the information from the UI then as here the UI does not suggest passing over bidding or doubling.

bluejak, on 2012-January-18, 12:05, said:

Yes, if RHO hesitates, it alters the likelihood. However, that is quite irrelevant for the actual problem.

In my view these first two comments are contradictory with the third.

If the information from a pass from partner is the same whether or not partner gives UI then it should be irrelevant that RHO passes slowly. Some RHOs will with the same hand as someone passes slowly not pass slowly. If RHO has one of these hands that might or might not have generated a slow pass then partner's slow pass does convey additional information to the AI from the auction.

[nige1]

Trinidad, on 2012-January-14, 19:25, said:

I agree with Lamford. The UI tells you that partner wants to bid, but can't. If partner doesn't want to bid, he will pass without breaking tempo. You can see that he is safe whatever he wants to bid. Therefore, you make sure that he will bid by doubling now. That is using UI. The other thing that I actively dislike is the fact that West, with a full opening hand opposite a partner who made a takeout double manages to find the winning bid of 3♥. Quite obviously he had already communicated his strength by the hesitation: If East had full values for his takeout double, he would have raised to 4♥ (or made a slam try ).

gordontd, on 2012-January-16, 08:18, said:

I've seen players pass mis-fitting 17-counts opposite a three-opener. But if that had happened here, I imagine partner would have been able to pass in tempo.

Paradigmatic case of the use of UI: Pass is an LA and partner's tank makes protection safer.

[Xiaolongnu]

bluejak, on 2012-January-05, 10:59, said:

I do not see what the UI suggests. That partner has an opening bid? You know that.
In answer to the OP no, it is not a blatant use of UI, it is doubtful as to whether there is any use of UI whatever, and a PP is wildly inappropriate.


Well, I guess the UI tells you partner probably doesn't have a flat 10 count, which would not otherwise be impossible if, for example, opener had a fairly heavy vulnerable pre-empt with a 10-count and responder passed with a non-fitting 15-count.

bluejak, on 2012-January-05, 10:52, said:

There is a problem with getting things right when you have both AI and UI telling you what to do. Of course you may be in a situation where you can work out what to do from point-count, inferences, or whatever, but think how often people go wrong in such situations. Now they get UI and they do not go wrong.

I am always sceptical about the "I could work it out" argument.


Am I alone in seeing a certain tension between these two views?

###End of quote###

Sorry but first of all could someone please advise me on how to quote things properly? (:

I believe I understand what WellSpyder is trying to say about tension. In the sense that the first post by bluejak seems to imply that bidding on in the presence of UI is reasonable and the second contradicts it. However, I think there is no contradiction. The first post by bluejak talks about whether or not the UI implies or in layman terms "inspires" any (profitable) action. The second post talks about whether or not there are LA's. Both must be present for the UI case to stand, that is, for the score to be adjusted by 16 and 12. If the UI does not imply any action over another, then there is no sense in investigating whether or not the OS could have gotten it wrong out of a multitude of LA's, they are just as likely to get it right or wrong as before. I mean, in the strict sense of the word, all of partner's actions and non actions are UI to you. Every word that partner says, even if it is to make small talk with the opponents (flirting socializing and discussing business in real life included here, don't tell me you have never seen it happen before) all this is UI. Partner going to the pantry and offering to make you or opponents a drink to get biscuits is also UI. In the strictest sense, even the fact that partner is sitting right in front of you is also UI, the fact that partner is not giving you any UI is also UI to you. But do any of these UI suggest anything? Whether or not you noticed this, you are still just as likely to get your judgment whether or not to raise on a singleton blank just as right or just as wrong. But with suggesting UI that is a different story. This is a logical problem, some elements here are redundant.

This is how I read it anyway. Happy to be advised if you think I am wrong.

[Trinidad]

Xiaolongnu, on 2012-January-26, 01:30, said:

Sorry but first of all could someone please advise me on how to quote things properly? (:

There are varoious ways to quote someone.

1) You can use the reply button in the post that you are replying to. (Right bottom of each post.)

2) If you want to quote more than 1 post, you can use the multiquote button, which is next to the reply button. This works a little bit different: You click the multiquote button for each post that you want to quote. When you have done that, you click the add reply button at the bottom of the thread.

Note that there is a difference between the add reply and the reply button. The first adds a posting quoting all the posts that have been marked by clicking on their multiquote button. The second quotes the post that you are replying to.

Both methods will quote the entire post. You can delete or edit this to quote only the relevant parts of the previous post (like I did here).

Rik

[WellSpyder]

Trinidad, on 2012-January-26, 02:12, said:

There are varoious ways to quote someone.
.....
Both methods will quote the entire post.
Rik

Except that quoting an entire post does not include the imbedded quotes within the post you are replying to, which can make it tricky to make clear the point you are picking up on. I think this is the problem Xiaolongnu was having with the post of mine he quoted.

I'm glad he picked up on what I was saying, though, since it was meant as a serious point. In one thread Bluejak was saying the UI doesn't tell you anything you couldn't have worked out for yourself anyway. In another, he was saying he is always sceptical of the argument that someone could work out the necessary information anyway.

It seems to me despite Xiaolongnu's arguments that these two points of view will always be in tension with one another. Note that I'm not saying they are contradictory - it is quite possible for both to be true. But it does seem to me that it makes it quite difficult to judge which way to jump on any particular case, and I don't think I saw anything in the two cases under discussion to suggest that it may not to some extent be a random choice as to which way Bluejak might argue a specific case.

[Trinidad]

WellSpyder, on 2012-January-26, 03:05, said:

Trinidad, on 2012-January-26, 02:12, said:

There are varoious ways to quote someone.

.....

Both methods will quote the entire post. You can delete or edit this to quote only the relevant parts of the previous post (like I did here).

Rik

Except that quoting an entire post does not include the imbedded quotes within the post you are replying to, which can make it tricky to make clear the point you are picking up on. I think this is the problem Xiaolongnu was having with the post of mine he quoted.

Ah, I missed that.

How to make nested quotes (like the one above):
- Click the multiquote button for all the posts that you want to quote. This means that you will also need to multiquote the post that another post was quoting. (In the above example I used the multiquote button for WellSpyder's post as well as my post that he was quoting.)
- Click the add reply button. Now the quotes are arranged below each other.
- You can now cut and paste the quotes to put them within other quotes. Just make sure that every quote is started with the bracketed "quote" and "/quote" commands (or however these are called in computer lingo).

Rik

[gwnn]

Tags. Sorry I don't have anything else especially meaningful to add.

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2012-January-26, 06:15, said:

Ah, I missed that.

How to make nested quotes (like the one above):
- Click the multiquote button for all the posts that you want to quote. This means that you will also need to multiquote the post that another post was quoting. (In the above example I used the multiquote button for WellSpyder's post as well as my post that he was quoting.)
- Click the add reply button. Now the quotes are arranged below each other.
- You can now cut and paste the quotes to put them within other quotes. Just make sure that every quote is started with the bracketed "quote" and "/quote" commands (or however these are called in computer lingo).

Rik

Multiquote stopped working for Internet Explorer after upgrade to version 9.

[blackshoe]

In that case, Sven, I would suggest another browser.

The "tension" between UI and AI is this: when you have both UI and AI and they both suggest the same action, you must still carefully avoid taking the suggested action unless you have no logical alternative. Since "logical alternative" is defined by what your peers might do, you have to consider what they might do rather than what you think you would do "without the UI".

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2012-January-26, 17:05, said:

Multiquote stopped working for Internet Explorer after upgrade to version 9.

I have version 9.0.8112.16421 and it works fine for me.

Rik

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2012-January-26, 17:27, said:

I have version 9.0.8112.16421 and it works fine for me.

Rik

But does this version solve the problem WellSpyder mentioned, that embedded quotes are not copied? This is so annoying.

[blackshoe]

The embedded quotes thing is I think an artifact of the forum software, not of the browser. At least, it happens for me in both Safari and Firefox.

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2012-January-26, 17:27, said:

I have version 9.0.8112.16421 and it works fine for me.

Rik

I have the same version, and when I press "Multiquote" on a post the resulting (immediate) action is exactly the same as when I just press "Reply" on that post. There is no way I can quote more than one single post using "Multiquote".

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-26, 17:18, said:

In that case, Sven, I would suggest another browser.

The "tension" between UI and AI is this: when you have both UI and AI and they both suggest the same action, you must still carefully avoid taking the suggested action unless you have no logical alternative. Since "logical alternative" is defined by what your peers might do, you have to consider what they might do rather than what you think you would do "without the UI".

I have tried some, but another browser is not an acceptable option for me.

[bluejak]

WellSpyder, on 2012-January-26, 03:05, said:

It seems to me despite Xiaolongnu's arguments that these two points of view will always be in tension with one another. Note that I'm not saying they are contradictory - it is quite possible for both to be true. But it does seem to me that it makes it quite difficult to judge which way to jump on any particular case, and I don't think I saw anything in the two cases under discussion to suggest that it may not to some extent be a random choice as to which way Bluejak might argue a specific case.

I think using the term random is completely unfair. I treat every case on its merits. Perhaps you think I do not mean what I say: "I am sceptical" does not mean "I automatically discount", nor, indeed is it anything like it.

There are too many black-or-white assumptions in some of the people quoting my words when they are clearly not black-or-white.

Furthermore, I think my use of the term "work out" has been pretty much ignored. If partner opens a 12-14 1NT and then you get UI that tells you he has more than 11 points but not much more, there is no working out necessary to deduce he has between 12 and 14 points. But I am sceptical when there is a complicated deduction that takes deep analysis and coincidentally comes up with what the UI has said.

I still do not like the word "random". Suppose you answered two posts: in one you supported lamford's view, and the other you disagreed with it: how would you like it if I stated that showed that whether you agreed with lamford was "random"?

pran, on 2012-January-26, 17:05, said:

Multiquote stopped working for Internet Explorer after upgrade to version 9.

Ditto, but Google Chrome does it nicely. It also killed ieSpell.

Vampyr, on 2012-January-26, 18:46, said:

But does this version solve the problem WellSpyder mentioned, that embedded quotes are not copied? This is so annoying.

Very. There are other things that work well in other forums but not this one, like adding bold and smileys.

[WellSpyder]

bluejak, on 2012-February-03, 13:54, said:

I think using the term random is completely unfair. I treat every case on its merits.

Fair comment - I agree that "random" sounds harsh, and it isn't really what I meant. I certainly accept that you do your best to treat every case on its merits, and that this can sometimes involve tricky judgments since there are usually arguments on both sides of a case. Indeed, the very fact that you are sometimes arguing on one side of a case and sometimes on the other side of a different case perhaps highlights that the judgments involved can be tricky and that you are not approaching them with a preconceived view.

At the end of the day it is difficult to see a better way to help people understand these rulings than to discuss how different people would judge the specific circumstances set out in the various OPs we see here. But the very fact that we often get different judgments from respected TDs on the same case can indeed make it seem a bit random what the actual ruling will be on a particular issue, particularly when it isn't always clear what aspects of an individual case have led to a different judgment from another case. (I seem to recall Nigel making a similar point about claims rulings a while ago and arguing that this was a reason to change the law to something much more mechanical - though I should stress I don't think that is the answer here, or indeed for claims.)