[blml] Demonstrably troubling

[Adam Beneschan]

Stefanie wrote:
 
> I do not wish to comment on the case that is currently under discussion; 
> rather I am interested in a trend I see in ACs and discussions on BLML.
> 
> Often when a Pass (non-forcing) is made out of tempo, ACs or commentators 
> have said that the player could have been thinking of doubling or of bidding 
> on. Since partner cannot know which this is, neither option is 
> contraindicated due to the UI. Sometimes people are more sympathetic to 
> bidding on, as this option is less flexible.
> 
> What troubles me is that I have seen decisions and opinions of this sort in 
> cases where Pass has been a logical alternative. In such cases, any positive 
> action is suggested by the UI; the only thing it definitely suggests is that 
> partner does not want to defend the last contract bid undoubled. Surely Pass 
> must be imposed in these cases. But it seems to me that often it is not.

I haven't followed the thread that this is in response to.  However,
the example you seem to be referring to is one that I've made some
points about in the past, and I disagree with your conclusion
(assuming I understand you correctly).  I'm going to reiterate some of
the arguments I've made in the past, and I believe the world of bridge
tends to see things approximately the same way.

My belief is that "positive action" isn't a legitimate way to
categorize bids in this situation.  Assuming that partner's double
would be penalty, then if partner's hesitation means that he might
have considered doubling, then it might show a defensive-oriented
hand.  On the other hand, if it means he was considering bidding on,
then it might show a particularly offensive-oriented hand.  To me, the
two are polar opposites.  A defensive hand is not the same as an
offensive hand.  So saying a bid demonstrably suggests "one or the
other" isn't really saying anything at all.  A double and a bid in
this case would also be opposites; lumping them together by calling
them "positive action" isn't particularly meaningful.  The only thing
the two calls have in common is that they are both "not pass".  

To look at it another way: Suppose that somehow we knew that the
hesitation showed a defensive-oriented hand.  Then we'd know not only
that double is suggested over pass, but that pass is suggested over
bidding on, since it's more likely to work (bidding would likely turn
a plus into a minus).  So if we knew this for sure, then both doubling
and passing would be illegal for a hesitator's partner, if bidding on
is a LA.  Thus, the possible calls, ordered by how much they're
suggested by the UI, are:

    Double >> Pass >> Bid

Suppose that we knew that the hesitation showed an offensive-oriented
hand.  Then we'd know not only that bidding is suggested over passing,
but that passing is suggested over a penalty double.  Here I'm
assuming that "offensive-oriented hand" means that we think they have
a good shot at making it, and that we should bid on as a save (or
possibly for a double game swing).  So if we knew this for sure, then
both bidding and passing would be illegal for hesitator's partner, if
doubling is an LA.

    Bid >> Pass >> Double

So now suppose that the hesitation could show either a defensive- or
an offensive-oriented hand.  This would mean that doubling is
suggested over passing, passing is suggested over bidding, bidding is
suggested over passing, and passing is suggested over doubling.  How
can this be?  It's self-contradictory.  

To look at it yet another way: The point of the UI laws is that if a
hesitation (say) suggests something about the hesitator's hand, then
the partner needs to bend over backwards the other way, to assume the
opposite inference about the hesitator's hand.  If a hesitation
probably shows extra values, partner must bid as if hesitator had a
minimum for his bidding.  And vice versa.  But while it's clear that a
recipient of UI must bend in the other direction, I don't see any
reason to believe that the UI laws could require a recipient to "bend
toward the middle", away from two opposite extremes.  When the
hesitation suggests two *opposite* types of information about the
hesitator's hand, and both types seem about equally likely, then
there's no constraint on the UI recipient.

Anyway, that's been my position on this issue for a long time, and as
far as I can tell, the committees who don't impose a pass in this sort
of situation are relying on the same sort of thinking.

                                -- Adam