[BLML] once again, UI from allowed source

Jerry Fusselman jfusselman at gmail.com
Thu Aug 29 06:03:31 CEST 2013


On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Matthias Berghaus
<ziffbridge at t-online.de> wrote:
> Am 28.08.2013 22:27, schrieb Jerry Fusselman:
>> I only have time right now for few things.
>>
>> Or maybe I misread you.   Are you saying that a director should always
>> deem _some_ tempo *as if* it did not suggest any alternative over any
>> other one?
>
> Steve can surely answer this on his own, but I would like to take up
> your cue to voice my own opinions.

I hope I can be a worthy interlocutor.

>
> My answer to the question above is yes, but not necessarily the same
> tempo in all cases. Maybe partner has one of two (maybe even more) hand
> types, all of which make his decision easy. No UI if he bids fairly
> quickly. Or he may have several hand types, all of which lead to
> difficult choices. Again, no UI, whatever his tempo. This is different,
> of course, if some of his hand types lead to easy decisons, while others
> force him to make a difficult choice...

The quote I disagreed with was "there always has to be _some_ tempo
that is "just right" and doesn't suggest any alternative over any
other one."  Steve wrote "always."  In your paragraph, Matthias,
you're merely arguing that Steve would have been right if he had used
"sometimes"  instead of "always."

But your example confuses me.  If partner bids quickly, he has shown
that he probably had an easy decision, which is UI to you.

I'll assume your "yes" means that there is always a tempo that gives you no UI.

>
>>  And are you also saying that he should do this even if as
>> a matter of logic, that tempo does in fact suggest an alternative?
>
> No, of course not.
>
>> That is, was your statement purely normative for directors saying
>> nothing about logical reality?
>
> Since this is directed at Steve I refrain from an answer.
>
>>
>> Or was you statement intended as a statement about logical
>> reality---that there is always some tempo that provides no UI?
>
> See above. For _me_, there are cases where this is so, yes. Please try
> to find out what UI can be found in the hand I am about to relate.
>
> I remember a hand from maybe 15 yeats ago where my partner and me played
> a homegrown relay precision system. After years of practice we _always_
> bid quickly in gameforcing undisturbed sequences below 3NT, because we
> knew them all by heart. Now my partner, after showing some balanced hand
> with 4-4 in the reds took more than a minute to answer the question
> about high or low doubleton. What UI did that give to me?
> .
> .

The example you give below is interesting, but it does not seem that
relevant to the question I raised.  When I contradicted Steve's
"always X", I did not assert "never X."  I only asserted that I could
find examples in which X is not true.

Your examples look to me like they show "sometimes X."  Your example
below shows that X seems valid in some cases.  Apparently, in your
example, you're asserting that no length of time before bidding
provided any UI, because you two had completely mastered your system.
I won't argue that.

The issue is whether there is always some length of time before
bidding that provides no UI.  That's what I have been saying is false.
 Would you be willing to check out the example I just gave for Steve
in this thread?

Jerry Fusselman

> .
> .
> After showing 2443 and answering a RKCB for diamonds we reached 6D. Opps
> asked for the auction (with some innuendos about what this auction was
> _supposed_ to show). I explained the auction, the lead was made, dummy
> showered down with exactly the hand I had described, and 6D was quickly
> made. Later I asked my partner about the pause...
> .
> .
> .
> .
> "I had 4-4 and two doubletons. This is not covered by our system. I
> realized that something is wrong here, but could not put my finger on
> it. Then I realized that I could see only 12 cards (please note that my
> partner was a very strong player who could hold her own in the strongest
> team competitions in Germany, even if it doesn`t sound like this is the
> case). Now I rearranged my cards and found a third spade..."
>
> I can assure you that I had no idea what had happened. Obviously there
> was some hitch, she never took time to answer this question, but when
> she did, it carried no information for me.
>
> The operative word in UI is "information". If no I can be gleaned from
> the tempo, there can be U either.
>
> Best regards
> Matthias
>


More information about the Blml mailing list