When committees continuously modify a basically simple set of rules to accommodate narrow self-interests, one ends up with a tangle that defies logic and confounds the ordinary man. The tax laws with all the loop holes are an example of self-interested tinkering carried to extremes. Judges aim to uphold the laws, but juries are not compelled to honor them. Everyman’s nightmare becomes a lawyer’s enchanted dream.
As is well known in the ACBL enforcement of the rules, justice is not always well served by the jury system in the form of an Appeals Committee. Awareness has been raised by the ruling that gave the China Red victory in the recent Wagar Cup. The subsequent heated, personalized discussions by experts on Bridgewinners revolved around how much a player must reveal about partnership tendencies. Is it enough to clarify agreements that are written on the convention card, or must a player bend over backwards to disclose everything relevant that has occurred in the past under similar circumstances? Has an opponent the right to know everything you know (without reference to the cards you hold)? Does that include what partner had for breakfast, which may have a bearing on his level of aggressiveness? Later we’ll look at the mathematical implications, but first here is the deal that raised questions.
Precision 1♦
In my experience the troubles began when the ACBL rules were modified piecemeal to bring Precision in under the fence, as it were. Some aspects were allowed, others prohibited, but once in, Precision methods began to undermine many of the Goren-based concepts and the more naïve players were burdened with bids that had one meaning in Standard and another in Precision. The auctions sounded the same, but they weren’t, and some opponents to their regret failed to make the necessary adjustments. Gradually the old standards fell, but the tinkering with the rules didn’t reflect the collapse, resulting in further confusion. The ruling in the Wagar Cup Final revolved around a Precision 1♦ opening bid and possible misinformation. Here is that deal.
The 1♦ opening bid is systemically correct as the hand contains at least 2 diamonds and at least 11 HCP. Coincidentally the hand also constitutes a standard 1♦ opening bid where 4 diamonds are the norm. Levitina’s takeout double, like the Precision 1♦ bid, is a noise from which not much can be concluded with regard to distribution. Redbl is understandable – 10+HCP, a flat shape and 2 suits covered defensively. However, because of the nature of the nebulous opening bid, a non-standard complication is that clubs or diamonds might provide the best fit for either side.
Sanborn’s pass is understandable. When one has nothing to say, don’t say anything. However, pass is descriptive – normally a balanced hand. Partner can add up the points, subtract from 40, and have a good estimate of the upper limit of her partner’s holding. Sanborn can stand by Levitina’s choice.
When I have doubts about standard practice, I refer to that superb reference from 1981, Modern Bridge Conventions by Root and Pavlicek, a book praised on the back cover by many late, great American players: Jacoby, Kaplan, Roth, Sheinwold, Stayman, and Truscott. The authors note that a takeout double of one-of-a-suit opening typically shows a minimum opening bid with support (three or more cards) for each of the unbid suits. So Levitina’s call is mainstream. After a redouble, they point out that a pass ‘merely expresses the lack of any clear-cut preferences among the unbid suits.’ It appears that Sanborn’s pass falls neatly into the category of standard practice. No problem, then?
One must take into account that the 1♦ opening bid did not promise more than 2 cards in the suit, so there is an additional reason for Sanborn’s passing the redouble - maybe Levitina actually held length in diamonds. That raises the question as to whether diamonds is an ‘unbid suit’. In the Precision system responder cannot support diamonds, so if he bids diamonds, it is treated as a ’new suit’ in which he has length himself. If that is the way the Precisionists treat diamonds, then isn’t it logical that the opponents should have the same treatment, so that a takeout double does not suggest support for clubs nor guarantee shortage in diamonds? Thus a straightforward bidding sequence under the Standard regime is less informative and more complex when Precision 1♦ is involved.
At this point we ask ourselves, if there were no alerts, were the American pair obliged to answer questions as to the meanings of their bids? Certainly they are a long-standing partnership and similar situation must have come up a few times in the past. On that basis they know something that the opponents don’t know, but unless they have a prior agreement, the knowledge they have is of a statistical nature, hence uncertain to some degree. No matter how long a partnership has played together, their bidding won’t converge to perfection. If Levitina were asked, ‘based on your experience does your partner deny a 4-card major?’ the answer might be, ‘this situation may have arisen a few times in the past, but not enough times to merit expressing a firm conclusion.’
Estimating Probabilities from Data
There are mathematical procedures available that are used to estimate probabilities from data. Consider the problem in a simple mathematical context. When Sanborn claims her pass means nothing, she is implying that her pass means nothing more than what is to be expected with standard practices. With a 5-card suit she would take preference. Say there are 2 possibilities: A: Sanborn will pass without a 4-card major, and B: Sanborn will pass with at least one 4-card major. For purposes of our argument we take a narrower view and assume she is saying in effect that P(A), the probability of A, equals P(B), the probability of B. It is a coin flip whether or not she will pass with a 4-card major.
Suppose they have played in 4 similar situations and 3 times Sanborn didn’t have a 4-card major, and once she did. So we have 3 A’s and 1 B. If Levitina says that in her experience it is 3 times more likely Sanborn doesn’t have a 4-card major than not, she drawing a conclusion from a limited set of data. In fact, Sanborn’s claim that P(A) = P(B) = ½ may still be correct, because AAA and B will occur at random with a frequency of 1 time out of 4. So, saying A has occurred 3 times more often than B, doesn’t rule out they have equal probability before each decision is made. Even if there were 6A’s and only 2B’s, there would not be enough evidence to rule out a 50-50 agreement with conviction. (normally rejection requires a less than 10% chance of being a random occurrence.) So Levitina’s statement based on her experience, that usually her partner has no 4-card major, and Sanborn’s implication that there is maximum uncertainty as to whether she’d bid or pass can both be true. Furthermore, Sanborn needn’t strive to even out her decisions by consciously adding more suit bids; she should continue to make decisions independently on the merit of each hand as she has always done. Levitina may adjust her thinking based on the observed short-term trend, but that doesn’t make it correct. At roulette it would be like betting on black because black has been coming up recently, or doing the opposite because red is overdue.
We can’t judge our own actions objectively. We may be aggressive or passive and still consider ourselves to be unbiased. Logic may be applied as a justification to move us in our preferred direction, so we mistakenly believe ourselves to be purely rational decision makers. On the South hand I would have bid 1♠ rather than pass, changing the whole complexion of the deal. For me the quality of the suit, not merely the length, is an important consideration. Others might say, ‘change a few cards around and I could agree, say, change the ♠4 to the ♠9.’ Such changes are insignificant statistically, but they may lead to different decisions which are based on the hand as a whole and the relationship of one suit to another. Toss in the additional fact that one may react differently under different circumstances against different opponents, and we conclude that the sampling of bridge results is a mathematically flawed process, especially where the auction involves competition. Juries shouldn’t convict on such slim evidence. So it boils down to statements of prior agreements, but one can’t write down everything on a convention card. There must be allowances made for freedom of choice and table feel. Bridge bidding is information transmission subject to uncertainty of various degrees. So if one is revealing a tendency and not an agreement, an opponent must not assume 100% conformity to a trend which is subject to random variation. Levitina’s offered opinion based on experience concerning what Sanborn might have for her pass should not have been taken as a certainty. One shouldn’t be in a position of having to guess for the opponent’s benefit, then being held account if one has guessed wrong.
In a recent local game I balanced with a double of a vulnerable 2♠ opening bid on the following fine collection with 18 HCP: ♠ KJ ♥ AJT5 ♦ KT6 ♣ AQ64. Partner bid 3♣ and played there. Naturally I wished we were playing Lebensohl over doubles of weak two’s and was apprehensive that we might have missed 3NT. My RHO led the ♠A and continued the ♠T to dummy. Partner cashed the ♣A dropping the ♣K from the preemptor. Later the defenders got it wrong by assuming partner didn’t have 4 hearts. Partner’s 130 scored 80%. The preemptor had begun with ♠ Qxxxxxx ♥ Kx ♦ Qxxx ♣ K, an abomination sanctioned by the ACBL.
One might say this was bizarre but not uncommon. The opening bid was nothing out of the ordinary, although I detest it. I asked partner why he had bid 3♣ and not 3♥. He replied, ‘I knew you wanted me to bid 3♥, but my clubs were better than my hearts.’ The question arises, should I alert his 3-of-a-minor next time because it is an agreement that he might have 4 of a major? Isn’t that a ridiculous question? If he thinks bidding clubs is better than bidding hearts, good luck to him. There were many who didn’t agree with our bidding methods, but they will have to wait until next time to get even.
In the Wagar Cup deal, if Sanborn thought passing was better than bidding a 4-card major, good luck to her, too. When Levitina escapes to 2♣, it is a bit of a disappointment for Sanborn as this is her worst suit. At this point Wang could have doubled with ♣KQxx and beaten 2♣ by 1 trick, possibly 2 on very sharp defence, an optimum double dummy result. Wang passed, allowing Ran to takeout to 2♦ – an opportunity lost against vulnerable opponents. Really, what did Wang expect? There may have been some frustration expressed by her jump to 3NT. Deep Finesse tells us this contract can be defeated on any lead except a spade. After the ♣8 lead, defeat was in the cards on a natural defence of attacking spades from the North side, however, at the table, North rose with the ♣A and attacked with the ♥K, establishing the ♥J in declarer’s hand.
The Appeals Committee faced a task harder than that of King Solomon when faced with 2 complaining women over the custody of a baby. In his case, there was clearly a right and a wrong, but here both sides had failed to take full advantage of the opportunities presented to them. It is not uncommon that perfection is not achieved at the table, so it should not be expected when evaluating a result on a double dummy basis. In this case despite the helpful defence Wang went down in her 3NT contract by not approaching the diamond suit with sufficient caution. The Appeals Committee, perhaps disappointed in the expectation of perfection from both sides and reluctant to reward either side’s errant card play, in effect cut the baby in half in order to appear to be fair to both sides. One can only hope that AC decisions do not carry the weight of precedence.