[campboy]

Pict, on Sep 30 2010, 08:59 AM, said:

1. Because West's pass gave AI of the misunderstanding (but we are often told that subsequent AI does not 'trump' UI. I've been told this myself in this Forum)

It depends what you mean. When you have AI (subsequent or otherwise) you still have the UI and you must still carefully avoid taking advantage, in particular by not selecting an action which is demonstrably suggested over a logical alternative.
However, the presence of AI may mean that some actions are no longer logical alternatives and it may mean that the UI no longer demonstrably suggests anything (or changes which action is suggested).

Anyway, my reading of the EBU regulations concerning psyches suggests that catering for a psyche on this auction would not necessarly be considered fielding. WB 40.1.4 says:

Quote

Some examples of types of auction in which it is clear that the last caller may have a hand materially different from that which the auction to date has suggested:
(a) most auctions in which a player either passes when the partnership
agreements require a bid, or bids when the partnership agreement requires
a redouble;
( most auctions in which a player has bid two or more suits, has been given
preference by partner, been doubled for penalties, and bids another suit.
Of course a partnership agreement (which may be implicit, eg following repetitions of such incidents) relating to such an action is likely to be unauthorised, and so may give rise to an adjusted score (see Orange Book).

[lamford]

jallerton, on Sep 18 2010, 04:21 PM, said:

It seemed to us that if screens were in use, East would take an action (such as 2♥ or redouble) which caters for both possibilities and hence he is perfectly entitled to do the same thing here (or, to put it another way, there is no logical alternative to taking such an action).

I disagree with this. If screens were in use, East would not have the UI of the lack of an alert of 2C. Here he does, and must "carefully avoid" taking any advantage of this UI. I think all bids, or a redouble, after North's double are demonstrably suggested, and Pass is the only 73C compliant call.

[Pict]

campboy, on Sep 30 2010, 04:41 AM, said:

However, the presence of AI may mean that some actions are no longer logical alternatives and it may mean that the UI no longer demonstrably suggests anything (or changes which action is suggested).

I can see that if I have no choice about what to do, then I can't breach 73C.

But it can hardly be said that East has no choice in this case. What would you bid if partner had alerted, explained the 2C as inverted and then passed? Do you believe you have no choices to make? Perhaps you just meant to explain how AI could narrow choices, without relating it to this post.

By the way, 73C does not mention 'demonstrably suggested'. If we decide that 73C, despite what it says, is exactly equivalent in its effect to Law 16, then I don't mind, because then I have one process to understand: I might wonder why we have both Laws but that is another matter.

The bottom line for me is that I view the OP as describing a blatant violation of Law 73C. Of course I can be wrong (though not just because you don't like my attitude). Many posts relate to MI or to Law 16, or to inadequacies in the stated reason for appeal, or to what it means to say someone has an agreement. I just wonder why the TD and AC chose to ignore or discount Law 73 in their decisions. I can't see that they are allowed to do that, and I'd like to understand because currently I regard myself as bound by 73C.

[Free]

I wonder why North should ask about the 2♣ call. It's not alerted, and opener passed. So what's the point? Letting West look at you like you're a moron?

[campboy]

I didn't mean to suggest that there were no LAs in this particular case.

As to what I'd do at the table, that depends. Playing with screens, if I knew that 2♣ was forcing in our methods then I would presume partner had psyched whereas if I didn't think we had an agreement (or didn't know what it was), then I would presume partner took it as non-forcing. So without screens I would take the same action whether partner alerts or not, but what that action is depends on how confident I was about bidding 2♣.

Of course, if I wasn't sure 2♣ was forcing I would have bid something else in the first place.

[Pict]

campboy, on Sep 30 2010, 07:47 AM, said:

I didn't mean to suggest that there were no LAs in this particular case.

As to what I'd do at the table, that depends. Playing with screens, if I knew that 2♣ was forcing in our methods then I would presume partner had psyched whereas if I didn't think we had an agreement (or didn't know what it was), then I would presume partner took it as non-forcing. So without screens I would take the same action whether partner alerts or not, but what that action is depends on how confident I was about bidding 2♣.

Of course, if I wasn't sure 2♣ was forcing I would have bid something else in the first place.

Considering the case where partner alerts and passes is just a useful mental exercise to validate any notion that you 'had to' bid on.

I agree with Lamford that playing with screens is not a good analogy, because you have no UI in that case, so there seems nothing to compare.

I would not personally base any argument on the notion that West has psyched since it seems to me very much less probable than a misbid - system, mechanical or temporary aberration. I don't see how I can claim to avoid catering for an extremely unlikely pysch while catering for a much more probable forget.

Of course if you tell me this pair never forgets and partner often psychs that is different in general, but hardly fits this particular case, which will immediately falsify your proposition!

[aguahombre]

Pict, on Sep 30 2010, 07:20 AM, said:

I agree with Lamford that playing with screens is not a good analogy, because you have no UI in that case, so there seems nothing to compare.

It is not a good analogy, but since North and East are screen mates it would change everything. There may be no UI, but there might well be undisclosed information from partnership experience.

North will have been alerted to the nature of 2C. When it comes back to him, the OP has a statement by North that he would have passed it out with the proper information. This might not be the thing to do if opener had, in fact, psyched. Should East volunteer, for instance, that his partner has never psyched in her life before North acts?

[jallerton]

lamford, on Sep 30 2010, 10:57 AM, said:

jallerton, on Sep 18 2010, 04:21 PM, said:

It seemed to us that if screens were in use, East would take an action (such as 2♥ or redouble) which caters for both possibilities and hence he is perfectly entitled to do the same thing here (or, to put it another way, there is no logical alternative to taking such an action).

I disagree with this. If screens were in use, East would not have the UI of the lack of an alert of 2C. Here he does, and must "carefully avoid" taking any advantage of this UI. I think all bids, or a redouble, after North's double are demonstrably suggested, and Pass is the only 73C compliant call.

Why? Imagine for a moment that you are in East's position and you happen to know from authorised information that partner has psyched. What do you know about the hand?

1. Partner probably lacks opening values, but you know nothing about his shape.

2. Both opponents are limited to an extent (RHO started with a simple overcall. LHO has passed twice) so the opponents' bidding and East's own strength suggest that this is a part score deal.

3. E/W are not vulnerable at Pairs, so -50 or -100 will be better than conceding a making part score.

Hence Pass would be a poor choice of call, in my opinion.

In which suit should East compete? East doesn't know, because West's shape is not known. Is there a solution? Yes: cue bid the opponents' suit and hopefully partner will bid 3♣ if he has some length there (East's 2♣ bid is authorised to West) and otherwise West can bid his longest suit!

[jallerton]

Pict, on Sep 30 2010, 12:10 PM, said:

campboy, on Sep 30 2010, 04:41 AM, said:

However, the presence of AI may mean that some actions are no longer logical alternatives and it may mean that the UI no longer demonstrably suggests anything (or changes which action is suggested).

I can see that if I have no choice about what to do, then I can't breach 73C.

But it can hardly be said that East has no choice in this case. What would you bid if partner had alerted, explained the 2C as inverted and then passed? Do you believe you have no choices to make? Perhaps you just meant to explain how AI could narrow choices, without relating it to this post.

By the way, 73C does not mention 'demonstrably suggested'. If we decide that 73C, despite what it says, is exactly equivalent in its effect to Law 16, then I don't mind, because then I have one process to understand: I might wonder why we have both Laws but that is another matter.

The bottom line for me is that I view the OP as describing a blatant violation of Law 73C. Of course I can be wrong (though not just because you don't like my attitude). Many posts relate to MI or to Law 16, or to inadequacies in the stated reason for appeal, or to what it means to say someone has an agreement. I just wonder why the TD and AC chose to ignore or discount Law 73 in their decisions. I can't see that they are allowed to do that, and I'd like to understand because currently I regard myself as bound by 73C.

Consider the three different scenarios:

1. Playing without screens, partner does not alert 2♣ and then passes.

2. Playing without screens, partner does alert 2♣ and then passes.

3. Playing with screens, partner passes 2♣.

It is my contention that this East would almost certainly have bid 2♥ in scenario 2 or scenario 3. It is matter of fact that this East did bid 2♥ at the table (scernario 1).

Law 73C says:-

Law 73C said:

When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information.

If it is judged that the player would have made the same call in both the other two of the three possible scenarios above then he has clearly not taken any advantage from the UI.

[jallerton]

aguahombre, on Sep 30 2010, 04:43 PM, said:

Pict, on Sep 30 2010, 07:20 AM, said:

I agree with Lamford that playing with screens is not a good analogy, because you have no UI in that case, so there seems nothing to compare.

It is not a good analogy, but since North and East are screen mates it would change everything. There may be no UI, but there might well be undisclosed information from partnership experience.

North will have been alerted to the nature of 2C. When it comes back to him, the OP has a statement by North that he would have passed it out with the proper information. This might not be the thing to do if opener had, in fact, psyched. Should East volunteer, for instance, that his partner has never psyched in her life before North acts?

Playing with screens is a very good analogy when considering the effect of UI, as it is a very good way of asessing the logical alternatives; similarly, when polling players to assess logical alternatives we do not tell them about the UI.

Playing with screens is not always such a good analogy when considering the MI aspects, because in theory a player is only allowed to know about the opponents' agreements and sometimes a player receives additional information from his screenmate as a quirk of the screen regulations.

[Vampyr]

message deleted

[lamford]

jallerton, on Oct 1 2010, 05:39 PM, said:

It is my contention that this East would almost certainly have bid 2♥ in scenario 2.

You were on the AC and would have been better able to judge, but if a number of peers of East would have considered pass, and some would have selected it, then Pass becomes an LA. I was not there, so could not judge that, not even knowing who East was.

[bluejak]

jallerton, on Oct 1 2010, 05:39 PM, said:

If it is judged that the player would have made the same call in both the other two of the three possible scenarios above then he has clearly not taken any advantage from the UI.

That's not right, is it? When a player has UI from partner he does not take the same action as he would take without the UI. In nearly every case a player has a choice - otherwise why do players take so long thinking during the auction? - and some calls are no longer legal in the presence of UI. Even if it is a fact that he would have made the call in different circumstances, that does not make it legal, and being sure of what a player would do is a fairly dubious approach anyway.

[jallerton]

Sorry, David. Perhaps I did not express myself clearly enough.

If, hypothetically speaking:

(i) the player were allowed to know that partner had alerted 2♣, he would want to bid 2♥; and

(ii) the player were allowed to know that partner had not alerted 2♣, he would want to bid 2♥; and

(iii) the player did not know whether his partner had alerted 2♣ or not he would want to bid 2♥

then the UI from the alert or lack therof cannot possibly have affected his bidding and there can be no breach of Law 73C (no advantage taken of any UI).

[blackshoe]

This sounds like just another way to say "there is no LA to 2♥ for this player".

[Pict]

I hesitate to intrude, but I still think pass by East is so blindingly an option (LA) that I still am reluctant to accept jallerton's position.

Of course jallerton is honest and was there, but I think he might admit to an extreme position on the importance of AI in UI situations - would he?

[lamford]

jallerton, on Oct 1 2010, 11:28 AM, said:

2. Both opponents are limited to an extent (RHO started with a simple overcall. LHO has passed twice) so the opponents' bidding and East's own strength suggest that this is a part score deal.

If partner can have anything, then North-South can still have the balance of points or even game. North might be quite good for 1H - a lot of players with a good 4-5 in the majors will overcall 1H and then double back in. South won't have primary heart support, but can have a few values, but not suitable for some action on the previous round. It is rare that partner will psyche 1C second in hand - almost unheard of in my experience - but I could not imagine someone thinking 2C was inverted here either. The MI argument of the AC was well handled, and we are only arguing about the 20% of 460 - whether East-West deserve this. If I was North, I would get a good feel of how likely this inverted explanation was in reality, and whether West had ever psyched a 1C bid second in hand. In practice I would expect to work out what had happened and pass it out.

[mjj29]

bluejak, on Oct 1 2010, 03:13 PM, said:

jallerton, on Oct 1 2010, 05:39 PM, said:

If it is judged that the player would have made the same call in both the other two of the three possible scenarios above then he has clearly not taken any advantage from the UI.

That's not right, is it? When a player has UI from partner he does not take the same action as he would take without the UI. In nearly every case a player has a choice - otherwise why do players take so long thinking during the auction? - and some calls are no longer legal in the presence of UI. Even if it is a fact that he would have made the call in different circumstances, that does not make it legal, and being sure of what a player would do is a fairly dubious approach anyway.

I agree with jallerton here, which is not to say that the score could not be adjusted under L16.

IMHO if a player genuinely believes they have taken the action which they would have (always) taken anyway then they are not in breach of L73, but it may be judged by their peers that they had an LA and the score still be adjusted. Generally I would assess score adjustment under L16 and PPs under L73 and always tell players that their responsibility is to try and obey L73 , not to try and avoid things which would be judged under L16 as an LA.

[Pict]

mjj29, on Oct 2 2010, 04:04 AM, said:

I agree with jallerton here, which is not to say that the score could not be adjusted under L16.

IMHO if a player genuinely believes they have taken the action which they would have (always) taken anyway then they are not in breach of L73, but it may be judged by their peers that they had an LA and the score still be adjusted. Generally I would assess score adjustment under L16 and PPs under L73 and always tell players that their responsibility is to try and obey L73 , not to try and avoid things which would be judged under L16 as an LA.

Well I happen to disagree with some of what of you say.

The reasonable possible bids for East at the critical point are:

Pass
Redouble
2H
3C

We have concentrated on some of these to indulge discussion about 'psychs', but for no other good reason.

In the continuing absence of the views of the many TD's we have online, I will now withdraw my objections to jallerton's logic.

I have always preferred the idea that players can continue to play Bridge, in all circumstances. This thread has confirmed my conviction.

[bluejak]

Play bridge according to the rules, or play bridge despite the rules?