[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2011-March-07, 21:34, said:

Believe what you will; but the Rule of Coincidence doesn't exist, and we've spent the last 20 years stamping out the belief that it does. Without any UI (or unexpressed relevant non-"just bridge" partnership knowledge, of course - that is worth investigating, as I said before), you Just Can't rule it back because "there had to have been UI" or "there might have been UI". Which is what Ed is saying with "so, what law did South infract?" - it's not rhetorical, unless you believe that the answer is guaranteed to be "no"; in which case, even then, the law denies restitution for non-infractions.

This.

[AlexJonson]

blackshoe, on 2011-March-07, 21:50, said:

This.

I don't recall mentioning coincidence.

Would it be so strange to ask North why he bid two hearts, and ask South why he bid four hearts?

What would you think if North said it was 'just Bridge' to extend the range opposite a 3rd hand opening?

[bluejak]

mycroft, on 2011-March-07, 21:34, said:

Believe what you will; but the Rule of Coincidence doesn't exist, and we've spent the last 20 years stamping out the belief that it does.

I do not think that is quite right! The way it was applied, if there were two coincidental events, that proved something was wrong, and that certainly needed stamping out.

But if there are two strangenesses then you have evidence - not proof - suggesting something, and further investigation is reasonable.

[mycroft]

Investigation, yes. But "I believe it was affected by UI when his partner bid 3H. My evidence is scant - just that South bid 4H in this auction" is, in other words, "I think this call was affected by UI (because it's suspicious). My evidence of UI? He made this call, and it's suspicious" - is strictly coincidence. Sure, find out if there was something there (as I said, if the opponents don't say anything about what North did, it's likely there is no UI; I'd be investigating if there was partnership history that made it more likely for South to "get it right" than the opponents (unless that history was disclosed at the right time).

Having said that, in this case (and I know you're speaking in general, David), it's *so much more likely* that the point at which we need to rule is at 2S that any potential UI pushing South's raise to game is not going to be relevant.

[mycroft]

Specifically to Alex, if I was told that North "knew" it was weak, but it's obvious to stretch the range, then I'd ask first "what hands bid 1H, then?" and it goes into "you made your decision last time" territory (this isn't an 8-count after all; it's an absolute max pass); and, of course "it's not obvious to everybody; if it's your agreement you have to explain it. 'Weak' just doesn't cut it."

Now, if the auction had gone: p-p-1D-p;2H-2S-p-p; now I'd be much more likely to listen to "I decided to throw a spanner in and WJS, but the point was to hit them in game, and defending 2S is silly."

But Partner Gets Another Chance; bidding now, even with a "spanner throw", is masterminding (assuming no UI). Masterminding when you know you've masterminded before is incredibly insulting to partner; masterminding when you have UI becomes legally difficult; masterminding when you *know* you're going to get information that will be considered unauthorized, and that if you intend to continue to bid all 52 cards that the TD is likely to rule against you, is just stupid.

I also bring up the repeated discussions on "self-serving testimony", and the "could have known" theory (which is explicit in some laws, and implicit in general) - "I decided to stretch the range, because partner's a passed hand" definitely falls into both cases (treated with less (but not no) weight because it's self-serving, and "someone trying to break the rules would do exactly the same thing, therefore we can't allow you, who *I am sure is doing things completely innocently*, to do the same thing" (please note - that construction usually works very well; those who did do whatever, completely innocently, believe me; those who might, in their secret heart of hearts, be trying one on, believe me as well - and they hear the sarcasm).

[AlexJonson]

mycroft, on 2011-March-08, 10:53, said:

Specifically to Alex, if I was told that North "knew" it was weak, but it's obvious to stretch the range, then I'd ask first "what hands bid 1H, then?" and it goes into "you made your decision last time" territory (this isn't an 8-count after all; it's an absolute max pass); and, of course "it's not obvious to everybody; if it's your agreement you have to explain it. 'Weak' just doesn't cut it."

Now, if the auction had gone: p-p-1D-p;2H-2S-p-p; now I'd be much more likely to listen to "I decided to throw a spanner in and WJS, but the point was to hit them in game, and defending 2S is silly."

But Partner Gets Another Chance; bidding now, even with a "spanner throw", is masterminding (assuming no UI). Masterminding when you know you've masterminded before is incredibly insulting to partner; masterminding when you have UI becomes legally difficult; masterminding when you *know* you're going to get information that will be considered unauthorized, and that if you intend to continue to bid all 52 cards that the TD is likely to rule against you, is just stupid.

I also bring up the repeated discussions on "self-serving testimony", and the "could have known" theory (which is explicit in some laws, and implicit in general) - "I decided to stretch the range, because partner's a passed hand" definitely falls into both cases (treated with less (but not no) weight because it's self-serving, and "someone trying to break the rules would do exactly the same thing, therefore we can't allow you, who *I am sure is doing things completely innocently*, to do the same thing" (please note - that construction usually works very well; those who did do whatever, completely innocently, believe me; those who might, in their secret heart of hearts, be trying one on, believe me as well - and they hear the sarcasm).

Mycroft

Bear in mind I respect your views.

Also bear in mind that I'm a player/student and not an expert, so UI?, CPU?, MI? combinations thereof, you or bluejak or blackshoe are better placed to decide.

I find that people explain bids according to their system in the context of their hand. So, if they have a normal opener 3rd in hand, they don't even notice that they are 3rd in hand. So they inadvertently explain badly, perhaps.

Then partner (possibly) wakens them up...

I have no real idea what a TD or Appeal would make of this case - even if it were presented to them. But it is an interesting area, and I was surprised to be vilified by PaulG for commenting, because it sparked my interest.

I am not completely convinced that posts are reacted to by value rather than by author reputation here - perhaps inevitable but regrettable.

[655321]

AlexJonson, on 2011-March-08, 18:18, said:

I am not completely convinced that posts are reacted to by value rather than by author reputation here - perhaps inevitable but regrettable.

Do you find that people respond differently to your posts under the name AlexJonson from the way they responded to your posts under the name Pict?

[gordontd]

AlexJonson, on 2011-March-08, 18:18, said:

I am not completely convinced that posts are reacted to by value rather than by author reputation here - perhaps inevitable but regrettable.

Where do you think author reputation comes from?

[aguahombre]

AlexJonson, on 2011-March-08, 18:18, said:

I am not completely convinced that posts are reacted to by value rather than by author reputation here - perhaps inevitable but regrettable.

I think posts are "reacted to" much more for their content than because of the renown of the author --in the past few months--than ever before. I further observe that people who do react to posts they disagree with, are doing so in a more objective, mature way than before.

Except for me, of course. I still attempt dumb jokes, which are not taken as humor, from time to time.

[mycroft]

Hello Alex:

Written communication - especially on the Intertubes - is known to be difficult to interpret "tone" from.

If you are noticing any "look idiot" or other personal tone in my messages, I am sorry - I do not intend that. I'm trying to give the same sort of impersonal education I would give in person, or on the phone. I frequently fail, and I'm sorry for, and working on, that, but I try.

When you ask "why" questions, or "I'm confused" questions, I try to give reasoning; sometimes by asking the kinds of questions that people who haven't thought about it don't think of, seeing only the "obvious" way. When I mention that "there are people who are unethical, and because the C word is lawsuit-worthy, we can't say 'we think you cheated, so', but we still want to not let those people who 'might, just, sometimes, possibly, bend the law a little bit' get away with it, so we've structured the laws so that people who, in all innocence, do what cheaters would do, and explain it (again, correctly, and in all innocence) the way cheaters would if they were trying one on, get caught in the crossfire. And we apologize to them" - that's exactly what I mean; I'm not trying to imply anything about you.

Unfortunately, the reasoning that you gave, which I explained above boiled down to "South made a suspicious (to me) call; he had to have used UI to make it, and my evidence is that he made it, and it's suspicious", leads to another rabbit-hole, which has been labelled "Rule of Coincidence" or "if it <blanks- usually hesitates>, shoot it", depending on which branch you go down. We've spent years trying to turn those into "evidence, not proof", and it's important to not follow it again. You don't have that history; it might sound a bit brusque.

Oh, and there's no need to trust my bridge judgement; after all, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, administrate."

[barmar]

It's much too easy to deduce

Player has UI
Player does something questionable
Questionable action works to his benefit

Therefore: questionable action must have been influenced by UI, and we should rectify

But that's not how the UI law is written. You can't reason backward from the result to the cause, you have to work forward. Determine what LAs the player had, and whether the UI demonstrably suggests the one chosen over the others.

[AlexJonson]

655321, on 2011-March-08, 18:59, said:

Do you find that people respond differently to your posts under the name AlexJonson from the way they responded to your posts under the name Pict?

Your first time post under this name in this forum? Any posts here or elsewhere under alternatives?

[AlexJonson]

gordontd, on 2011-March-09, 02:32, said:

Where do you think author reputation comes from?

Valid question Gordon.

[AlexJonson]

barmar, on 2011-March-09, 17:40, said:

It's much too easy to deduce

Player has UI
Player does something questionable
Questionable action works to his benefit

Therefore: questionable action must have been influenced by UI, and we should rectify

But that's not how the UI law is written. You can't reason backward from the result to the cause, you have to work forward. Determine what LAs the player had, and whether the UI demonstrably suggests the one chosen over the others.

You are correct (in my opinion- not necessarily all posters).

But I can call the TD or even appeal if I believe I have a reason to do it. This auction from Aguahombre is so suspicious, I think even nnn.. would call the TD if he bothered to read the problem.

[aguahombre]

I posted the questions. It was not my auction.

[AlexJonson]

aguahombre, on 2011-March-10, 17:19, said:

I posted the questions. It was not my auction.

I didn't think it was your own auction, just the auction you posted.

But, give it one more post and you can almost certainly start and finish this thread.

[nige1]

aguahombre, on 2011-March-03, 17:54, said:

2♥ was explained by South as weak, sometime before the 2♠ balance. North actually had an 11-count with 6 hearts (somehow deemed inappropriate to open one or two the first time).
Director asks for advice, and the person says that 3♥ is AI to South that North has a hand invitational to game, but that the 3♥ call is based on UI and should not have occurred ---since the authorized information is that South was rejecting a game invite and might not even have heart support. I thought this was correct advice. Was it?

---

IMO, Probably. It is UI to North that South explained "2♥ is weak". If that is the actual partnership-agreement, then the explanation would inform North of his misbid. If 4♥ is a make, the director might conduct a peer-poll (or rely on his own judgement). A poll would probably establish that the UI demonstrably suggests that North rebid 3♥ rather than choose the less successful LA of pass.

[dburn]

Of course South has UI - he always does in this kind of position. Specifically, South has the UI that North has a good hand for 3♥ - with a bad one, North (who has the UI that South thinks 2♥ is weak) would not bid 3♥ because to do so would be a breach of Laws 16 and 73.

[aguahombre]

dburn, on 2011-March-11, 12:14, said:

Of course South has UI - he always does in this kind of position. Specifically, South has the UI that North has a good hand for 3♥ - with a bad one, North (who has the UI that South thinks 2♥ is weak) would not bid 3♥ because to do so would be a breach of Laws 16 and 73.

I don't understand that. If North has the weak one, and South has explained it as weak --then there has been no MI, no UI, and no reason for this post to begin with.

North could bid again with a slightly more offensive weak one (at his own peril) if he felt like it. (Mycroft, way back at the beginning.)

I don't think a correct explanation of your actual agreements is UI. It is just "I"...information that the opponents now know your agreements.

[dburn]

dburn, on 2011-March-11, 12:14, said:

Of course South has UI - he always does in this kind of position. Specifically, South has the UI that North has a good hand for 3♥ - with a bad one, North (who has the UI that South thinks 2♥ is weak) would not bid 3♥ because to do so would be a breach of Laws 16 and 73.

aguahombre, on 2011-March-11, 12:31, said:

I don't understand that. If North has the weak one, and South has explained it as weak --then there has been no MI, no UI, and no reason for this post to begin with.

North could bid again with a slightly more offensive weak one (at his own peril) if he felt like it. (Mycroft, way back at the beginning.)

I don't think a correct explanation of your actual agreements is UI. It is just "I"...information that the opponents now know your agreements.

North, who has the UI that South thinks North is weak, might bid 3♥ with an "ordinary" invitation in order to correct South's mistaken impression. This would be illegal, a kind of "unauthorised panic" - partner thinks I have a bad hand, so I had better bid again to let him know I have a good one.

But if North is acting legally, North can bid 3♥ now only if he has an exceptionally good hand for his original invitational 2♥, in view of the fact that South rejected his first invitation. South, who can work this out as well as you or I can, now has the UI that North has such a hand (or is cheating, but one does not presume that any more than one presumes partner is psyching).