[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-April-01, 05:00, said:

If you act as you would have done without UI -- provided you know for certain what you would have done, which is of course very rarely the case -- I do not see how you can ever gain an advantage from the UI, since you will get exactly the same score with or without it.

Even if you know for certain what you would have done, you gain an advantage by not selecting the demonstrably suggested logical alternative instead, where doing the latter would produce a worse result. I note that 16B does not require that logical alternative to provide a better result, but the TD will award an adjusted score if damage results, so it does by inference. I submit that there is no infraction of 16B which is not also an infraction of 73C, but there are infractions of 73C that are not infractions of 16B, mostly because of the latter's much discussed faulty wording.

[aguahombre]

jallerton, on 2011-April-01, 11:01, said:

Well, perhaps one could say that the "class of players in question" is limited to the players who are not classy enough to have remembered their system.

Natural seems to be their system against this type of 1D opening; so the person who bid 2D is not the one who forgot.

[dburn]

There is of course a further complication, which has not been touched on yet. And if you thought the concept of "reverse UI" was complicated, you should not even bother to read what follows, because you will not understand it.

In the actual case, assume that East-West's agreement about 2♦ is "natural". Now East has simply indulged in the customary unauthorised panic when he bid 3♦, and of course that call is cancelled.

East has received the information from North-South that both of them have opening bids - North opened the bidding, and South's double apparently showed 11-13. So, East is entitled to assume that West is merely pre-rescuing a possible contract of 2♦ doubled, not making a constructive bid of 2♥; he will pass 2♥ and whatever adjustment is given will follow from his pass.

But is East entitled to that information? Unless South's double of a natural 2♦ would also show an opening bid, East would not be allowed to know that South had one - then, of course, West might or might not be bidding hearts constructively, and a heart raise would certainly come into the reckoning as a logical alternative to pass. Did anyone ask North-South what South's double of a natural overcall would be?

That is the easy part. Now assume that East-West's agreement is in fact Michaels - East forgot when he made his bid. In that case, East may claim that he really is entitled to the information that both his opponents have opening bids, and therefore the knowledge (or at any rate the inference) that West has rubbish with long hearts and no diamonds. The Director rules on that basis, and North-South say this to the Appeals Committee:

"If we had been playing with screens, East would have told us that 2♦ was natural. Then, we wouldn't have told him that South had an opening bid, because that's not how we play over a natural overcall. Instead, we'd have told him that South had a negative double - takeout of diamonds, not necessarily very many points, nothing specific as to major-suit distribution, could be weakish with long clubs and a four-card major. East would have had to entertain the possibility that West was bidding hearts constructively, and it would be a logical alternative for him to raise hearts."

You are the Appeals Committee. How do you rule? For full credit, say also how the Director should rule if East-West's actual agreement about 2♦ was "undiscussed".

[campboy]

lamford, on 2011-April-01, 11:03, said:

Even if you know for certain what you would have done, you gain an advantage by not selecting the demonstrably suggested logical alternative instead, where doing the latter would produce a worse result.

Such an advantage is not an advantage gained "from that unauthorised information", though, since without the UI you would not have done any such thing. One might as well say that the only way to avoid any advantage from owning a gun is to shoot oneself in the foot with that gun.

[dburn]

aguahombre, on 2011-April-01, 11:01, said:

David: would you agree that:
1--3D is illegal use of UI?

Yes - it looks like a standard case of unauthorised panic.

aguahombre, on 2011-April-01, 11:01, said:

2--both pass and 3H are LA's, but pass might be suggested by the UI because it reduces the disaster?

No - as Poky and I have both remarked, when both opponents have shown opening bids and partner bids 2♥ over what is currently 2♦ doubled, it is not logical (unless you consider suicide logical) to assume that he is doing so constructively. If South had not doubled 2♦, or if North had explained South's double as "negative - takeout of diamonds, may be weak or strong, nothing specific as to distribution" then 3♥ would come into the reckoning as a LA.

aguahombre, on 2011-April-01, 11:01, said:

3--If a poll showed a portion of players would consider 3H and some of those would bid 3H --then 3HX should be the ruling (not a weighted ruling)?

No - some portion of players might also consider 4♥, and some of them might choose it, in which case a weighted score would be appropriate. Of course, such players should also have their belts and any sharp objects in their possession removed, and their appointed custodians should look in on them hourly.

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2011-March-31, 17:25, said:

gnasher was unsure whether 4♥ was even an LA. And there appears to be a volte-face from you here, where you now intend "using" the UI to decide to bid 4♥ which will go one more off. I can be persuaded that this is indeed your 73C obligation - indeed I argued so in another thread, which we no longer discuss - but I was under the perhaps false impression that your opinion was that "making the bid you would have made anyway" did not take "any" advantage of the UI and was therefore legal.

"Well, it seems to me that if a player bases his call solely on authorised information (as Law 12A3 demands) then that player is also "carefully avoiding taking any advantage" of any unauthorised information he may have (as Law 73C demands)." - jallerton - is the quote I recalled.

campboy, on 2011-March-31, 18:15, said:

As I understand Jeffrey's position -- and if it is as I understand then I agree with it -- making the call you would have made anyway does not gain an advantage, so is not an infraction of 73C, but it may still be an infraction of 16B, as it is here*.

I do not understand the idea that 3♥ is not suggested over 4♥. Without the UI either bid might be more successful, since 4♥ might make; with the UI it is clear that 3♥ will concede a smaller penalty than 4♥.

FWIW I would not have considered 4♥ at the table (without UI).

*(edit) assuming 4♥ is an LA, which I agree is not clear.

Campboy is correct (of course). A player must comply with all Laws, including Law 16A3, Law 16B and Law 73C.
It is curious how Paul's memory is so good that he can "recall" exactly what I said in one posting I made six weeks ago, and yet he apparently cannot recall my more detailed explanation of the same point made a few posts earlier in the same thread.

So for the benefit of Paul, I'll repeat the more detailed post on the subject:

jallerton, on 2011-February-21, 17:50, said:

I got this idea from a red book I was sent by the English Bridge Union a couple of years ago. It's called "The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007".

Quote

LAW 16 AUTHORIZED AND UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION
A. Players’ Use of Information
1. A player may use information in the auction or play if:
(a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source; or
(b) it is authorized information from a withdrawn action (see D); or
[c) it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following); or
(d) it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of thisinformation.
2. Players may also take account of their estimate of their own score, of the traits of their opponents, and any requirement of the tournament regulations.
3. No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous).
4. If there is a violation of this law causing damage the Director adjusts the score in accordance with Law 12C.

Law 16A3 seems clear enough to me, but you can never be too sure these days. I discovered recently that the ACBL has its own version of the Laws, so perhaps Planet Lamfordia has yet another version. Little changes to the wording can make a significant difference. For example, in the PL version of Law 92A, it can be inferred that the first "may" has been replaced by "must". Now it seems from Paul's remarks that the word "No" at the start of Law 16A3 has been replaced in PL by the word "Any".

Back in the rest of the universe, my understanding is that the Laws on the use of information operate as follows:

1. In accordance with Law 12A3, the player must decide purely on the authorised information available his possible actions. If he has only one vaguely plausible action available, then that is what he should choose.

2. If he has more than one plausible action (referred to later in the Laws a "logical alternatives") then either:

(i) If he has no unauthorised information, he is free to choose whichever logical alternative he thinks best; or

(ii) If he does have unauthorised information from partner, he may be restricted in which out of those logical alternatives he had considered in step 1 above may actually be chosen. The restrictions come from both Law 16B1[a]:

Quote

1. (a) After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

and Law 73C:

Quote

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.

Nowhere in the WBF Laws is a player authorised to use unauthorised information to determine which actions are logical alternatives. The unauthorised information is merely used to determine which logical alternative calls and plays (if any) are not permitted to be made.

So in this particular case, the player uses the authorised information available to ascertain his plausible actions.

Case A: If 4♥, 3♥ and Pass are all plausible actions ("logical alternatives"), then 16B instructs the player to reject 3♥ and Pass (and also 3♦).

Case B: If 4♥ is both (i) not a logical alternative and (ii) not an action that the player in question might have taken anyway, then an application of Step 1 above would only leave 3♥ and Pass as logical alternatives. Then 16B instructs the player to reject Pass (and also 3♦).

Case C: If 3♥ and 4♥ are both (i) not logical alternatives and (ii) not actions that the player in question might have taken anyway, then an application of Step 1 above would only leave Pass and perhaps 3♦ as logical alternatives. Then 16B allows the player to Pass (although may restrict the player from making other calls such as 3♦).

Ignoring any possible MI considerations, the TD rules as follows:

Case A: adjust to 4♥x by West, weighting the number if tricks if appropriate.

Case B: adjust to 3♥x by West, weighting the number if tricks if appropriate.

Case C: adjust assuming that East passes 2♥. Unless it is judged that North/South might now just bid 3NT, adjust to 2♥x by West, weighting the number if tricks if appropriate.

[jallerton]

dburn, on 2011-April-01, 11:13, said:

There is of course a further complication, which has not been touched on yet. And if you thought the concept of "reverse UI" was complicated, you should not even bother to read what follows, because you will not understand it.

In the actual case, assume that East-West's agreement about 2♦ is "natural". Now East has simply indulged in the customary unauthorised panic when he bid 3♦, and of course that call is cancelled.

East has received the information from North-South that both of them have opening bids - North opened the bidding, and South's double apparently showed 11-13. So, East is entitled to assume that West is merely pre-rescuing a possible contract of 2♦ doubled, not making a constructive bid of 2♥; he will pass 2♥ and whatever adjustment is given will follow from his pass.

But is East entitled to that information? Unless South's double of a natural 2♦ would also show an opening bid, East would not be allowed to know that South had one - then, of course, West might or might not be bidding hearts constructively, and a heart raise would certainly come into the reckoning as a logical alternative to pass. Did anyone ask North-South what South's double of a natural overcall would be?

I am glad to read that you have now come round to the view I was expressing on the very long thread.

dburn, on 2011-April-01, 11:23, said:

No - some portion of players might also consider 4♥, and some of them might choose it, in which case a weighted score would be appropriate. Of course, such players should also have their belts and any sharp objects in their possession removed, and their appointed custodians should look in on them hourly.

You can't include both 3♥x and 4♥x (unless you think West would bid 4♥ over 3♥) in your weighting as that would be Reveleyesque.

[blackshoe]

jallerton, on 2011-April-01, 11:45, said:

So in this particular case, the player uses the authorised information available to ascertain his plausible actions.

Case A: If 4♥, 3♥ and Pass are all plausible actions ("logical alternatives"), then 16B instructs the player to reject 3♥ and Pass (and also 3♦).

Case B: If 4♥ is both (i) not a logical alternative and (ii) not an action that the player in question might have taken anyway, then an application of Step 1 above would only leave 3♥ and Pass as logical alternatives. Then 16B instructs the player to reject Pass (and also 3♦).

Case C: If 3♥ and 4♥ are both (i) not logical alternatives and (ii) not actions that the player in question might have taken anyway, then an application of Step 1 above would only leave Pass and perhaps 3♦ as logical alternatives. Then 16B allows the player to Pass (although may restrict the player from making other calls such as 3♦).

Ignoring any possible MI considerations, the TD rules as follows:

Case A: adjust to 4♥x by West, weighting the number if tricks if appropriate.

Case B: adjust to 3♥x by West, weighting the number if tricks if appropriate.

Case C: adjust assuming that East passes 2♥. Unless it is judged that North/South might now just bid 3NT, adjust to 2♥x by West, weighting the number if tricks if appropriate.

It might have helped avoid confusion if you had written "16A3" where you meant that (as I think you did), rather than "12A3".

Regarding your case A, I would restate it as "if 3♥, 4♥, and pass are LAs, you cannot bid (among other things) 3♦". This syllogism is not valid. I suppose if I go back and re-read the thread, I might figure out why 3♦ is also verboten, but I think at this late date and in order to avoid confusion, you would have done better to include the reasoning for it in your post. The same applies to your case B. None of your 3 cases address the question of what "could demonstrably be suggested" by the UI, although that is also an important part of the journey to a ruling. So I disagree with your "the TD rules as follows". The TD has more things to consider than what calls are logical alternatives.

[jallerton]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-01, 12:13, said:

It might have helped avoid confusion if you had written "16A3" where you meant that (as I think you did), rather than "12A3".

Yes you are right, I did mean 16A3. I have edited the quote above as suggested, for clarity.

blackshoe, on 2011-April-01, 12:13, said:

Regarding your case A, I would restate it as "if 3♥, 4♥, and pass are LAs, you cannot bid (among other things) 3♦". This syllogism is not valid. I suppose if I go back and re-read the thread, I might figure out why 3♦ is also verboten, but I think at this late date and in order to avoid confusion, you would have done better to include the reasoning for it in your post. The same applies to your case B. None of your 3 cases address the question of what "could demonstrably be suggested" by the UI, although that is also an important part of the journey to a ruling. So I disagree with your "the TD rules as follows". The TD has more things to consider than what calls are logical alternatives.

It has already been generally agreed earlier in the thread that the UI demonstrably suggests:

3♦ over Pass/3♥/4♥; and
Pass over 3♥/4♥; and
3♥ over 4♥.

Sorry for not stating this explicity as part of my reasoning.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-April-01, 11:45, said:

Nowhere in the WBF Laws is a player authorised to use unauthorised information to determine which actions are logical alternatives.

We discussed this on the earlier thread, where you again posted voluminous extracts from the Lawbook for the unfortunate souls who have Internet access, but no download facility. I pointed out that it was illogical, and impossible, to have to avoid logical alternatives suggested by the UI without using the UI and the contradiction was caused by alternative meanings of the verb "to use", a view with which dburn seemed to concur. One issue is that the Laws are so badly worded that they are almost incapable of interpretation.

You are also recommending "using" the UI to decide which actions are demonstrably suggested in selecting pass over 2H or 3H over 4H, are you not?

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-April-01, 12:01, said:

I am glad to read that you have now come round to the view I was expressing on the very long thread.

Has he?

[richlp]

jallerton, on 2011-April-01, 11:01, said:

Well, perhaps one could say that the "class of players in question" is limited to the players who are not classy enough to have remembered their system.

Why the focus on not remembering their system?

Quote

1♦ is 11-15, 1+♦. Possible shapes are:
- Real suit
- 4414
- topless 6+♣
- 11-13 flat
1♦ was alerted, asked, and explained.

EW's system card contain the entries `Cue of natural one of a suit: Michaels' and `Defence to Short 1♣/♦: Natural', though these are the defaults for this EBU card.

To me the logical conclusion is that West treats 1D as "Natural" (Real suit possibility) and East treated it as "Short" (all the other possibilities)

[blackshoe]

I believe it was Berkowitz and Manley who said of the Precision 1♦ opening "within the context of the system, 1♦ is a natural bid." Of course, that ignores the definition of "natural" in regulations - and in their version, the bid holds a minimum of 2 diamonds.

[bluejak]

Maybe. One of the most annoying things about the game is people who use a term, but instead of using the general definition, make up their own, and see nothing wrong with that. A right pain in the behind, they are.

[dburn]

jallerton, on 2011-April-01, 12:01, said:

I am glad to read that you have now come round to the view I was expressing on the very long thread.

lamford, on 2011-April-01, 13:43, said:

Has he?

I do not believe that I have expressed any view at all - I have merely asked some questions to which I do not know the answers. Those questions have to do with whether information acquired by a player solely as a result of his own infraction (in some cases) or lapse of memory (in other cases) is authorised to that player.

In the matter of the differences between the obligations placed on players by Law 16 and the obligations placed on players by Law 73, here I say nothing except what Hilaire Belloc said (on a different topic, to be sure):

The question's very much too wide,
And much too round, and much too hollow,
And learned men on either side
Use arguments I cannot follow.

But when those learned men are such as jallerton and lamford and bluejak, I am aware that I should try to follow their arguments and come to some conclusion. I promise to do so, although I do not at present see their relevance to this particular case.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-April-01, 11:45, said:

It is curious how Paul's memory is so good that he can "recall" exactly what I said in one posting I made six weeks ago<big snip>

Case C: If 3♥ and 4♥ are both (i) not logical alternatives and (ii) not actions that the player in question might have taken anyway, then an application of Step 1 above would only leave Pass and perhaps 3♦ as logical alternatives. Then 16B allows the player to Pass (although may restrict the player from making other calls such as 3♦).

I must confess I did not recall it exactly, but used "control+C" and "control+V" to copy and paste. But I am flattered by your opinion of my memory.

Reading dburn's erudite post, it is now clear that even raising to 3H is ridiculous, as 2H is not constructive in the authorised auction, and it would just be preference in the unauthorised auction.(I did not consider the auction properly, and was more interested in being a smart arse, correcting gnasher's analysis.) But if 3H were an LA, I agree we should impose it on East. However, the basis for this decision (it will go one more off than 2H) is certainly using (in one meaning of the word) the UI (but clearly not to our advantage), contrary to 16A. Am I right in understanding your position that you can take into account the UI to decide on what is demonstrably suggested, but not take it into account in deciding on what is a logical alternative? That is what I think the Law should be.

On the actual ruling, I think that it should now be
something like:
80% of 2Hx -800
20% of 2Hx -500

And no, I would not impose 3NT on N/S - this is unlikely to make, even on the heart lead, as there would be no reason to get the clubs right, and a better penalty is surely available from 2Hx

[bluejak]

lamford, on 2011-April-02, 02:47, said:

Reading dburn's erudite post, it is now clear that even raising to 3H is ridiculous, as 2H is not constructive in the authorised auction, and it would just be preference in the unauthorised auction.

I suppose that I have been affected by the English view that a new suit is constructive even over a takeout double. Since I consider this standard I assume we would be told in the OP if it was not true for this pair.

Of course one could argue that 2♦ might not be natural for this pair, but I presume that if 2♦ were natural as the player thought who bid it then he would play 2♥ over it the same as 2♥ in the sequence (1♦) 2♣ (dbl) 2♥.

If 2♥ is not constructive it obviously affects what I think should be the adjustment. However, if 2♥ is constructive I am not too impressed by the argument that this side can get out for a cheaper adjustment because they are allowed to assume a constructive action is not constructive because the opponents have shown points.

[aguahombre]

lamford, on 2011-April-02, 02:47, said:

Reading dburn's erudite post, it is now clear that even raising to 3H is ridiculous, as 2H is not constructive in the authorised auction, and it would just be preference in the unauthorised auction.(I did not consider the auction properly, and was more interested in being a smart arse, correcting gnasher's analysis.) But if 3H were an LA, I agree we should impose it on East. However, the basis for this decision (it will go one more off than 2H) is certainly using (in one meaning of the word) the UI (but clearly not to our advantage), contrary to 16A. Am I right in understanding your position that you can take into account the UI to decide on what is demonstrably suggested, but not take it into account in deciding on what is a logical alternative? That is what I think the Law should be.

Also having read David's erudite post, it is now clear to me that 3H is far from ridiculous.
Using his "reverse UI", and given that the 2H bidder must be assumed to have long hearts --the fact that LHO has 11+ is unauthorized. The 2D bidder, when choosing between pass and 3H should assume a negative double of his natural bid, even though he knows -- because of the explanation he shouldn't be allowed to use -- that is not the case.

In Bluejack's world, and in mine, there would be plenty of room for pard to have a constructive 2H bid after a negative double of a natural overcall; the negative doubler could have 4-6 in the blacks with an 8-count.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2011-April-04, 09:53, said:

In Bluejack's world, and in mine, there would be plenty of room for pard to have a constructive 2H bid after a negative double of a natural overcall; the negative doubler could have 4-6 in the blacks with an 8-count.

I agree that we should find out from this pair whether 2H would be constructive if one replaced 2D with 2C and gave South a negative double. But even so, I would not raise. I agree that the fact that South was doubling a Michaels cuebid is unauthorised, but we still have something like a weak NT on our right, and a double which presumably implies the majors on our left. Give partner something like xxx AQJxx xx Kxx and even 2H is a struggle.