[lamford]

WellSpyder, on 2014-November-27, 04:56, said:

It is surely at least arguable that it cannot be the UI that suggests a course of action if it isn't actually correct information.

The UI is the BIT and what it suggests. In this example, North wrongly, and rather stupidly, concluded that South was stretching. However, the UI from the speed of the 2NT bid, combined with the NS system, is that South was probably considering bidding game rather than passing. What North thought is largely irrelevant. What his peers playing the same system would think is used to determine whether we adjust.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2014-November-27, 04:36, said:

Did he pass because he thought the BIT made it more attractive?

He may well have done, but if his peers playing the same system think the BIT makes pass less attractive, then North has complied with 16B. And I think if you comply with 16B, you also comply with 73C. I think RMB1 once said that 73C is largely irrelevant as the test of whether you are taking any advantage is 16B.

[Vampyr]

WellSpyder, on 2014-November-27, 04:56, said:

Is this a generally held view? I seem to recall we have discussed this before, but I don't recall the conclusion, if any. It is surely at least arguable that it cannot be the UI that suggests a course of action if it isn't actually correct information.

I don't remember either what the conclusion was when a player deliberately tried to take advantage of UI but got it wrong. Of course this is cheating, but the adjustment is less clear.

[WellSpyder]

lamford, on 2014-November-27, 09:47, said:

The UI is the BIT and what it suggests. In this example, North wrongly, and rather stupidly, concluded that South was stretching. However, the UI from the speed of the 2NT bid, combined with the NS system, is that South was probably considering bidding game rather than passing. What North thought is largely irrelevant. What his peers playing the same system would think is used to determine whether we adjust.

I wasn't raising the question of what North thought relative to what his peers would think was suggested, but rather the question of what South actually had relative to what North's peers would think was suggested.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2014-November-27, 04:33, said:

If I agreed with your judgement (that bidding game has gone from 90% to 95%) I would certainly also agree with your conclusion. But as I said upthread, my judgement is that actually the chance of game going off has gone up significantly -- unless partner has a minimum, game should be very good, and the UI tells you he is more likely to hold a minimum. Yes, he is also more likely to hold a maximum, but I would guess that the chance of game making opposite a normal hand is already very high, and therefore won't change much between "normal" and "maximum". I also don't think it is true that partner is more likely to be heavy than light -- 15-counts are much much more common than 19-counts, after all. But I admit that I have no real knowledge of EHAA.

The one factor that we cannot for certain estimate is the chance of this particular South having a minimum. However, we can look at some simulations before we make a decision. For each possible point count for South, using the same North hand, we have the following (on 1000 deals): 15 3NT 60.3% 16 83.2% 17 92.3% 18 98.5% 19 3NT 99.3%. For 16-18, a normal invite, it is 88.6%. So you are correct, of course, that the low end will always be less than the middle and the high end will always be more than middle. Queen Anne is dead. I submit that for Pass to be demonstrably suggested, it would have to BOTH be more likely to be successful than 3NT as a result of the UI, AND have a (deemed) expectancy of >50% or >0 IMPs whichever is applicable in the form of scoring. Here that is not the case, as even opposite a sub-minimum invite game is clear favourite and most Norths should be able to judge that. The chief aim of the game is to score better than your opponents or other people, so it cannot be demonstrably suggested to make a call with a negative expectancy even if that negative expectancy is better than it would have been without the UI.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2014-November-27, 10:04, said:

I don't remember either what the conclusion was when a player deliberately tried to take advantage of UI but got it wrong. Of course this is cheating, but the adjustment is less clear.

I wondered what the ruling would have been if the (mythical) person on another thread who sneaked into the (mythical) director's room and printed out the hands for the next session and memorised them had printed out the wrong hands. The information then transpired to be of no use. The Laws do not seem to punish failed attempts to cheat.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2014-November-27, 10:29, said:

So you are correct, of course, that the low end will always be less than the middle and the high end will always be more than middle. Queen Anne is dead.

My point was that the high end will be significantly closer to the middle than the low end is. Your figures bear this out. Consequently, the chance of game making is lower opposite a random 15-or-19-count than it is opposite a normal invitation.

[blackshoe]

WellSpyder, on 2014-November-27, 04:56, said:

Is this a generally held view? I seem to recall we have discussed this before, but I don't recall the conclusion, if any. It is surely at least arguable that it cannot be the UI that suggests a course of action if it isn't actually correct information.

The law asks us to determine what information the player had, and what that information demonstrably could suggest. It does not ask us to determine the validity (truth or falsehood) of the information.

[jallerton]

Law73C said:

Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner

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.

Law 73C is a "must" Law. The definitions within the introduction to the Laws imply that "must" Laws takes precedence over "may" and "is allowed to" Laws/footnotes.

lamford, on 2014-November-27, 09:53, said:

He may well have done, but if his peers playing the same system think the BIT makes pass less attractive, then North has complied with 16B. And I think if you comply with 16B, you also comply with 73C. I think RMB1 once said that 73C is largely irrelevant as the test of whether you are taking any advantage is 16B.

If you really think that (you never used to do so) then you are wrong. Laws 16B and 73C say different things. Often complying with one of them will help to comply with the other, but not necessarily. Atempting to gain an advantage by making a call that would never occurred to you had you not received UI is clearly not "carefully avoiding taking any advantage" from that UI and is an obvious breach of Law 73C. If 16B has not been breached, the TD can use Law 12A1 to adjust for a breach of this Law.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2014-November-27, 13:59, said:

Law 73C is a "must" Law. The definitions within the introduction to the Laws imply that "must" Laws takes precedence over "may" and "is allowed to" Laws/footnotes.

I think Richard Hills referred to a different WBFLC minute that a more specific Law takes priority over a general Law. Law 75 takes priority over Law 16B apparently even though it contradicts it! Law 16B is more specific than 73C so that if one complies with 16B but breaks 73C the former is the Law by which one is judged in UI cases. And RMB1 expressed the opinion (I cannot find the thread now) that 73C was left in by accident when 16B came in. All TDs follow 16B, both in polling and ruling.

And the WBFLC have decreed that you are allowed to breach 73C when partner's alert or announcement indicates that you have made a mechanical error. So much for the "must" in 73C. And the "may not" in 16B is pretty strong: "Again, “must not” is the strongest prohibition,“shall not” is strong but “may not” is stronger – just short of “must not”."

Finally 73C has the word "advantage". Every definition of that word I can find on the Internet is associated with "benefit" or "gain". I see no benefit or gain in passing 2NT on this hand, so there is no breach of 73C.

[RMB1]

lamford, on 2014-November-27, 17:28, said:

... And RMB1 expressed the opinion (I cannot find the thread now) that 73C was left in by accident when 16B came in. ...

Did I!? I can believe it but now I would maintain that Law 73C is not redundant.

Law 73C was part of the "Proprietries" when they were distinct from the "Laws" and I think that explains the difference in approach to UI from Law 16B.

lamford, on 2014-November-27, 17:28, said:

... All TDs follow 16B, both in polling and ruling. ...

A poll targetted at a ruling under Law 16B may nevertheless indicate a breach of Law 73C and so to a procedural penalty (as well as a possible adjusted score under Law 16B).

[aguahombre]

Three pages later, we still have what Art and Vamp contend. And, they are still right.

Good grief. North is within a range; he is invited to game if he is at the top; he is at the top. He doesn't bid game; the invite followed a significant BIT.

The director should conclude that this was blatant use of UI. It doesn't matter what self-serving B.S. the offending side comes up with. It doesn't matter whether North's guess about the nature of the UI was correct or incorrect. It doesn't matter whether the contract made or went down. North committed a clear infraction which we are afraid to call what it is.

[blackshoe]

jallerton, on 2014-November-27, 13:59, said:

Laws 16B and 73C say different things. Often complying with one of them will help to comply with the other, but not necessarily. Atempting to gain an advantage by making a call that would never occurred to you had you not received UI is clearly not "carefully avoiding taking any advantage" from that UI and is an obvious breach of Law 73C. If 16B has not been breached, the TD can use Law 12A1 to adjust for a breach of this Law.

I agree with the first three sentences here. I'm not so sure about the fourth. Law 73C should lead us to Law 73F, which would allow an adjusted score if an player has drawn a false inference from a remark, tempo or the like from a player who has no bridge reason for the action, and that caused damage. In this case, the NOS drew no damage causing inferences; the damage was caused by the offending side stopping in 2NT instead of bidding 3NT and going down like everybody else did. So there is a potential rectification for a breach of Law 73C, but Law 73F says "not in this case". Now look at

Quote

Law 12B2: The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

The rectification provided in Law 73F seems to be "result stands". One could argue that this is both unduly severe to the NOS and unduly advantageous to the OS, but Law 12B2 says that doesn't matter. Does 12B2 not apply here? Why not? If it does apply, then I would argue that you can't use 12A1 to adjust the score, as that would be circumventing 12B2.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2014-November-27, 19:32, said:

Three pages later, we still have what Art and Vamp contend. And, they are still right.

Good grief. North is within a range; he is invited to game if he is at the top; he is at the top. He doesn't bid game; the invite followed a significant BIT.

The director should conclude that this was blatant use of UI. It doesn't matter what self-serving B.S. the offending side comes up with. It doesn't matter whether North's guess about the nature of the UI was correct or incorrect. It doesn't matter whether the contract made or went down. North committed a clear infraction which we are afraid to call what it is.

I call it what it is, an infraction of Law 73C. And I'm not looking at any BS from the offending side, self-serving or otherwise. I am looking at the law, and until I'm sure there's a legal path to a score adjustment, I'm not making one. I believe I did say that I think the OS rates a PP.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-27, 21:14, said:

I call it what it is, an infraction of Law 73C. And I'm not looking at any BS from the offending side, self-serving or otherwise. I am looking at the law, and until I'm sure there's a legal path to a score adjustment, I'm not making one. I believe I did say that I think the OS rates a PP.

I think that is right. Score stands, but PP for North for attempting to breach 73C but failing.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2014-November-28, 06:51, said:

I think that is right. Score stands, but PP for North for attempting to breach 73C but failing.

Oh, he breached Law 73C all right. He just didn't breach it in such a way as to cause a score adjustment to be legal.

[jallerton]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-27, 21:10, said:

I agree with the first three sentences here. I'm not so sure about the fourth. Law 73C should lead us to Law 73F, which would allow an adjusted score if an player has drawn a false inference from a remark, tempo or the like from a player who has no bridge reason for the action, and that caused damage. In this case, the NOS drew no damage causing inferences; the damage was caused by the offending side stopping in 2NT instead of bidding 3NT and going down like everybody else did. So there is a potential rectification for a breach of Law 73C, but Law 73F says "not in this case". Now look at
The rectification provided in Law 73F seems to be "result stands". One could argue that this is both unduly severe to the NOS and unduly advantageous to the OS, but Law 12B2 says that doesn't matter. Does 12B2 not apply here? Why not? If it does apply, then I would argue that you can't use 12A1 to adjust the score, as that would be circumventing 12B2.

I disagree. Law 73F is the mechanism for a score adjustment "if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit", i.e. it authorises a score adjustment if there has been a breach of Law 73D. Law 73F does not deal with rectification for violations of Law 73C (and nor does any other particular Law, except perhaps Law 23), so Law 12B2 is not relevant. Law 23 is a possibility, but otherwise Law 12A1 applies.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps you're right, I'll have to think about it some more. My immediate thought though is that if the Lawmakers intended 73F to apply only to 73D why did they construct Law 73 the way they did, and why does 73F refer to "the proprieties described in this law [presumably 73 in its entirety - ER]" instead of just to law 73D?

[blackshoe]

On further reflection, I have to agree with my earlier thought. 73F applies to all of 73, not just 73D. So if an infraction of any earlier part (than 73F) of law 73 does not lead to a false inference by an opponent, 73F is inoperative; it provides no rectification. Now there are two sides (AFAICS) to the ensuing discussion: either 12A1 applies and you adjust the score on the basis that the laws do not provide indemnity for the particular type of violation concerned — that being, I think, a violation of the proprieties in Law 73 which does not lead to a false inference by an opponent, but does lead to damage via some other mechanism — or 12B2 applies, and the director is prohibited from adjusting the score.

I agree with the sentiment that applying 12A1 here is "better" in a lot of ways, but I'm more concerned with "legal" than "better". To me, Law 73F implies that if there's no false inference tied to the violation of a propriety, there's no rectification. Suppose there were a revoke on trick 12. The law says there's no rectification for that. Would anyone now try to use 12A1 to adjust the score? Okay, in the current laws we have 64C, but that's new in this edition. What if it weren't there?

Put it another way: I'd be happy to be convinced that 12A1 applies. I'm not. Convince me.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2014-November-27, 19:32, said:

Three pages later, we still have what Art and Vamp contend. And, they are still right.

Good grief. North is within a range; he is invited to game if he is at the top; he is at the top. He doesn't bid game; the invite followed a significant BIT.

The director should conclude that this was blatant use of UI. It doesn't matter what self-serving B.S. the offending side comes up with. It doesn't matter whether North's guess about the nature of the UI was correct or incorrect. It doesn't matter whether the contract made or went down. North committed a clear infraction which we are afraid to call what it is.

Thanks for the vote of confidence; I am really mystified by all this discussion of what seems to me a WTP question.

It looks as if the attempt to take advantage of the UI was the player's chief reason for choosing his call. Adjust, maybe give a PP, next case.