[Stephen Tu]

Quote

But what else does South do after 4C-4S? Are you going to allow him to stop short of slam

So I take it this is in the context of 6d going down, and South signing off in 5d after 4S. Then I would have to judge if bidding 6d was at all probable if North had bid 4h/5c instead of 4s. I don't think I would force this with the actual South hand. Move the SK to the HK though then I probably would force 6d going down.

Edit: I didn't read your first paragraph carefully. Yes, I would have to consider whether North's haste in bidding 4S caused South to only bid 5d. I haven't really thought about that, it's not so clear because you still have potential heart + club loser, you have 9 HCP contributing to only 2 tricks if 4s is hypothetically a Gerber response. All of my other commentary is really solely based on the illegality of the 4s call, not other UI issues from the haste of the 4s call or the other hesitations in the auction.


Again, if North *doesn't* take the barred option, and South somehow manages to stay out of slam without further infractions, they get to keep their result.

And no, I don't think it's at all inconsistent to assign staying in 5 when slam makes in some cases while assigning 6 going down in others. It's just giving benefit of doubt to the other side when a clearly inadmissable alternative is chosen. If the offending side wants to keep their table results instead of possibly putting themselves in position of losing either way (whether slam makes or not), they should learn the rules, and choose allowed bids.

Quote

North used UI when he bid 4S. But what is a logical alternative? If you believe that 4C is Gerber, then the only LA (frankly, the only A) is 4H. Do you think that with South's hand, after the correct one-ace 4H, he isn't going to get to 6D?

We don't know for sure, and we don't have to. Surely South might stop in 5d since he is off the ace of spades and another possible trick or two in hearts/clubs. But we give the benefit of the doubt to the non-offending side. The opps gave up their opportunity to guess right by using the UI. What the logical alternatives are depend on what North thinks the response structure is over an invitational 3S. Is it natural, cue for spades, or Gerber? In all 3 it seems 4S is suggested by the UI, 4h/5c being LAs that aren't suggested by the UI.

Quote

If you don't believe in Gerber, is North doing anything but passing 4NT also use of UI? If not, again, can South do anything but 6D?

Once the barred bid of 4s is chosen, who cares? We only care if South is always going to go to 6d over other choices of calls.

Quote

you have to show how a likely road leads to anything that scores worse than 6D. And I can't do that, for any reasonable definition of "likely".

I consider both 4c-5c-5d and 4c-4h-5d likely. Maybe you disagree, but I don't really see it. Also it's "likely", not "most likely". Because the laws say "most favorable at all likely", and "most unfavorable at all probable", they don't say "most likely result had irregularity not occurred". So even you think 6d is more likely to be reached than 5d on the alternative auctions, I contend 5d is likely enough that the director is allowed to and should assign it.

Quote

is that if, after UI is transmitted, there is no path of calls that, should it happen to be the right one, won't be rolled back to something that fails, then you're in "if it hesitates, shoot it", and that's wrong. There has to be some call that won't be ruled as using UI.

Yes, there is. If North had bid 4h/5c instead of 4S, then I say no infraction, it's not using UI. Then they keep their result. I am not saying shoot it if UI is transmitted. I am saying shoot it if *UI is transmitted AND USED*. Basically I am saying that North deserves to get shot for bidding 4S. This is clearly a case of opps not knowing their non-use of UI obligations, having never been trained in them. Shooting them will hopefully help them learn.

I don't see why you are so keen on rewarding opps who break the laws. They should not be getting benefit of the doubt. Sure it's *possible* they get to 6d if they followed the law. But maybe they don't. If they want their results to count then don't break the laws!

[mycroft]

And the bottom of that was what I was saying - that the 4S call is a problem. Now, if you disallow that (and I agree, you should), you need to find two things:

1. for the offending side, the most unfavourable result that was at all possible
2. for the non-offending side, the most favourable result that was likely

NB: these two results need not be the same (although they frequently are)!

I do not wish to reward the opponents who break the laws. I explicitly said that 1. was needed to be done at the table, but irrelevant to this discussion. They are going to get the worst result at all possible. But 4C-4H-5D, for a Gerber pair, is saying that not only are they playing a stupid system, they are playing it stupidly. Ace-asking doesn't get you to good slams, it keeps you out of bad ones. If you are truly telling me that you are going to say that it is *likely* that they are going to bid Gerber and stop short of slam missing one ace - well, that's a quick ticket to appeal-land. 4C-5C? North hears 4C, says "okay, he's got a massive minor two-suiter, doesn't care about my spades, I have KJxx, let's go." Okay, reasonable. What does South think? Well, I know what a 5NT response to 4NT Blackwood is, but I don't know what 5C to 4C is (on the other hand, that's because I never have a void when partner bids Gerber. Let's go ask the "Gerber when obvious" crowd. If it does show "one-and-a-void", again, stopping short of slam is not an option (although you might have an argument for 6S)).

I really can't see any sequence that is *likely* that stops short of 6D. You'd have better luck telling me that we should award 6S-1 (Argument: P-1D; 3S-4C Gerber for Spades; 5C Ace-and-a-void - 6D; 6S (sorry, that's my void)).

At all possible? Oh yeah - I would say that 6S, down if the A doesn't drop singleton, is the worst result that is at all possible without the use of the UI. And the offenders are going to get that. Likely? Not so sure. Not automatic, mind you, but not sure.

[mycroft]

Short answer to the last paragraph (sorry, it's confused in all the other things):
I agree completely. But rewarding players who use UI and free-passing players whose opponents use UI are only the same thing if I *have to* assign the same score to both sides; which the law makes explicitly clear I do not.

I don't go as far as BobbyWolff and his "no windfall theory", but when the two don't line up, they don't line up.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

But 4C-4H-5D, for a Gerber pair, is saying that not only are they playing a stupid system, they are playing it stupidly. Ace-asking doesn't get you to good slams, it keeps you out of bad ones. If you are truly telling me that you are going to say that it is *likely* that they are going to bid Gerber and stop short of slam missing one ace - well, that's a quick ticket to appeal-land

In my experience, the players who play Gerber in all sequences are exactly the same group of players who often stay out of slams missing only one ace after using Gerber/Blkwood. They weren't sure they had 12 trick before they bid it, if they have all the aces they try slam, missing an ace they don't. Yes it's stupid and not good bidding. But it's how they & their peers bid. I think there is already plenty of evidence here that this pair doesn't know how to bid ...

I wouldn't be opposed to a split-score ruling on this hand.