[lamford]

duplicated

[jallerton]

mycroft, on Mar 10 2010, 08:13 PM, said:

Reading it the other way allows the "illogical alternative" - "I know that the UI says bid 4S instead of (3NT/passing the double/whatever). But making the 'logical alternative not suggested by the UI' call guarantees me a zero. So, I'll bid 6S instead. That's not even sane, but there's a chance, if partner's got a perfecto and the cards all align right, that it will make - and my zero becomes a top. When they claim I can't make that call, I'll get them to prove that the call I took was a logical alternative. Since they can't, because it clearly isn't, I'll get to keep my top."

Well this is a good example of a case where, whilst it could be argued that Law 16B has not been breached, Law 73C certainly has been.

If Law 16B has not been breached, we can use Law 12A1 to adjust the score for a breach of Law73C, so the 6♠ bidder does not get to keep his top once the TD has given his ruling.

[barmar]

Is a wild gamble really "taking advantage from the UI"? It seems like the opponents get an automatic double shot from this: if it goes down they get a good board, if it makes they can call the TD and get it adjusted. This seems like just another version of "if it hesitates, shoot it", because once there's a hesitation there's almost no way for that side to get a good board. The receiver of the UI knows that he's can't take the normal action, so his choices are to take the contraindicated action (which he's pretty sure will result in a bad board) or take a flyer and pray.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 11 2010, 05:20 PM, said:

All this comment tells me is that a slow double doesn't suggest anything unless you know your partner well.

Well, your hand, which is authorised, tells you quite a lot, but you are not allowed to discern the reasons for the BIT from your hand, in my opinion. The opponents have bid and raised spades which tells you that your partner is likely to have short spades. Now, you know from the BIT that he does not have ♠ x ♥ AQxx ♦Qxxx ♣AKJx. You might indeed know which hand partner will double on and which he will not, and that is authorised. What is not authorised is for you diagnose the most likely reason for the BIT, which is exactly the reason specified by dburn. It is much more likely (not 55% - 45% as jallerton suggested) that partner has a distributional hand and could not find anything better than double.

If you can suggest a hand that would double slowly that wants you to Pass, then I am happy to hear about it.

[mjj29]

lamford, on Mar 11 2010, 06:24 PM, said:

Note that 73C does not say "some" or "a tiny amount of" or "a significant proportion of ". It says ANY. And I submit that bidding 3NT does take SOME (however small) advantage of the UI. I struggle to think of hands that will double slowly and want me to pass. I can think of many that will double slowly and not want me to pass. But you are quite entitled to see it differently. And no, I don't play double as optional.

And I see your reasoning on 73C as leading to the conclusion that one must always bid 7 of ones shortest suit after any UI has been transmitted this way, surely this law must be taken with some common sense....

[lamford]

mjj29, on Mar 11 2010, 07:21 PM, said:

And I see your reasoning on 73C as leading to the conclusion that one must always bid 7 of ones shortest suit after any UI has been transmitted this way, surely this law must be taken with some common sense....

I hope you realised that my suggestion to bid 7S was rather tongue-in-cheek. Yes, there must be some practical limits to the application of ANY. But that does not extend to making one's normal bid.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 11 2010, 05:20 PM, said:

Without having read this thread I was given your sample hand as a problem after 2S P 3S and I doubled with no difficulty, thinking it blindingly obvious. The person who gave me the hand also thought double obvious.

I tried a few strong players on OKB and they thought double had the big disadvantage on the hand I quoted, that partner might pass. But even if you think double is automatic on that hand, if you transfer a diamond to any other suit, you have a big problem. Your point actually reinforces my view that partner is probably more distributional than that, as you doubled rather quickly on the 0-4-3-6 example I gave.

And the idea that you might argue that you have done nothing wrong because some simulation was not available to you is ridiculous. If you think it is slightly more likely that partner has a hand that does not want you to pass, then I think that you have to pass as you must not take ANY advantage of the UI.

Note that 73C does not say "some" or "a tiny amount of" or "a significant proportion of ". It says ANY. And I submit that bidding 3NT does take SOME (however small) advantage of the UI. I struggle to think of hands that will double slowly and want me to pass. I can think of many that will double slowly and not want me to pass. But you are quite entitled to see it differently. And no, I don't play double as optional.

[dburn]

Suppose that instead of merely saying "double", partner says "double, but please don't leave this one in".

Now, L16 says that (in effect) you may bid if among players of your class using the methods of your partnership:

[a] only an insignificant number would consider passing, or

[b] although a significant number would consider passing, fewer than "some" would actually pass.

Exactly what constitutes "a significant number", and "fewer than some", is left as an exercise for the reader (or for the Regulating Authority). However, if either of the conditions [a] and [b] above is met, then passing is not considered a logical alternative to bidding, and you are not obliged to pass.

L73 on the other hand says that (in effect) you should pass if bidding could be construed as taking "any advantage" of the unauthorized information from your partner's extraneous remark. This to me implies that unless it is completely obvious from your hand that to pass would be ridiculous, you are obliged to pass.

The question is, then, to what extent a very slow double in fact carries the unspoken message "but please don't leave this one in". It is my belief that this is the overwhelmingly likely meaning of a very slow double (as opposed to merely a slow double, which may simply convey the unspoken message "I don't have a hand that would double in tempo", and says nothing about whether the hand is more or less suitable for having partner leave the double in).

That is: since I and others have described pass as "reasonable" rather than "ridiculous", I believe that although L16 says I may bid, L73 says I must pass. Of course I need not jump to seven of my shortest suit - that is not the issue. But if I did jump to 7♥ and it made, I believe that the score should still be adjusted not under L16 (7♥ is certainly not a logical alternative suggested over anything by the unauthorized information) but under L73 (which compels me to pass).

[jallerton]

dburn, on Mar 12 2010, 12:50 AM, said:

L73 on the other hand says that (in effect) you should pass if bidding could be construed as taking "any advantage" of the unauthorized information from your partner's extraneous remark. This to me implies that unless it is completely obvious from your hand that to pass would be ridiculous, you are obliged to pass.

That is: since I and others have described pass as "reasonable" rather than "ridiculous", I believe that although L16 says I may bid, L73 says I must pass.

I understand your point, but the law-makers may take the view that they have tried to set the definition of logical alternative such that an action is deemed to be one unless it is completely obvious that the action is ridiculous.

There are circumstances (some of which have been mentioned upthread) where a player has obeyed one of these Laws but not the other. However, most of the time, if you are obeying Law 16B you are probably also obeying Law 73C, and vice versa.

Quote

The question is, then, to what extent a very slow double in fact carries the unspoken message "but please don't leave this one in". It is my belief that this is the overwhelmingly likely meaning of a very slow double (as opposed to merely a slow double, which may simply convey the unspoken message "I don't have a hand that would double in tempo", and says nothing about whether the hand is more or less suitable for having partner leave the double in).

I am pleased to note your agreement that a double being merely "slow" does not make it more or less attractive to pass.

I am fascinated by your suggestion that a "very slow" double must convey a message about the suitability of the hand for defending, but I disagree. [In the opening post, the double was described as "very, very slow". Does that make a difference?]

Whilst the (extreme) slowness of the double might be because:

[a] partner has relatively poor defence,

it might equally be because:

[b/c/d] partner's holding in hearts, diamonds or clubs is significantly worse than you would normally expect for a double, and that he is concerned that you make take out his take-out double into his weakness.

It might even be because:

[e] he is relatively light in high cards and fears a 3NT bid from you; if you were allowed to know this information (for example, temporarily imagine that partner is a passed hand) you might well decide that 3NT is unlikely to make and that the percentage action at matchpoints is to pass.

In the absence of extensive partnership experience on breaches of tempo in this type of sequence, there is no reason to expect the explanation for the slowness to be [a] any more than it might be [b], [c], [d] or even [e].

As [a], [b], [c], [d] and [e] each suggest different actions may be successful, no call is suggested by the UI and hence (in Law 73 parlance) there is no call which takes any advantage of it.

[dburn]

jallerton, on Mar 13 2010, 06:03 AM, said:

Whilst the (extreme) slowness of the double might be because:

[a] partner has relatively poor defence,

it might equally be because:

[b/c/d] partner's holding in hearts, diamonds or clubs is significantly worse than you would normally expect for a double, and that he is concerned that you may take out his take-out double into his weakness. 

It might even be because:

[e] he is relatively light in high cards and fears a 3NT bid from you; if you were allowed to know this information (for example, temporarily imagine that partner is a passed hand) you might well decide that 3NT is unlikely to make and that the percentage action at matchpoints is to pass.

The difficulty I have with this kind of reasoning is that no break in tempo (or other way of conveying unauthorized information) ever seems to suggest anything to you. Since there are almost always (at least) two conflicting reasons why someone might do something slowly, his partner can always argue "well, it might have been this, or it might have been that, or it might have been..." and (as far as I understand your argument) do whatever he likes without fear of breaking Law 73C.

This in effect renders Law 73C inoperative. Not that I would have any objection to rendering it completely inoperative by removing it from the Laws altogether, since I consider that its existence renders Law 16B1 inoperative - but your argument appears to me also to do that. I have sympathy with the notion that all questions of whether unauthorized information has been used should be resolved by considering what the peer group of the player concerned would do in the absence of such information, and that is the way in which Law 16B1 is currently implemented. Thus I would prefer to retain Law 16B1 and to remove Law 73C, but I understand the opposite view.

What I would prefer does not matter, of course. Since both Laws currently exist, cases must currently be judged under both Laws. Experience suggests - nay, demonstrably suggests - that the slower a player's action, the less happy that player is at the thought that it will conclude the auction, and in general rulings under L73C are given on that basis.

I observe in passing that in your cases [b], [c] and [d], the suggestion from the break in tempo is still to bid, just as it is in case [a]; if partner's holding in, say, hearts or clubs is "significantly worse than I would normally expect", the opponents will be able to add several tricks in that suit to the several tricks they have in spades, and 3♠ doubled will easily make. Only if I knew that case [e] obtained - partner only doubles very, very slowly when he has shape-suitable rubbish opposite which I will not make 3NT with this hand - would the suggestion be to pass (and then I would bid, because that is what L73C says I must do).

[jallerton]

dburn, on Mar 13 2010, 12:10 PM, said:

The difficulty I have with this kind of reasoning is that no break in tempo (or other way of conveying unauthorized information) ever seems to suggest anything to you. Since there are almost always (at least) two conflicting reasons why someone might do something slowly, his partner can always argue "well, it might have been this, or it might have been that, or it might have been..." and (as far as I understand your argument) do whatever he likes without fear of breaking Law 73C.

No, of course I was not saying that about the general case. Each case has to be treated on its merits.

There are plenty of auctions where it is fairly certain what partner was thinking about. Now we need to consider the logical alternatives/carefuly avoid taking advantage criteria laid down in Laws 16B and 73C.

There are plenty of other auctions where, although it is not clear what partner was thinking about, all possibiltities suggest that it would be advantageous to take action A. Then we also need to consider the logical alternatives/carefuly avoid taking advantage criteria laid down in Laws 16B and 73C.

But in cases such as this one, where it is not clear what action has an increased expected matchpoint score as a result of the UI, the best way to ensure that you do "carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorised information" is to make the same call you would have done without the UI. The problem with varying your call, is that you will feel awkward if partner transpires to hold a hand opposite which the abnormal action you choose turns out to be the successful one. As you once remarked yourself, "one is not allowed to be clever after receiving UI".

[dburn]

jallerton said:

There are plenty of auctions where it is fairly certain what partner was thinking about.  Now we need to consider the logical alternatives/carefully avoid taking advantage criteria laid down in Laws 16B and 73C.

There are indeed, but "what partner was thinking about" may be "fairly certain" to the man across the table, but not certain at all on purely analytical grounds. As Jan Martel rightly remarks, clues from body language (or table presence, or previous partnership experience) will often render the nature of a player's problem completely obvious to his partner, although the position may be such that nothing could be inferred by a director or an appeals committee told only that there was a "break in tempo".

That is why I tend to put my faith in the principle I have stated earlier: that the slower an action, the more relieved the actor would be if the action were not followed by three passes. Otherwise, in order to ascertain whether any Law has actually been broken in cases such as 1NT- slow (natural) 2NT, directors and appeals committees would need to ask players questions such as "does your partner overbid more often than he underbids, or vice versa?" which would be [a] unnecessarily accusatory and [b] vaguely farcical, since it would be close to impossible to verify the answers.

jallerton said:

There are plenty of other auctions where, although it is not clear what partner was thinking about, all possibiltities suggest that it would be advantageous to take action A.  Then we also need to consider the logical alternatives/carefully avoid taking advantage criteria laid down in Laws 16B and 73C.

This seems to me seriously wrong: if all possibilities suggest that taking action A would be advantageous, Law 73 expressly forbids the taking of action A unless all actions not-A would be ridiculous.

jallerton said:

But in cases such as this one, where it is not clear what action has an increased expected matchpoint score as a result of the UI, the best way to ensure that you do "carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorised information" is to make the same call you would have done without the UI.

In this case it is not clear what action has an increased expected matchpoint score anyway; some pretty good players here have said that pass is "reasonable" or "could well be right" (but that they themselves would bid). I contend that opposite the overwhelming majority of hands on which a representative sample of the bridge-playing population would double very (very) slowly, one will increase one's actual matchpoint score by bidding rather than passing. If you believe otherwise, that is a question of judgement and not a question of principle; but the principle in question remains whether even if "no one" would actually pass (so that bidding is legal per Law 16), passing is nevertheless mandated by Law 73.

I have tried to express this as clearly as I can in an earlier post: if partner's double were accompanied explicitly by "but please don't pass", I think that Law 16 allows me to bid but Law 73 does not. It is not clear to me that you have actually addressed this question, which seems to me to be the chief cause of difficulty.

jallerton said:

The problem with varying your call is that you will feel awkward if partner transpires to hold a hand opposite which the abnormal action you choose turns out to be the successful one.  As you once remarked yourself, "one is not allowed to be clever after receiving UI".

Actually, I won't feel awkward at all. If I passed this hand because (and only because) I felt constrained to do so by Law 73, and if pass turned out to be the winning action, and if a director or a committee ruled that pass was a logical alternative demonstrably suggested by the break in tempo, or that by passing I had failed in my duty to be careful not to take advantage of unauthorized information, then I would feel as a batsman does who is given out caught when he knows that he did not hit the ball. Considering what one's legal responsibilities may be, and then acting upon them, is not what I mean by "cleverness" in the face of unauthorized information. Besides, none of the partners with whom I play are "clever" enough to suggest reverse hesitations as a method - and if they did, I would probably forget it anyway.

Put simply: there are many occasions on which I have been given a problem and asked "what would you do?" When I have replied "I would do X", I have been asked the supplementary question "what would you do if partner's previous call had been slow?" More often than not I have said "then of course I would not do X", without going into very much detailed consideration at all of whether there are actually logical alternatives to X (there almost always are, or the problem would not have been posed in the first place). The new Law 16 no longer compels me to act at the table in that manner. The old Law 73 still does, and so I will continue to do.

[Pict]

Despite some lengthy dissertations, and shorter ones with upper case ANY shouting at us, I still don't actually agree with the perverse reading of 73C that claims it is stronger than 16B, to the extent of making thinking (hesitation) effectively illegal.

[campboy]

Pict, on Mar 14 2010, 12:08 AM, said:

Despite some lengthy dissertations, and shorter ones with upper case ANY shouting at us, I still don't actually agree with the perverse reading of 73C that claims it is stronger than 16B, to the extent of making thinking (hesitation) effectively illegal.

Me neither. As others have said, if you do exactly what you would have done without UI then you cannot possibly have gained any advantage from it. The difficulty, of course, is that just because a player believes he would always have bid 3NT without UI, that does not make it true.

Certainly in the cases where I have already decided what I will do in response to a certain action by partner before making my previous call, and then partner produces that action slowly, I do not feel constrained by Law 73C, though I may feel constrained by Law 16 to select an action I had already rejected, but believe to be a logical alternative.

[dburn]

Pict, on Mar 13 2010, 06:08 PM, said:

Despite some lengthy dissertations, and shorter ones with upper case ANY shouting at us, I still don't actually agree with the perverse reading of 73C that claims it is stronger than 16B, to the extent of making thinking (hesitation) effectively illegal.

I do not claim that thinking, or hesitation, or other transmission of unauthorized information is illegal - it is not; for although Law 73A2 says that:

"Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste."

it remains the case that a player with something to think about makes his call or play with "due" hesitation. But Law 73A1 says:

"Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of calls and plays."

which means that if unauthorized information has been transmitted, it must not be acted upon. That is, my reading of L73C claims only that it is stronger than L16B, not that it renders thinking illegal.

campboy said:

As others have said, if you do exactly what you would have done without UI then you cannot possibly have gained any advantage from it.

So Jeff Rubens used to argue in the Bridge World, but what he ignored (and what his co-editor Edgar Kaplan insisted upon) is that the question is chiefly of perspective. Imagine if you will the following:

A stranger in a pub buys me a drink. It happens to be absinthe, and I hate absinthe, so I have no intention of drinking it.

Another stranger grabs me by the arm. "Don't drink that!" she cries. "It's poisoned - that fellow who bought it for you is a serial killer."

Now, how will this be reported in tomorrow's newspapers? "Man Saves Own Life By Hating Absinthe"? Or "Woman Saves Man's Life By Identifying The Absinthe Poisoner"?

The first is true, the second is not - but which would the public prefer to believe? Suppose in the next morning's papers, the headline was "Base Ingrate Refuses To Thank Woman Who Saved His Life - Says He Took No Advantage Of Her Information". Would I not be correctly vilified and driven to emigrate to, say, Tristan da Cunha or Wolverhampton?

Although I know in my heart that I did not take any advantage of the information received, no one else will believe it. The Laws of bridge are so structured that an umpire does not say (or need to say) "you did what you did because you acted on unauthorized information, so we will rule against you". Instead, he says "you did what someone acting on unauthorized information would have done, so although I am quite prepared to take your word for it that you hate absinthe, nevertheless I will rule against you as if you had acted on unauthorized information".

Campboy comes close to the right perspective when he says:

campboy said:

The difficulty, of course, is that just because a player believes he would always have bid 3NT without UI, that does not make it true.

The real difficulty is that just because a player correctly believes that he would always have bid 3NT (so that it is in fact true), that does not make it legal.

[JanM]

lamford, on Mar 11 2010, 03:24 AM, said:

JanM, on Mar 10 2010, 02:31 PM, said:

My law's expert says that any bid the person at the table makes must be a logical alternative because it was actually made by a "peer" of the player involved.

A logical alternative is defined in 16B1b, and my English expert thinks that the person at the table cannot constitute a "significant proportion of such players" on his own. Now if a well-known London player who has appeared on T-shirts showing his prowess were to make the bid, it is possible that the peer group would be only one, and he would be its only member, in which case I might agree. But in that case, peer has the meaning most often used in clues to Private Eye crosswords.

After this morning's ACBL Laws Committee meeting, in ACBLand at least, any bid that is in fact chosen by the player at the table is a logical alternative. The committee had a very easy time agreeing on this.

[dburn]

JanM, on Mar 14 2010, 03:53 AM, said:

After this morning's ACBL Laws Committee meeting, in ACBLand at least, any bid that is in fact chosen by the player at the table is a logical alternative. The committee had a very easy time agreeing on this.

That is going to slow down the play in ACBL tournaments even more than the players manage to slow it down at the moment. For if, when a player takes any action in the presence of unauthorized information, it becomes ipso facto a logical alternative that Law 16 therefore means he may not take, he will sit there for quite some time wondering what to do. Is Bertrand Russell a member of the ACBL Laws Commission, by any chance?

[peachy]

JanM, on Mar 14 2010, 03:53 AM, said:

lamford, on Mar 11 2010, 03:24 AM, said:

JanM, on Mar 10 2010, 02:31 PM, said:

My law's expert says that any bid the person at the table makes must be a logical alternative because it was actually made by a "peer" of the player involved.

A logical alternative is defined in 16B1b, and my English expert thinks that the person at the table cannot constitute a "significant proportion of such players" on his own. Now if a well-known London player who has appeared on T-shirts showing his prowess were to make the bid, it is possible that the peer group would be only one, and he would be its only member, in which case I might agree. But in that case, peer has the meaning most often used in clues to Private Eye crosswords.

After this morning's ACBL Laws Committee meeting, in ACBLand at least, any bid that is in fact chosen by the player at the table is a logical alternative. The committee had a very easy time agreeing on this.

I am very surprised!

[mjj29]

dburn, on Mar 13 2010, 08:10 PM, said:

Campboy comes close to the right perspective when he says:

campboy said:

The difficulty, of course, is that just because a player believes he would always have bid 3NT without UI, that does not make it true.

The real difficulty is that just because a player correctly believes that he would always have bid 3NT (so that it is in fact true), that does not make it legal.

In that case I don't think they have broken 73C - but they may have broken 16B1, and in that case should be adjusted under that.

[hrothgar]

dburn, on Mar 14 2010, 01:10 PM, said:

JanM, on Mar 14 2010, 03:53 AM, said:

After this morning's ACBL Laws Committee meeting, in ACBLand at least, any bid that is in fact chosen by the player at the table is a logical alternative. The committee had a very easy time agreeing on this.

That is going to slow down the play in ACBL tournaments even more than the players manage to slow it down at the moment. For if, when a player takes any action in the presence of unauthorized information, it becomes ipso facto a logical alternative that Law 16 therefore means he may not take, he will sit there for quite some time wondering what to do. Is Bertrand Russell a member of the ACBL Laws Commission, by any chance?

Nope, but Joseph Heller was recently appointed...