[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...

[campboy]

dburn, on Mar 14 2010, 02:10 AM, said:

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.

Why does that not make it legal? The UI has made no difference to the result, so no advantage, so no breach of 73C. However (and this seems to be what your story about the absinthe actually illustrates), that does not mean that the TD will not (or should not) adjust the score; he cannot tell whether the player's belief is correct.

In fact, I would go further and say that if I know what I was planning to do before the UI occurred, law 73C requires me to go ahead and do it anyway (when this does not clash with my law 16 obligations). The only way I can be sure of not gaining an advantage is to take the same action; if I change my mind in an attempt to take the less suggested action, accidentally guess wrong and get a better score, have I not gained an advantage?

Quote

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".

I completely agree with this. The only place we differ seems to be on how the player should act, not how the TD should act. As a player, I will do what I believe to be ethical; this is not the same as doing what I believe will most likely avoid an adverse ruling. I am quite prepared to accept that a TD may have a different view of what I should have done.

[blackshoe]

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.

Then they all need their heads examined.

Hm. The minutes of the meeting are not yet up on the web site (not saying they should be up this quick, just that they aren't). Are we club level directors (not to mention ACBL Tournament Directors) supposed to know this already?

[JanM]

dburn, on Mar 14 2010, 03:10 AM, 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?

Law 16 says that you can't choose from among logical alternatives one that is suggested by the UI. It doesn't say that you can't make a bid that is a logical alternative. The suggestion was made that a bid actually made by the player at the table might not be a logical alternative, and that is what was addressed by the ACBL Laws Committee.

[JanM]

blackshoe, on Mar 14 2010, 12:06 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.

Then they all need their heads examined.

Hm. The minutes of the meeting are not yet up on the web site (not saying they should be up this quick, just that they aren't). Are we club level directors (not to mention ACBL Tournament Directors) supposed to know this already?

Well, since it seemed obvious to many of us that if a player actually made a bid it was a logical alternative, I wouldn't think that this clarification was of much relevance except to those who thought that if a player made an egregiously bad bid based on UI, the player could argue that Law 16 didn't apply because the bid s/he made was not a logical alternative and thus s/he didn't choose from among logical alternatives one that was suggested by the UI. It's hard for me to believe that anyone would actually make such an argument with a straight face, but some of the posters here disagreed, so I asked the Laws Committee.
I do not understand why you think it is foolish to consider a bid actually made at the table a logical alternative. Any club director who would have allowed a player to make a bid that was so bad the director did not believe anyone would consider it seriously on the basis that Law 16 didn't apply is the one who IMHO might need his or her head examined.

[dburn]

Previously, it has been held (at least in England) that if a player attempts to avoid his Law 16 responsibilities by taking an illogical action in the presence of UI, he would be in breach of his Law 73 responsibilities. I see no particular reason why the ACBL Laws Commission could not adopt the same approach, if its only concern was that players might act in this fashion and claim immunity from prosecution.

Still, it is of course no business of mine to suggest to the ACBL Laws Commission what it should do, let alone to suggest that it should submit to phrenological scrutiny. My intention was merely to express the mild concern that unless the new regulation is very carefully considered, it may proscribe players from taking an action suggested by UI even when the AI they have available suggests the identical action.

I have no doubt, however, that although the ACBL Laws Commission does not in fact contain Bertrand Russell, it nevertheless contains more than enough equally fine minds, whose possessors will easily avoid such potential paradoxes.

[JanM]

dburn, on Mar 14 2010, 04:02 PM, said:

Previously, it has been held (at least in England) that if a player attempts to avoid his Law 16 responsibilities by taking an illogical action in the presence of UI, he would be in breach of his Law 73 responsibilities. I see no particular reason why the ACBL Laws Commission could not adopt the same approach, if its only concern was that players might act in this fashion and claim immunity from prosecution.

Still, it is of course no business of mine to suggest to the ACBL Laws Commission what it should do, let alone to suggest that it should submit to phrenological scrutiny. My intention was merely to express the mild concern that unless the new regulation is very carefully considered, it may proscribe players from taking an action suggested by UI even when the AI they have available suggests the identical action.

I have no doubt, however, that although the ACBL Laws Commission does not in fact contain Bertrand Russell, it nevertheless contains more than enough equally fine minds, whose possessors will easily avoid such potential paradoxes.

The interpretation merely clarifies that any action that was actually taken is a logical alternative. I fail to see how that would in any way change the provisions of Laws 16 or 73.

[peachy]

JanM, on Mar 14 2010, 06:54 PM, said:

The interpretation merely clarifies that any action that was actually taken is a logical alternative. I fail to see how that would in any way change the provisions of Laws 16 or 73.

This interpretation brings back the ancient thread on another forum, re-told by me here at least twice, about the 6S call.

Auction, with opponents silent.

1S -...3S (3S=limit raise, but made with break in tempo)
6S (opener did not have anywhere near slamgoing hand )

Apparently, opener got frustrated, knowing his hands were tied after partner significantly broke tempo so he decided to make a call that was not a logical alternative at all, to him or to any other sane player of any level and skill. 6S made by miraculous lie of the cards. Was ruled to 4S or 3S or a mix of both, by a consensus of respected TDs at the time.

Now ACBL new interpretation would describe this 6S call a logical alternative because this action was taken and therefore it is a logical alternative.

Am I misunderstanding what the Laws Commission decided, or is there more than what has been revealed here on BBF?

[blackshoe]

JanM, on Mar 14 2010, 06:54 PM, said:

The interpretation merely clarifies that any action that was actually taken is a logical alternative. I fail to see how that would in any way change the provisions of Laws 16 or 73.

Abraham Lincoln was said to have opined, speaking of sheep, that a sheep has only four legs, even if you call its tail a leg, because "calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one". Apparently, he was mistaken. Like Humpty Dumpty, it seems the ACBLLC can define words to mean whatever they want them to mean. It's nothing new, really. Grattan Endicott told me years ago (under the previous laws) that "logical alternative" didn't really mean what it says - rather it means (meant) something more like "plausible alternative for the class of player involved". This is much the same. I had thought, when the new laws came out, that this kind of redefinition had been put to rest. Silly me.

Bottom line, AFAICS, is that this does change the provisions of Law 16, because it changes the plain English meaning of the word "logical" to something else.

The lawmakers would do better, it seems to me, to decide what they want the law to say, and then say it in plain English.

[dburn]

My concern is not so much that the new regulation might change the meaning of the word "logical", but that it might change the meaning of the word "alternative".

The thing about alternatives is that there cannot be only one of them. Strictly speaking, in any given situation there must be exactly two of them, each being the other's alternative. But in common parlance (especially bridge parlance) one often speaks of "three alternatives" when one should properly speak of "three possibilities", and this is not really an issue (not least because there is nothing the ACBL can do about it - the Laws use the word "alternative" and so must the regulation).

Imagine that you have eight solid spades. You choose to open 1♠, the next hand bids 4♥ and your partner makes a slow double that you play as penalty (yes, I know that most of you don't play it as penalty, but bear with me for a moment). Now, the UI demonstrably suggests that you remove this - but so does your hand; one would say that you had "no [logical] alternative" to bidding 4♠.

But if when you do bid 4♠ it becomes by regulation a "logical alternative", it must by definition become a logical alternative to something else - in the case of a slow penalty double, the usual candidate for "something else" is "pass". Since the UI demonstrably suggests that you do not pass, the new regulation will require you to pass even though to do so is not logical.

At least, that is what I fear it will do. As I say, if what the ACBL wants to do is simply to prevent players from dodging Law 16 by taking illogical actions and hoping for the best, Law 73 already prevents them from doing that, and the ACBL need do nothing. But it may open up a can of worms if it says that an action is a "logical alternative" when there are no logical alternatives to it.

[mjj29]

dburn, on Mar 15 2010, 03:50 AM, said:

But if when you do bid 4♠ it becomes by regulation a "logical alternative", it must by definition become a logical alternative to something else - in the case of a slow penalty double, the usual candidate for "something else" is "pass". Since the UI demonstrably suggests that you do not pass, the new regulation will require you to pass even though to do so is not logical.

Ah, I see where you are coming from, yes that may be the pedantically correct definition given that 'alternative' is gramatically restricted to precisely two. However, that's clearly not the intepretation that is in use anyway (as you say, it's already standard that there may be _more_ than two). In this case you say "so 4S is a logical alternative, alternative to what?" to which the answer is not "pick the most likely thing, it must be an LA because you said 4S was an 'alternative', so there must be some", but "to whatever other LAs there may _or may not_ be". After all, the law specifically defines that pass is _not_ an LA, and since it was not selected at the table this new regulation does not either. What it does do (correctly IMO) is state that if you pass and don't bid 4S, pass is considered logical along with 4S which would normally be the only logical option, so now you have alternatives and can adjust (assuming for the moment that pass is considered suggested).