[Pict]

And if I have experienced an adverse judgement, or inticipate such, and put the details of my agreement on my 'card'.

Yet you TDs may still rule against me - is that not so?

[jallerton]

gnasher, on Sep 8 2010, 12:18 PM, said:

jallerton, on Sep 8 2010, 12:16 AM, said:

However, in this case, where Opener was already sure of the meaning of 3♠, the extraneous information did not suggest any action at all.  Hence no logical alternative "could demonstrably have been suggested over another" and Opener is free to bid whatever he wishes.

I still don't get this bit. The extraneous information, taken in isolation, does suggest a particular action - it suggests bidding 4♠.

Are you saying that "extraneous information that may suggest a call or play" actually means "extraneous information that may suggest a call or play other than what was already suggested by the available AI"?

There are perhaps two ways of interpreting Law16B1(a).

1. In what I believe to be the practical interpretation we compare:

[a] information available to the player from all authorised sources; with

[b] the information available from the combination of all authorised sources and the particular piece of unathorised information.

In your example, [a] and [b] are exactly the same, hence my conclusion that the UI does not suggest anything at all.

2. Under the alternative interpretation, it is suggested that we ignore the authorised information completely. In that case we would have to compare:

[c] the particular piece of unauthorised information; with

[d] no information at all.

Considered in complete isolation (i.e. without reference to any authorised information), partner's alert and explanation are actually close to meaningless in terms of what they suggest we might do.

Perhaps a different example might reinforce the point. The most common type of UI is a hesitation. So under interpretation 1, we compare:

[a] my hand, both sides' system and the auction to date; with

[b] my hand, both sides' system, the auction to date and the fact that partner hesitated.

and I do not choose any logical alternatives suggested by [b]

Under interpretation 2, we compare:

[c] the fact that partner hesitated; with
[d] no information at all.

But for [c] and [d] we are not considering any authorised information such as the auction or our hand! Partner hesitated but about what we do not know, and hence no action from us could demonstrably be suggested now.

Of course, it would be absurd if interpretation 2 prevailed as TDs would very rarely adjust the score under Law16 (though perhaps they might still be able to use 73C). Moreover, Laws 16B2 and 16B3 would be redundant.

Hence I believe that Interpretaion 1 is the only sensible practical interpretation.

[jdonn]

jallerton, on Sep 8 2010, 05:10 PM, said:

Hence I believe that Interpretaion 1 is the only sensible practical interpretation.

I don't believe either interpretation makes sense. Why are you "comparing" anything to anything else? You simply look at what the UI suggests. That it may or may not be suggested by something else is in no way covered in the laws. The authorized information is indeed taken into account in determining logical alternatives so it's not ignorred, but that is different.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of that state of affairs, but that is what the laws (don't) say.

[bluejak]

gnasher, on Sep 8 2010, 12:34 AM, said:

There's no need to post a response explaining exactly how uninterested you are.

You asked: I answered. That seems basic politeness.

gnasher, on Sep 8 2010, 12:34 AM, said:

I am also slightly surprised at the suggestion that anyone might be entitled to "mind" what other people choose to discuss.

These are moderated forums. While we allow quite a breadth of discussion, we do not allow totally off-topic discussion nor should we.

[dburn]

A thought experiment.

You open a strong club, partner responds 1♠ showing 5+ spades and 8+ hcp.

Your hand is such that you wish to discover whether or not partner has a diamond control, and if so of what nature - perhaps you have

♠AKQ32 ♥A ♦AQJ1098 ♣A

The following cunning plan occurs to you: you will bid 2♠ to ask about trumps, then you will bid 3♦ to ask about diamonds, then if partner shows second-round control, you will bid 4♦ to ask whether that is the king or a singleton. After all, that is what C C Wei invented the system for all those years ago, and after all it's matchpoints - it would be nice to be the only pair in the room in 7NT facing ♦K, would it not?

Well, you bid 2♠. Partner alerts, explains on request that this asks about spades, and bids 3♣ showing five spades to one top honour - ace, king or queen.

Now, you know that he hasn't got five spades to one top honour. But you also know that he knows your bid was an asking bid, which significantly increases the chance that he will know that your next bid is also an asking bid. Maybe he will cock up the responses to that also, but you might as well proceed with your plan - after all, maybe he won't. Perhaps he thought the jack of spades was a top honour.

You bid three diamonds, he alerts and explains that this asks about diamonds, he bids 3NT (second round control), you bid four diamonds (a repeat ask, but he does not alert because this is above 3NT), he bids four spades (♦K). You bid 7NT, and you get your top.

The opponents, educated citizens, complain. "If", they tell the TD, "there was a screen, or if as he properly should have done the opening bidder had taken no notice at all of his partner's alerts and explanations, the opening bidder might not have concluded that his 3♦ bid would be - nay, had been - correctly interpreted on the next round. He might have concluded instead, given the response to 2♠, that his partner had forgotten altogether about asking bids, and he might have settled for some other way of bidding his hand that might not have resulted in a final contract of 7NT."

You are the TD, and you rule that...?

These are actually very deep waters, and they are important. As Jan's resident expert on the Laws correctly says, a confirmation that partner knows the system - whether in whole or in part - really is UI, and really can demonstrably suggest a course of action that might not have been taken in the absence of that UI.

Moreover, the question of whether or not you can do something demonstrably suggested by UI when the logical alternatives are counter-indicated by AI is one that has never been satisfactorily resolved. It should be.

[jdonn]

No need for a made up example, this is what happened to me against good players (though you may not believe it after the story).

My partner opened 1♥, RHO overcalled 1NT. I bid 3♥ and LHO bid 3NT. This was passed back to me and I doubled, passed to RHO who redoubled. This was alerted and explained as 'showing doubt'. LHO ran to 4♦ and RHO raised to 5♦.

Partner led something and RHO put down AQx Kx KJT9x AJT. That seemed strange to me. An 18 count with a 5 card suit and ripe with spot cards showing doubt? It sure seemed to me that he had meant the redouble for blood. Then the problem was, if I was right, the explanation gave him UI that his hand was considerably better than his partner would expect. In fact any doubt-showing redouble hand would have nearly an automatic pass of 4♦ on this auction I would think. Pass is more than a logical alternative if you have what partner expects you to have.

So I called the director and explained this all to him. The moment I got it out of my mouth the opponents became livid. Their agreement was doubt-showing redoubles, they both knew it, and my accusation was unfounded. They said they always redouble with a minimum or a single stopper (I find it hard to believe they redouble on upwards of 80% of hands on this auction personally).

It turned out they went down 1 in a cold contract (on the chosen lead) when 3NT would have made 4 easily on a heart lead (my typical double). Declarer had I believe xx x AQxxxxx xxx and on the ace of hearts lead settled on a losing spade finesse rather than winning either club finesse. So the director was not called upon to make a ruling. But what if he had to? You could believe my judgment was off at the ripe old age of 20 or so, but how is the director to decide? Must he believe them simply because they say so and are mad? What if he thinks there is no way this hand could have intended its redouble as doubt-showing?

Frankly the situation is nothing more than either a guess, or an arbitrary rule that will often screw one side or the other. Short of using screens or computers I see no way around it.

[Pict]

dburn, on Sep 8 2010, 10:20 PM, said:

A thought experiment.

This illustrates very well the difficulty with the way in which explanations are described as UI.

Because what if partner indeed did not alert and did bid 3 clubs.

You would have ethically to continue with your plan, and ask him about diamonds, as you intended, and believe his answers - because, yes, whether partner does or doesn't alert is indeed not authorised information.

Precisely the same holds good when he does alert and bids 3♣.

Where I would part company is at the point where I can be accused of treating partner as someone who knows our system, or is honest, or does not psych - and being influenced in my selection of bids as a result.

At that point I would say we have made the game impossible to play because common sense and normal ethics would be contradicted by an interpretation of scope of UI.

Of course this is quite different from whether opponents may not believe me, or the TD may not believe me. That is a completely different problem and a different kind of unsatisfactory situation where technology may be the only absolute answer.

[jallerton]

jdonn, on Sep 8 2010, 11:15 PM, said:

jallerton, on Sep 8 2010, 05:10 PM, said:

Hence I believe that Interpretaion 1 is the only sensible practical interpretation.

I don't believe either interpretation makes sense. Why are you "comparing" anything to anything else? You simply look at what the UI suggests.

Quite simply because comparing the information you know with and without the UI will tell you whether or not the UI would make a particular call or play seem more attractive, i.e. whether it "could demonstrably be suggested".

[lamford]

jdonn, on Sep 8 2010, 11:09 PM, said:

In fact any doubt-showing redouble hand would have nearly an automatic pass of 4♦ on this auction I would think. Pass is more than a logical alternative if you have what partner expects you to have.

Again I am coming to this thead late; the example you cite is a good one, and I would completely agree if partner had pulled 3NT to 4C, but here you have undisclosed five-card support, and I think it is normal to raise to 5D.

The other issue is that the opponents might just use redouble to show a single stop, and be misexplaining it as a "doubt-showing" redouble.