[c_corgi]

lamford, on 2013-June-03, 06:44, said:

The test is whether it is demonstrably suggested over 6S and Pass, not whether it is demonstrably suggested in its own right. The law says:

<snip> one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

The UI from a slow 5S is that you are off one key-card. If you pass, 5S must be a lock, and 7S is likely to go one down. 7S is not demonstrably suggested over 6S either, as it is likely to fail, and 6S is extremely likely to make. Therefore there is no breach of 16B.

If the UI suggests you will be scoring up against 6S= then bidding 7S is clearly suggested over a pass of 5S.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2013-June-03, 06:44, said:

The test is whether it is demonstrably suggested over 6S and Pass, not whether it is demonstrably suggested in its own right. The law says:

<snip> one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

The UI from a slow 5S is that you are off one key-card. If you pass, 5S must be a lock, and 7S is likely to go one down. 7S is not demonstrably suggested over 6S either, as it is likely to fail, and 6S is extremely likely to make. Therefore there is no breach of 16B.

I think it is suggested over pass, since the UI significantly increases the chance that 7♠ makes without affecting the chance that 5♠ makes (surely 5♠ must be practically cold with or without UI).

[blackshoe]

"Director, please!"

"How may I help?"

"According to law, as I understand it, I have no permissible call. What shall I do?"

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-June-03, 06:12, said:

Yes, the category of calls which are "impossible to contemplate". These calls may not be suggested by the UI, but selecting one and hoping to get lucky, because the only LA that will be allowed is likely to be bad, is a breach of 73C.

The UI tells me that one action will better meet my bridge objectives than the other. So one is suggested over the other.

Quote

Let us say that you have AJTxx x AKQJxx x and partner opens 1S, you bid 2NT, game-forcing raise, partner bids 4NT, RKCB, and you bid 5H. Partner, a client, bids 5S slowly, so you know you are not off two keycards, but are probably off one, so Pass and 6S are the only LAs. 6S is demonstrably suggested by the BIT, and you know you will not survive a ruling if you bid it. Instead you leap to 7S and it makes on the trump finesse. You poll ten people and nobody bids 7S. It is counter-suggested, if anything, by the slow 5S, as you cannot have all the key cards, and they may have a cashing ace. It is this type of bid that may not be suggested by the UI, but can still take advantage of it. Would you allow 7S here?

No, of course I wouldn't allow it. If it's an LA it's suggested over other LAs. Regardless of whether it's an LA, it takes advantage of the UI. So it's illegal under at least one law.

Anyway, I still don't see why you care whether the 4S in this thread is an LA. If it's an LA, it's illegal under two laws; if it's not an LA, it's illegal under one law.

[c_corgi]

blackshoe, on 2013-June-03, 07:04, said:

"Director, please!"

"How may I help?"

"According to law, as I understand it, I have no permissible call. What shall I do?"

"Your only legal action at this point is to claim. Doubtful points will then be resolved in favour of your opponents."

blackshoe, on 2013-February-01, 17:05, said:

I thought some here might find this correspondence between me and the ACBL amusing:

Me: Is it legal to claim some or all of the tricks before the opening lead is faced?
...

Perhaps this situation is what the lawmakers had in mind when they declined to prohibit claims during the auction

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-June-03, 07:19, said:

No, of course I wouldn't allow it. If it's an LA it's suggested over other LAs. Regardless of whether it's an LA, it takes advantage of the UI. So it's illegal under at least one law.

Anyway, I still don't see why you care whether the 4S in this thread is an LA. If it's an LA, it's illegal under two laws; if it's not an LA, it's illegal under one law.

I interpret "demonstrably suggested over another call" as "likely to gain more IMPS or matchpoints". I know 4S in this thread is not likely to gain more IMPS or matchpoints. So it is legal if it is an LA.

If it is not an LA, it is illegal if the TD interprets that it "takes advantage of the UI", legal otherwise.

[lamford]

c_corgi, on 2013-June-03, 06:53, said:

If the UI suggests you will be scoring up against 6S= then bidding 7S is clearly suggested over a pass of 5S.

This is a very good point. If it were IMPs and the other room were always in 6S, and we might guess that 7S will make 1 time in 6, when partner is missing the king of spades and it is onside, then you will lose 13 by passing, but lose 12 on average by bidding 7S. I know iviehoff was keen not to have the TD do such "expected value" calculations, but it is something like (5/6*17-1/6*13).

I think now that bidding 7S in the supplementary example is "taking advantage of the UI" because it has a net positive expectancy compared with passing 5S. However, on the same basis, 4S in this thread is completely legal. It is not demonstrably suggested over pass, and it is unlikely to take any advantage of the UI.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2013-June-03, 07:52, said:

I interpret "demonstrably suggested over another call" as "likely to gain more IMPS or matchpoints". I know that both 4S in this thread and 7S in the other thread are not likely to gain more IMPS or matchpoints. So they are legal if they are LAs.

That's not "demonstrably suggested". That's "better".

It doesn't matter whether the expected difference in IMPs between 7♠ and pass is positive or negative. What matters is whether it has increased as a result of the UI.

[lamford]

c_corgi, on 2013-June-03, 07:42, said:

Perhaps this situation is what the lawmakers had in mind when they declined to prohibit claims during the auction

Which Law prohibits a claim during the auction?

68A states:
Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks.

The glossary defines "bid" as:
an undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks (tricks in excess of six) in a specified denomination.

So, I suppose that any bid is a claim ...

[VixTD]

lamford, on 2013-June-03, 07:52, said:

I interpret "demonstrably suggested over another call" as "likely to gain more IMPS or matchpoints". I know that both 4S in this thread and 7S in the other thread are not likely to gain more IMPS or matchpoints. So they are legal if they are LAs.

I don't understand why 7♠ is not likely to gain matchpoints.

Imagine you're playing in a 20-table field with your hand of ♠AJ10xx♥x♦AKQJxx♣x, partner opens 1♠, and you have to decide what to do over a slow 5♠ that tells you that you are missing one, but not two, keycards.

♠K is one of three possible missing keycards, but partner has roughly twice as many spades as the opponents, so let's say the chance that this is the missing card is ~17%. Let's also assume that half the time you'll lose a trick to this card because it is offside or not dropping, and that all other pairs will bid and make the small slam (sometimes +1).

Your expectation for passing is 100% of 0/38 MPs = 0 MPs

Your expectation for bidding 7♠ is ~8% of 38/38 MPs = 3 MPs.

My assumptions may not be valid, one or two pairs may have a misunderstanding and bid a grand slam or stop in game, but you may well guess there will be few enough of these to make passing worthwhile.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2013-June-03, 08:09, said:

That's not "demonstrably suggested". That's "better".

It doesn't matter whether the expected difference in IMPs between 7♠ and pass is positive or negative. What matters is whether it has increased as a result of the UI.

"demonstrably suggested" is interpreted as "likely to be better because of the UI". And the change in the difference is completely irrelevant. For 7S to be "demonstrably suggested" over Pass, using the UI, it would need to gain over Pass. 6S would be disallowed because it is likely to do better than 5S, because of the UI

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2013-June-03, 08:21, said:

I don't understand why 7♠ is not likely to gain matchpoints.

Imagine you're playing in a 20-table field with your hand of ♠AJ10xx♥x♦AKQJxx♣x, partner opens 1♠, and you have to decide what to do over a slow 5♠ that tells you that you are missing one, but not two, keycards.

♠K is one of three possible missing keycards, but partner has roughly twice as many spades as the opponents, so let's say the chance that this is the missing card is ~17%. Let's also assume that half the time you'll lose a trick to this card because it is offside or not dropping, and that all other pairs will bid and make the small slam (sometimes +1).

Your expectation for passing is 100% of 0/38 MPs = 0 MPs

Your expectation for bidding 7♠ is ~8% of 38/38 MPs = 3 MPs.

My assumptions may not be valid, one or two pairs may have a misunderstanding and bid a grand slam or stop in game, but you may well guess there will be few enough of these to make passing worthwhile.

No, I think your assumptions are fair enough, although it is rare that all the field are in slam. I can quite believe that 7S is a long-term winner in most forms of the game. In addition, they might let it through when there is a cashing ace not on lead. I created an example to answer gnasher's question, and I think that the 4S in the main thread is much clearer. Several would still adjust that. On what basis?

And I think that if the 7S hand is "aggregate scoring", then 7S is no longer likely to make a net gain and is allowed!

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-June-03, 08:24, said:

"demonstrably suggested" is interpreted as "likely to be better because of the UI"

By whom?

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-June-03, 09:10, said:

By whom?

By every AC I have been on. How would you interpret it?

[campboy]

lamford, on 2013-June-03, 09:17, said:

By every AC I have been on. How would you interpret it?

I think it is difficult to be sure that other people are using the same interpretation unless you ask them, as the two interpretations will give the same answer in most cases. But so far as I know all the TDs I've discussed rulings with interpret it as I have in this thread.

[blackshoe]

c_corgi, on 2013-June-03, 07:42, said:

"Your only legal action at this point is to claim. Doubtful points will then be resolved in favour of your opponents."

Perhaps this situation is what the lawmakers had in mind when they declined to prohibit claims during the auction

ROFL! Good one!

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 16B1{b}: A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

Quote

Law 16B1{a}, in part: … may not choose from among logical alternatives…

The law, read literally, does not prohibit a player from choosing an action that none of his peers would select. However:

Quote

WBFLC minute, Philadelphia, 2010: There was a discussion of the definition of a 'logical alternative'. It was agreed that the call actually chosen by a player is normally considered to be among the logical alternatives with respect to the application of Law 16B1. An exception may arise in the case of a call that it would be impossible to contemplate in the particular circumstances.

Perhaps "impossible to contemplate" means "none of his peers would consider it". Keep in mind that polls have a margin of error - and that the smaller the size of the poll, the larger the margin of error. OTOH, if that's not what it means, then the meaning of the minute is "the law's definition of 'logical alternative' does not mean what it says; instead it means something else," which is essentially what Grattan Endicott told me some years ago* (before the current laws, as I recall) on BLML. Personally, I'd stick with the former interpretation.

*as I recall, he said the correct phrase is more "plausible alternative for the class of player" than "logical alternative", but I would suggest that if that's what they wanted to say, they had ample opportunity to change it in 2007.

[ggwhiz]

lamford, on 2013-June-02, 16:11, said:

---

North-South were a new partnership here,

Why does the slowness of the 3♠ bid show anything but a new partnership trying to remember what's on the card? I don't see any UI here but substantial AI from the opponents silence that makes the 4♠ bid an attractive gamble but still a gamble.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2013-June-03, 10:40, said:

I think it is difficult to be sure that other people are using the same interpretation unless you ask them, as the two interpretations will give the same answer in most cases. But so far as I know all the TDs I've discussed rulings with interpret it as I have in this thread.

No TD that I have spoken to has thought that "demonstrably suggested" just means that the likely success of a bid goes up because of the UI. And if I am "misquoting" you on that, I apologise. The wording of 16B is

<snip>one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.<snip>

For a bid to be demonstrably suggested over another, the only measure I have ever encountered is whether it is likely to be more successful than the other LA(s) when considering the UI. In this thread, the UI may well increase the chance of 4S making from almost zero to a slightly higher level. That is irrelevant. For it to be an infraction to choose it, it has to be demonstrably suggested over Pass.

And if it is not an LA at all, I think that it must not take advantage of the UI. And that will be pretty much the same test.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-June-03, 07:19, said:

Anyway, I still don't see why you care whether the 4S in this thread is an LA. If it's an LA, it's illegal under two laws; if it's not an LA, it's illegal under one law.

FYP. I agree I shouldn't care.