dburn

They might not realise that, and maybe they are not legally obliged to do so. But if I'd been this East, and partner had categorically told South that I had three hearts, I might have said "actually, there are some hands in the context of our system on which I might bid 3♥ with only two". This is as close to full disclosure as I can get for practical purposes, but it may be that I'm just being masochistic again despite (or perhaps because of) already having gone eight down in four spades doubled elsewhere in these forums.

Did anyone ask East why he did not correct his partner's explanation?

He has just done it often enough to make it an implicit agreement.

I suppose it isn't really to be wondered at, but I wonder at it sometimes: why do the people who mess up Ghestem (or the like) always have the luck to do so when partner has already passed? Maybe it's because we've actually succeeded in educating the masses, so that when an unpassed partner bids spades on an auction such as 1♥-3♣ (allegedly spades and diamonds, but really clubs), the 3♣ bidder knows to pass and take his lumps in three or four spades doubled (last time I did that it might have been a good save against seven spades the other way, but although the defence was benign, the vulnerability was not). Maybe it's because we've only succeeded in educating the criminals, so that when an unpassed (or even a passed) hand has eight spades, he will take great pains to volunteer an unsolicited explanation before bidding four spades. Maybe it's a statistical miracle. Maybe (all together now) it's because I'm a Londoner... Me, I'd pass and curse. But I am probably a masochist - I would not necessarily rule against anyone who bid. The argument "what would you do if partner had explained 2♥ as natural and then bid 4♠ over it?" is flawed in too many other ways to be of general application.

Not very far at all, really. But perhaps it is time to address the additional data provided by aguahombre with respect to the original post. If agauahombre feels that this data was available or at any rate deducible from the original post, he may be right - but it does not matter very much. If 2♥ was systemically weak but North had forgotten and thought it was invitational, then North was still (in effect) allowed to bid 3♥ if and only if he had a hand with which he would have bid an invitational 3♥ over 1♦ supposing that his methods permitted such a call. Perhaps he was asked what 3♥ over 1♦ would have meant, perhaps not; the information has considerable relevance, but is not supplied. Well, North had an eleven count with six hearts - in other words, he really did have (or at least, may really have had) a hand worth an invitational 3♥ over 1♦. Maybe North didn't think of bidding that; maybe he did but decided that South might treat it as some sort of splinter or fit jump, and maybe he was right to be concerned. In either case, North's 2♥-then 3♥ sequence was fine; it was the best he could do in the circumstances short of bidding a rather unilateral 4♥ (or a self-torturing 1♥ in the hope that it would not go "all pass"). I don't know what the North hand was, so I don't know whether I would do what the actual Director (or advisor) did, which was to cancel North's bid of 3♥. That could have been the right decision, but there is no certainty about it (and given aguahombre's description of the actual North hand, I would think it probable that the decision was in fact wrong). What is certain is this: when South heard 3♥, it was not AI to him that North actually had a hand worth an invitational 3♥ over 1♦. South drew that inference (or "could have drawn that inference" - blackshoe is quite right that we should keep all our ducks in line) only because South knew that North knew that South had interpreted 2♥ as weak when North had not so intended it. But South's knowledge of what North knew that South thought is not authorised (as I have tried to show). It did not derive solely from legal calls; rather, it derived from South's explanation of 2♥. Even though that explanation was systemically correct, it was not AI to North (aguahombre is quite right about that); and nor was the fact that North had heard it AI to South. In short: even if North's bid of 3♥ was legal, South's bid of 4♥ was almost certainly illegal given his pass to 2♥.

In the sentence: "A player may use information in the auction or play if it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source." the only source actually mentioned is "the legal calls and plays of the current board", so "an[y ]other source" is "any source other than the legal calls and plays of the current board". Of the aggregation of data that comprises "the auction together with all the original inflections", some items may be used by the side that contributed them while others may not. An example of the items that may not be used is: "call X was made in a manner that expressed uncertainty". Consequently, another kind of item that may not be used is: "call Y was made in response to call X despite the uncertainty with which call X was made", because that uncertainty may not be taken into account by either member of the contributing side (though of course it may by their opponents). In the call "four slow diamonds", the words "four" and "diamonds" are legal while the word "slow" is not. "Slow" may not therefore be considered information from an authorised source, even by the player who made the call in the first place.

For clarity: I do not believe that it is always an infraction of Law to vary one's tempo; the Law speaks of "undue hesitation", whereas time taken to consider a difficult problem may be regarded as "due hesitation". But a player who transmits information by the manner in which he acts, over and above the information transmitted by the action itself, may nonetheless be a guilty party in the matter of illegal communication. As I have said, in the normal run of events when a player P takes an action X, his partner knows only that X is the action that in P's mind best describes P's hand. Of course, depending on who P is and the circumstances surrounding X, his partner may know a great deal more, but no such information is authorised. That is, after all, the objective of Laws 16, 73, and one or two others. There is a difference, and it may be a considerable difference in some cases, between "this call is partner's best attempt to describe his hand" and "this call is partner's best attempt to comply with Laws 16 and 73". The former information is authorised, because the Laws say so. The latter isn't, because the Laws say so: the information does not arise from legal procedures (it arises from legal processes, or from legal proceedings, but these are not the same thing at all as legal procedures); and of course it is affected by unauthorised information from another source.

No. Do you contend that a misexplanation is a legal procedure? It is becoming increasingly difficult for me to understand what you do contend, but it appears in simple terms to be this: a player does something illegal (no doubt unintentionally); and thereby acquires information that he would not have acquired had he not broken the Law; but the player may base further action on that information, because it is authorised (or "not unauthorised"). If that is the case... well, the term "doublethink" has been used earlier, and seems appropriate. No more do I. But this does not mean that partner's action is the only action that is constrained. I believe that "communication" in this context refers to the transmission of information, whether intended or not. A player may bid, say, "four diamonds" to communicate the fact that in his judgement and according to his methods, four diamonds best describes his hand; such communication is of course legal. But the way in which he bids four diamonds will on occasion communicate his degree of certainty that four diamonds actually accords with his methods, or actually best describes his hand; such communication is of course illegal. Acting on information illegally communicated is also, of course, illegal. Suppose partner doubles loudly (or, with bidding boxes, quickly and emphatically). Now you know what you are not entitled to know: he is sure he can beat the contract. You may not use this information. If partner doubles when to do so could have been suggested by some information you have illegally given him, he conveys illegally the information that he really has this double - he is in effect doubling loudly. You may not use this information either. Of course, it may not matter very much - the guy has to do something, and if he really does have his double he is entitled to make it. But you are not entitled to use the information that he really has this double, since you came by it entirely as a result of your own side's infraction. Most of the time that won't matter either, but when it does, your actions are constrained.

Oh, Law 73C isn't particularly relevant. But this is: Nor is Law 16B particularly relevant. But this is: Now, in both the actual case and the example I have given, a player knows that his partner has no logical alternative to the action he has chosen. The player would not know this had he not misexplained his partner's call (in the actual case) or broken tempo (in my example). He cannot make use of this information, because it has occurred as a result of illegal communication and not solely as a result of legal calls and plays. To be frank, I am somewhat baffled by campboy's position. Does he contend that as a result of illegal communication between partners, a player is allowed to possess and to use information that he would not otherwise possess and could not otherwise use? If not, what does he contend? This assertion: is simply false; a player is not allowed to know anything about his partner's hand other than what the player can deduce from the legal calls and plays of the current board. He is certainly not allowed to know something that he can only deduce because of his own infraction (misinformation) or his own failure to follow correct procedure (passing slowly).

We will try a simpler example. A competitive auction concludes: slow (non-forcing) pass by you; pass; double (penalty) by partner; all pass. You know that your partner is an ethical player aware of his responsibilities under Laws 16 and 73. You know therefore that he would not double unless he had no logical alternative to that call. But you may not therefore base the defence on the fact that partner has a rock-solid double, because that information is not authorised - you would not have it had you passed in tempo. Confronted by a choice between playing partner for a solid double and a marginal one, you have UI, and you in turn have responsibilities under Laws 16 and 73. This isn't doublethink - this is obvious.

Because South has informed the entire table (including North) that North has a bad hand. North, who did not intend to show a bad hand but an invitational hand, may now not bid again unless he has a seriously good invitational hand (just as I may not without at least a very good 16 count bid 3NT after 1NT announced as weak - pass - 2NT invitational - pass, for we play a strong no trump at this vulnerability but partner forgot). So, in the actual case, North may not bid 3♥ without a seriously good invitational hand (which was what he had - he had passed as dealer an eleven count with six hearts, forsooth). But South, who is in duty bound to consider that North might have a "mycroft" (a bad hand on which no one would actually bid, but with which at least one of South's peers is supposed to consider that North might bid), can't raise unless he would raise all "mycrofts" to game. The actual South hand might have been such, but it has not been posted, so I cannot comment. I say only that I cannot conceive of a hand that would raise a "mycroft" (just competing, partner) that did not raise at its previous turn. Blackshoe and others owe AlexJonson an apology; the latter has a case even though he didn't know what it was, while the former have consistently talked nonsense even though they should not have done. What is important is this: if you make UI available to partner (as by hesitating, misexplaining one of his calls, or the like) then partner is constrained to take no action that is less pure than the driven snow; but the conclusion that partner's action is squeaky clean is not authorised information to you. In fact, you are (probably, but Law 73 is not a model of clarity) obliged to treat it as tainted, with the constraints that go thereby. As blackshoe (almost) wisely remarks, and as an eminent Director in years gone by really did remark, "play fast, don't cheat, and keep your kids out of the ballroom".

I have long argued that the penalty for a revoke should be death, for then the game would soon be played only by people who can follow suit, and the absurd revoke laws would be eliminated not by statute but by natural selection. Still, it should be restated that the transmission of UI is not necessarily an infraction, nor is the receipt of it; the only infraction is to base an action directly on UI received. It should, for completeness, also be stated that South's action in bidding 4♥ was very probably illegal - but the full hand is not shown, so I cannot make any definite pronouncement. What is clear, though, is that rhetorical pronouncements to the effect that "South doesn't have any UI" are... well, they are seriously in error even though they may not have been made by wild gamblers. At the very least, though, the people who made them owe AlexJonson an apology.

Research indicates that the claimer was one of the team that won last year's Gold Cup - except that it wasn't me, so may have been my replacement. Further details will be added as they become available.

North, who has the UI that South thinks North is weak, might bid 3♥ with an "ordinary" invitation in order to correct South's mistaken impression. This would be illegal, a kind of "unauthorised panic" - partner thinks I have a bad hand, so I had better bid again to let him know I have a good one. But if North is acting legally, North can bid 3♥ now only if he has an exceptionally good hand for his original invitational 2♥, in view of the fact that South rejected his first invitation. South, who can work this out as well as you or I can, now has the UI that North has such a hand (or is cheating, but one does not presume that any more than one presumes partner is psyching).

Of course South has UI - he always does in this kind of position. Specifically, South has the UI that North has a good hand for 3♥ - with a bad one, North (who has the UI that South thinks 2♥ is weak) would not bid 3♥ because to do so would be a breach of Laws 16 and 73.

But Law 68B1 says that a player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand. In this case, then, North-South have: agreed with West's claim (so presumably can ask to have that withdrawn under Law 69); and conceded (so presumably can ask to have that withdrawn under Law 71). Which applies?

Oh, I have seen it. In that case, the question was whether it was "likely" that a player would follow a proven line; the majority seemed to consider that it was not (somewhat surprisingly to me, given the propensity of the majority to rule that of course a bum claimer would "normally" play double-dummy). Here, though, declarer has no proven line, and his best percentage play for the contract is (by a small margin) to follow the only "normal" line that loses. Should the Director take this into account when making his ruling? If North-South had objected to the claim at the time it was made, there is no doubt that the contract would have been ruled down one under Law 70E1: "The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card [here, the jack of spades]". Should the Director take this into account when making his ruling? Why did West claim rather than play on? Perhaps because he knew the safety play with KQ108x facing A9xx, so "could not lose a trump trick". Perhaps because he had the jack of clubs in with his spades. Perhaps because he's an idiot. Should the Director take this into account when making his ruling? Why did the opponents concede? Perhaps because South had the jack of spades in with his clubs. Perhaps because they're idiots, but even idiots are entitled to a trick when whether or not they will make one depends exclusively on a guess by declarer which, if incorrect, relies only upon the defenders' not revoking in order to score that trick. Should the Director... but you have the picture by now. What is the substantive difference between Law 69B and Law 71?

I don't know what a "Grand National Teams club game" is; the term "Grand National Teams" suggests that players are expected to be of a decent standard both technically and ethically, while the term "club game" does not. But here is some poor fellow who bid hearts because he had hearts; judging by the comments of his partnership afterwards, they might or might not have any idea of the meaning of the term "negative free bid". And here is some nitwit who, with 15 Miltons facing a vulnerable overcall, parked his side in 2♠ and then squealed like a stuck pig when that turned out to be the wrong thing to do. Still, you asked some questions, so: 1) Is there enough evidence here to make the ruling that N-S have the implicit agreement that free bids can be quite weak? No. What they said was that "the call was OK, though a bit light" and that "if West had passed, North would have bid". These statements are not mutually inconsistent, nor is there any evidence on which to base the supposition that they were not true. 2) How much evidence does a TD need to assume an implicit agreement? More than existed in this case - quite a lot more. 3) If I had decided that the 2♥ call was a mistaken bid and let the score stand, what should happen to the pair the next time this (or something similar) happens? You should inform them that such "mistakes" will not be permitted in future, because this case establishes an implicit partnership agreement. If they wish to add this agreement to their repertoire, they have an obligation to improve their disclosure by, for example, alerting 2♥ as "forcing, but not to game and potentially based only on a long heart suit without many points". If they fail to fulfil those obligations in future, something bad might happen to them, but you have done your duty. 4) What can a TD do when a player makes a non-system action that works, such as an underbid or a strange choice of lead, and the opponents claim that the player or the partnership does this sort of thing quite often? Record the hand and trust to the Keepers of the Records to enforce such subsequent discipline as may be necessary. What he cannot do is make any ruling based on "history" unless it really is history, and the records exist to support it. Claims at the table by the opponents should, per se, be completely disregarded.

[hv=pc=n&s=sj6hakj5dt3ckq632&w=skqt84h762dq86caj&n=s53h83d942ct98754&e=sa972hqt94dakj75c&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1d1h1sp4cp4dp4sppp]399|300[/hv] North leads ♥8; South cashes three rounds and plays a fourth. West puts his hand face up on the table and makes no statement. All four players return their cards to the board and write 620 in the appropriate column on their scorecards. The next board is played. At the end of the set (this occurred in a knockout match), North-South are surprised to discover that they have lost 12 IMPs. "I ruffed the fourth heart high," explains their Western team-mate, "cashed the other top spade in my hand, and finessed ♠9 next. What happened at your table?" Should North-South call the Director? How should the Director rule if summoned?

I have observed in another thread that, at least in the ACBL, any action (however illogical) chosen by a player in possession of UI is now considered a logical alternative for that player. That thread was constructed by lamford in order to "deal with" the issue raised here, so I hope at least that AlexJonson will discontinue to believe that either of us is avoiding the question. I observe here that if a player considers that any selection from among logical alternatives is likely to work badly for his side (because if it succeeds, it will be ruled against), he may not attempt to avoid the provisions of Law 16 by selecting an illogical action, because to do so is a violation of Law 73. The ACBL minute from the Reno meeting was designed, as far as I can see, to bring the selection of an illogical (in the wider context) action within the purview of Law 16, and a praiseworthy effort it was too. It is deeply flawed, but that is only because the Laws themselves are deeply flawed. At the moment, the second best advice I can give to a player in possession of UI who is (correctly) trying to maximise his side's score is this: select from among logical alternatives that which you think is least likely to be overturned if it works. This is rather more cynical than the "Rubens approach" (advocated in The Bridge World passim for about thirty years), which is in essence "do what you would have done anyway and accept adverse rulings with good grace". But it isn't much more cynical: if you are correct in thinking that your action is least likely to be overturned if it works, you are less likely to incur an adverse ruling than otherwise. The best advice I can give is to play with someone who doesn't transmit UI. But well it was said by the bard: A man has horns in Tufnell Park. A man eats clocks in Camberwell. A man plays billiards in the dark Entirely by the sense of smell. A man I knew extremely well Went up to bed and met a bear That said its name was Little Nell - But cases of the kind are rare.

The minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission when it met in Reno in the spring of 2010 contain this: In the ACBL's jurisdiction at any rate, even if you attempt to avoid the provisions of Law 16 by selecting an illogical (in the wider context) action when in possession of UI, you may still be ruled against under Law 16 without recourse to Law 73. At the time I recall observing on these forums that this might be problematic, and that Jan Martel observed that she didn't see why I thought this, but the matter was not pursued at any great length or with any great vehemence, nor can I be bothered to locate the original correspondence. Of course, even the ACBL fiat does not mean that one automatically finds against South in the case in question here; to do that, the minute would have had to read: "Martel moved that the call actually chosen by a player is considered to be a demonstrably suggested logical alternative with respect to application of law 16B1." but perhaps that is what they meant.

You may or may not be dismayed to find me as a potential fellow-inhabitant, but so I am. Not that I agree with you entirely, for... No, you haven't. See below. Well, you have actually shown 2-5-4-0 and your additional cards include a possibly unexpected spade - continue to see below. When did we show three spades? After 1♥-1♠-2♦-3♣, would you not bid 3♠ with such as ♠Ax ♥KQxxx ♦Axxx ♣xx? If you wouldn't, maybe this planet isn't big enough for the both of us. But no great matter, for... So it is to me, and so would I. Of course, with a favourite partner I would not bid 3♠ over 3♣ - rather, I would bid 3♦ and then 4♠ over partner's next effort (even if that were 3NT). This is because I trust my favourite partners to respond 2♣ and not 1♠ with such as ♠Jxxx ♥Kx ♦Axx ♣AQxx, but I am aware that this is not a mainstream position. In the actual case, of course partner can have that hand - but if so, he would bid a very firm 3NT over 3♠. Then here's my hand, my old companion, And may neither one of us fall in a canyon. Ogden Nash

I suppose I ought not to be troubled by the line of reasoning that awards a PP only when the alleged offender is not getting an adverse ruling, but it troubles me nonetheless. Either an act is an offence against correct procedure so heinous as to be worthy of a penalty, or it isn't. If the former, then the PP should be applied regardless of the adjustment; if not, there is no PP to apply. And yet, I would say that 99% of Directors and ACs have at some point given a ruling like this: "no adjustment, but North-South to be fined 3 IMPs for not alerting / not having properly completed CCs / giving MI / not accompanying a claim with a well-formed statement / wearing brown shoes with black trousers [delete whichever does not apply]." If on the other hand the ruling had been "score adjusted from NS +2210 to NS -100", then there is never any thought of deducting an additional 3 IMPs from their score for whichever of the above list does apply. This is illogical, inequitable, arbitrary and wrong. Perhaps that is why it seems to be so firmly entrenched in the administration of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge.

Not especially, but their dummy play is stronger than most, so they can afford to force to game with less than most. Still, maybe Versace could have bid 3NT instead of 4♠. Not even Helgemo could have beaten that, with or without an awake partner.

Very good question. One's first instinct would be to say "no, and no" because information is authorised only if "it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board" [Law 16A1a], and a revoke is not a legal play. But that Law continues "(including illegal calls and plays that are accepted)" - ridiculously, for legal plays cannot include illegal plays, but no one expects anyone to have proof-read the Laws before publishing them - and one might say that a revoke has been "accepted" once it becomes established. After all, one could not say of it that it had been rejected, and one must say something. Not that it would matter very much in practice, because if a Director considered that your side had gained an advantage from your knowing prematurely that your partner had ♦8 and had chosen to play it, he would follow Law 64C and adjust the score anyway. Still, such considerations might escape less capable Directors I suppose.