jallerton

Campboy is correct (of course). A player must comply with all Laws, including Law 16A3, Law 16B and Law 73C. It is curious how Paul's memory is so good that he can "recall" exactly what I said in one posting I made six weeks ago, and yet he apparently cannot recall my more detailed explanation of the same point made a few posts earlier in the same thread. So for the benefit of Paul, I'll repeat the more detailed post on the subject: Law 16A3 seems clear enough to me, but you can never be too sure these days. I discovered recently that the ACBL has its own version of the Laws, so perhaps Planet Lamfordia has yet another version. Little changes to the wording can make a significant difference. For example, in the PL version of Law 92A, it can be inferred that the first "may" has been replaced by "must". Now it seems from Paul's remarks that the word "No" at the start of Law 16A3 has been replaced in PL by the word "Any". Back in the rest of the universe, my understanding is that the Laws on the use of information operate as follows: 1. In accordance with Law 12A3, the player must decide purely on the authorised information available his possible actions. If he has only one vaguely plausible action available, then that is what he should choose. 2. If he has more than one plausible action (referred to later in the Laws a "logical alternatives") then either: (i) If he has no unauthorised information, he is free to choose whichever logical alternative he thinks best; or (ii) If he does have unauthorised information from partner, he may be restricted in which out of those logical alternatives he had considered in step 1 above may actually be chosen. The restrictions come from both Law 16B1[a]: and Law 73C: Nowhere in the WBF Laws is a player authorised to use unauthorised information to determine which actions are logical alternatives. The unauthorised information is merely used to determine which logical alternative calls and plays (if any) are not permitted to be made. So in this particular case, the player uses the authorised information available to ascertain his plausible actions. Case A: If 4♥, 3♥ and Pass are all plausible actions ("logical alternatives"), then 16B instructs the player to reject 3♥ and Pass (and also 3♦). Case B: If 4♥ is both (i) not a logical alternative and (ii) not an action that the player in question might have taken anyway, then an application of Step 1 above would only leave 3♥ and Pass as logical alternatives. Then 16B instructs the player to reject Pass (and also 3♦). Case C: If 3♥ and 4♥ are both (i) not logical alternatives and (ii) not actions that the player in question might have taken anyway, then an application of Step 1 above would only leave Pass and perhaps 3♦ as logical alternatives. Then 16B allows the player to Pass (although may restrict the player from making other calls such as 3♦). Ignoring any possible MI considerations, the TD rules as follows: Case A: adjust to 4♥x by West, weighting the number if tricks if appropriate. Case B: adjust to 3♥x by West, weighting the number if tricks if appropriate. Case C: adjust assuming that East passes 2♥. Unless it is judged that North/South might now just bid 3NT, adjust to 2♥x by West, weighting the number if tricks if appropriate.

Well, perhaps one could say that the "class of players in question" is limited to the players who are not classy enough to have remembered their system.

How many hearts to bid is indeed a matter of judgement with the authorised information, but when you have UI you may not choose a LA demonstrably suggested over another. The UI suggests that (i)both 3♥ and 4♥ will go off and hence (ii) 4♥ will go one more off than 3♥ and also (iii) 4♥ is more likely to be doubled than 3♥. So I agree with Campboy: if 4♥ is a LA then the only weighted scores to be considered are 4♥ making the various possible numbers of tricks. Is 4♥ a logical alternative? Bluejak thinks the bid is obvious, so perhaps the answer is yes. We need to poll a few more people to be certain.

I don't understand this "advantage". After a 1NT rebid, there's room to differentiate between invitations and sign-offs anyway. True, but Opener is also well placed if Responder's WJS is overcalled, and if Responder has an IJS, next hand is less likely to want to overcall anyway. It does, but WJS helps rather more. If the auction starts 1♥-P-1♠-3♣-P-P-? Responder is more unhappy about stretching to bid 3♠ with a WJS hand than with an IJS hand; it's more important to have already described the WJS hand at the 2-level.

Better still, invert your 1♥-2♠ and 1♥-1♠-2x-2♠ sequences. This has all of the advantages you mention (apart from (7) which doesn't really count as much of an advantage) with (5) occurring rather more often. Furthermore, you are more likely to have game/slam on when Responder has the IJO type, so there's more benefit in allowing Opener do make his natural rebid before the auction gets to the 2♠ level than when Responder has the WJO type. Anyway, the original question from Killjoys stated that he could already show both WJS and IJS without using the sequence 1♥-2♠. We'd need to know the rest of his structure to answer that one, as invariably the best use of a spare jump is to fill in any system holes.

Well it depends on what your idea of a "take-out double" is. If you consider a common hand type for North's 2nd double to be a 1543 or 1552 shape (as the definition of a "take-out double" in 4H6 would suggest), then I'd be amazed if you were to pass on this hand. Perhaps you consider that it doesn't make sense for the doubler to have a singleton spade on this auction (on the basis that he could always bid something else on the 1st or 2nd round with such a hand). Fair enough, but then you are playing the double as what the Orange Book defines as one of "competitive", "optional", "co-operative" and "penalties"; all of these meanings are alertable, as Gordon explains. I know that you have pledged not to agree with Bluejak for the next two weeks, but the basic principle of what he says is correct. The TD should investigate the facts, which in this case involves trying to ascertain what was going through South's head, consult if necessary, and rule accordingly. ♠KQJx ♥x ♦Ax ♣A9xxxx looks to have rather more defence than the actual South hand.

I agree with this. There are several possible explanations, some entirely innocent, of this sequence having occurred. The TD needs to be very careful and tactful in his questioning, to try to ascertain what was going through South's mind.

I agree with this, at least for the 2007 Laws. For the next version of the Laws, it would be highly desirable if all needlessly ambiguous terms such as this could be properly defined. My feeling is that the TD should rule by considering whatever he thinks the Law actually says; without any further definition or guidance, the TD has to make this interpretation himself.

Imagine that you are playing a head-to-head match against team A tomorrow. You rate your opponents as significantly worse than your team. In probability terms, you rate your probability of winning the match as 75%. Imagine that you are also playing a head-to-head match against team B the day after tomorrow. You rate these opponents as almost, but not quite, as good as your team. In probability terms, you rate your probability of winning as 51%. If I ask you if you are going to win your match against team A tomorrow, you might well answer: "Probably". If I ask you if you are going to win your match against team B the day after tomorrow, you might well answer: "Maybe", "Possibly" or "About 50-50". But you would not say "Probably", would you?

By "an authorised alert or announcement" I assume you are referring to procedures "authorised" by the Regulatory Authority. Unfortunately, that does not make the information from the alert or announcement "authorised information" as far as the alerter's/announcer's partner is concerned; Law 73C specifically states that this information is unauthorised for that player who "must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorised information".

All this discussion about the best line for a declarer who has been paying full attention is interesting from a declarer play point of view, but is of little relevance to the ruling. The actual declarer claimed the rest of the tricks without stating a line, (presumably) believing that the rest of the tricks were obviously his. Let's look again at the exact wording of Law 69B. What does "if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued" mean? The "had play continued" is clear enough. If play had continued, this particular declarer would still have been at the helm; hence my earlier suggestion that the TD should attempt to ascertain the player's state of mind when he claimed. But what is meant by the word "likely" in the context of "would likely have won"? One problem here is that the word "likely" is normally used as an adjective often preceded by "very", "quite", "more" or "less", but in this Law 69B2 sentence it has been used as an adverb on its own. Chambers English Dictionary says that the use of "likely" in this way is slang [not good for a formal document!]. Another English dictionary says that "likely" is used as an adverb in American English, so I have delved into my foreign language dictionary collection and looked in Websters. According to Websters "likely" as an adverb means "probably"; "probably" itself is defined in Websters as "in all probability; so far as the evidence shows; presumably". My conclusion from all of this is that the TD should only transfer a trick which would probably (which implies a significantly greater than 50% chance, say 70%-99%) have been won by the non-claiming side had play continued. If there is judged to be a (say) 55% chance, that is not enough. Interestingly, Law 69B2 would not appear to allow the TD to transfer a trick which he is 100% sure would have been won by the non-claiming side: "would definitely have won" does not appear to be a subset of "would likely have won" and 69B1 seems to refer to tricks which had been completed before the claim. But I may have misunderstood; I can't believe that this is what the lawmakers intended.

The wording of Law 21B3 you quote might imply that 21B3 cannot be used when the non-offending side is damaged by the change of meanings of calls subsequent to the correction, but there is always Law 12A1. Unless of course some mystery "authorities" have issued secret guidance, known only by directors who have attended EBL TD training courses, to discourage the use of Law 12A1 in such cases.

I can fully understand why Gnasher might have been persuaded otherwise. After all, it is highly unusual for you to not reiterate your opinion, on any thread.

At the table, West was woken up as to the real meaning of his partner's 2NT opening when East passed 3♣. Perhaps Sven's hypothetical auction is making the assumption (which might well have been the case in practice) that South's double would have woken up West as to the meaning of the 2NT opening.

Thanks for the clarification. Is it your understanding that his "interpretation" was issued at WBF, EBL or national level?

In that case, please read Law 73C again and consider it in the light of South's actions. However, I agree with VixTD that situation is rather different to that of the opening post, as here the UI generated by Responder was generated simply by adhering to the local alerting regulations. In addition to the cases where the alertability of the unintended and intended calls is the same, Law 25A can be applied without worrying about Law 73C whenever the bidder realises his error before his partner has had a chance to alert. Bluejak told us some time ago that at his table, there are several instance per session of a player pulling out the wrong bidding card out of the box, and that he considers Law 25A to apply to such a scenario. My impression was that in most of these cases the player realises that he has pulled out the wrong bidding cards before he has placed them on the table, i.e. before his partner has even seen the unintended call.

I am not telling the "authorities" anything. All I have done is to read the most important written statements issued by "authorities" in this regard, which are the Laws themselves. Unlike some Laws we could mention, these are written in unambiguous English and their meaning seems very clear to me. Frankly, I am puzzled by the suggestion that the non-offending side is not entitled to rectification when they have been damaged by North's breach of Law and yet the breach is deemed serious enough to merit a procedural penalty. Is North's remark authorised information? No. Would South have realised his error before North's next call had North not made the remark? Maybe, maybe not. How does South "carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information" as Law 73C says he "must"? By not changing his unintended call. If there are some other Laws which override Laws 73A1, 73B1 and Law 73C then please enlighten us.

It's not just a matter of "suppose we might". North has clearly breached Laws 73A1 and 73B1, and has gained an advantage thereby (unless South would have noticed anyway before North's call, which is far from certain). South has clearly breached Law 73C. Surely Law 12A1 is there for cases such as this.

There is a distinct advantage if the players can agree the facts as soon as possible. It is harder for a player to dispute an alleged hesitation which occurred twenty seconds ago than one which occurred twenty boards ago.

One of the problems with using acronyms is that people start to remember the acronyms themelves, rather than what they are supposed to stand for. Many readers might assume that "SEWoG" stands for "serious error, wild or gambling" and then Sven would be denying redress if the non-offenders were judged to have made any such actions. However, the relevant Law says: South's double of 3♣ and North's subsequent pass are not "unrelated to the infraction" so it shouldn't matter if a TD had harshly judged either of these actions to be a "serious error" Love All at matchpoints. Neither action is remotely close to being "wild or gambling" either.

I agree. The TD should be more inclined to award fines for (what appear to be) deliberate breaches of Law. I agree. However, the TD can sometimes gather some useful information out of those who would have led ♥K anyway: do they consider that the opening lead is equally clear on both the correct and actual explanations, or would the correct explanation make this opening lead more obvious?

Relevant extracts from the NICKO Conditions of Contest are:

What's wrong with a weighted ("fractional" as you call it) ruling? If you consider that, with correct information, South might or might not have found the right defence, then weighted rulings are the best estimate that can be done to "restore equity".

If E/W had been playing a relatively simple system such that N/S could reasonably know the meanings of all alternative calls, then N/S would have had as much informstion as East and West about the E/W methods and hence would have as much chance to detect any "unbiddable" hands in the E/W methods. But if, as here, E/W play are playing an unusual method and all they tell N/S is that 3♥ showed 3+ hearts, then N/S are entitled to assume that E/W have agreed to make particular alternative calls on all hands with 0-2 hearts. In the circumstances, a more accurate explanation of the 3♥ bid might be "natural, invitational, usually 3+ hearts". West may not have been aware of the system hole, but East clearly was. Should East have corrected West's explanation by, for example, adding the words "in principle"?

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. This is not so obvious to me in your hesitation example. It depends what the phrase "another source" in Law 16A is referring to. It could reasonably be interpreted that the first source is the player himself and so "another source" is any source other than the player himself.