Funny law question

[kfgauss]

I was playing at a club game yesterday and held AKQxxx x Jxx QJx in 3rd seat, none vul.

 

The bidding goes P P 1♠, and then LHO takes the 1♦ card out of the bid box, almost places it on the table, says "oh!" and then doubles instead. We called the director who said that a 1♦ call had been made, and was insufficient, and that technically she'd replaced 1♦ with X and barred her partner, but that since it was just a friendly club, he'd be nice and allow her to retract the X and either bid 2♦ and not bar partner or do anything else and bar partner. She bid 2♦ and I clarified with the director (so the opps wouldn't use the UI from the X -- I didn't expect them to know about UI and such) that info about length in ♣ and ♥ would be UI for RHO.

 

[The question isn't really about LHO being allowed to bid 2♦, but if people want to comment on what would happen in a tournament, feel free.]

 

So it goes:

P P 1♠ 2♦

P 2♥ 2♠ P

P P

 

And dummy is xxx J98x K1097 xx.

 

LHO leads ♥K (K from AK), then ♥A, which I ruff. I draw trump in 2 rounds and lead ♦J and LHO hops ♦A. LHO returns a low diamond, I insert ♦9 and win it (RHO discarding).

 

So LHO has shown up with ♥AK and ♦AQ (and ♠J). Only ♥Q and ♣AK are remaining. It seems that RHO must have ♥Q else she's 1) bid 2♥ with xx 10xxxx x AKxxx at best and thus has made fairly blatant use of the UI and 2) LHO has failed to raise partner with ♥AKQ and 16 points (and was going to open 1D instead of 1N, but these opponents needn't be trusted to bid 1N when it's correct).

 

So I hope LHO started with ♥AK10 and lead ♥J to pin the 10. RHO plays low and I have a problem: if I'm wrong I've given up my 140 for 110, but if I'm right I can pitch 2 clubs and score 170 (2nd club on the 4th diamond). I pitch and it loses to ♥Q and they cash ♣AK and I make only 110.

 

My question is: if this sort of thing happens at a tournament, ie the opps make use of UI (ie the 2♥ bid above) and I play for them not to have and thus take a losing line, do I have recourse, or do the opps just get slapped with a PP (Procedural Penalty -- for blatant misuse of UI) and I take my bad score?

 

That is, here, the auction might be rolled back to P P 1S 2D; P P ?, and I still bid 2S and may still play it there. I would no longer have the info about a 2H bid, but presumably I'm allowed the info about the 2H bid. My guess is that any use of info about the opponents is at my own risk, but this is a sufficiently funny situation that I'm not sure.

 

Side comment: RHO's action seems blatant enough to me to warrant a PP in a tournament -- comment on this if you disagree. Also, LHO's "fielding" of the use of UI is very strange. (Perhaps these opps should just be educated, even in a tournament, but in any case the actual legal questions remain.)

 

Andy

 

Edit: Here's the whole hand for your convenience:

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sxxxhj98xdk1097cxx&w=sjxhakqdaqxxxcxxx&e=sxxh10xxxxdxcakxxx&s=sakqxxxhxdjxxcqjx]399|300|Scoring: MP

P P 1S 2D

P 2H 2S P

P P[/hv]

[mycroft]

Not speaking officially, but I am an ACBL Local TD.

 

It would be useful to know where in the world you are, because it affects the ruling.

 

In the ACBL, "[a] call is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made. "

 

So if I'm reading the situation correctly, the call may not have been made and 1C-X with UI on the D would have been the ruling in that case (it depends on how close to the table it came).

 

In most of the rest of the world, a call is made when it clears the box, and then I would hope the TD would be called before the bidder tried to change anything.

 

If the call is made, the ruling is dealt with as insufficient bid, as soon as it is obvious that it is a change of mind ("when I saw the 1S, I..."), with a further attempt to correct to an inadmissable double. In that case, although I would have made sure that next time the TD is called before it's too late, bidder can do what they like, except double, and partner gets to pass (Law 27B3).

 

On the play - if they used UI, the score would be adjusted - quite possibly to 3S=, however, unless 3Hx is going for 300. As for whether you can use the fact that they can't legally use UI to determine their hands, I don't think this is the typical "double-shot" situation - make an aggressive play or double and claim use of UI to get the normal score back when it doesn't work. I have no idea what would happen in a big game.

 

Michael.

[pigpenz]

but as usual any information you draw from the table you do so at your own risk...in old days before bidding boxes you were allowed to correct your bid in the same breath..."double i mean 2 diamonds" would have been accepted.

 

Now 1♦ i mean doube is something else its an insufficient bid, correcting bid does allow partner back into the auction, not correcting it bars partner. In this case the person is still taking a guess as to what is the best action.

[awm]

The score should be adjusted. If opponents make use of UI in the auction, then the result of the board will be changed for both sides to what it should be if they had acted ethically. Additional PPs may also be assessed if the use of UI was particularly blatant.

 

The only exception is a "failure to play bridge" by the non-offending side. If you take a line which is reasonable based on the auction and cards, but happens to be "not best" you should still receive an adjusted score if the opponents used UI. In this case it seems clear that playing the 2♥ bidder for the ♥Q is reasonable and just because it doesn't happen to work should not negate any adjustment based on the opponents bidding.

[kfgauss]

Thanks for the replies. I'm in the US, so ACBL specifics apply. The 1D bid was pretty close to the table, but was very quickly replaced by the double, so no real chance to call the director between the two.

 

The score should be adjusted. If opponents make use of UI in the auction, then the result of the board will be changed for both sides to what it should be if they had acted ethically. Additional PPs may also be assessed if the use of UI was particularly blatant.

 

The only exception is a "failure to play bridge" by the non-offending side. If you take a line which is reasonable based on the auction and cards, but happens to be "not best" you should still receive an adjusted score if the opponents used UI. In this case it seems clear that playing the 2♥ bidder for the ♥Q is reasonable and just because it doesn't happen to work should not negate any adjustment based on the opponents bidding.

 

So if I understand you correctly, the contract remains at 2S, but then the "best result likely" is given to the non-offending side, even though 2S was the actual contract and was actually played out?

 

The opponents didn't gain any benefit from the 2♥ bid other than to convince me to make a failing play. If LHO had competed to 3♥, they would've benefitted (they can take 9 tricks in hearts), but that doesn't seem relevant as they didn't compete.

 

Andy

[Walddk]

I am confused. How come that the TD didn't offer LHO to accept the insufficient bid when he (the TD) stated that the 1♦ call had been made? Failing to do so is against the laws - friendly club or not.

 

Roland

[kfgauss]

I am confused. How come that the TD didn't offer LHO to accept the insufficient bid when he (the TD) stated that the 1♦ call had been made? Failing to do so is against the laws - friendly club or not.

 

Roland

Yes, presumably this should have happened, but it shouldn't be so confusing that it didn't :).

 

Andy

[pigpenz]

I dont really think that from looking at all four of the hands that there was that much wrong at all....West did have a hard time between double and 2♦, maybe at the last second did decide to change calls. East has a tough choice sit for 2♦ and hope partner has real long diamonds or hope to find a better fit in ♥'s or ♣'s.

 

Like i had posted before any inference you take from the actions at the table you do so at your own risk. I dont really think that it is that clear cut that there was unathorized information given and taken advantage of at the table.

 

I would let result stand :)

 

and be glad that they didnt play in hearts or clubs, +110 is a plus its better than a minus.

[kfgauss]

I dont really think that from looking at all four of the hands that there was that much wrong at all....West did have a hard time between double and 2♦, maybe at the last second did decide to change calls. East has a tough choice sit for 2♦ and hope partner has real long diamonds or hope to find a better fit in ♥'s or ♣'s.

 

Like i had posted before any inference you take from the actions at the table you do so at your own risk. I dont really think that it is that clear cut that there was unathorized information given and taken advantage of at the table.

 

I would let result stand :)

 

and be glad that they didnt play in hearts or clubs, +110 is a plus its better than a minus.

I'm very willing to accept that inferences I make are at my own risk. Saying there was no use of UI and/or that there's nothing wrong with the 2♥ bid seems very wrong.

 

East had UI that West had a takeout double in addition to a 2♦ bid. This UI suggests bidding 2♥ instead of leaving partner in 2♦. East may have had a tough call of whether to pass or bid 2♥, but this means that pass was certainly a logical alternative and thus East should pass (or face the consequences of an adjustment later).

 

Also, regarding West thinking about doubling or bidding 2♦, this just strengthens the argument that UI existed: people really aren't allowed to make 2 bids at once to help partner when they can't decide what to do. In any case, she started with 1♦ (I'm pretty sure she didn't see my 1♠ card initially), not 2♦.

 

Andy

 

Edit: I'm not really interested in retribution or how I did on this hand... I just thought this was an interesting laws question that I didn't know the answer to.

[pigpenz]

the problem is how do you prove that there was unauthorized information give?

In my opinion East has his bid, it could be just as likely that West has a very good hand with long diamonds...there are some people who double to gaurantee four of the other major soem who double to show unbid suits, and there is still the possiblity that double shows a very good diamonds suit with alot of hcp.

 

I just feel that sometimes we feel we are damaged but we reallly arent. It sounds like to me this is more a matchpoint play problem

[LH2650]

North could have accepted either the double or the 1 diamond bid, but if he does not, West can correct to 2 diamonds with no penalty (aside from UI concerns and lead penalties). The biggest use of UI here appears to be West’s failure to raise hearts. Whether this was an attempt to avoid taking advantage is unclear. Also, if East really wanted to use UI, she certainly would have taken another bid.

 

If East had passed originally, you would have bid 2 spades, West should double, and East should bid 3 hearts. You were fortunate not to be defending 3 hearts, or playing 3 spades (which should go down). Perhaps you should take your plus.

[McBruce]

Real good TD problem!

 

It seems clear to me that when a player with a bidding card in his hand about to hit the table makes some sort of ejaculatory statement ("oh!" or worse...) it means that the player was about to make that bid but has noticed something in the earlier auction that was missed before. Here it is abundantly clear that the player intended to open 1♦, thinking that RHO had passed. Given the facts that the original poster describes, I can't see any other way of interpreting it, and I would be quite wary of a claim that something else was happening.

 

So 1♦ is the bid, it is insufficient, LHO of 1♦ can accept the call. The substituted double is cancelled and is UI to East--and I would carefully explain that even to a beginner. (I usually use the analogy of court testimony stricken from the record.) Assuming the 1♦ bid is not accepted, the auction continues as reported and South plays 2♠.

 

LAW 16 UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION

 

Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law.

 

A. Extraneous Information from Partner

 

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

 

1. When Such Information Is Given

 

When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result, he may, unless the regulations of the sponsoring organization prohibit, immediately announce that he reserves the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed).

 

{...}

 

C. Information from Withdrawn Calls and Plays

 

A call or play may be withdrawn, and another substituted, either by a non-offending side after an opponent's infraction or by an offending side to rectify an infraction.

 

1. Non-offending Side

For the non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn action is authorized, whether the action be its own or its opponents'.

 

2. Offending Side

For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. A player of the offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorized information.

 

South is entitled to assume that East has not broken L16A1 and/or L16C2 to make the 2♥ call--he should have a hand which would clearly bid 2♥ without the UI conveyed by the illegally substituted double. Law 16C1 allows South to make this assumption. Therefore, at the end of the deal he should call the TD back and ask for a ruling on the legality of the 2♥ bid.

 

If I were the TD my first decision would be to note that this is a close call. I would certainly not decide this at the table. I would tell the players to continue and that I would return with a ruling later. "Score it as played for now."

 

The TD, even in a club game should determine whether East had a logical alternative to 2♥. The method that one of North America's finest Directors suggests is for the TD to write the East hand and the auction (without the UI) on a slip of paper and find out what several other players of similar calibre might bid, by asking privately. You can usually do this during the game by checking players' scoresheets to make sure they have already played the deal, or perhaps are not scheduled to play the deal in the event. I believe that the general standard to establish a logical alternative is that one player in four would consider some specific other bid. If you poll eight players and five are sure they would bid 2♥ and the other three choose pass, 2NT and 3♣, there is no LA.

 

The important point is that we are not going to adjust the score based on South reading the wrong cards into East's hand. We are going to adjust the score if we determine that East had a logical alternative. If we decide to do so, we adjust as directed in Law 12C2:

 

When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing.

 

I make this 140 both ways but this is a judgment call.

 

By the way, if I do adjust the score in this case, I do NOT give a procedural penalty to E-W. I think this is very close to being a reasonable 2♥ call and if I rule against E-W I am certainly going to assure them that it was in no way unethical for East to bid 2♥. If East held five small clubs then I would have a problem: a 2♥ bid with a zero count is clearly taking advantage of UI.

 

Oddly enough, knowing the behavior patterns of players as I do after TDing in a club for a year or so, I would expect to give N-S a penalty more often! Many players (and certainly NOT the original poster from his comments) seem to feel that they are entitled to see their opponents get hit with a bad score or a PP when they break L16A1--and a select few will complain when it doesn't happen. To maintain order, you have to warn and then, if necessary, penalize, when this type of behavior occurs. It's not fair to expect a player to automatically fall on his sword in a UI situation. As long as the player makes an effort to ignore the UI, there is no need for a PP.

[mycroft]

North could have accepted either the double or the 1 diamond bid, but if he does not, West can correct to 2 diamonds with no penalty (aside from UI concerns and lead penalties).

 

Careful - (and similarly McBruce). If we accept that 1D was bid - borderline in the ACBL from the description, absolutely no question most everywhere else - then the attempt to correct to a double causes problems.

 

1) I cannot believe this was a mechanical error; it is 100% that the person wanted to bid 1D, not pulled the wrong card meaning to double. Therefore we're in Law 25B territory, not Law 25A.

 

2) Because the original bid was insufficient, the footnote to Law 25B directs us to Law 27 instead of allowing LHO to accept the change.

 

3) Law 27B says that an attempt to correct to double is not allowed, and Law 27B3 imposes the penalty - which is that the insufficient bid must be corrected to a legal bid or pass, and partner must pass throughout the auction.

 

I don't care if West didn't know the Laws; he should have called the TD and found them out. Normally, I'm pretty lenient with Law 10A - but here, West gets Law 9C read to him, and then told that in this case, the further action *does* trigger "further penalty". To be fair to him, I'll also explain Law 23 and 26 to him before he gets to decide what to bid over 1S.

 

Having allowed the cafuffle, I think any TD anywhere would and should look at East's hand and see if 2H meets her Law 16 requirements, and explain to her what Law 73C means if there is even a small chance that the call isn't 100% (even if we're going to allow it under Law 16).

 

Pigpenz: Yes, West could have 19 high and diamonds. In which case, 2H won't cost. In the other 90% of the cases, West has hearts to go along with her diamonds. A 'no lose, and usually win' situation is obviously "demonstrably suggested".

 

As I said, I don't know how I would rule on the potential "double-shot" - "If she has her 2H call, this has to be the right play. If she doesn't have it, 2H was based on UI". But as far as the other sides of the problem go, they're straightforward.

 

Michael.

[pigpenz]

Pigpenz: Yes, West could have 19 high and diamonds.  In which case, 2H won't cost.  In the other 90% of the cases, West has hearts to go along with her diamonds.  A 'no lose, and usually win' situation is obviously "demonstrably suggested".

the trouble is that everything is that happened is borderline. what we do know is that declarer got to play the contract he didnt have to defend and he was plus 110. Most likely he would have faced the same deciscion in the play of the hand. EWcould have acted onUI but didnt bid further. NS got to the par spot for them EW didnt.

 

Theres not much further we can do on this than access a procedural penalty against EW.

[inquiry]

the trouble is that everything is that happened is borderline.

The two heart bid on Ten high suit (perhaps only four, and no more than five), is clearly based upon UI. This is not board line. We are not even sure where the both club honors are hiding, although wth both of them I guess WEST might still be bidding.

[pigpenz]

the trouble is that everything is that happened is borderline.

The two heart bid on Ten high suit (perhaps only four, and no more than five), is clearly based upon UI. This is not board line. We are not even sure where the both club honors are hiding, although wth both of them I guess WEST might still be bidding.

so where do you want to go with it? NS got to play the hand in their par spot! If you think EW for sure acted on UI, then all you can do is give EW a procedural penalty and let score stand for NS.

[awm]

I think it's reasonable to play opponents for the cards they should have if acting ethically. Surely if declarer had played LHO for AKQ tight of hearts there would be no protection when LHO turns up with AKT. Since the 2♥ bid probably shouldn't have been allowed on the hand in question, I think some adjustment is merited.

 

To give another example, I was declarer in 2♥X on the auction 1♦-P-1♥-P-2♥-P-P-X. Before the lead I asked what the meaning of double was (yes, I'm well aware that most people play it as balancing takeout, but I also know that in acbl-land virtually no double is alertable regardless of meaning). I was informed that double is penalty. When dummy came down it became pretty clear that the contract was cold if trumps break 3-2, and that I could guard against a 4-1 break on either side (but not both). I played the "penalty doubler" for four trumps, and they were 4-1 the other way -- clearly the double was takeout and partner (with four trumps) converted. This appears to be the same sort of double-shot: if opponents have given me correct information about the double, I would have a good chance to make, and if they gave me wrong information I could call the director to adjust the score. Nonetheless the director changed my result from 2♥ down one to 2♥ making. Misjudgements in the play due to misinformation or opponents use of UI can be adjusted too.

[McBruce]

Well done mycroft! (I missed L27B3 somehow in my response.) Barring East does solve most of the potential problems right away! I'll be watching for this one in future.

 

As for the 2♥ bid being clearly based on UI, I disagree. High cards have to be somewhere here and leaving partner to play 2♦ opposite a singleton when you have two five card suits is not unreasonable. Once again I suggest that TDs keep an open mind and try to get evidence that there is one or more logical alternative before deciding. The one player I have given the hand to said he would bid 2♥ and not consider anything else.

 

Also, I should repeat my opinion that giving a PP for using UI has to be a situation where the offender is virtually certain to know that he was taking advantage AND ignoring a logical alternative in favour of the bid that would certainly gain. Here there is some reason to bid 2♥ in a clean auction. It is not unethical for the East player to bid 2♥ if he honestly feels he is not taking advantage of UI--even if a TD or AC later disagree.

 

As for the adjustment, I don't much care what South would have done absent the illegal 2♥ bid (if found as such). We simply give N-S the most favourable result likely, and E-W the most unfavourable result that was at all possible. To me that is still 140.

[mycroft]

the trouble is that everything is that happened is borderline.

The two heart bid on Ten high suit (perhaps only four, and no more than five), is clearly based upon UI. This is not board line. We are not even sure where the both club honors are hiding, although wth both of them I guess WEST might still be bidding.

so where do you want to go with it? NS got to play the hand in their par spot! If you think EW for sure acted on UI, then all you can do is give EW a procedural penalty and let score stand for NS.

"It's not enough to win the tricks that belong to you. Try also for some that belong to the opponents." --Alfred Sheinwold

 

It doesn't matter if N/S got to par - and they didn't, par was 3H=, and it was the line of play based on East not taking advantage of UI that made it only 110 - if N/S would have beat par if E/W hadn't infracted. Or are you telling me that we should just waive the revoke penalty, because the non-offenders got to par without it?

 

If East bid 2H after 1S-1D/2D - she is allowed, by the way, to know that W may be offshape for a 2D call, because it's the only way to keep E in the bidding - on a hand that "a number of her peers would have thought of passing (or bidding 3D, or...), and some would actually do so" (the ACBL definition of Logical Alternative) then she has taken a call demonstrably suggested by the UI (the double) when there were other LAs available, and if N/S were damaged by that, the TD is to award an adjusted score. N/S may lose their right to their side of the adjusted score if they have done something considered "failure to play bridge" for a pair at their level (the ACBL's interpretation of the "egregious, wild or gambling" phrasing), but E/W should be adjusted nonetheless.

 

Yes, it is possible that the adjusted score may be the same as the table score. It may be par. It may be that there was no damage in the bidding because without 2H, E/W would have played 2D-1. But the adjusted score rules do not mandate "par" - they require the offenders to recieve the "worst score at all possible" without the infraction (the use of UI) and for the non-offenders to receive the "best score that was likely" without the infraction (not the most likely score, by the way). Par is irrelevant if N/S was heading for a top if E/W was completely proper.

 

If E/W used UI, we adjust according to the Laws. If E blatantly used UI, knowing his responsibility (or if it's so screamingly bad that any sane bridge player should be expected to know it's not on) then they get a procedural penalty for Law 73C violation as well.

 

Here, that could very well mean that N/S get +140 because in a non-use-of-UI auction, East would have passed, and now the non-risky play is "likely". It might be possible that in a non-use-of-UI auction, E/W were about to get into 4Dx or 3Hx that would go for 300 or more. If that's the case, we assign it, even if nobody in the normal auction world would have got there. You make a mistake, sometimes it doesn't cost, but sometimes you pay for it - same as if you return the wrong suit.

 

I've seen the hand (it's probably in this thread, too, but I saw it on another site). I'm not sure East has a LA to 2H with xx xxxxx x AKxxx, but that's why I always get peers to decide. Not that that changes any of the above (notice the many _If_s in all my replies).

 

Michael.

[pigpenz]

Well done mycroft! (I missed L27B3 somehow in my response.) Barring East does solve most of the potential problems right away! I'll be watching for this one in future.

 

As for the 2♥ bid being clearly based on UI, I disagree. High cards have to be somewhere here and leaving partner to play 2♦ opposite a singleton when you have two five card suits is not unreasonable. Once again I suggest that TDs keep an open mind and try to get evidence that there is one or more logical alternative before deciding. The one player I have given the hand to said he would bid 2♥ and not consider anything else.

 

Also, I should repeat my opinion that giving a PP for using UI has to be a situation where the offender is virtually certain to know that he was taking advantage AND ignoring a logical alternative in favour of the bid that would certainly gain. Here there is some reason to bid 2♥ in a clean auction. It is not unethical for the East player to bid 2♥ if he honestly feels he is not taking advantage of UI--even if a TD or AC later disagree.

 

As for the adjustment, I don't much care what South would have done absent the illegal 2♥ bid (if found as such). We simply give N-S the most favourable result likely, and E-W the most unfavourable result that was at all possible. To me that is still 140.

well put McBruce!

its matchpoints and its a bidders game. I feel if they had bid on UI they would have bid to3♥! The laws sometimes offer up strange results. What if west took his bid back and bid 3♥ highly unlikely but I have seen weirder things where in this same situation you know if you takeyour bid back and ban partner from further action people are known to bid 3NT. North def could have taken recourse from the laws also by accepting the 1♦ bid and bidding 1♠.

[LH2650]

2) Because the original bid was insufficient, the footnote to Law 25B directs us to Law 27 instead of allowing LHO to accept the change.

 

I accept that if LHO condones neither the double or the 1 diamond bid, the heart bidder would be barred, but LHO has the option to accept either call. The footnote should be eliminated, since it is logically unreachable.

 

I would not award +140 because there are good players who would consider 2H clear. They are not mainstream, and therefore their action would be overturned based on the LA rule, but that is not the issue. They must take the action that they consider right, and declarer must live with his mistaken inferences.

[pigpenz]

all you can do is hope your opps are ethical, if not much you can do about it. Maybe that is their style to bid like that.

 

I remember a hand I had where i played 3NT doubled after an opp in first seat opened 2♥ red at imps, the contract hinged on me bringin home the heart suit without a loser, yes me. Turns out he had opened 2♥ on 10xxxxx and an outside ace. Not realy much i good do as i lost to the jack♥ offside, but deep in my mind I feel I got cheated that they didnt disclose that their vul weak twos were that undisciplined but that was several thousand hands ago and I am sure they have gone for numbers if still using that tactic. so its water under the bridge and off to the next board

[McBruce]

So far in my investigations, without the UI:

 

--four players have chosen 2♥, only one listing pass as an alternative

--one player has passed

 

At this point pass is a LA but it is close and probably more input would be needed.

[pigpenz]

So far in my investigations, without the UI:

 

--four players have chosen 2♥, only one listing pass as an alternative

--one player has passed

 

At this point pass is a LA but it is close and probably more input would be needed.

and with that in mind it now becomes a play problem.

Its like playing to take the pedestrian finesse or playing to smother the tenholding ajxxx q9xx

 

but it was a good topic :lol:

[barmar]

the problem is how do you prove that there was unauthorized information give?

There's clearly UI given, that's not in dispute. I think you meant to ask "how do you prove that the UI affected the bidding?"

 

And the answer is that this doesn't have to be proved. The relevant law doesn't require that you determine that the player actually made his call based on the UI, just that he could have. To summarize the law, if there's UI, and a player has several reasonable choices of actions (called "Logical Alternatives" in the Laws), and the UI suggests that any of them are likely to be more successful, the player may not choose those.

 

This is why the excuse "I was planning to bid that anyway" bears little weight. If the UI suggests doing what you were planning on doing, but there are other logical alternatives, you may be screwed. When UI is involved, the Laws are biased in favor of the non-offending side.