Twisted Laws or Good Poiint

[inquiry]

An odd little post caught my attention on rec.games.bridge. You may have seen it there, but here it is again.

 

1♠ - (Pass)- Pass - 2♣

PASS* - (Pass)   -2♦ - 3♣

?

 

For the premise of this post, you are the 1♠ bidder, and you could not help yourself, you had a significant break in tempo over your RHO 2♣ reopening bid. Futher, it is assumed your partner is a highly ethical player and would only bid 2♦ if it was clear that essentially everyone with his hand would do so on this auction (without the break in tempo).. the original post quoted 75% or more wold bid 2♦.

 

The question posed is given that you know your partner would have passed unless 2♦ was extremely clear, are you in possession of UI. The UI, if it exist, caused by your own initial break in tempo and your knowledge of your partners absolute ethical standard when deciding to bid or pass?

[pbleighton]

"The question posed is given that you know your partner would have passed unless 2D was extremely clear, are you in possession of UI."

 

No.

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

This is a weird one:

 

My gut says the following:

 

1. I am in possession of UI

2. I am having a hard time figuring out just what this UI suggests

 

Can one convince a plausible set of hands where less than ethical player would advance 2♦ but a completely ethical player would not?

[jillybean]

Yes I have UI, Im not sure what, if anything it suggests.

[Guest Jlall]

yes I have UI, and I'm pretty sure it suggests that if I wanted to bid 3D that would be a great idea. Partner is very likely to have 6 diamonds.

[inquiry]

Can one convince a plausible set of hands where less than ethical player would advance 2♦ but a completely ethical player would not?

I think Justin is on the right track. An ethical player would never bid 2♦ on a five card suit on this auction. So while 2♦ here would most often be made on a six card suit with or without the huddle, it will sometimes be bid on five bagger. With the huddle, to bid on a five card suit would not be LA.

 

In addition, the quality of the diamond suit maybe at issue. Some might balance 2♦ with six or seven ratty diamonds, but after the huddle, the ethical player will have fairly good diamond intermediates and probably at least two of the QJT.

 

Suit quality, legnth, make apply "LOTT" much easier after an "ethically sound" bid of 2♦. So I find myself oddly agreeing with the ccncept that the 1♠ opener will be in possession of UI. To jilly, what this suggest is that a raise to 3♦ would work out ok for your side should you have some modest ♦ fit.

[Gerben42]

Let's look at a hand:

 

♠A76432

♥AK

♦K5

♣K43

 

1♠ Pass Pass 2♣

 

You ponder for a while, after all they are 17 prime HCP, but decide that you don't want to Double, and don't want to rebid your not-quite-solid ♠ suit either, so you...

 

... Pass after about 30 seconds...

 

Pass 2♦ 3♣

 

If you can count on partner having ♦QJxxxx and out bidding 3♦ here is a good bet. If he can have worse ♦, it is not.

[Finch]

yes I have UI, and I'm pretty sure it suggests that if I wanted to bid 3D that would be a great idea. Partner is very likely to have 6 diamonds.

I agree.

 

Unusually, the UI is my creation rather than my partner's.

 

A similar auction is something like this:

 

1D - 1S

4C - 4S (very slow)

5C - ?

 

The 4S bidder knows that partner will have a very very strong slam try, because partner is confident that passing 4S was not a LA.

[jikl]

I think p has something like QJxxxx or QTxxxx, I can never imagine a reason for doing it on a 5 bagger.

 

Yes I have UI, but I must trust my partner and therefore act accordingly with his/her bid. If I take into account my tank in some ways I am failing. What would I bid if the whole auction was in tempo?

 

Sean

[mink]

I do not have an UI. The laws require my partner to bid only if most other players would bid with his hand, too. Therefore, I will always assume that he follows the law, and I expect opps to assume the same. There is no merit in assuming him not to care about my hesitation and bidding with a 5 card ♦ suit, because in this case the TD will adjust to 2♣ whatever, taking away partner's bid, so what I do would not matter in this case.

 

Karl

[blackshoe]

Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents.

 

Partner's 2♦ call is legal, and hence AI. That he had UI when he made the call is extraneous information, but that doesn't necessarily make it unauthorized. And even if it is UI, there is the question of whether it suggests anything, and whether there is a LA to the suggestion.

[inquiry]

Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents.

 

Partner's 2♦ call is legal, and hence AI. That he had UI when he made the call is extraneous information, but that doesn't necessarily make it unauthorized. And even if it is UI, there is the question of whether it suggests anything, and whether there is a LA to the suggestion.

But don't you think that the "authorized information" that your partner did not stretch to bid 2♦ becomes unathorized in light of you break in tempo? That is, you know, beyond a doubt, that your partner did not stretch to bid 2♦ is some wild hope to nudge them higher. You know he actually really has his bid.And the reason you know this is because of your own break in tempo. Thus making this AI now UI. I don't know how the bridge lawyers would rule this, but it seems fairy clear to me.

[blackshoe]

I don't know either, but it seems to me we can get wrapped around this crap to the point the game is unplayable. I think if the lawmakers want to make inferences from the fact that partner, having UI, called unauthorized to me, they better damn well say so explicitly. They didn't. I'm a pretty competent TD, I think. I've read the laws, and the interpretations, where I can find them, of the WBFLC and the ACBLLC. Based on all that, I will not rule that a hesitating player whose partner bids is constrained by UI absent specific guidance to do so from either the ACBLLC or the WBFLC - and I don't have that.

[Elianna]

So I was curious about this, and emailed Jeff Goldsmith. He referred me to Law 73D1, which he said clearly says that any inference drawn from your own hesitation is UI. Now that I see that law, I agree. For those of you who don't have a law book in front of you:

 

It is desireable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner.  However, players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side.  Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety, but inferences from such variation may apporopriately be drawn only be an opponent, and at his own risk.

(I added the emphasis)

[blackshoe]

With all due respect to Mr. Goldsmith, there are, I think, more authoritative sources of opinion. I'll see what I can dig up.

[pclayton]

With all due respect to Mr. Goldsmith, there are, I think, more authoritative sources of opinion. I'll see what I can dig up.

Well he's co-chair of one of the National Appeals Teams, so Jeff rates to know what he's talking about.

[blackshoe]

He may well be right, but it seems to me a rather stringent interpretation. As I said, I'll ask around.

[LH2650]

The premise in the original problem statement is flawed.

 

From The Bridge World Editorial of November, 2004:

 

"Any law or implementation that encourages taking notice of UI from partner is irredeemably horrible."

 

The Editorial goes on to detail the correct interpretation of this area of law, and addresses a common but incorrect interpretation suggested in the original post.

 

My lawful and ethical partner must do exactly what he would have done without my hesitation. Anything else would be illegal. Therefore, I have no UI from his action after my hesitation.

[MickyB]

That editorial was based on Jeff Rubens' opinions, not the way that the laws are (currently) interpreted.

 

The original statement was correct, IMO, and I'm yet to be convinced either way on it.

[helene_t]

Yes I have UI but I voted no anyway. Maybe I needed a 4th option. Basically, I aggree with Richard and Kathryn (I think).

 

A fast pass would have suggested a balanced hand. This would make it relatively safe for p to bid his 5-card diamonds.

 

A slow pass suggests something to say. I'm quite likely to have a 6-card spades. Or maybe four hearts. These possibilities might make it more risky for p to bid his diamonds. It's quite possible that he didn't like to bid his diamonds but thought he had to because his UI suggested he shouldn't.

 

Then again, I'm sure other lines of thought would lead to the opposite conclusion. It may depend on our notrump range, whether we always open 1NT with a 5M332 in range, and what a double by me (or by partner) would have meant.

[hotShot]

I think that the problem -as stated- is irrelevant.

 

Any hesitation prior to that pass is suggesting to bid on. So if pass from partners hand would have been an LA, than he would have to take it.

 

Trying to get extra information out of that fact is nitpicking beyond the bridge laws. Every time an UI situation occurs this problem exists, so it should have been expressed in the laws how to deal with it. It should be part of the std treatment.

[mink]

...

 

My lawful and ethical partner must do exactly what he would have done without my hesitation. Anything else would be illegal. Therefore, I have no UI from his action after my hesitation.

This is not true. My partner, the 2♦ bidder, has a UI by my hesitation and is now required to avoid any call that is suggested by the UI, unless there are no logical alternatives.

 

But the question of this thread is if I in turn have an UI, generated by my own hesitation plus my knowledge that partner is an ethical player and therefore he must have a sound 2♦ bid. In my fist post in this thread I already argued why I think I have no UI. Unfortunately nobody cared to discuss why my arguments miss the point, though the majority here thinks that there is an UI.

 

Maybe it helps to add another argument: Suppose I really have an UI. Now I am required to avoid any call suggested by the UI. Maybe I would have liked to bid 3♦, but because of the UI I rather pass. But this results in assuming my partner might have made an unethical bid. Do you really think, the laws require me to assume partner did something unethical? This is really ridiculous.

 

We all know that it is impossible to avoid generating an UI for partner, especially by thinking. We know that partner's choices are restricted after an UI. This is a fact that is established by the laws. It does not matter if I suspect partner to sometimes deviate from the lawful path - even with such a partner I would assume his 2♦ bid is lawful. So the fact that I know my partner is indeed ethical does not have the slightest influence on my decision after the 3♣.

 

Karl

[cherdano]

The premise in the original problem statement is flawed.

 

From The Bridge World Editorial of November, 2004:

 

"Any law or implementation that encourages taking notice of UI from partner is irredeemably horrible."

 

The Editorial goes on to detail the correct interpretation of this area of law, and addresses a common but incorrect interpretation suggested in the original post.

 

My lawful and ethical partner must do exactly what he would have done without my hesitation.  Anything else would be illegal.  Therefore, I have no UI from his action after my hesitation.

That's clearly a minority opinion by Jeff Rubens (or the editors of bridge world), and probably just an example of the fact that The Bridge World has lost its importance with respect to laws.

 

I also fail to see how Rubens can reconcile his opinion with

the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information

(Law 16A)

 

Unless of course Rubens is talking about how the law should be, not how it currently is.

 

Arend

[Sancho]

Could those who argue that one is not under UI restrictions here please tell me what that means if I have reason to assume that partner does not bend over backwards to avoid use of the UI I gave him by huddling over 2♣ (not necessarily because he is a known cheat; he might be a beginner who knows nothing about L16)?

 

Do I actually *have* to bid 3D if it is a logical alternative?

[awm]

I think that there is a difference between:

 

(1) What should I, as an ethical player, do after partner gives me UI?

 

(2) Under what conditions should the director adjust/not adjust the result of the board?

 

My responsibility as a player is to ignore all unauthorized information and bid as if it never happened. It is not my job to try to "guess" what other players would have done in the same situation, try to guess what might or might not be a logical alternative, or otherwise take actions I would not normally take in order to "avoid taking advantage of the UI."

 

On the other hand, my acting ethically does not mean the director won't adjust the board. She has only my word to go on that I didn't take advantage of the UI, and as others have commented it can be hard to avoid taking advantage of UI even if you know you're supposed to ignore it. There's no way the director can figure out "what call I would've made if there was no UI" so the laws instead require her to judge based on "what calls would most people have made" and adjust if it seems that a substantial fraction of the players would not have selected the call I selected, and that my call seems favored by the UI.

 

Just because the director adjusts a board where there was UI, doesn't mean the person with the UI acted unethically!