Alert questions

[elwood913]

Hi,

 

My partner and I are relatively new to duplicate bridge and I have a few questions about alerts.

 

I understand that if my partner fails to alert a bid I do nothing until: after the conclusion of the bidding and prior to the opponents making the opening lead if our side has declared, or until after the play has concluded if we are defending, at which time I call the director and bring up the omission.

 

1) Is this correct?

 

2 ) Am I under the same obligation if my partner has alerted and has been asked for information and has replied incorrectly? (or, similarly, if he has not alerted but has been prompted for information by the opponents)

 

3) If I am to wait until the end of the bidding in the case of my partner giving incorrect information, how do I respond to my partner's bid? For example, say we at some point switched from 2NT-3♣ asking for a 5-card Major to asking for a 4-card Major. Partner is asked the meaning of the 3♣ bid and states it is asking for a 5-card Major, explaining our old method. I hold a 4-card Major which would clearly be bid in the system we have agreed to play, but equally clearly not be bid in the system my partner just described: am I obligated to show the 4-card Major as our agreement would have it, or obligated not to show it as his explanation would have it? (It may be unavoidable, but I do not intend to bring up the meta-question "what system are we playing?" or "can it be said to be agreed upon if we don't remember it?" I mean more simply that partner knows full well what we are playing but just goofed on this call. Perhaps a better example would be: partner knows we use splinter bids and generally applies our agreements covering their use correctly, but has just alerted a particular jump shift as a weak jump shift when in fact it is a splinter--must i now continue to bid as if I expect partner to show me a singleton or void and a handfull of high cards, not QJxxxxxx xx x xx?)

 

We use preemptive re-raises and new suit game tries where the new suit suggests but does not guarantee length in the suit.

 

4) Does 1M-2M-3M have to be alerted as non-invitational?

 

5) Does the new suit game try have to be alerted? If not generally, does it change if competition has limited your choices so that your bid clearly can not convey any information about your holding since it is your only available game try bid? For example: 1♥-(2♣)-2♥-(3♣)-3♦, where you may hold 2 or fewer diamonds [ex. from Root and Pavlicek's Modern Bridge Conventions].

 

6) If the sequence were instead 1♥-(2♦)-2♥-(3♦)-X, the X would be a game try since no new suit game try is available. Alert the X?

 

Thanks,

Bill

[awm]

(1) Correct. You cannot indicate partner's failure to alert at a time when it might help partner to understand the auction or defense. This means you tell the opponents after the end of the auction (if you are the declaring side) or at the end of the hand (otherwise).

 

(2) Also correct, same as (1).

 

(3) Always bid according to your agreements, as if you couldn't hear partner's alerts (or non-alerts) or explanations. So in the example you should bid your four card major in response to 3♣, as per your agreements. Perhaps more problematically, if partner later makes a call you should also explain it as per your agreements, so for example say you bid 3♦ over 3♣ and partner now bids 3♥. In your old agreements (say) this shows four spades and looks for a fit there; in your new agreements (say) this is smolen showing 5♠ and 4♥. You should alert and if asked, explain your agreement that it's 5♠ and 4♥. Obviously this gives partner some unauthorized information and a director may be needed later....

 

(4-6) Whether particular bids are alertable depends on where you're playing. Different countries have different rules. My best guess would be that (4) 3M not alertable. (5) If the new suit shows length and/or values in the suit named, not alertable; if it shows shortness or is a general try (such as in the competitive auction) it would be alertable. (6) Not alertable in ACBL (because doubles almost never alertable) but alertable in most other places.

[hrothgar]

(3) Always bid according to your agreements, as if you couldn't hear partner's alerts (or non-alerts) or explanations. So in the example you should bid your four card major in response to 3♣, as per your agreements.

Are you sure about this one?

 

In the case of tempo violations, the Laws forbid you from chosing an alternative that is suggested by misinformation. This is NOT the same thing as ignorning partner's break in tempo. I woudl assume that all classes of misinformation are treated the same way.

 

(I'm probably nitpicking here. You seem to be discussing things in general, while I am discussing a specific case in which you might be choosing between different bids in response to partner's response to a bid that partner did not alert)

[helene_t]

What Adam said but I'd add one thing:

 

You should try not to say what a call asks for but what it says. The information that 3♣ asks for a 4-card can never help opps but it can help partner. Just explain 3♣ as "relay, looking for a major suit fit". Itś not the meaning of the 3♣ bid that is different, but those of the answers to 3♣. Responder can alert the 3♦ answer to Puppet Stayman and explain it as "promises a 4-card in either or both majors" if opps would otherwise think that 3♦ denied a 4-card major.

 

In this case, opps should probably not ask before the auction is over. The meaning of the answers to 3♣ are relevant to the defensive play, not to the defensive bidding.

 

If a 2♣ response to 1NT asks for a five-card major and will therefore frequently be used with a weak hand with diamonds, then it should be alerted. The propper explanation, if asked for, is "either weak with diamonds or some invitational or strong hand".

[ralph23]

(4) Sounds like you are playing "1-2-3-Stop." That is a natural bid but does it show "highly unusual" values? I.e. it says "Stop partner don't bid more" rather than "What do you think?"

 

The ACBL Alert Chart says natural bids aren't alertable unless they show this "highly unusual" shape or values.

 

I don't know if it's "highly unusual" -- I do think it's unusual -- but in ACBL land, I think it's probably alertable. I would alert it if playing it (we don't), becuase I think the opps won't suspect that it's preemptive, and not invitational.

 

(6) Sounds like what Root & Pav call the "Maximal Overcall Double" in MBC, and what is on my ACBL convention card as "Maximal" under the double section (in the far upper left hand corner), and there "Maximal" is in red. I think it is alertable in ACBL land, which is where I assume you are playing. At least we always alert this and haven't gotten into trouble for it (yet :) ).

Edited August 6, 2007 by ralph23

[Stephen Tu]

(3) Always bid according to your agreements, as if you couldn't hear partner's alerts (or non-alerts) or explanations. So in the example you should bid your four card major in response to 3♣, as per your agreements.

 

Are you sure about this one?

 

In the case of tempo violations, the Laws forbid you from chosing an alternative that is suggested by misinformation. This is NOT the same thing as ignorning partner's break in tempo. I woudl assume that all classes of misinformation are treated the same way.

 

It's "unauthorized information" here, not "misinformation". Partner's alert + incorrect explanation are unauthorized information to you. Just as you aren't allowed to choose calls that are suggested to be better by the UI of a tempo break, you aren't allowed to choose calls suggested by the UI of the explanation. Without the UI, your only logical alternative would have been to bid your 4 cd major. So you continue to do so in the face of the UI. This is an easy case since there's only one L.A., bidding 4 cd major. If there were more than one L.A., then it would be more complicated, you'd have to decide if the UI provided by partner made one of the L.A.s more likely to succeed than another.

 

The misinformation is to the opponents & should be corrected when they are on lead.

[jtfanclub]

In the case of tempo violations, the Laws forbid you from chosing an alternative that is suggested by misinformation. This is NOT the same thing as ignorning partner's break in tempo. I woudl assume that all classes of misinformation are treated the same way.

I insist that what it actually says is to bid as if you didn't have the misinformation, and you will be PUNISHED if what you bid happens to be suggested by the UI. Unless this is another part of Director's Decisions that we're supposed to ignore.

 

What Hrothgar says is true- if you pick the thing not implied by the UI, you're less likely to be punished. However, that also risks going backwards. If you pass when your partner slow passes and double when your partner quick passes, not only are you giving partner the opportunity to slow pass with nothing to think about to keep you from Xing, but when you do X your partner knows more about your hand when he had slow passed than he would if he'd quick passed.

 

I claim the legal and ethical thing to do is to bid as if the UI never existed, and bend over backwards only if you're considering two bids and think you may have been subconsciously influenced by the UI. This does mean you're likely to get punished for being ethical, but hey, that's what makes it ethical.

[blackshoe]

I insist that what it actually says is to bid as if you didn't have the misinformation, and you will be PUNISHED if what you bid happens to be suggested by the UI. Unless this is another part of Director's Decisions that we're supposed to ignore.

...

 

I claim the legal and ethical thing to do is to bid as if the UI never existed, and bend over backwards only if you're considering two bids and think you may have been subconsciously influenced by the UI. This does mean you're likely to get punished for being ethical, but hey, that's what makes it ethical.

You are mistaken. ;)

 

As far as the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge are concerned, "legal" and "ethical" mean the same thing.

 

The Laws are designed to define correct procedure, and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. An offending player should be ready to pay any penalty graciously, or to accept any adjusted score awarded by the Tournament Director. The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage.

 

That's from the Scope of the Laws. A score adjustment is not punishment, it is redress for damage.

 

When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side.

 

That's Law 73C. This is a player's law - it tells players what they should (or in this case, must) do.

 

The strongest word, "must" ("before making a call, he must inspect the face of his cards"), indicates that violation is regarded as serious.

 

That's also from the Scope. A player must carefully avoid taking advantage of UI. Always. There are no exceptions.

 

On a more general note, if an ethical system requires that a person be punished for doing the ethical thing, that system is fatally flawed.

[jtfanclub]

The Laws are designed to define correct procedure, and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. An offending player should be ready to pay any penalty graciously, or to accept any adjusted score awarded by the Tournament Director. The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage.

 

That's from the Scope of the Laws. A score adjustment is not punishment, it is redress for damage.

Call it what you want. The point is, rather than trying to undo the damage, just accept damage was done, continue to bid and play normally and accept the punishment...er, redress.

<<<<<<

When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side.

 

That's Law 73C. This is a player's law - it tells players what they should (or in this case, must) do.

 

The strongest word, "must" ("before making a call, he must inspect the face of his cards"), indicates that violation is regarded as serious.

 

That's also from the Scope. A player must carefully avoid taking advantage of UI. Always. There are no exceptions.

<<<<<<<

 

There's a rather considerable difference between avoiding taking advantage and DOING something to avoid the APPEARANCE of taking advantage.

 

For example, your partner normally would take 2-3 seconds to pass after an opponent's bid. He in fact takes, oh, 8. Next player passes, up to you. You have two choices: pass or double. The delay implies that double is the right move. So what should you do?

 

Well, you should double only if absolutely everybody doubles, right? And pass otherwise, right? Right?

 

Wrong.

 

Because what happens when you double? You're stronger than an ordinary double, and your partner knows it. Do your opponent's know it? Probably not. They may not realize the pass was out of tempo. In effect, you just deliberately passed information to your partner in an illegal manner. At best you just made an ordinary situation into a horrible one. At worst...well, the at worst should be obvious.

 

Instead, you should bid what you normally bid, and only if it's extremely close or you can't tell should you lean towards pass. Now you haven't passed information to your partner, which he might use during play. Note that this is entirely within the scope of 73©.

 

If you think changing your system based on your partner's hesitation is ethical because it's less likely to get you caught....

 

On a more general note, if an ethical system requires that a person be punished for doing the ethical thing, that system is fatally flawed.

 

OK, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

 

You steal something, which gets noticed as being gone. You can do the ethical thing, and get caught with it, or the unethical thing, and plant it on somebody else. You expect to not get punished because you did the ethical thing?

 

A cop catches you speeding. You could lie your ass off about your spouse being in the hospital, or do the ethical thing and admit that that you had no good reason to speed. Do you expect to not get punished for being ethical?

 

You're late on your taxes. A cherry bomb turns out to have blown up a mailbox on tax night. If you claim that your form was destroyed in the mailbox, you won't have to pay a fine. If you do the ethical thing, you'll have to pay the fine. Do you expect to not get punished for being ethical?

 

One of, perhaps the most important parts of any ethics system is doing what is right even when it hurts you. If doing the 'ethical' thing is that which avoids punishment, or redress, or whatever you want to call it, then there isn't any ethics to it.

[Stephen Tu]

Well, you should double only if absolutely everybody doubles, right? And pass otherwise, right? Right?

 

Wrong.

 

Because what happens when you double? You're stronger than an ordinary double, and your partner knows it. Do your opponent's know it? Probably not. They may not realize the pass was out of tempo. In effect, you just deliberately passed information to your partner in an illegal manner. At best you just made an ordinary situation into a horrible one. At worst...well, the at worst should be obvious.

 

 

Instead, you should bid what you normally bid, and only if it's extremely close or you

 

You are just flat out wrong on this issue. Many, many appeal case rulings make it clear that "bid what you would normally do" is NOT the proper procedure. If you have a borderline case, you HAVE to pick the L.A. that is not suggested by the UI, rather than simply take the L.A. you would pick if partner took normal tempo.

 

Yes, that means if you do double, partner can infer that you had a clearcut decision rather than a borderline one. So what? That's now his problem to avoid taking actions that are only possible because of that knowledge.

 

If you think changing your system based on your partner's hesitation is ethical because it's less likely to get you caught

 

It's not "changing your system". No one requires you to change your system, just your judgment in situations where your peer group thinks there are multiple logical options within your system. It is not doing something to be "less likely to be caught". It's taking the action prescribed by the laws. If you follow the laws, then there is nothing to be caught for no?

 

Your way, "ignore the hitch", you are putting the burden on the opponents to call the director to restore their equity. This isn't active ethics IMO.

 

You seem to think that the opponents are hurt in the "clearcut double" case. Surely (if they don't call director to rectify), they are hurt way more by you doubling on the borderline case rather than passing, than whatever small increase in accuracy partner might unethically use in knowing you have a clearcut double in the other case.

 

If doing the 'ethical' thing is that which avoids punishment, or redress, or whatever you want to call it, then there isn't any ethics to it.

 

By taking the L.A. not suggested, you are taking the action that results in a worse bridge score sometimes than you would if you simply ignored the UI & took a different action. In effect you are punishing yourself without getting the director involved. You are following the law, avoiding taking any advantage, what additional punishment would be needed?

[jtfanclub]

All conversation here is hypothetical only...I notice that use 'you' in this a lot, and I'm not trying to claim Stephen, or anybody else in this thread, actually does this.

 

"Instead, you should bid what you normally bid, and only if it's extremely close or you can't tell should you lean towards pass."

 

"If you have a borderline case"

 

You say tomayto, I say tomahto. You call it a borderline case, I call it extremely close.

 

The point is, you will be punished, er, 'redressed', based on what others would do with your hand. So if you double only when it won't get adjusted, you are doubling based on what others would do, which means you're now playing their system, not yours.

 

It's not "changing your system".  No one requires you to change your system, just your judgment in situations where your peer group thinks there are multiple logical options within your system.

 

Emphasis on peer group. As in, you make 'your' doubles when partner passes quickly and 'peer group' doubles when partner passes slowly, something your partner knows and the opponents don't. The rules certainly don't require this- in fact, I'm saying that they disallow it.

 

It is not doing something to be "less likely to be caught".  It's taking the action prescribed by the laws.  If you follow the laws, then there is nothing to be caught for no?

 

Your way, "ignore the hitch", you are putting the burden on the opponents to call the director to restore their equity.  This isn't active ethics IMO.

 

So call the director yourself. You can't get more active than that. In fact, actually, that's the best redress. If you X intending to call the director and get it switched back to pass if they go down....

 

1) You don't punish the opponents for partner's slow pass when they do make.

2) Your partner can't interpret your X to show extras.

 

Now, the WBF doesn't expect you to go to that extreme. In cases where it's extremely close/borderline/whatever the word of the day is, you can just pass, and the double isn't affected sufficiently by the delay for partner to make a safe inference. But I do insist that if you change your standard to 'only what your peer group wouldn't consider passing with', that's a rather dire change in most systems, and your partner will be aware of it.

 

Surely (if they don't call director to rectify), they are hurt way more by you doubling on the borderline case rather than passing, than whatever small increase in accuracy partner might unethically use in knowing you have a clearcut double in the other case.

 

Surely if the director is called after the round, they are hurt way more by you doubling only on the absolutely clear-cut cases. How are they ever going to show that your partner wouldn't have found the right defense without the clear-cut X's? For that matter, how is your partner going to show that he would have found the right defense even if your double might have been marginal?

 

You are following the law, avoiding taking any advantage, what additional punishment would be needed?

 

No additional punishment is necessary. The problem is when trying to 'avoid taking any advantage' becomes 'avoid doing anything that might cause an adjustment'. That's when, in trying to avoid damage, you tend to cause more of it.

 

Certainly I agree that you should avoid taking advantage, and that includes the extremely close/borderline cases. But it's easy to go too far, all in the name of 'active ethics'.

[ralph23]

I think the following (or similar) happens (it does to me anyway):

 

1. LHO bids in a competitive auction. I have a decent hand and know I'll most probably balance, if it gets passed around to me.

 

2. Partner sits and sits and delays. Then passes. RHO passes.

 

3. If I "ignore" the hesitation, then I would act (i.e. I pretend it didn't exist)

 

4. But (i) partner's hesitation suggested action and (ii) it wasn't clear that I or my peers would always act in this situation [although in all likelihood I would anyway].

 

5. So I have to pass. Partner's delaying has prejudiced my ability to take the action that I would have normally taken, because it suggested something.

 

6. Yea, I was going to act in any event, but that wasn't an ironclad decision; it was just my judgment. And I'm foreclosed from using my (good :rolleyes: ) judgment when I hold UI that tells me "Yea your judgment is probably right!"

 

So I don't think that "ignoring" the UI and acting accordingly can be correct, can it?

 

Mustn't the recipient of the UI think "OK I've got UI" and then refrain from taking actions that were suggested by the UI, even if he were going to take them anyway? (Unless taking the action was so clear that it wasn't even logical for that player or his peers to do anything except take the action).

 

So let's assume that this is that one case in ten where it's clear for me to take action (i.e. all of my peers would even in the absence of the UI). So I act.

 

Now partner, being a genius (but not enough of one to avoid his hesitation), figures this all out on his own. So he knows that (1) my hand is good enough to act and that (2) moreover, non-action by me wasn't even logical (a pretty high standard).

 

So he now has UI, in the form of proposition (2). He can't ignore it either. But he plays the same game that I did, and won't take actions that were suggested by the UI (#2).

 

Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

[jtfanclub]

Mustn't the recipient of the UI think "OK I've got UI" and then refrain from taking actions that were suggested by the UI, even if he were going to take them anyway? (Unless taking the action was so clear that it wasn't even logical for that player or his peers to do anything except take the action).

I agree with every step except this one.

 

What you're discussing here is the standard for adjustment. If you also use that as your standard for bidding, then you run into the problem as you've described it. It's actually worse- while everybody knows about the delay, the opponents don't know if you're using the impossibly high standard or not, but your partner does.

 

I'm saying there's a rather large set of hands where the bidding standard and the adjustment standard don't match. If the double is clear for you, but not for your peers, you need to double in order to prevent additional UI from being passed. And yes, this does mean it may get adjusted after the board is over- call the director yourself if you're concerned about it. But far better to have it get adjusted to what your 'active ethics' would have made it anyways, than to make the auction into a giant radioactive pile of UI.

 

Note that the rules, IMHO, are fairly clear about this. 73C says you should 'carefully avoid taking any advantage'. 73F says that if the 'player chose from among logical alternative actions' etc. etc. If they wanted the standard for making the double and for adjusting the double to a pass to be the same, they'd have just used the same text, or just pointed them to each other.

 

The ethical thing to do is follow 73C, and pretend like 73F doesn't exist until after the hand is over. Don't bid based on what will win on appeal.

[blackshoe]

OK, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

 

Apparently what you heard is not what I said. :P

[jtfanclub]

OK, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

 

Apparently what you heard is not what I said. :P

Wouldn't be the first time.

 

We're discussing a case I argue that the ethical thing to do is double knowing that it's going to be adjusted to a pass if double is a good result, and you are (I believe) arguing that any time that the bid would be adjusted to a pass, you can/should pre-empt the adjustment by passing.

 

Note that the final result is most likely the same. Nobody's going to adjust it to 7NTXX just because you did what I claim is the ethical thing. In my case, there's just no additional UI passed.

 

So in context, what the heck did your statement mean, if not how I interpreted it?

[cherdano]

JT, I don't understand why you are claiming with such assertiveness a view that is clearly contrary to the one held by many who are responsible for the law, long-time TDs etc. (I am not saying all agree with you, I am saying many agree with you.) And that is contrary to the wording of law 16A:

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.

 

Anyway, I don't care about arguing about the laws with anyone, just wanted to make clear that your view is not a universal one, to say the least.

[jtfanclub]

Anyway, I don't care about arguing about the laws with anyone, just wanted to make clear that your view is not a universal one, to say the least.

I'm sorry if I did not make that clear on my initial post on this thread.

 

Curious that you should mention 16A. It's on that one that Director's Decisions says:

 

"If the director is called before the recipient of the unauthorized information takes action, he should instruct the recipient to ignore the information and tell the opponents to call him back after the play if they feel the oppopnents have gained an advantage".

 

Now, everybody who's posted here disagrees with that standard as written. You don't ignore the information if it's a close call- you make the call that was not implied by the UI. However, to me the ACBL is making it clear that they would rather you bid close to normal and then get it adjusted rather than have the UI multiply as in Ralph's example.

 

Unless, as I said early, this is another part of Director's Decisions we're supposed to ignore.

[david_c]

Unless, as I said early, this is another part of Director's Decisions we're supposed to ignore.

It is indeed. I don't know anything about Duplicate Decisions apart from this one sentence, which has been brought up many times: it is a notorious mistake.

[jtfanclub]

Unless, as I said early, this is another part of Director's Decisions we're supposed to ignore.

It is indeed. I don't know anything about Duplicate Decisions apart from this one sentence, which has been brought up many times: it is a notorious mistake.

I see.

 

Well, then, never mind! :P

 

What I deserve for reading the instructions.

[blackshoe]

So in context, what the heck did your statement mean, if not how I interpreted it?

I wasn't sure whether your references to ethics were limited to the ethics of the game, which are in essence defined by "that which is legal is ethical" or, as many would, referred to ethics in a broader sense - "a set of moral principles". It seemed to me the latter. My comment was in the more general sense - if a set of moral principles requires one to do things for which one will be punished, then that set of moral principles is fatally flawed. It won't work. People will rebel against it.

 

In the context of a situation where you have UI suggesting that you double, which will presumably result in a better score than if you choose the logical alternative of pass, you say you should double, and take your lumps in score adjustment. I (and the laws, and the interpreters of the laws) say you should pass and take your lumps in the poor table result you're likely to get.

 

For this particular thorny question, the WBF Code of Practice is a far better resource than Duplicate Decisions.

 

Your earlier examples are flawed.

 

You steal something, which gets noticed as being gone. You can do the ethical thing, and get caught with it, or the unethical thing, and plant it on somebody else. You expect to not get punished because you did the ethical thing?

 

If I had done the ethical thing, I wouldn't have stolen whatever it was in the first place.

 

The IRS doesn't give a damn why your return was late.

 

If you think changing your system based on your partner's hesitation is ethical because it's less likely to get you caught....

 

I never said that, and the insinuation is insulting.

[jtfanclub]

In the context of a situation where you have UI suggesting that you double, which will presumably result in a better score than if you choose the logical alternative of pass, you say you should double, and take your lumps in score adjustment. I (and the laws, and the interpreters of the laws) say you should pass and take your lumps in the poor table result you're likely to get.

Well, DD was clear on this...but if it's wrong, then I blame my source. I still claim that, when I'm directing I'd rather have somebody bid close to normally and then call the director after it's over than bid something nutty in hopes of not getting an adjustment, and I have discussed this with directors more senior than I. However, I'm backing off- without a written source to back me up, I'm not going to push this any more.

 

I never said that, and the insinuation is insulting.

 

Yeah, I caught that later. That's why I wrote in my next post...

 

"All conversation here is hypothetical only...I notice that use 'you' in this a lot, and I'm not trying to claim Stephen, or anybody else in this thread, actually does this."

 

I have no idea what you do. I will say that I have seen some ruinous actions from people who think that the 'field' has some very strange things that they will consider. And when these anti-field things actually work, the screaming's pretty damn loud.

[awm]

We had a long argument about the UI policy in the past, and it seems to be repeating itself here. As best I can tell, the main points are:

 

(1) If I end up in a situation where I am deciding between more than one alternative and it seems fairly close, if I have unauthorized information (from partner's failure to alert for example), I must select the alternative which is not suggested by the UI. This is fairly straightforward interpretation of law.

 

(2) The trickier situation is where I am certain that, without the UI, I would always bid in a particular way. If everyone would make a particular bid (or at least every player of comparable skill level to myself would make a particular bid) then obviously I should be free to make that call. The problematic situation is where I know that I, personally, would always bid a particular way, but it's also the case that "the field" includes some players who would make a different call. The question is whether I'm responsible as a player to figure out "what other people would do" and to avoid an action that I would always take without the UI because some other people would consider a different action as a logical alternative. My viewpoint on this is that it's never a player's responsibility to guess what other people would do in his or her situation, but that a director (or committee) unable to read a player's mind, may have to adjust a score based on the opinions of a players peers. The alternate view is that since "logical alternative" is defined in terms of what other players do, that it is in fact a player's responsibility to guess what other players will do and take this into account. This does lead to a rather strange situation where, without UI, I might always take action A but in presence of UI I am forced to take action B, and would allow extremely unethical players to use "reverse UI" to their advantage (for example, make a slow penalty double when doubling is clear, thereby barring partner from pulling the slow double even if partner would normally pull since of course not pulling is virtually always a logical alternative for some players).

[blackshoe]

It's not that all your peers would chose the same option, but that some lare percentage of them would. In the EBU it's 70%, in the ACBL it's 75. But it's really a guesstimate, unless the TD takes a poll of the player's peers (polling those who aren't his peers won't work).

 

I was once told that where the laws use "logical alternative" what they really mean is "plausible alternative for the class of player involved".

[helene_t]

The problematic situation is where I know that I, personally, would always bid a particular way, but it's also the case that "the field" includes some players who would make a different call. The question is whether I'm responsible as a player to figure out "what other people would do" and to avoid an action that I would always take without the UI because some other people would consider a different action as a logical alternative. My viewpoint on this is that it's never a player's responsibility to guess what other people would do in his or her situation, but that a director (or committee) unable to read a player's mind, may have to adjust a score based on the opinions of a players peers.

I think that's right. But in practice, as a player who received UI, it's in your interest to avoid an adjustment because an adjustment will almost always be against you.

 

So it's not unethical to do what you would normally do even if some peers might do something different. In fact if the TD adjusts on the basis of a peer poll he's not implying that you did something unethical. After all, you might not have a clue about what your peers would do, or you might have a flawed clue. OTOH if you know that some peers would do what was not suggested by the UI it's in your own interest to do what is not suggested by the UI.

 

The TD just gives the non-offending side the benefit of the doubt.

[mycroft]

Note: "you" is generic throughout here.

 

Remember, it's not just the "class of player", it's also "playing the same system and style". I don't care how good a player you are, what alternatives you have after a 2/1 1 Spade opening, auction, and subsequent hesitation are not the same as what someone playing Precision would do or think about after the same opening and auction - and neither of them have the same alternatives as an EHAA 1S opener (which is Goren Sound, if not Roth-Stone sound as a minimum, and totally unlimited (well, okay, 35 or so - sometimes it's just right to open a "I have 12 tricks" 6S call) as a maximum).

 

I have more than once brought to the attention of the directors, when they suggested that xxx was an alternative, that given our system, it isn't, because partner can't have the hand they thought the UI suggests - as he would have done something different in the auction. Sometimes it takes a bit of proving, but I've almost always convinced them. Of course, I also almost never disagree with the judgement of the TD in these cases - whether I am the recipient of the UI, the transmitter, or a member of the NOS. I follow the Laws as best I can, call the TD to back or reverse my judgment, and assume that they have it right.

 

I also believe something that other TDs say - it's easy to convince yourself that you'd always have done what the UI suggests. You can firmly believe it. I, as the TD in the case, can completely believe that you believe it. That's one of the reasons the law is written not as "ignore the UI", but "carefully avoid using the UI" - it is natural to be convinced that you were going to do the right thing anyway, and that you aren't influenced, when in fact you are. It's harder to convince yourself that you have "carefully avoided" using the UI - and that gets the average bridge player that knows the Laws back to normal.

 

Michael.