Rules of the game

[A2003]

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=sakt754ha63d64ct2]133|100|Scoring: MP

West opens 1NT.

Long delayed pass by my partner.

3♣ by East.

3♠ bid by me.

[/hv]

 

Am I allowed to bid 3♠ here? When I bid 3♠, Opponents called director. Am I barred at this situation?

Case 1: 3C is INV

Case 2: 3C is to play.

Which situation I am allowed to bid?

[Codo]

The hesiatation shows that your partner has some values but no clear strain. This makes any bid but passing more actractive. If you decide to bid and the opps complain, I would judge your bid as based on an UI. So if 3 Spade had been successful, I had change the score to the best possible for your opponents (3 NT, 3 Club, whatever).

 

So you better pass in both cases.

[sceptic]

does it not make any difference if that bid could have been made even with out the hesitation?

[P_Marlowe]

does it not make any difference if that bid could have been made even with out the hesitation?

The bid needs to be clear cut, what ever this may

mean according to the laws, and bidding 3S with this

hand is not clearly not clear cut.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

 

Am I allowed to bid 3♠ here? When I bid 3♠, Opponents called director. Am I barred at this situation?

Case 1: 3C is INV

Case 2: 3C is to play.

Which situation I am allowed to bid?

You are always (!) allowed to bid, what ever you

think is best.

 

It just may happen, that the director may rule,

that your bid was influenced by the hesitation of

your partner.

And if the director rules that this happened, he

may change the result achieved on this board.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: With the given hand, I would pass.

[Stephen Tu]

does it not make any difference if that bid could have been made even with out the hesitation?

No. The series of questions to ask are:

- what are the logical alternatives? (e.g. without the tempo break, on this hand would your peers seriously consider passing, what are the bids they would choose between)

- does the hesitation suggest that choosing one of the alternatives is more likely to be successful than another? If so, you may not choose an alternative that is suggested.

 

If basically nobody in your peer group would consider passing, they all bid, then the bid would be allowed. Different countries might have different standards as to what is construed as a logical alternative.

 

"could have been made" is no good; hesitations turn these guesses into near sure things, and it's the whole point behind these rules, to avoid tempo breaks giving winning information to partner. "would have been made", as in everyone bids here, makes a difference, as in that instance passing would not be a logical alternative. But I don't think on this hand that anyone can seriously argue that passing is not a option worth considering.

[Trinidad]

This is a more complicated situation than people see at first sight and more information is needed.

 

The unauthorized information (UI) that you have is that partner considered bidding (or doubling) over 1NT. You are not allowed to use that information.

 

Does the UI make it more attractive to bid 3♠? That depends on the meaning of partner's pass and the meaning of the bids that he might have considered.

 

If you and partner play a system with very contructive overcalls of 1NT, you have the UI that partner has a decent hand. That makes bidding 3♠ more attractive. Since I would rule pass as an LA, I would not allow the 3♠ bid.

 

But if your partner is "Marty Bergen to the extreme" (like one of my partners), who doesn't need values to bid and bids on 98% of unbalanced hands, the UI that you have is different. Then, partner's pass suggests that he has a balanced hand and therefore two card spade support, making a 3♠ bid attractive. But now, the UI says that he may not have that balanced hand and now the UI will make 3♠ less attractive. In that case, 3♠ should obviously be allowed.

 

Rik

[pclayton]

I'd bar 3♠ over an inv. 3♣ call but I think I'd allow it over a signoff. At MPs anyway.

[matmat]

next time post something like this as a bidding problem with no mention of any hesitations. it'll give you a better gauge of what calls are LA.

 

i've no TD training or anything, but i'd rule against you anyway :)

[han]

Agree with matmat on both accounts.

[jdonn]

next time post something like this as a bidding problem with no mention of any hesitations. it'll give you a better gauge of what calls are LA.

 

i've no TD training or anything, but i'd rule against you anyway :)

I think it's useful to pose a problem in this way sometimes. After all, there you are at the table and partner has hesitated, and like it or not you are aware of it. So problems like this can be useful to help judge what you can ethically do or not do at moments like that.

[blackshoe]

In response to the OP:

 

You are permitted to base your calls and plays on the legal calls and plays at the table. Information from other sources is extraneous. In particular, information from your partner, from which you may infer something about his hand, is unauthorized - you may not take advantage of it. In fact, you are required to make every effort to avoid taking advantage of it.

 

You are not barred - you already bid 3 ♠. No competent director will cancel that bid. What he will do is require all four players to play out the hand - opponents, or partner, might still bid, for example. The opponents will be told that if, after the play, they feel they were damaged, they should call the director back. He will then look at the hand, and see if {a} you somehow, in his judgement, failed to avoid taking advantage of any unauthorized information you may have had, and {b} the opponents were damaged* thereby. If the answer is yes to both questions, he will adjust the score. Only very rarely would there be an additional penalty for violating proper procedure.

 

* "damaged" is defined as having received a worse result then they would have received absent the "taking advantage".

 

Ask yourself "if partner hadn't tanked, what might I do here?" You might have decided to pass in this case, so you have more than one possible action. Now ask yourself "What does partner's tank suggest about his hand?" And lastly, ask yourself "which of these alternatives does not take advantage of that suggestion?" And then take that action.

 

You might still occasionally get an adverse ruling, but that's not a condemnation - at least you tried, even if the TD (or AC if it comes to that) disagrees as to your success.

 

Added: if in your best judgement, you have no alternative to 3♠, so be it. But something I learned from Davy Crockett when I was a child applies here: "Be sure you're right. Then go ahead." :)

[LH2650]

The only question you should be asking yourself is the same one that you should have asked the community:

 

"What action would you have taken without the UI?"

 

You simply can't know what others might do, and therefore can't identify logical alternatives at the table.

[A2003]

Partnership agreement was to transfer to the next higher suit.

My partner debated in his mind to transfer to 2♦ suit and decided to pass because of insufficient value.

East bids 3♣.

In fact, it was to play 3♣ per their agreement.

 

I thought, 3♣ bid was for 3NT invitation without looking at their agreement.

To get proper defense for 3NT contract, I bid 3♠, I wanted ♠ lead to have a chance to defeat 3NT contract.

That is the story.

Thanks for all.

 

It is not clear where to post the rules of the game in this bridge forum.

I thought this is the appropriate place after looking at other places.

[gwnn]

This is the proper place for it. Usually, though, the mods don't move threads. E.g. they almost never move/delete/close my stupid threads from the a/e section.

[jtfanclub]

The only question you should be asking yourself is the same one that you should have asked the community:

 

"What action would you have taken without the UI?"

 

You simply can't know what others might do, and therefore can't identify logical alternatives at the table.

Not true.

 

If you feel that you have two choices, and one choice is indicated by the UI, take the other choice. Simple as that. If you were deciding between spades and pass, and you feel that you would have chosen spades without the UI, you need to pass. No director is going to rule in your favor just because you said you were going to do it anyways.

 

I agree that you shouldn't make a call that you would never consider at the table just because somebody, somewhere, might consider it a LA.

[mycroft]

LH, the one question you can not ask is "what would I have done without the UI?" Humans delude themselves to their own benefit. Trust me. We all do it. This is why, in addition to Law 16 that defines what happens when someone takes an action "demonstrably suggested" by UI in favour of a "Logical Alternative", whatever that means in your country (and you are correct, you can't determine what everyone else will do), there is Law 73C, which states:

 

"[When a player has UI], he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side."

 

Note, *carefully avoid*. This does not mean "do what I would have done". It means looking at the UI and before making the clearly suggested call, making sure that no other call seems reasonable ("Logical", if you will). It also means, after doing what is right, if the TD, poll, or AC disagrees, accepting that judgement.

 

"Do what I would have done" is a good way to get ruled against, not because of LAs or percentages of peers, but because you *will* be able to rationalize that the right thing to do is what you would have done anyway, and frequently you will rationalize it without thinking.

 

As a player, ignore Law 16C2. Use Law 73C instead; it's much easier to follow, and can't be used to justify an illegal thought pattern. Of course, it's a Propriety, so if you don't mind looking unethical as long as you manage to scrape by the LA barrier, so be it.

 

Michael.

[LH2650]

LH, the one question you can not ask is "what would I have done without the UI?"

Huh?

 

There I am, sitting at the table. Having followed proper procedure as defined in Duplicate Decisions, the Director has been summoned, and he has instructed me to ignore the UI. I attempt to do so. LAs are matters for Directors and Appeals Committees. I, and everyone I have consulted, would bid without the UI, so that appears to be an LA. Is there another? Until more than one person states that he would pass, in the absence of the UI, (and that has not yet happened), there is not. If there is, that is a matter for the officials, not me.

[mycroft]

Sorry for the delay - life.

 

Duplicate Decisions is a nice paraphrase. It is not the Law Book.

 

Law 73C, which I quoted, IS.

 

I agree with you about LAs. Ignore LAs. If you have *carefully avoided taking advantage*, you have done your job. If your opponents don't agree, that's also fine. If the TDs and their poll, or the ACs and their poll don't agree as well, you'll be ruled against. But you have done everything right.

 

If, however, you've "bid the way you would have without the UI", then you haven't - because unless you're a robot, you will find a way to convince yourself, totally unconsciously, that the right call *was* the one you would have made without the UI. Even when it's a 50-50 proposition, or even worse, and the poll proves it.

 

You would do it, I would do it, Every Single Bridge Player would do it. That's why the Law tells us to do something else.

 

Michael.

[awm]

There is a difference here between what the player is supposed to do and how the director is supposed to rule.

 

For the player: if it is totally obvious what you would do without the UI, go ahead and do that. If you think you have a close decision without the UI, try to make the decision which the UI does not suggest will be successful.

 

For the director: it's impossible to read a player's mind and figure out what he personally would have done without the UI. Instead, poll a bunch of players of comparable skill level as to what they would do in the same auction without the UI. A "Logical Alternative" is one which a substantial number of these players select. If the call selected by the player at the table is suggested by the UI and there are logical alternatives which are not suggested by the UI then the director should roll back the table result to the a logical alternative which is not suggested by the UI.

[jdonn]

the Director has been summoned, and he has instructed me to ignore the UI.

Then he has given you wrong advice.

[badderzboy]

As suggested before the director when he initially arrives at the table should not decide himself if there was UI used or not unless it is blatently obvious but allow the hand to be played and ask to be called back if the opps feel damaged and then poll players of equivalent ability to see if the bid is allowed.

 

I would do this at the end of the session or after the board has been played a reasonable number of times without quoting the board number to the players as a bidding quiz.

 

Steve

[Trinidad]

Instead, [the director] poll a bunch of players of comparable skill level as to what they would do in the same auction without the UI. A "Logical Alternative" is one which a substantial number of these players select.

There are other "definitions" of LA. I am in favor of including any bid that a majority of the players polled would seriously consider (but might not choose) as an LA.

 

As an example, take the auction where your choices are between passing the opponents' bid or bidding one more yourself. If you poll 10 players and all players polled say that they will have to choose between passing and bidding one more and that it is a difficult choice, then both are LA's. To me, that answers the question.

 

That answer doesn't change if, after long consideration, all 10 players would choose the same action when forced to actually make a choice. Where the "polling method" would suggest that there is only one LA, it is blatantly clear to all players polled that there are two LA's.

 

To me, the common procedure of asking what a player would bid is not logical. The TD wants to know what the LA's are. But he lacks the bridge knowledge to make that decision.

 

Now he goes to a good player and asks what he would bid. But that doesn't answer the TD's question. Why not ask the player polled the question that he needs answered, i.e. what he would consider an LA? Good players are perfectly capable of indicating what actions would be LA's. And there you have your answer.

 

If you want to know whether you should take a rain coat don't ask the weather man whether it will rain. If you get "No" for an answer, don't blame the weather man if you get wet because of the snow, sleet and hail. Instead, you should have asked whether you needed a rain coat.

 

Rik

[Codo]

Instead, [the director] poll a bunch of players of comparable skill level as to what they would do in the same auction without the UI. A "Logical Alternative" is one which a substantial number of these players select.

There are other "definitions" of LA. I am in favor of including any bid that a majority of the players polled would seriously consider (but might not choose) as an LA.

 

As an example, take the auction where your choices are between passing the opponents' bid or bidding one more yourself. If you poll 10 players and all players polled say that they will have to choose between passing and bidding one more and that it is a difficult choice, then both are LA's. To me, that answers the question.

 

That answer doesn't change if, after long consideration, all 10 players would choose the same action when forced to actually make a choice. Where the "polling method" would suggest that there is only one LA, it is blatantly clear to all players polled that there are two LA's.

 

To me, the common procedure of asking what a player would bid is not logical. The TD wants to know what the LA's are. But he lacks the bridge knowledge to make that decision.

 

Now he goes to a good player and asks what he would bid. But that doesn't answer the TD's question. Why not ask the player polled the question that he needs answered, i.e. what he would consider an LA? Good players are perfectly capable of indicating what actions would be LA's. And there you have your answer.

 

If you want to know whether you should take a rain coat don't ask the weather man whether it will rain. If you get "No" for an answer, don't blame the weather man if you get wet because of the snow, sleet and hail. Instead, you should have asked whether you needed a rain coat.

 

Rik

Rules differ in different countries, but in which country do they still use this concept?

 

I know your apporach had been legal in the US, but I thought that they changed it even there. (But this is more a question then a statement).

 

If a LA is defined in this way by your laws, fine then it is as it is. But I have my doubts that you will find this apporach in the current laws or in the wbo minutes.

 

And I am quite sure that here where I life, some peers must choose this bid, it is not enough to think about it.

 

And I really don´t like "your" approach. When I think about a hand, I always think about all possibilities- so in this case, any bid would be UI and this would basically forbid your partner to think for a while about a bid and pass. I doubt that this is in the spirit of the law.

If all say, it is 60 % for 3 Spade and 40 % for passing and they choose to bid, then passing is no LA. But in my (limited) experience this does not happen. If the call is so close, there will be peers who will chhose to pass.

[helene_t]

I'd bar 3♠ over an inv. 3♣ call but I think I'd allow it over a signoff. At MPs anyway.

But if 3♣ is invitational, p is broke and his hesitation must be based on distribution. So I'd rather say that you are barred from passing, since p's hesitation makes it more dangerous to bid. This is somewhat far-fetched so I would allow pass anyway, but barring you from bidding is backwards IMHO.

 

If 3♣ is sign-off, RHO range is wider so partner's is as well and therefore the hesitation gives us more information about partner's strength. Still it is not clear to me whether the hesitation suggest bidding or passing.

 

What we don't want is that if the UI may suggest either action depending on your reasoning, you are barred from passing and also from bidding so no matter what you do you will a good score adjusted away. I think to adjust it must be very clear that the action taken was suggested by the UI.