UI at YC

[nige1]

The law book should stipulate that when directors and committees conduct a poll about "logical alternatives", they should follow a protocol with each person consulted eg

1. Show him only the hand in dispute and tell him the background and history
   1. 
      
   2. Without the unauthorised information and
      
   3. Without revealing what action was actually chosen
      

[*]Ask him to "mark" possible actions out of 10.

[*]Then

1. Tell him about the alleged UI
   
2. But still don't reveal what action was chosen.
   
3. Ask him what alternative(s) if any the UI suggests.
   

This protocol should help establish

• Whether the UI suggests the action actually chosen.
  
• Whether there is a logical alternative to the action chosen.
  

Whenever I've suggested this protocol (on BLML and elsewhere), I've been told that it's obvious and that good directors always follow such a protocol. Except that, in real life, to my knowledge, no director of my acquaintance does. IMO, step 3 is important but often missed.

 

One benefit of such a protocol is that it avoids condemning the player in receipt of UI no matter what action he chooses.

 

Notwithstanding, perhaps this protocol is flawed or can be improved; but I feel that the law book should recommend some sensible protocol, so that even casual club directors have a chance of ruling fairly.

[aguahombre]

As has been pointed out before, the pollees have probably played the board, or can easily surmise why they are given the hand. So nothing is perfect, but as stated, something in the form of a protocol is better than what we have. Definitely, the exact way the board is presented should be a matter of record.

[jdonn]

I don't think step 2 is realistic. Quite honestly no one but you answers questions that way, and it would also be even more of a giveaway of why you are being asked. Plus I don't even see how the information would help, there is no protocal for what to do if someone says 7 or 8 or 9 or 6...

 

Steps 1 and 3 seem like the correct thing to do. And in my experience that is what the directors do in practice.

[mycroft]

I wish the law stated that the player could not choose an action demonstrably suggested by the UI if there was an LA not so demonstrably suggested. It certainly is going to be the way we rule it, especially in light of 73C (taking an illogical action that still has a positive expectation relative to "the LA demonstrably not suggested by the UI" is by no means carefully avoiding taking advantage of the UI). But it doesn't. That doesn't mean that if you have a 4-or-6 judgement call, and UI that clearly shows that partner has undisclosed extras, bidding the crazy 7 is going to fly. Bid 4, without passing UI of your own, if at all possible, and hope partner does some disclosure of those extras.

 

Yes, if someone can show a way that the UI can *demonstrably suggest* A over B *and simultaneously* B over A, let's talk about it. Until then, it's "I know it's wrong to use the UI, but I'm going to get a Horrible Score, and it's Not My Fault!"

 

Please note that there were several examples brought out where UI could "reasonably suggest" A over B and also reasonbly suggest B over A. They were discussed, in detail, and it was decided to change the evidentiary requirement to "demonstrably" from "reasonably". Twenty-odd years ago...

[campboy]

If we follow that interpretation, a situation can arise when Law 16B forbids a player from choosing any logical alternative. Surely that cannot be what is meant.

Law 16B doesn't forbid a player from doing anything — it says that if he chooses an LA that could demonstrably have been suggested by UI, the TD shall adjust the score. I would think it rare in practice for all LAs to fit the bill, but if they do, so be it. If the lawmakers wish the law to be interpreted differently, they're going to have to say so.

It says he "may not" choose an LA which could demonstrably have been suggested.

 

Condorcet's paradox, of course, cannot arise if we define suggestion of one action over another in terms of the expected scores from following each action with and without the UI.

[nige1]

If we follow that interpretation, a situation can arise when Law 16B forbids a player from choosing any logical alternative. Surely that cannot be what is meant.

Law 16B doesn't forbid a player from doing anything — it says that if he chooses an LA that could demonstrably have been suggested by UI, the TD shall adjust the score. I would think it rare in practice for all LAs to fit the bill, but if they do, so be it. If the lawmakers wish the law to be interpreted differently, they're going to have to say so.

It says he "may not" choose an LA which could demonstrably have been suggested. Condorcet's paradox, of course, cannot arise if we define suggestion of one action over another in terms of the expected scores from following each action with and without the UI.

16B. Extraneous Information from Partner

1. (a) After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

(Emphases mine). IMO campboy is right.

[bluejak]

I do not believe there is a situation in which there is no legal call or play because of UI.

 

The question of a player choosing a call or play that is not an LA has been discussed ad nauseam - though of course I am always willing to discuss it again since there are new people, but a new thread please. But the effect is that if a player chooses an action that is not an LA but is suggested over an LA we shall rule it back as a matter of interpretation of the Laws.

[peachy]

I do not believe there is a situation in which there is no legal call or play because of UI.

.

I believe there is, the typical case 1S-...3S. Whichever LA opener chooses, it can be adjusted. And whichever NOT-a-LA the opener chooses, it WILL be adjusted, if successful.

 

I still have not learned which action opener is supposed to choose in this simple case if he wants to obey the laws?

- With a clear acceptance, accept. But then someone says it is not that clear...

- With a clear decline, decline. But then someone says, the hand has enough to accept

- With a slam potential hand, cuebid or BW or RKC. But then someone says the hand does not warrant slam search...

- Then the clincher:

With a borderline hand that could be right for two of three decisions (Pass, bid 4S, slam search), which one is opener supposed to choose if he wants to obey the laws?

 

I know it all depends on what the UI "could demonstrably suggest". So the final question is

- What could the UI from the BIT before bidding 3S, be demonstrably suggesting?

[nige1]

I do not believe there is a situation in which there is no legal call or play because of UI.

I believe there is, the typical case 1S-...3S.  Whichever LA opener chooses, it can be adjusted.  And whichever NOT-a-LA the opener chooses, it WILL be adjusted, if successful. I still have not learned which action opener is supposed to choose in this simple case if he wants to obey the laws? - With a clear acceptance, accept. But then someone says it is not that clear...

- With a clear decline, decline. But then someone says, the hand has enough to accept

- With a slam potential hand, cuebid or BW or RKC. But then someone says the hand does not warrant slam search...

- Then the clincher:

With a borderline hand that could be right for two of three decisions (Pass, bid 4S, slam search), which one is opener supposed to choose if he wants to obey the laws?

I know it all depends on what the UI "could demonstrably suggest".  So the final question is

- What could the UI from the BIT before bidding 3S, be demonstrably suggesting?

IMO, if the director conducts a poll along the lines I suggested -- similar to the protocol that JDonn says, in his experience, all directors use -- then there will always be legal logical alternative(s) available.

[bluejak]

I do not believe there is a situation in which there is no legal call or play because of UI.

.

I believe there is, the typical case 1S-...3S. Whichever LA opener chooses, it can be adjusted. And whichever NOT-a-LA the opener chooses, it WILL be adjusted, if successful.

Not by a competent TD or AC. "It it hesitates, shoot it" is not legal.

[mjj29]

I believe there is, the typical case 1S-...3S. Whichever LA opener chooses, it can be adjusted. And whichever NOT-a-LA the opener chooses, it WILL be adjusted, if successful.

 

I still have not learned which action opener is supposed to choose in this simple case if he wants to obey the laws?

 

- What could the UI from the BIT before bidding 3S, be demonstrably suggesting?

I think it is clear that if you can't answer which of the available options (lets call them pass and 4S) is legally selectable without it being ruled back then the UI ergo does not demonstratably suggest any of them (I'm aware of situations were 'bid' of any sort can be suggested over 'pass'). Yes directors may get it wrong and rule it back anyway, but that's a matter of training and appeals.

 

From the point of view of an ethical player I think that if a small amount of thinking doesn't yield an obvious "X is suggested" you should just do whatever you think is best. Clearly you aren't being suggested anything from the UI, or you would be able to answer that question. If it ends up being ruled back then accept that gracefully (or appeal) and be satisfied that you acted ethically.

 

I also disagree with "whichever NOT-a-LA the opener chooses, it WILL be adjusted, if successful", that still only applies if it's suggested. In this case _if_ 4S were suggested over pass then so would 6S and 7S (for the sake of the argument), so you can't select them, but say it was a slow artificial limit raise (to 2N or 3 minor showing a shortage), then passing out the raise in the wrong suit is _also_ not an LA, but clearly not suggested either. If it turns out that 2N is the best contract then you should keep that score.

[lamford]

I have come to this thread a bit late, but there is one point of interest I would like to raise. Firstly, I agree with Jeremy et al that Pass is a LA for South, and North will surely double 3S and be disappointed that it is only one off. The defence cannot get more than three trumps and two hearts, provided West plays a trump at some stage.

 

I agree with bluejak that the slow pass of 3C suggests North was probably considering raising - but thought it was non-forcing; and it is not clear if North bids 4C instead of doubling 3S that South will add a fifth. This would fail if North did not have the ace of spades. But surely double is clear on the North cards?

 

The other question is whether South's 3C is alertable under Orange Book 5E1( B ). The agreement that it was forcing was clearly a surprise to both North and East. It is true that East could have asked North before bidding 3S whether 3C was forcing, but one doesn't does one? If the auction goes 1NT - (Pass) - 2S - (Pass) - Pass, I would feel a bit miffed to discover that 2S was invitational, if the opponents reached game when I now protected. They would win under OB 5G2 ( d ), so my only recourse would be under OB5E1( B ). If North had alerted 3C as forcing and then passed, East would surely have given in.

 

So, a clear adjustment - either to 3C+2 by South or to 3SX-1 by West. And as the latter is better for the non-offenders, it gets my vote. And I presume we give the non-offenders the better result even though it is from the later infraction ...

[campboy]

Eh, my first thought on seeing the OP was "surely 3♣ should be forcing".

 

I think it is a bit strong to say that the forcing nature of 3♣ was clearly a surprise to North and East. North may well have been thinking about whether it was forcing, whereas probably East's reason for assuming 3♣ was non-forcing was that he had just seen North pass it!

[gordontd]

Firstly, I agree with Jeremy et al that Pass is a LA for South,

I don't think anyone disagrees with that, but it's not really the point.

 

I agree with bluejak that the slow pass of 3C suggests North was probably considering raising - but thought it was non-forcing;

 

I don't know whether or not he thinks that, but I don't think he said so above.

[gordontd]

Since this topic has died down, and I was the TD who gave the ruling, I'll add my bit now.

 

I determined that there had been a break in tempo (although NS were initially reluctant to agree that there had been, but North accepted that he had thought a bit before passing), and I agree with everyone that pass is a logical alternative to bidding with the South hand over 3♠.

 

What I thought needed to be considered was whether the 5 ♣ bid was demonstrably suggested by the break in tempo.

 

I discussed the hand with five people before making the ruling - two players from the game who are both very strong, experienced & knowledgeable, Jeremy & his wife Heather, and one of my colleagues who is also an EBU National TD. I've also since discussed the hand with another National TD colleague. In each case I gave them the auction (including the hesitation) as far as 3♠ together with the South hand and asked them what they thought the hesitation suggested.

 

Only Jeremy thought that the break in tempo suggested anything very clear - a hand that was thinking about raising a NF 3♣ - which would suggest that bidding 5♣ would be successful. None of the others answered with any certainty that bidding 5♣ was more likely to be successful opposite the hesitation than it would have been opposite an in-tempo pass.

 

I think it's far from clear that Jeremy's explanation is the only one, or even the most likely one.

The most likely reason for the hesitation seems to me to be doubt as to whether or not 3♣ is forcing (since one of the partnership insists it is but the other has passed it).

 

Other possible reasons are considering whether or not to give false preference to a doubleton heart, or thinking about bidding 3NT. If we now look at the North hand, he may well have been thinking about bidding 3NT, and far from suggesting bidding 5♣, that would suggest passing 3♠ to allow partner to double. The fact that 5♣ happens to make and 3♠ only goes one or two off is not a circumstance that could be foreseen.

 

For these reasons I ruled that the tempo break did not demonstrably suggest bidding 5♣ and so I allowed the table result to stand. I commented in passing that I thought that one possible explanation for the 5♣ bid was if South was irritated by his partner passing what he considered to be a forcing bid. I think it's more likely that North and South were unclear about the forcing nature of 3♣ than that they both thought 3♣ is non-forcing.

[jeremy69]

Only Jeremy thought that the break in tempo suggested anything very clear - a hand that was thinking about raising a NF 3♣ - which would suggest that bidding 5♣ would be successful. None of the others answered with any certainty that bidding 5♣ was more likely to be successful opposite the hesitation than it would have been opposite an in-tempo pass.

 

I think you misquote me a bit. what I think I said was that it was most likely the BIT suggested bidding on with 4C rather than 5 or 3NT being the likely runners.

[gordontd]

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to misquote you.

[lamford]

I agree with bluejak that the slow pass of 3C suggests North was probably considering raising - but thought it was non-forcing;

 

I don't know whether or not he thinks that, but I don't think he said so above.

He wrote: "Partner could believe 3♣ is non-forcing but is wondering whether to raise it to 4♣."

 

This suggests to me that he believes this to be a likely cause of the BIT, and my point was that this demonstrably suggests 5C is more likely to be successful.

[MFA]

I agree with bluejak that the slow pass of 3C suggests North was probably considering raising - but thought it was non-forcing;

 

I don't know whether or not he thinks that, but I don't think he said so above.

He wrote: "Partner could believe 3♣ is non-forcing but is wondering whether to raise it to 4♣."

 

suggests to me that he believes this to be a likely cause of the BIT, and my point was that this demonstrably suggests 5C is more likely to be successful.

I think that there is a general agreement that partner's thinking of raising a (what-he-thought-was-a) NF 3♣ is a likely cause of the BIT here.

 

But there are other likely causes, some of which might point in the other direction.

 

We need to make a full judgement, taking into accout all possible causes and their relative weights.

[lamford]

What I thought needed to be considered was whether the 5 ♣ bid was demonstrably suggested by the break in tempo.

OK, I can buy your argument that 5C is not demonstrably suggested, although I prefer that of those that argue that "demonstrably suggested" means "made more attractive".

 

But I would not agree that bidding 5C does "carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information." I would agree that North could indeed have been thinking about giving preference to a doubleton heart; 5C tells him neatly that the 6-2 club fit may well play as well as the 5-2 heart fit (and partner is sure to have at least two clubs). If North was considering bidding 3NT, then he could well be 4-2-5-2 or 4-2-4-3 when 5C should play well. And if he thought it was non-forcing but was wondering whether to raise it anyway, either just in case, or because he was suitable, then 5C should fare well.

 

So, I have to disagree with your decision, but can see the logic which you applied.

[bluejak]

I suggest a possibility: I did not say I thought it was the only possibility nor that it was the most likely possibility. I think this is a situation where partner could be thinking of about five or so different things.

 

:unsure:

 

We are beginning to get an unfortunate use of the term "demonstrably suggested". Of course it is just because people shorten things - I often do myself - but here the meaning has shifted.

 

Is 5♣ "demonstrably suggested"? I neither know nor care, because that is not what the Law asks. We disallow a 5♣ call not if it is "demonstrably suggested", but if it is "demonstrably suggested over an LA", which is different. So it matters not whether the UI suggests 5♣ particularly, but if the UI suggests 5♣ over 4♣ and 4♣ is an LA, then we disallow 5♣.