Do you allow the raise to 6?

[mikeh]

The Law requires a positive finding of demonstrability.

Really? Law 73F.1 says:

If the Director determines that a player chose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the like, he shall award an adjusted score.

The same word 'could' is used in Law 16.

 

It is a classic instance of poor drafting. 'could' means 'possible', at least on one common meaning, and anything is 'possible'.

 

The word 'demonstrable' seems to me to import into both laws a requirement that the BIT point more towards the outlawed logical alternative. My view, which I know is not accepted even tho no-one save adam has even attempted the analysis (which might be viewed as meaning you're all acting on intuition rather than reason) is that the BIT doesn't point towards bidding...it actually makes passing clearer than a priori. In that sense, the BIT actually suggests passing!!!

 

My attempt at quantifying the effect of the BIT on the decision to bid slam suggests that bidding slam was discouraged. Accept that my arithmetic was accurate...just for the sake of argument. Now, passing is demonstrably enhanced/suggested by the BIT...so should a committee make him bid?

 

Of course not. Why not?

[MarkDean]

The Law requires a positive finding of demonstrability.

Really? Law 73F.1 says:

If the Director determines that a player chose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the like, he shall award an adjusted score.

The same word 'could' is used in Law 16.

 

It is a classic instance of poor drafting. 'could' means 'possible', at least on one common meaning, and anything is 'possible'.

 

The word 'demonstrable' seems to me to import into both laws a requirement that the BIT point more towards the outlawed logical alternative. My view, which I know is not accepted even tho no-one save adam has even attempted the analysis (which might be viewed as meaning you're all acting on intuition rather than reason) is that the BIT doesn't point towards bidding...it actually makes passing clearer than a priori. In that sense, the BIT actually suggests passing!!!

 

My attempt at quantifying the effect of the BIT on the decision to bid slam suggests that bidding slam was discouraged. Accept that my arithmetic was accurate...just for the sake of argument. Now, passing is demonstrably enhanced/suggested by the BIT...so should a committee make him bid?

 

Of course not. Why not?

Because bidding is not a logical alternative.

[mjj29]

But perhaps you mean "if the UI were followed by a successful action, I would always rule that the action must have been influenced by the UI even though there was no component of the UI that demonstrably suggested the successful action".

 

If this is actually your point, perhaps I can answer it simply by saying that: if in the case of 1♠-slow 3♠ the form of scoring were matchpoints (or BAM), I would not necessarily rule that a 4♠ bid on a marginal hand should be disallowed if game were to make. That is, I might be persuaded by an argument of the form "I did not know whether partner's BIT indicated that his call was aggressive or conservative, so when I bid game I was just guessing."

 

Chances are that I would not be so persuaded, because my (fairly extensive) experience leads me to conclude that almost no one ever acts slowly in the hope that partner will "guess" to pass; the slower a call, the less happy its perpetrator is with the notion that it should be the final call. But I do not discount the possibility altogether.

That is the point which I was making and thank you for conceding one example where you would believe the 'demonstratably suggested' criteria was not met. The fact that even in that one case you would still need convincing suggests to me, however, that you are attaching far less weight to this criteria that the law makers and hence than you should. The law includes "demonstratably suggested" for a reason. After an natural takeout of 1N-X alerted as a transfer to hearts, rebidding 5 to the 9 when you have Qxx in hearts is demonstratably suggested. In this case, I'm not so sure.

 

OTOH, I might have more sympathy for adjusting under L73 unless they could give me a good reason why they chose such a ridiculous call on that hand.

[jeremy69]

Let the offending side explain how an accepted invite to game invites slam. Am all ears to that one. Maybe I won't be invited to another committee; but oh, well.

 

You'd be very welcome on one of mine! B)

[Cascade]

he should bid a slam, because it will make considerably more than half the time.

I remain unconvinced that this is demonstrable.

[cherdanno]

I guess once we get to the point where someone argues that one of the most frequently cited sentences of the laws is so poorly phrased that it does not mean what it says it means, the discussion has officially become ridiculous.

[bluejak]

The Law requires a positive finding of demonstrability.

Really? Law 73F.1 says:

If the Director determines that a player chose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the like, he shall award an adjusted score.

I think you will find that this is not in the current Law book.

[cherdanno]

The Law requires a positive finding of demonstrability.

Really? Law 73F.1 says:

If the Director determines that a player chose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the like, he shall award an adjusted score.

I think you will find that this is not in the current Law book.

Thanks for pointing that out. Still, the current laws (16B1a) have the same phrasing ("could demonstrably have been suggested"), which is implicitly referred to in 16B3 ("The Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender.").

[pran]

The Law requires a positive finding of demonstrability.

Really? Law 73F.1 says:

If the Director determines that a player chose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the like, he shall award an adjusted score.

I think you will find that this is not in the current Law book.

Thanks for pointing that out. Still, the current laws (16B1a) have the same phrasing ("could demonstrably have been suggested"), which is implicitly referred to in 16B3 ("The Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender.").

This is, and has to my knowledge never been neither what this (or any previous corresponding) law says (or said) nor what is or ever has been intended.

 

This law is explicitly about using UI, not any other irregularity, and it applies when it is deemed that an action chosen after receiving UI from partner:

1: Was not the only logical alternative action available

2: Could demonstrably have been suggested by the UI

and

3: That opponents have been damaged by the chosen action.

[cherdanno]

I don't even understand what you are disagreeing with.

[awm]

The truth is that:

 

for p>50% we need

 

[P(partner thinking of slam try) * P(12 tricks given that partner was thinking of making a slam try)]

 

plus

 

[P(partner not thinking of slam try) * P(12 tricks given that partner was not thinking of making a slam try)]

 

> 50%.

I don't think the standard is actually this high.

 

The wording "could have been suggested" doesn't imply that bidding 6♥ has to be the best bid in order to be rolled back. It should be sufficient for:

 

P[partner thinking of slam try] * P[12 tricks given that partner was thinking of slam try]

+

P[partner not thinking of slam try] * P[12 tricks given partner not thinking of slam try]

>

P[12 tricks opposite normal in-tempo 4♥ raise]

 

In other words, even if 6♥ is a net loser of IMPs, if it's much less of a net loser of IMPs opposite a slow 4♥ than it would be opposite an in-tempo 6♥, it should be rolled back because it was suggested by the BIT. Again, this is more obvious when there are three logical alternatives, two of which are improved by the BIT, and the player in question chooses the LA which is worse of the two improved by the BIT.

 

It's also interesting that the laws say that if a player "chooses, from among logical alternatives..." and don't really say anything about what happens if a player chooses a bid that isn't a logical alternative at all.

[blackshoe]

It's also interesting that the laws say that if a player "chooses, from among logical alternatives..." and don't really say anything about what happens if a player chooses a bid that isn't a logical alternative at all.

This is something that's been bothering me for a long time. I've been informed by several pundits, including David Stevenson and Grattan Endicott, that this law does not mean what it literally says, and that if a player who has UI chooses an action that is not an LA, and that action is successful, he has violated this law, even though a literal reading would say otherwise. :blink: ;)

[dburn]

It's also interesting that the laws say that if a player "chooses, from among logical alternatives..." and don't really say anything about what happens if a player chooses a bid that isn't a logical alternative at all.

This is something that's been bothering me for a long time. I've been informed by several pundits, including David Stevenson and Grattan Endicott, that this law does not mean what it literally says, and that if a player who has UI chooses an action that is not an LA, and that action is successful, he has violated this law, even though a literal reading would say otherwise. :blink: :angry:

The ACBL now has a regulation to the effect that any action chosen at the table is a logical alternative, because it seemed logical to the player who chose it, and that player is a representative of his class of player.

[Vampyr]

This is something that's been bothering me for a long time. I've been informed by several pundits, including David Stevenson and Grattan Endicott, that this law does not mean what it literally says, and that if a player who has UI chooses an action that is not an LA, and that action is successful, he has violated this law, even though a literal reading would say otherwise. :blink:  :angry:

Haven't we covered this ground more than once? The call a person actually chose is deemed to count among the logical alternatives. This makes sense, because after all, this is not just a bid that some small number of the player's peers might hypothetically choose; it is the bid that the player in question (his own #1 peer?) actually made.

 

Does anyone want for there to be a loophole in the Laws such that, if you are in receipt of unauthorised information you are allowed to take an "illogical" action? This would become a standard tactic for those who feel they would not be permitted to "get away with" the suggested action, when they are sure that it is best and that they will get a poor score if they choose a "logical" alternative.

 

This is especially odious when combined with the fact that:

 

This is just one of those cases where in the abstract the UI could suggest either weakness or strength but where a partnership will be much better at interpreting its own 'black magic' than any director arguing in theory could.

 

I have always agreed wholeheartedly with the above, which is why I am inclined to rule harshly against pairs who, in receipt of UI, "get it right".

 

EDIT: Sorry if the beginning of the above seems a little repetitive; I had my window open a long time and missed Mr Burn's post.

[pran]

I don't even understand what you are disagreeing with.

Maybe I misunderstood your post?

I am not aware of any reference to Law 16 from Law 12, neither express nor implied.

[pran]

It's also interesting that the laws say that if a player "chooses, from among logical alternatives..." and don't really say anything about what happens if a player chooses a bid that isn't a logical alternative at all.

This is something that's been bothering me for a long time. I've been informed by several pundits, including David Stevenson and Grattan Endicott, that this law does not mean what it literally says, and that if a player who has UI chooses an action that is not an LA, and that action is successful, he has violated this law, even though a literal reading would say otherwise. :blink: :angry:

The ACBL now has a regulation to the effect that any action chosen at the table is a logical alternative, because it seemed logical to the player who chose it, and that player is a representative of his class of player.

There can be no doubt that any chosen action shall be counted among the logical alternatives available, but TD and AC must still judge if this action could demonstrably have been suggested by the UI. If they rule negative to this question the result must stand however successful it is for the alleged offending side because Law 16 has not been violated.

[Cascade]

he should bid a slam, because it will make considerably more than half the time.

I remain unconvinced that this is demonstrable.

With one heart (and not six spades and a weak suit)

 

hcp P[>12 tricks]

8 16.6%

9 21.2%

10 31.7%

11 50.1%

12 64.1%

 

With two hearts

 

hcp P[>12 tricks]

6 12.5%

7 18.7%

8 27.3%

9 39.5%

10 54.8%

11 65.4%

12 82.9%

13 88.0%

 

With three hearts

 

hcp P[>12 tricks]

10 66.5%

11 77.9%

12 87.3%

 

8-10 with 2 hearts P(>12) = 34.6%

 

7 with 2 hearts or 11 with 2 hearts or 10 with 3 hearts or 8-11 with 1 heart (and not six spades and some weak suit) P(>12) = 34.3%

 

The odds of 12 tricks with a slow raise based on a hand at one of the boundaries is relatively close to a normal raise with an 8-10 hand.

 

The relative frequencies of the various hand types are approximately

 

        Low      1      2      3   High    Sum
Low       0      0      0      0      0      0
  6      0      0    106      0      0    106
  7      0      0    111      0      0    111
  8      0     66    112      0      0    178
  9      0     66     91      0      0    157
 10      0     38     79     55      0    172
 11      0     33     68     44      0    145
 12      0     18     53     31      0    102
 13      0      0     29      0      0     29
High      0      0      0      0      0      0
Sum       0    221    649    130      0   1000

 

 

I still remain unconvinced that a slow raise can demonstrably suggest 6H over PASS.

[gwnn]

I don't like that simulation. It is impossible to effectively delimit 'problem hands' from non-problem hands with numbers alone (I think most problem hands are slam tries but many people thought this was false so I am not going to sustain this claim as a part of my argument). However how about this: I bid my hand exactly and if partner said 4H wtp then slam should be 0%. If partner said 4H but maybe this is not the best contract then maybe 6H is the best contract.

 

Meanwhile I'm still not convinced that writing pass with all caps is correct English.

[cherdanno]

I don't even understand what you are disagreeing with.

Maybe I misunderstood your post?

I am not aware of any reference to Law 16 from Law 12, neither express nor implied.

I quoted a reference from Law 16 to Law 12. In any case, I really don't think we disagree about anything.

[blackshoe]

The ACBL now has a regulation to the effect that any action chosen at the table is a logical alternative, because it seemed logical to the player who chose it, and that player is a representative of his class of player.

Yes, I'd forgotten that. However, "seems logical" does not mean it is logical. :)

[blackshoe]

Haven't we covered this ground more than once? The call a person actually chose is deemed to count among the logical alternatives. This makes sense, because after all, this is not just a bid that some small number of the player's peers might hypothetically choose; it is the bid that the player in question (his own #1 peer?) actually made.

 

Does anyone want for there to be a loophole in the Laws such that, if you are in receipt of unauthorised information you are allowed to take an "illogical" action? This would become a standard tactic for those who feel they would not be permitted to "get away with" the suggested action, when they are sure that it is best and that they will get a poor score if they choose a "logical" alternative.

This has been around a long time. I'm sure I'm not the first to have pointed it out.

 

I agree that we don't want such a loophole, if only because I don't want, as a TD, to have to deal with players who make silly calls just because they have UI. My problem, however, is that the phrase "logical alternative" has a specific meaning, and the lawmakers have had plenty of opportunity to change the laws if what they want is a phrase that means something quite different. Instead, they have elected to redefine the words so they do not mean what they say in English. To me, that's just plain stupid.

[blackshoe]

There can be no doubt that any chosen action shall be counted among the logical alternatives available,

Sure, so long as you accept the premise that the lawmakers, like Humpty Dumpty, can make words mean whatever they want them to mean. :)

[Cascade]

I don't like that simulation. It is impossible to effectively delimit 'problem hands' from non-problem hands with numbers alone (I think most problem hands are slam tries but many people thought this was false so I am not going to sustain this claim as a part of my argument). However how about this: I bid my hand exactly and if partner said 4H wtp then slam should be 0%. If partner said 4H but maybe this is not the best contract then maybe 6H is the best contract.

 

Meanwhile I'm still not convinced that writing pass with all caps is correct English.

1. I agree that numbers are not an effective criteria in delimiting the problem and non problem hands. Therefore in each simulation there will be included problem hands and non problem hands. The simulations are not intended to be definitive but rather to give rough guide as to how many hands there are of different types that could potentially give a problem decision and the trick taking expectation of similar hands.

 

2. With hands with one heart I made some attempt to qualify the problem hands by forcing the responder to have one suit with a poor holding. This will be relatively common with weak hands.

 

3. It is unrealistic to expect slam (12 tricks) to be 0% when a simulation shows that over 30% of the time when partner has a routine 4H raise - 8-10 hcp or so with two hearts that 12 or more tricks are available. Perhaps if we assume partner's judgment is good then the numbers for 12 tricks when partner has a good but marginal problem hand will be lower than simulated and those when partner is bad but marginal will be slightly better. As stated above i did make some attempt to qualify the problem hands when partner had only one heart so maybe the numbers are more reasonable there.

 

4. If partner said 4H but maybe this is not the best contract then maybe 6H is not the best contract or maybe 6H is the best contract. This is born out by the simulation where the numbers for hands that are on the three borders that I simulated for i/ weaker than a normal raise, ii/ stronger than a normal raise (two cases with two or three trumps) and iii/ Normal raise strength but few hearts than normal are similar to the numbers for hands within the normal range. Granted (as above) not all hands so quantified will be problem hands but I doubt that that is sufficient reason to 6H is more likely.

 

5. While the simulations do not show the expectation for "problem hands" they do show the expectation for boundary hands on three (or four boundaries) -

i/ too strong with two trumps

ii/ too strong with three trumps

iii/ too weak with two trumps

iv/ one trump

Nevertheless I would suggest that the numbers indicate that it would be non-trivial to "demonstrate" that knowing that partner had a problem hand from one of the boundaries above that 6H was suggested over PASS or indeed that in fact it is suggested.

 

An argument that the problem can not be quantified is only one step (or maybe a few steps) away from saying that it 'can not be demonstrated that the UI suggests one action over another'.

 

The law requires an acknowledgment that a suggestion can be demonstrated. Such an acknowledgment will necessarily be more difficult when the potential problem hands are diverse and suggestive of different and even conflicting actions. This will often be the case when it is a slow action as compared with a slow PASS (non-forcing - a slow forcing PASS is likely to be similar to a slow action in that at least in a vacuum partner will not be able to tell whether the uncertainty was due to being close to double or to some bid).

[cherdanno]

We are talking about a pair that bids 1H 1S 3H 4H 6H. A hand that is too strong for 4H may well be not a borderline slam try, but a clearcut slam try where responder doesn't know how to try for slam (except bidding 4NT).

[pran]

There can be no doubt that any chosen action shall be counted among the logical alternatives available,

Sure, so long as you accept the premise that the lawmakers, like Humpty Dumpty, can make words mean whatever they want them to mean. :rolleyes:

This doesn't matter because what you apparently objects to be considered a logical alternative can then definitely not be suggested by the UI (whatever we call this alternative).

 

Or are you asserting that UI can demonstrably suggest an action that you consider not to be a logical alternative?

 

I prefer including the selected action among the logical alternatives available and in case rule that this particular alternative was not demonstrably suggested by the UI. (That was exactly what we did in the case I quoted in my OP.)