Do you allow the raise to 6?

[Vampyr]

The fact that the person's reliance might have been mathematically unsound is irrelevant.  He chose his bid on the basis of HIS assessment of the external information.  It was demonstrably suggested to HIM by HIS READ.

 

Any other take is ludicrous.

Way to cut through a lot of the bullshit that is being spouted on this thread.

[axman]

The fact that the person's reliance might have been mathematically unsound is irrelevant.  He chose his bid on the basis of HIS assessment of the external information.  It was demonstrably suggested to HIM by HIS READ.

 

Any other take is ludicrous.

Way to cut through a lot of the bullshit that is being spouted on this thread.

To resurrect some bs a bit of perspective is in order.

 

The law provides the definition of LA in L16b1B. And there is a supposed codicil in the form of a LC minute that changes the law [without going through the actual changing] to include as LA the action that a player actually takes.

 

When one realizes that a LA derives by law to specifically be based upon one's method, then when a player takes an action that's 'out of this world' when the player's announced agreements are the only things being considered, but also taken while UI was available- this codicil imputes upon the player's partnership method that using UI is part of their agreement .

 

iow since passing UI back and forth is the partnership method and L73B1 specifically denotes it as the most heinous of crimes, the effect of the codicil is to convict such a player of cheating of the worst kind- despite the player satisfying L16B1b.

[Vampyr]

iow since passing UI back and forth is the partnership method and L73B1 specifically denotes it as the most heinous of crimes, the effect of the codicil is to convict such a player of cheating of the worst kind- despite the player satisfying L16B1b.

This is exaggerating a bit. It is true that the player must have "used" the UI, since his bid came from outer space, but he may not have been consciously aware of what he was doing, or may not have known that it was against the rules. Perhaps he even changed his mind after the 4♥ bid and felt that his hand was not a game invitation, but should have been a slam try; now once partner showed enough to move over 3♥, the extra values would now be enough for a slam.

 

What I am saying in general is that the player should be given the benefit of the doubt.

[jallerton]

We had his written statement on the appeal form (referred in a previous post on this thread):

"I was assessing my cards to be a very tough slam (and I usually bid them as well)"

 

Both sides had been informed when the hearing would take place but neither of them appeared available for further questioning, probably because they had already presented their views on the appeal form.

 

On the AC we had to come out with a ruling, we could not defer this to some later time and we felt we had all the information we needed including the written statements by each side on the appeal form. (This is required in Norway)

If I had been on the AC I would have been disappointed that East was not available at the appeal. On hearing his explanation for the 6♥ bid, I would ask him to confirm whether 3♥ was forcing and, if not, would ask him to explain why he was not on the previous round "assessing my cards to be a not quite so tough game." I would also talk to him about what odds he thinks he needs to bid NV games and slams at the prevailing form of scoring. During these discussions I would hope to get to the bottom of what really was going through East's mind when he decided to bid 6♥.

 

[One thought occurs to me. I seem to remember hearing somewhere that "barometer" scoring is quite common in Norway. Could East perhaps have heard about the contract at another table? Pure speculation on my part, but a more likely expanation than East coming up with some clever calculated gamble based on probabilities and the IMPs scale]

[pran]

[One thought occurs to me. I seem to remember hearing somewhere that "barometer" scoring is quite common in Norway. Could East perhaps have heard about the contract at another table? Pure speculation on my part, but a more likely expanation than East coming up with some clever calculated gamble based on probabilities and the IMPs scale]

Very unlikely. (And this is no wishful thinking)

[bluejak]

Why?

[pran]

Why?

Because I know the room and the conditions where the event took place. There was ample space for each table and good dicipline. With Bridgemates used there was virtually no talking in the room about the boards.

 

My remark was specifically aimed at this event, not a general comment of course.

[PeterAlan]

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: :(

I realise I'm late to these threads, but I'm very glad to see this remark, blackshoe. 18 months ago I attended an EBU refresher course for TDs on the 2007 Laws, and tried unsuccessfully to make precisely this point (that the wording of L16B1a meant that choosing an "illogical alternative" - ie something that was not a "logical alternative" (which is a term clearly-enough defined in L16B1b) - left one outside the scope of that law): I couldn't get the instructor to see what I was talking about.

 

I don't want to hijack this thread further, but if anyone could point me to the earlier discussions, where it was evidently established that black meant white, I'd be grateful. I imagine that the rather less precise wording of L16B3 had something to do with it.

 

It does seem a pity that a law that actually manages to achieve some precision in its wording is then held to mean something contrary to what it actually says, but there you are.

 

PeterAlan

[dburn]

18 months ago I attended an EBU refresher course for TDs on the 2007 Laws, and tried unsuccessfully to make precisely this point (that the wording of L16B1a meant that choosing an "illogical alternative" - ie something that was not a "logical alternative" (which is a term clearly-enough defined in L16B1b) - left one outside the scope of that law): I couldn't get the instructor to see what I was talking about.

Actually (at least in the EBU L&E) it was held that it did not matter whether a player taking an illogical alternative action was in breach of Law 16 or not. If his motive was to increase his expected score on the board, he was in breach of Law 73 because he had failed in his duty not to take any advantage of UI.

 

In the ACBL, as previously noted, it is now held that any action taken by a player is considered among the LAs for that player.

[bluejak]

This has been discussed many times. But that is no reason not to say it again.

 

There are various arguments when a player chooses a call not apparently an LA which is suggested by the UI and is successful.

 

First, some people argue that any call that a player chooses is automatically an LA for that player - or for that class of player - so he has in fact chosen an LA.

 

Second, there is the argument that since he has breached Law 73 it does not matter whether he has breached Law 16 or not, the adjustment is given anyway.

 

Third, there is the view that a choice amongst LAs does not necessarily mean the chosen action must be an LA, just that the alternatives are LAs. This particular argument is probably weaker than it used to be owing to slight changes in the actual wording of the Law in the 2007 Laws.

 

Fourth, there is the "authority" view: it is accepted that one should adjust in this position by the various authorities. Thus an individual TD or AC should do so without worrying too much how or whether this follows the actual wording of the Law.

 

I have sympathy for the tutors on th EBU Refresher course. In effect they are doing what we generally try to do in these forums, at least in the first three, which is to help people give rulings in line with accepted practice. Just as th first three forums - excluding 'Changing Laws & Regulations' - are not designed for challenging accepted practices, nor really is an EBU Refresher course. It is there to learn to be a better TD.

[PeterAlan]

Thank you, dburn and bluejak, for those additional explanations. As I mentioned, I am new to these forums, and haven't seen the previous "many discussions". I really was doing no more than picking up briefly on blackshoe's earlier comment, and have no intention of pursuing a "change" issue here.

 

I can see their point - or most of them anyway (I'm going to continue to struggle, bluejak, with the interpretation in your third point, and also with your fourth: after all, it's the laws one has to hand, and not necessarily all the corpus of "authority" which is not so readily accessible. Moreover, the position you expound there is pretty hard to put across to someone who has been ruled against, but who regards themselves as having conformed to the law - "Ignore what it appears to say in the laws, it's this way because they said so on an EBU course I went on").

 

Of course, it all might have been clearer if the points been advanced on the course, which after all was about explaining where there had been changes to practice and why. Unfortunately, this wasn't the case on the day I was there, but I don't want to leave the impression that this was a dominant issue on the day. Perhaps it might be helpful if they were mentioned in the next revisions of L&E guidance.

 

PeterAlan

[bluejak]

Oh, no! It is easy enough to explain to a player. Just read out Law 73C, and tell him to follow it in future.