AI or UI

[lamford]

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sa32hkqjdqj42ckj5&w=s87h109874d1095c1087&e=sj1096ha5d8763cq96&s=skq54h632dakca432]399|300|Scoring: IMP

South West North East

1NT Pass 6NT All Pass[/hv]

At my club last night, after a routine auction, West led the ten of hearts. East won and returned a heart. Declarer cashed his red winners, West discarding a heart, and East a club. Now he tested the spades, and East transpired to have four. He cashed the ace of clubs and played a club and the queen did not appear. After some thought, he tossed a coin, and when it came down heads, he rose with the king of clubs, successfully as you can see.

 

East, the club's equivalent of the Secretary Bird, called the director, and argued that South was not allowed to use the result of the toss of the coin to guide his play (Law 16A3). Finessing was a logical alternative which was less successful. The atmosphere became quite charged with South calling East a pedant and East calling South a tosser. How would you rule?

[PrinceNep]

LOL ... I don't think there is any question to the jurisdiction.

[bluejak]

I would tell East to get a life.

 

Actually, there is a case for saying declarer is at fault: Law 74A2. While there is nothing innately illegal in using a coin toss, doing so may upset the opponents so should be avoided. He can easily do a 'coin toss' without anyone being aware, eg glance behind him and make his choice on the gender of North at the next table or many other things.

[Pict]

It is said that in the early days of Chess playing programs, a situation arose where a program could give checkmate on the next move in more than one way. The program had not been given a means of deciding between identical outcomes, so didn't make a move. Naturally the programmer added an arbitrary means of breaking the deadlock.

 

In your case it appears declarer could find no basis for deciding between playing for the drop or the finesse. So he made a play determined by an unrelated fact - as indeed he must logically do if he is to play at all.

 

Were a player to apply coin tossing all the time, they would be failing to take the game seriously.

[Cyberyeti]

Judging by this and the previous thread, you need a "Get a life" card adding to the bidding boxes in your club :)

 

To me the only possible offence committed here would be if the coin tosser had already decided what to do, but knew that tossing the coin was going to wind up the secretary bird so did it anyway. This is of course impossible to prove, but if there was somebody like that where I play, I might have thought about it.

[campboy]

Why is the coin not an aid to (calculation, memory or) technique?

[lamford]

Why is the coin not an aid to (calculation, memory or) technique?

Also which of 16A1(a-d) or 16A2 is the result of a coin toss, as these are the only pieces of information that the player may use in the auction or play? And as dburn so eloquently expressed it, information does not need to be data or even fact, just that which "informs" in its archaic sense. It does not even have to be about this board.

[campboy]

Why is the coin not an aid to (calculation, memory or) technique?

And which of 16A1(a-d) or 16A2 is the result of a coin toss, as these are the only pieces of information that the player may use in the auction or play? And as dburn so eloquently expressed it, information does not need to be data or even fact, just that which "informs" in its archaic sense. It does not even have to be about this board.

Huh? I didn't comment on whether declarer was prohibited from doing this by law 16A3, I merely suggested that he is prohibited from doing it by 40C3a.

 

[edit: also I only just noticed "East calling South a tosser" :D]

[bluejak]

[edit: also I only just noticed "East calling South a tosser" :D]

Excellent, campboy, only eight posts in.

 

But it was funny.

[jdonn]

The "UI" does not demonstrably suggest one action over the other and thus it doesn't matter whether it's actually UI or not.

[lamford]

The "UI" does not demonstrably suggest one action over the other and thus it doesn't matter whether it's actually UI or not.

I think that only applies to "information from partner" under 16B. The toss of the coin is extraneous information, and may not be used under 16A3. There is no test there whether it is beneficial or not, nor what it suggests.

 

Similarly, a player rolling two dice prior to each turn to play, and then selecting the card nearest in pips to the total value of the dice, would be in breach of 16A3.

[JoAnneM]

There is probably a lot more to this story, especially involving the personalities involved, and they both need to be told to "get a life". I wouldn't be surprised if baiting each other goes on at other times. I looked at the section in the Laws on Proprieties (Laws 73 and 74) and found several to point at if need be, but they are both just acting like children - one showing off, and the other whining. Maybe they will grow up soon.

[jallerton]

There is probably a lot more to this story, especially involving the personalities involved,

Actually, no there probably isn't:

 

sto·ry 1 (stôr, str)

n. pl. sto·ries

1. An account or recital of an event or a series of events, either true or fictitious

 

Could there just possibly be a link with this thread ? I refer to my short post on that particular thread.

[lamford]

There is probably a lot more to this story, especially involving the personalities involved.

South and East had never met before.

[RMB1]

Deleted: wrong thread. Edited September 29, 2010 by RMB1

[peachy]

Players do a "coin toss" in their head all the time when there is no clue which line is optimal/percentage, or declarer forgot to count the hands earlier, or declarer was not of adequate skill to count hands, or the count achieved was of no use, etc. etc.

 

What is a player to do then if he can't do a coin toss, with or without the actual coin? Stay there and never play a card... Indeed, "Dear SB, Get a Life"

[lamford]

The practice of continuing discussion while counting cards (but before looking at their faces) is widespread, unobjectionable and not objected to. I would not rule against a pair who did so.

Er, I think that might have been a comment on the thread "Beating the Count", where it is certainly one viewpoint.

[lamford]

Players do a "coin toss" in their head all the time when there is no clue which line is optimal/percentage, or declarer forgot to count the hands earlier, or declarer was not of adequate skill to count hands, or the count achieved was of no use, etc. etc.

 

What is a player to do then if he can't do a coin toss, with or without the actual coin?  Stay there and never play a card...  Indeed, "Dear SB, Get a Life"

He can have determined, for example, to play the queen from QJ doubleton on odd numbered boards and the jack on even numbered boards.

 

Tossing a coin to ensure that he adopts the correct strategy does seem like a clear .... aid to technique to me.

 

Let us say that on every hand with three small trumps where a defender does not want to convey any signal but wants to play them randomly. His rolling of a die and looking at it is both an aid to technique and UI to his partner that the choice was entirely random. In our example, UI cannot occur as he is declarer, but it is still an aid to technique.

[peachy]

Players do a "coin toss" in their head all the time when there is no clue which line is optimal/percentage, or declarer forgot to count the hands earlier, or declarer was not of adequate skill to count hands, or the count achieved was of no use, etc. etc.

 

What is a player to do then if he can't do a coin toss, with or without the actual coin?  Stay there and never play a card...  Indeed, "Dear SB, Get a Life"

He can have determined, for example, to play the queen from QJ doubleton on odd numbered board and the jack on even numbered boards.

 

Tossing a coin to ensure that he adopts the correct strategy does seem like a clear .... aid to technique to me.

 

Let us say that on every hand with three small trumps where a defender does not want to convey any signal but wants to play them randomly. His rolling of a die and looking at it is both an aid to technique and UI to his partner that the choice was entirely random. In our example, UI cannot occur as he is declarer, but it is still an aid to technique.

This player has determined ahead of game time just like any other player has, that when he is at a guess as to which line to take, he will do a coin toss instead of doing "this" on odd numbered days and "that" on even numbered days, or any other random criteria. He just happened to announce his method to the table. Declarer can do that when he is at a guess, defenders can't. The issue is the coin which apparently bothered the SB, perhaps exacerbated by the fact that declarer got the suit right. Moreover, is A Guess included in Technique :)

[gwnn]

Randomising spot card play efficiently is important just as playing suit combinations properly is (the swings caused by each are probably different, I admit). Using a physical coin to aid in the former seems similar to having a physical copy of the Encyclopedia to aid in the latter. Using a physical coin to aid between two strategies when a mixed strategy is not optimal is a more interesting case.

[mycroft]

Tossing a coin to ensure that he adopts the correct strategy does seem like a clear .... aid to technique to me.

 

Let us say that on every hand with three small trumps where a defender does not want to convey any signal but wants to play them randomly. His rolling of a die and looking at it is both an aid to technique and UI to his partner that the choice was entirely random. In our example, UI cannot occur as he is declarer, but it is still an aid to technique.

Return of the Secretary Bird: UI certainly can, and in fact has occurred. It is simply that dummy has no opportunity to choose an alternative, never mind one suggested by the UI, so there can not be damage.

 

I am also in the "Get a Life" camp. But I am also an SB, and I believe that when SB-ing the Laws produces unintended, unwanted results, that (while we rule at the table rationally) those situations should be publicised, noted, and that reasonable attempts to rationalize the Laws should occur (I think, at least in Bridge, that if it requires unreasonable effort to "smooth out the odd corner cases", that "TDs are allowed to think, you know" is a reasonable response). After all, "Oh come on, that will never happen" is a magic phrase, we all know that...