Should I Have Sanctioned an Appeal?

[lamford]

And, apart from associating yourself (with evident approval) with Mr Burn, have a look at your post no. 50. I wasn't threatening anybody, just suggesting that you be a little more restrained in your "opinions". On the other hand your last sentence does look like a threat to me.

The statement by nigel_k was: I maintain that any reasonable North, when faced with the unusual jump to 3♠ and looking at two small spades and opponents not bidding them, would now realize that his 1♥ had been treated as a transfer even if he didn't think so at the point he bid 1♥.

 

I stated that I would agree with the statement if it read:

 

I maintain that any unethical North, when faced with the unusual jump to 3♠ and looking at two small spades and opponents not bidding them, would now realize that his 1♥ had been treated as a transfer even if he didn't think so at the point he bid 1♥.

 

That is clearly the case, as the Laws and Ethics committee would confirm. A North meeting an undiscussed 3S has an ethical duty not to take advantage of the previous alert. If North-South have a specific agreement that 3S is natural and forcing, then it might be different.

 

And the format of the last sentence was the standard option being given for somebody to withdraw an assertion before taking it further - I am always happier with amicably agreeing to differ, and I hope you can see your way to do the same. I will agree to moderate my opinions, which I fully accept are often too direct and abrasive (I know jallerton will second that).

[lamford]

And, apart from associating yourself (with evident approval) with Mr Burn

I think that I have disagreed with Dburn more than I have agreed with him on this forum over all threads, but it will be close. If this thread runs longer than the Mousetrap, "agree" will overtake "disagree" very soon.

[lamford]

First, the players who could not have attended were from Surrey, not C&H

That is not ideal, but there is no reason an appeal cannot go ahead without their players. And their captain could have been briefed and represented them.

[bluejak]

1♦ - Double - 1♥ (natural) - 2♣ - 3♠ (natural) - all pass. If I had heard it, I would hitherto have regarded it much as I would regard the sudden appearance of a Yeti or a basilisk, things that I am "certain" do not exist.

The question was over the possibility of 3♠ being natural and forcing. Clearly no-one would play it as non-forcing.

[Aardv]

OK Let's try to construct the layout.

 

(i) South has intended 3♠ as a huge 2-suiter

 

North has a 2524 9-count.

South has let's says a pure 5260 16-count

West has a 4414 10-count

East has a 2245 5-count

 

That all adds up and seems at least vaguely plausible to me.

 

(ii) South has intended 3♠ as a splinter

 

North has a 2524 9-count.

South has let's say a 1453 17-count for his splinter raise to game opposite a 1-level response.

West has a made a free bid, so should have the odd high card. Let's give him a 3235 6-count.

That leaves East with a 7231 8-count, a couple of aces short of a strong jump overcall.

 

Helene used the phrase "very implausible". I used the phrase "virtually impossible". Are we allowed to assume that the opponents have not come up with bizarre psyches, such as making a take-out double on a normal pre-empetive 3♠ overcall hand? If so, I'll change my assessment of the probability of this layout to "completely impossible".

 

So the question is: are we allowed to assume that the opponents have not psyched when assessing the logical alternatives?

 

I don't understand why South would need more HCP to bid 3S with a known heart fit than he would make the same bid with no known fit. We need to find a lot of shape somewhere to explain the auction: how about 1471?

 

Some other thoughts:

 

- It seems to me that a pair might plausibly agree not to play splinters in competition except when opponents started with a take-out double. I don't suppose this N-S pair had such a detailed agreement, but why shouldn't a vague agreement be assumed by one of them to include this exception implicitly?

 

- This particular East could have bid spades naturally at any level. But North didn't know that.

 

- There's been talk of the L&E committee. I think it might usefully consider the question of what information is AI to North here from his opponents' bidding. Is Jeffrey right that their actions are AI to him on the imaginary assumption that they've been given alerts and explanations consistent with what he originally meant by his bid (which implies that may have to work out a set of explanations by both himself and his partner)? Or is any action by opponents UI that may have been affected either way by the misunderstanding, as other commentators have held?

[dburn]

Suppose that I were asked to make up a Premier League team with three eminent players from Surrey (far-fetched, you may say, but stranger things have happened). Suppose also that I have read my partner's system file and am assumed to be playing it on the basis that he will forgive me if I cock it up from time to time. And suppose that the bidding proceeds 1♦ - Double - to me.

 

I bid 1♥ - a cock-up, because we play transfers and I have 2-5 in the majors. The next guy looks at my convention card, bids 2♣, and the tray comes back (yes, there are screens) with 3♠ by partner and pass to the right.

 

Now, I know for a fact that we don't play splinters in competition except in the opponents' bid suits (this is on page 363 of the file, which of course I have studied assiduously rather than wasting my time reading page 3 where it says "transfers over takeout doubles"). So I start to wonder what on Earth he can have.

 

If 3♠ isn't a splinter, then it must be natural - but no one would play that way, even in Surrey. Maybe he thinks spades is a "bid suit" by the opponents because the guy doubled 1♦ and I bid hearts. On the other hand, it does say in black and white that we don't play splinters in competition except in their bid suits, and the opponents don't seem to have ten spades because no one's bid them yet.

 

Wait a minute - the guy to my left looked at my card, then passed. Maybe he thinks I have spades, and maybe that's why he didn't bid them. Maybe we play transfers after takeout doubles after all...

 

Still, I have to do something. I'm going to assume he's got hearts. If I bid four clubs and it comes back with four spades, maybe I'll have another think about it, but if it comes back with four hearts, I'm going to pass.

 

Of course, an alternative (and equally valid) version of the previous paragraph might be:

 

Still, I have to do something. I'm going to assume he's got spades (either he's bidding his own suit or he's supporting mine). If I bid 3NT and it comes back with four hearts, maybe I'll have another think about it, but if it comes back with four spades, I'm going to pass. And if it doesn't come back at all - well, I hope I make it.

 

Now, this superposition of states in which I find myself is not uncommon (indeed, it happened several times not all that long ago, when I was making up a Premier League team with three eminent players from Surrey). And whichever way I choose to collapse the wave function is entirely legal, because I don't have any unauthorised information (but see below*).

 

In the actual case, though, everything I have described above is likely to be close to what happened except that there were no screens, and North knew what he was not entitled to know - that 3♠ did not agree hearts, nor did it show some huge two-suiter, but was in fact support for North's "spades". If North acted on the basis of that information, he was acting illegally.

 

In order to be convinced that North was not acting on the basis of that information, I would require concrete evidence from North-South that the "huge two-suiter" possibility was in fact part of their methods. I would not in this case accept any argument to the effect that North is allowed to work out entirely from his hand and the auction that the partnership method is other than he thought it was when he bid 1♥; it is altogether too easy to construct "logical" arguments that something must be true when you already know empirically that it is true, and the arguments thus constructed almost always have gaps in the logic.

 

Nor, in this case, would I be very much concerned about the results of a poll among a bunch of players who knew the hand (though I observe that the results of a poll among players who didn't appeared strongly to support the notion that there were logical alternatives to 3NT within the meaning of Law 16). Whereas the use of polls is a viable solution to many judgement questions, in this case the words of Law 16B1b:

 

"A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it."

 

would vitiate such a poll entirely. After all, no one is in South's class as a player, and you can hardly expect people to "use the methods of the partnership" when they don't have any.

 

 

*Playing behind screens, is the fact that my screen-mate consults my convention card AI to me?

[Chris L]

Suppose that I were asked to make up a Premier League team with three eminent players from Surrey (far-fetched, you may say, but stranger things have happened). Suppose also that I have read my partner's system file and am assumed to be playing it on the basis that he will forgive me if I cock it up from time to time. And suppose that the bidding proceeds 1♦ - Double - to me.

 

I bid 1♥ - a cock-up, because we play transfers and I have 2-5 in the majors. The next guy looks at my convention card, bids 2♣, and the tray comes back (yes, there are screens) with 3♠ by partner and pass to the right.

 

Now, I know for a fact that we don't play splinters in competition except in the opponents' bid suits (this is on page 363 of the file, which of course I have studied assiduously rather than wasting my time reading page 3 where it says "transfers over takeout doubles"). So I start to wonder what on Earth he can have.

 

If 3♠ isn't a splinter, then it must be natural - but no one would play that way, even in Surrey. Maybe he thinks spades is a "bid suit" by the opponents because the guy doubled 1♦ and I bid hearts. On the other hand, it does say in black and white that we don't play splinters in competition except in their bid suits, and the opponents don't seem to have ten spades because no one's bid them yet.

 

Wait a minute - the guy to my left looked at my card, then passed. Maybe he thinks I have spades, and maybe that's why he didn't bid them. Maybe we play transfers after takeout doubles after all...

 

Still, I have to do something. I'm going to assume he's got hearts. If I bid four clubs and it comes back with four spades, maybe I'll have another think about it, but if it comes back with four hearts, I'm going to pass.

 

Of course, an alternative (and equally valid) version of the previous paragraph might be:

 

Still, I have to do something. I'm going to assume he's got spades (either he's bidding his own suit or he's supporting mine). If I bid 3NT and it comes back with four hearts, maybe I'll have another think about it, but if it comes back with four spades, I'm going to pass. And if it doesn't come back at all - well, I hope I make it.

 

Now, this superposition of states in which I find myself is not uncommon (indeed, it happened several times not all that long ago, when I was making up a Premier League team with three eminent players from Surrey). And whichever way I choose to collapse the wave function is entirely legal, because I don't have any unauthorised information (but see below*).

 

In the actual case, though, everything I have described above is likely to be close to what happened except that there were no screens, and North knew what he was not entitled to know - that 3♠ did not agree hearts, nor did it show some huge two-suiter, but was in fact support for North's "spades". If North acted on the basis of that information, he was acting illegally.

 

In order to be convinced that North was not acting on the basis of that information, I would require concrete evidence from North-South that the "huge two-suiter" possibility was in fact part of their methods. I would not in this case accept any argument to the effect that North is allowed to work out entirely from his hand and the auction that the partnership method is other than he thought it was when he bid 1♥; it is altogether too easy to construct "logical" arguments that something must be true when you already know empirically that it is true, and the arguments thus constructed almost always have gaps in the logic.

 

Nor, in this case, would I be very much concerned about the results of a poll among a bunch of players who knew the hand (though I observe that the results of a poll among players who didn't appeared strongly to support the notion that there were logical alternatives to 3NT within the meaning of Law 16). Whereas the use of polls is a viable solution to many judgement questions, in this case the words of Law 16B1b:

 

"A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it."

 

would vitiate such a poll entirely. After all, no one is in South's class as a player, and you can hardly expect people to "use the methods of the partnership" when they don't have any.

 

 

*Playing behind screens, is the fact that my screen-mate consults my convention card AI to me?

 

At last. I have no problem with the way this is put, though, like Jeffrey, I might quibble with the adjective "huge"; we can only assume that the TD put it this way to himself and was satisfied that the partnership methods admitted of the strong two suiter possibility.

 

FWIW I gave the N hand to a couple of county "A" team players at a match yesterday - with the added information about the methods said to be used by NS - and they both bid 3NT.

[lamford]

<snip> we can only assume that the TD put it this way to himself and was satisfied that the partnership methods admitted of the strong two suiter possibility. <snip>

Why can we only assume that? I thought you were against assuming and wanted to wait for concrete evidence from North-South. And "admitted of" and "possibiity" would not be enough.

[Chris L]

Why can we only assume that? I thought you were against assuming and wanted to wait for concrete evidence from North-South. And "admitted of" and "possibiity" would not be enough.

 

I meant in arriving at his ruling, and no more. We can only "assume" it because we don't know (and will probably never know) exactly his reasoning. Should "concrete evidence" from NS ever arrive, it would be interesting to read it. I am "assuming" that the TD didn't rule "result stands" because, for example, he didn't like the look of EW (or their N-PC) and arrived at his decision in accordance with his understanding of the facts and the relevant laws.

 

As to the second point, surely the TD has to satisfy himself that the meaning of 3♠ contended for by NS is at least a possibility under their agreements. If he does, then he must ask himself of what other possible explanations (if any) for the 3♠ bid the NS agreements admit. Then he needs, via consultation, to establish the logical alternative bids (if any) to 3NT and decide whether 3NT is indicated over any of those by the UI.

[lamford]

As to the second point, surely the TD has to satisfy himself that the meaning of 3♠ contended for by NS is at least a possibility under their agreements. If he does, then he must ask himself of what other possible explanations (if any) for the 3♠ bid the NS agreements admit. Then he needs, via consultation, to establish the logical alternative bids (if any) to 3NT and decide whether 3NT is indicated over any of those by the UI.

Yes, yes and yes to those three. And I expect he followed roughly that path. The majority of this forum appears to disagree with the conclusions he reached, and thinks there is at least one logical alternative.

[aguahombre]

The majority of this forum appears to disagree with the conclusions he reached, and thinks there is at least one logical alternative.

 

So rare when a poster uses subject/verb agreement properly these days. Sorry for the off-topic post, but I couldn't resist.

[Vampyr]

In the US, the nouns "majority", "committee", "team" etc are usually used with the singular form of a verb; in the UK they generally take the plural form. I don't know about other places. So either usage would be acceptable.

[gnasher]

So rare when a poster uses subject/verb agreement properly these days. Sorry for the off-topic post, but I couldn't resist.

Unfortunately, however, it's not unusual for a comment on someone's grammar to contain its own grammatical error.

 

 

 

[Chris L]

Yes, yes and yes to those three. And I expect he followed roughly that path. The majority of this forum appears to disagree with the conclusions he reached, and thinks there is at least one logical alternative.

 

The majority might be right or they might not. As this is perhaps the nearest we will get to a consensus ad idem perhaps we should leave it there (some posters seem to have got bored, to judge from the last three posts).

 

At least seven contributors appear to know the Surrey NS pair quite well; if and when anything which clears up any of the "known unknowns" emerges, no doubt it will be added to this thread.

 

I don't know whether the moderators keep statistics on "most views" or "most posts" on a single thread - has this one broken any?

[blackshoe]

188 replies (not counting this one) is a record for this forum. 3889 views is not - that goes to one Fred started, titled "Seeking Quick Legal Opinion", which had 7,012 views, and 147 replies.

[jallerton]

So we have moved from "virtually impossible" in one thread to (the opposite of) "relatively likely" now. And what do you think your ethical duty is if one hand type is relatively likely, but suggested by the UI?

 

No, I said "relatively more likely". If the odds of A relative to B are initially 1000:1 and after some event the odds of A relative to B become 5000:1 then A has become relatively more likely.

[lamford]

No, I said "relatively more likely". If the odds of A relative to B are initially 1000:1 and after some event the odds of A relative to B become 5000:1 then A has become relatively more likely.

No, you said "more relatively likely", which is why I misunderstood it.

[gordontd]

188 replies (not counting this one) is a record for this forum.

And 59 of them from one person!

[jallerton]

North has heard the alert, and he knows that he has misbid. As Dburn states, he is is allowed to know that he has shown spades, but must not use it to his advantage. Dburn made exactly the same point as me that East has heard North bid spades and may therefore not bid them. You cannot use this information to your advantage, but must use it if it is to your disadvantage. Logical alternatives are assessed in the light of all the information you have.

 

I don't understand where you get the idea that you are not supposed to use the UI. If you don't know what the UI is and what it indicates, how can you carefully avoid taking advantage of it?

 

I got this idea from a red book I was sent by the English Bridge Union a couple of years ago. It's called "The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007".

 

LAW 16 AUTHORIZED AND UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION

A. Players’ Use of Information

1. A player may use information in the auction or play if:

(a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source; or

(b) it is authorized information from a withdrawn action (see D); or

© it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following); or

(d) it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of thisinformation.

2. Players may also take account of their estimate of their own score, of the traits of their opponents, and any requirement of the tournament regulations.

3. No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous).

4. If there is a violation of this law causing damage the Director adjusts the score in accordance with Law 12C.

 

Law 12A3 seems clear enough to me, but you can never be too sure these days. I discovered recently that the ACBL has its own version of the Laws, so perhaps Planet Lamfordia has yet another version. Little changes to the wording can make a significant difference. For example, in the PL version of Law 92A, it can be inferred that the first "may" has been replaced by "must". Now it seems from Paul's remarks that the word "No" at the start of Law 16A3 has been replaced in PL by the word "Any".

 

Back in the rest of the universe, my understanding is that the Laws on the use of information operate as follows:

 

1. In accordance with Law 12A3, the player must decide purely on the authorised information available his possible actions. If he has only one vaguely plausible action available, then that is what he should choose.

 

2. If he has more than one plausible action (referred to later in the Laws a "logical alternatives") then either:

 

(i) If he has no unauthorised information, he is free to choose whichever logical alternative he thinks best; or

 

(ii) If he does have unauthorised information from partner, he may be restricted in which out of those logical alternatives he had considered in step 1 above may actually be chosen. The restrictions come from both Law 16B1[a]:

 

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.

 

and Law 73C:

 

When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information.

 

Nowhere in the WBF Laws is a player authorised to use unauthorised information to determine which actions are logical alternatives. The unauthorised information is merely used to determine which logical alternative calls and plays (if any) are not permitted to be made.

[lamford]

I got this idea from a red book I was sent by the English Bridge Union a couple of years ago. It's called "The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007".

 

 

 

Law 12A3 seems clear enough to me, but you can never be too sure these days. I discovered recently that the ACBL has its own version of the Laws, so perhaps Planet Lamfordia has yet another version. Little changes to the wording can make a significant difference. For example, in the PL version of Law 92A, it can be inferred that the first "may" has been replaced by "must". Now it seems from Paul's remarks that the word "No" at the start of Law 16A3 has been replaced in PL by the word "Any".

 

Back in the rest of the universe, my understanding is that the Laws on the use of information operate as follows:

 

1. In accordance with Law 12A3, the player must decide purely on the authorised information available his possible actions. If he has only one vaguely plausible action available, then that is what he should choose.

 

2. If he has more than one plausible action (referred to later in the Laws a "logical alternatives") then either:

 

(i) If he has no unauthorised information, he is free to choose whichever logical alternative he thinks best; or

 

(ii) If he does have unauthorised information from partner, he may be restricted in which out of those logical alternatives he had considered in step 1 above may actually be chosen. The restrictions come from both Law 16B1[a]:

 

 

 

and Law 73C:

 

 

 

Nowhere in the WBF Laws is a player authorised to use unauthorised information to determine which actions are logical alternatives. The unauthorised information is merely used to determine which logical alternative calls and plays (if any) are not permitted to be made.

I think this matter should be dealt with by the Laws and Ethics Committtee, writing to to the players in question for more information, and further discussion seems pointless. I shall not reply to this thread again ("thank goodness", I hear most of you say). The player has to use the UI to decide what is demonstrably suggested by it, and yet you argue he cannot use it. The Laws are full of these contradictions. Indeed one definition of "use" is "apply to one's own purposes", so I presume this meaning is intended in the parts you quote (the whole tone suggests this), rather than the common alternative meaning "employ" or "make use of". Indeed these meanings are 1 and 2 in dictionary.com. I argue therefore that he is allowed - indeed obliged - to make use of the UI but is not allowed to apply it to his own purposes.

[bluejak]

I do not actually think the purpose of this forum is to decide what the L&EC should do at its future meetings. People may discuss as much or as little as they like here, so long as it is suitable for the specific forum, and persuading others is really what it is for. If you fail, maybe you are wrong, maybe it is insoluble, maybe anything, but let us just leave it at that.

[dburn]

Nowhere in the WBF Laws is a player authorised to use unauthorised information to determine which actions are logical alternatives. The unauthorised information is merely used to determine which logical alternative calls and plays (if any) are not permitted to be made.

If Law 73 did not exist in conjunction with Law 16, that would be true (and might or might not be welcome). But because Law 73 does exist, it is incumbent upon a player to "use" unauthorised information for the purpose of determining how not to take any advantage of it. Here the word "use" has the sense of "take into account when making a determination"; not in the older sense of "turn to one's own profit" - that, certainly, is not allowed.

[jallerton]

Well, it seems to me that if a player bases his call solely on authorised information (as Law 12A3 demands) then that player is also "carefully avoiding taking any advantage" of any unauthorised information he may have (as Law 73C demands).

[phil_20686]

In the US, the nouns "majority", "committee", "team" etc are usually used with the singular form of a verb; in the UK they generally take the plural form. I don't know about other places. So either usage would be acceptable.

 

I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. The correct grammar is that it takes both in different situations. EDIT: By which I mean that usage on both sides of the pond is often grammatically incorrect, not that you were wrong about the usage.

 

For example: "My team are very large" and "my team is very large" mean different things. The first means that my team members are individually large, the second means that my team has a large number of members. In essence, you should use `are' whenever the verb construction refers to all the players individually, and `is' when it refers to a property that the team only possesses as a group. There are examples where either is acceptable.

 

Examples:

"My [running] team is very fast" "My [running] team are very fast". In this case either is acceptable as everyone being fast and the whole team being fast is normally the same thing. Were you to say "My team is fast, even though Jimmy is slow" Then you must use is, as only the team is fast, not all members of the team.

 

"The UK team is the best of its kind." - this type of construction `is' is necessary, as the it is evident that the team members cannot simultaneously be "the best". (Also, if that is what you meant, you would use `their' instead of its later.)

 

Took me a while to come up with a property that only takes `are': `Team B are [all] graduates". (one does not jointly graduate from a university.)

 

Hope this has clarified it for you.

[Vampyr]

 

For example: "My team are very large" and "my team is very large" mean different things.

 

Naturally. One can usually come up with the "correct" usage by seeing how the sentence works with "the members of" placed at the beginning. But "acceptable" does not mean the same as "correct".