Michaels UI problem

[Cascade]

This is a bit weird. Each time I thought I was editing my post, it created a new post. Maybe they're using Bridgemates to manage the site?

 

ROFL

[campboy]

Indeed. People who live in glasshouses ... The correct procedure is to decide, by polling or consulting, how often East bids 3H and how often he bids 4H and then to find normal, not double-dummy, declarer play and defence in each.

I am not quite sure that I have correctly interpreted what you mean here -- your later percentages are consistent with what I think you mean -- but I do not think we should be giving a weighted score which includes both 3♥x and 4♥x (or at least, not on that basis). If bidding 4♥ is an LA for East then, since 3♥ is suggested over it by the UI, bidding 3♥ is still illegal and no proportion of such an auction should be included.

[nige1]

If bidding 4♥ is an LA for East then, since 3♥ is suggested over it by the UI, bidding 3♥ is still illegal and no proportion of such an auction should be included.

And when 4♥ is doubled, does the UI suggest pass over redouble, assuming that both are LAs?

[campboy]

And when 4♥ is doubled, does the UI suggest pass over redouble assuming that both are LAs?

The same argument would apply, but, since no-one has suggested giving a weighted score involving both doubled and redoubled contracts, there is no inconsistency.

[lamford]

I am not quite sure that I have correctly interpreted what you mean here -- your later percentages are consistent with what I think you mean -- but I do not think we should be giving a weighted score which includes both 3♥x and 4♥x (or at least, not on that basis). If bidding 4♥ is an LA for East then, since 3♥ is suggested over it by the UI, bidding 3♥ is still illegal and no proportion of such an auction should be included.

No, I don't think bidding 3H is suggested over bidding 4H, nor is 4H suggested over bidding 3H. Failing to support hearts is suggested over doing so by the UI. How many hearts to bid is a matter of judgement with the authorised information. I have made a natural 2D overcall of a precision diamond; my partner has bid a natural 2H, which I expect him to do on AQxxxx and not much else. Bidding 4H seems a bit much, and one should poll people with the AI to see how many bid each. I fail to see why one is demonstrably suggested over the other.

 

But I was quite happy to go along with 100% of 3H, which seems about right, and 4H OTT. If you force the overbid of 4H on this hand, then the weighted scores would be even worse, 80% of +1100 and 20% of +1400, or something like that.

[jallerton]

No, I don't think bidding 3H is suggested over bidding 4H, nor is 4H suggested over bidding 3H. Failing to support hearts is suggested over all other bids by the UI. How many hearts to bid is a matter of judgement with the authorised information. I have made a natural 2D overcall of a precision diamond; my partner has bid a natural 2H, which I expect him to do on AQxxxx and not much else. Bidding 4H seems a bit much, and one should poll people with the AI to see how many bid each. I fail to see why one is demonstrably suggested over the other.

 

But I was quite happy to go along with 100% of 3H, which seems about right, and 4H OTT. If you force the overbid of 4H on this hand, then the weighted scores would be even worse, 80% of +1100 and 20% of +1400, or something like that.

 

How many hearts to bid is indeed a matter of judgement with the authorised information, but when you have UI you may not choose a LA demonstrably suggested over another.

 

The UI suggests that (i)both 3♥ and 4♥ will go off and hence (ii) 4♥ will go one more off than 3♥ and also (iii) 4♥ is more likely to be doubled than 3♥.

 

So I agree with Campboy: if 4♥ is a LA then the only weighted scores to be considered are 4♥ making the various possible numbers of tricks.

 

Is 4♥ a logical alternative? Bluejak thinks the bid is obvious, so perhaps the answer is yes. We need to poll a few more people to be certain.

[lamford]

Is 4♥ a logical alternative? Bluejak thinks the bid is obvious, so perhaps the answer is yes. We need to poll a few more people to be certain.

gnasher was unsure whether 4♥ was even an LA. And there appears to be a volte-face from you here, where you now intend "using" the UI to decide to bid 4♥ which will go one more off. I can be persuaded that this is indeed your 73C obligation - indeed I argued so in another thread, which we no longer discuss - but I was under the perhaps false impression that your opinion was that "making the bid you would have made anyway" did not take "any" advantage of the UI and was therefore legal.

 

"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)." - jallerton - is the quote I recalled.

[campboy]

As I understand Jeffrey's position -- and if it is as I understand then I agree with it -- making the call you would have made anyway does not gain an advantage, so is not an infraction of 73C, but it may still be an infraction of 16B, as it is here*.

 

I do not understand the idea that 3♥ is not suggested over 4♥. Without the UI either bid might be more successful, since 4♥ might make; with the UI it is clear that 3♥ will concede a smaller penalty than 4♥.

 

FWIW I would not have considered 4♥ at the table (without UI).

 

*(edit) assuming 4♥ is an LA, which I agree is not clear.

[lamford]

As I understand Jeffrey's position -- and if it is as I understand then I agree with it -- making the call you would have made anyway does not gain an advantage, so is not an infraction of 73C, but it may still be an infraction of 16B, as it is here*.

 

I do not understand the idea that 3♥ is not suggested over 4♥. Without the UI either bid might be more successful, since 4♥ might make; with the UI it is clear that 3♥ will concede a smaller penalty than 4♥.

 

FWIW I would not have considered 4♥ at the table (without UI).

 

*(edit) assuming 4♥ is an LA, which I agree is not clear.

Yes, there are two issues; I do not regard 4♥ as an LA, but the fact that bluejak thought it plausible suggests that a poll might have enough considering and selecting it to make it so. Jeffrey's position was that one cannot "use" the UI to select a bid; if that is the case how can one conclude that 4♥ will go one more off than 3♥ - that conclusion only arises from the UI?

 

And it is clear that if selecting 3♥ over 4♥ is a breach of 16B, then it is also a breach of 73C, as it must take some advantage of the UI, if only to minimise the downside. I do not think there is any "use" of UI that conforms with 73C but fails under 16B only.

[campboy]

And it is clear that if selecting 3H over 4H is a breach of 16B, then it is also a breach of 73C, as it must take some advantage of the UI, if only to minimise the downside. I do not think there is any "use" of UI that conforms with 73C but fails under 16B only.

Then evidently we have different definitions of "advantage". If you act as you would have done without UI -- provided you know for certain what you would have done, which is of course very rarely the case -- I do not see how you can ever gain an advantage from the UI, since you will get exactly the same score with or without it. On the other hand it is certainly possible that doing what you would have done anyway can be illegal by 16B, and it frequently is.

 

I shall leave Jeffrey to say what his position is; certainly your statement of it in your latest post does not follow from the sentence you quoted. In my opinion 16B requires a player in receipt of UI to consider the likely consequences of it; how else can he determine which LAs are demonstrably suggested?

[Poky]

[hv=pc=n&e=saj7hk93dkj9864c2&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1d(11-15%2C%201+D)2d(Asked)d(11-13)2hp]133|200[/hv]

 

Teams of eight. When West was asked what 2♦ showed he said "Natural, a normal overcall".

 

What do you bid?

 

4♥ seems obvious, but for one thing, namely the double showing "11-13". On the other hand, whom do you trust, opponents or partner?

:blink:

 

Not only it isn't an obvious call, but it would be in complete collision with the rule 72A which says: "The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." Not a lower score, but a higher score.

 

Partner bid 2♥ after hearing the explanations. Opponents' ranges are namely 11+ and 11-13. I have 12 hcp. Therefore, partners range is around 4 hcp. Partner said just that he wants to play 2♥. It shouldn't be a surprise if he holds something like:

♠xxx

♥QJT8xx

♦-

♣xxxx

because this is what he bid - "I want to play 2♥ not giving them the opportunity to pass 2♦x out".

 

Bidding anything except pass (even 3♥, I mean - what do I want to achieve with this bid? What equity do I have in this hand?) is bidding against my partner. I should be very happy to hold 3 carder support in this spot.

[bluejak]

As I understand Jeffrey's position -- and if it is as I understand then I agree with it -- making the call you would have made anyway does not gain an advantage, so is not an infraction of 73C, but it may still be an infraction of 16B, as it is here*.

Only true where the player knows for certain what he would bid, which is very rare in a later auction.

[dburn]

It has just struck me that there may be a problem with the wording of Law 16B1b. Suppose in the present case that the partnership agreement was in fact Michaels - East had forgotten when he overcalled. Now, the Law says:

 

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.

When polling other players, does one give them the East hand with the explanation "your partnership method is Michaels but you have forgotten"? No - one gives them the East hand with the explanation "you are playing 2♦ as natural". Yet this seems contrary to the actual words of the Law.

 

In the present case, one interpretation may be that the East-West partnership methods are in fact that 2♦ is undiscussed (East thinks 2♦ is natural, West thinks it is Michaels). The convention card says "natural", to be sure, but it is not clear that the partnership actually knows what is on the convention card or has actually agreed to play what is on the convention card. Supposing that the actual meaning of 2♦ was "no agreement"; does one conduct a poll with the premise "your partnership has not discussed 2♦"? No - again, one explains "you are playing 2♦ as natural". Yet this also seems contrary to the actual words of the Law.

 

If I were being polled in the actual case (and assuming the situation were presented as "you are playing 2♦ as natural), then I would certainly pass 2♥. Nor would I redouble if given the opportunity - I would be pleased to put down a decent dummy, but it wouldn't particularly surprise me if partner could assemble only four or five heart tricks in his hand, a ruff in mine and the ace of spades.

[aguahombre]

David: would you agree that:

1--3D is illegal use of UI?

2--both pass and 3H are LA's, but pass might be suggested by the UI because it reduces the disaster?

3--If a poll showed a portion of players would consider 3H and some of those would bid 3H --then 3HX should be the ruling (not a weighted ruling)?

[jallerton]

Well, perhaps one could say that the "class of players in question" is limited to the players who are not classy enough to have remembered their system.

[lamford]

If you act as you would have done without UI -- provided you know for certain what you would have done, which is of course very rarely the case -- I do not see how you can ever gain an advantage from the UI, since you will get exactly the same score with or without it.

Even if you know for certain what you would have done, you gain an advantage by not selecting the demonstrably suggested logical alternative instead, where doing the latter would produce a worse result. I note that 16B does not require that logical alternative to provide a better result, but the TD will award an adjusted score if damage results, so it does by inference. I submit that there is no infraction of 16B which is not also an infraction of 73C, but there are infractions of 73C that are not infractions of 16B, mostly because of the latter's much discussed faulty wording.

[aguahombre]

Well, perhaps one could say that the "class of players in question" is limited to the players who are not classy enough to have remembered their system.

Natural seems to be their system against this type of 1D opening; so the person who bid 2D is not the one who forgot.

[dburn]

There is of course a further complication, which has not been touched on yet. And if you thought the concept of "reverse UI" was complicated, you should not even bother to read what follows, because you will not understand it.

 

In the actual case, assume that East-West's agreement about 2♦ is "natural". Now East has simply indulged in the customary unauthorised panic when he bid 3♦, and of course that call is cancelled.

 

East has received the information from North-South that both of them have opening bids - North opened the bidding, and South's double apparently showed 11-13. So, East is entitled to assume that West is merely pre-rescuing a possible contract of 2♦ doubled, not making a constructive bid of 2♥; he will pass 2♥ and whatever adjustment is given will follow from his pass.

 

But is East entitled to that information? Unless South's double of a natural 2♦ would also show an opening bid, East would not be allowed to know that South had one - then, of course, West might or might not be bidding hearts constructively, and a heart raise would certainly come into the reckoning as a logical alternative to pass. Did anyone ask North-South what South's double of a natural overcall would be?

 

That is the easy part. Now assume that East-West's agreement is in fact Michaels - East forgot when he made his bid. In that case, East may claim that he really is entitled to the information that both his opponents have opening bids, and therefore the knowledge (or at any rate the inference) that West has rubbish with long hearts and no diamonds. The Director rules on that basis, and North-South say this to the Appeals Committee:

 

"If we had been playing with screens, East would have told us that 2♦ was natural. Then, we wouldn't have told him that South had an opening bid, because that's not how we play over a natural overcall. Instead, we'd have told him that South had a negative double - takeout of diamonds, not necessarily very many points, nothing specific as to major-suit distribution, could be weakish with long clubs and a four-card major. East would have had to entertain the possibility that West was bidding hearts constructively, and it would be a logical alternative for him to raise hearts."

 

You are the Appeals Committee. How do you rule? For full credit, say also how the Director should rule if East-West's actual agreement about 2♦ was "undiscussed".

[campboy]

Even if you know for certain what you would have done, you gain an advantage by not selecting the demonstrably suggested logical alternative instead, where doing the latter would produce a worse result.

Such an advantage is not an advantage gained "from that unauthorised information", though, since without the UI you would not have done any such thing. One might as well say that the only way to avoid any advantage from owning a gun is to shoot oneself in the foot with that gun.

[dburn]

David: would you agree that:

1--3D is illegal use of UI?

Yes - it looks like a standard case of unauthorised panic.

 

2--both pass and 3H are LA's, but pass might be suggested by the UI because it reduces the disaster?

No - as Poky and I have both remarked, when both opponents have shown opening bids and partner bids 2♥ over what is currently 2♦ doubled, it is not logical (unless you consider suicide logical) to assume that he is doing so constructively. If South had not doubled 2♦, or if North had explained South's double as "negative - takeout of diamonds, may be weak or strong, nothing specific as to distribution" then 3♥ would come into the reckoning as a LA.

 

3--If a poll showed a portion of players would consider 3H and some of those would bid 3H --then 3HX should be the ruling (not a weighted ruling)?

No - some portion of players might also consider 4♥, and some of them might choose it, in which case a weighted score would be appropriate. Of course, such players should also have their belts and any sharp objects in their possession removed, and their appointed custodians should look in on them hourly.

[jallerton]

gnasher was unsure whether 4♥ was even an LA. And there appears to be a volte-face from you here, where you now intend "using" the UI to decide to bid 4♥ which will go one more off. I can be persuaded that this is indeed your 73C obligation - indeed I argued so in another thread, which we no longer discuss - but I was under the perhaps false impression that your opinion was that "making the bid you would have made anyway" did not take "any" advantage of the UI and was therefore legal.

 

"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)." - jallerton - is the quote I recalled.

 

 

As I understand Jeffrey's position -- and if it is as I understand then I agree with it -- making the call you would have made anyway does not gain an advantage, so is not an infraction of 73C, but it may still be an infraction of 16B, as it is here*.

 

I do not understand the idea that 3♥ is not suggested over 4♥. Without the UI either bid might be more successful, since 4♥ might make; with the UI it is clear that 3♥ will concede a smaller penalty than 4♥.

 

FWIW I would not have considered 4♥ at the table (without UI).

 

*(edit) assuming 4♥ is an LA, which I agree is not clear.

 

Campboy is correct (of course). A player must comply with all Laws, including Law 16A3, Law 16B and Law 73C.

It is curious how Paul's memory is so good that he can "recall" exactly what I said in one posting I made six weeks ago, and yet he apparently cannot recall my more detailed explanation of the same point made a few posts earlier in the same thread.

 

So for the benefit of Paul, I'll repeat the more detailed post on the subject:

 

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

[c) 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 16A3 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.

 

So in this particular case, the player uses the authorised information available to ascertain his plausible actions.

 

Case A: If 4♥, 3♥ and Pass are all plausible actions ("logical alternatives"), then 16B instructs the player to reject 3♥ and Pass (and also 3♦).

 

Case B: If 4♥ is both (i) not a logical alternative and (ii) not an action that the player in question might have taken anyway, then an application of Step 1 above would only leave 3♥ and Pass as logical alternatives. Then 16B instructs the player to reject Pass (and also 3♦).

 

Case C: If 3♥ and 4♥ are both (i) not logical alternatives and (ii) not actions that the player in question might have taken anyway, then an application of Step 1 above would only leave Pass and perhaps 3♦ as logical alternatives. Then 16B allows the player to Pass (although may restrict the player from making other calls such as 3♦).

 

Ignoring any possible MI considerations, the TD rules as follows:

 

Case A: adjust to 4♥x by West, weighting the number if tricks if appropriate.

 

Case B: adjust to 3♥x by West, weighting the number if tricks if appropriate.

 

Case C: adjust assuming that East passes 2♥. Unless it is judged that North/South might now just bid 3NT, adjust to 2♥x by West, weighting the number if tricks if appropriate.

[jallerton]

There is of course a further complication, which has not been touched on yet. And if you thought the concept of "reverse UI" was complicated, you should not even bother to read what follows, because you will not understand it.

 

In the actual case, assume that East-West's agreement about 2♦ is "natural". Now East has simply indulged in the customary unauthorised panic when he bid 3♦, and of course that call is cancelled.

 

East has received the information from North-South that both of them have opening bids - North opened the bidding, and South's double apparently showed 11-13. So, East is entitled to assume that West is merely pre-rescuing a possible contract of 2♦ doubled, not making a constructive bid of 2♥; he will pass 2♥ and whatever adjustment is given will follow from his pass.

 

But is East entitled to that information? Unless South's double of a natural 2♦ would also show an opening bid, East would not be allowed to know that South had one - then, of course, West might or might not be bidding hearts constructively, and a heart raise would certainly come into the reckoning as a logical alternative to pass. Did anyone ask North-South what South's double of a natural overcall would be?

 

I am glad to read that you have now come round to the view I was expressing on the very long thread.

 

No - some portion of players might also consider 4♥, and some of them might choose it, in which case a weighted score would be appropriate. Of course, such players should also have their belts and any sharp objects in their possession removed, and their appointed custodians should look in on them hourly.

 

You can't include both 3♥x and 4♥x (unless you think West would bid 4♥ over 3♥) in your weighting as that would be Reveleyesque.

[blackshoe]

So in this particular case, the player uses the authorised information available to ascertain his plausible actions.

 

Case A: If 4♥, 3♥ and Pass are all plausible actions ("logical alternatives"), then 16B instructs the player to reject 3♥ and Pass (and also 3♦).

 

Case B: If 4♥ is both (i) not a logical alternative and (ii) not an action that the player in question might have taken anyway, then an application of Step 1 above would only leave 3♥ and Pass as logical alternatives. Then 16B instructs the player to reject Pass (and also 3♦).

 

Case C: If 3♥ and 4♥ are both (i) not logical alternatives and (ii) not actions that the player in question might have taken anyway, then an application of Step 1 above would only leave Pass and perhaps 3♦ as logical alternatives. Then 16B allows the player to Pass (although may restrict the player from making other calls such as 3♦).

 

Ignoring any possible MI considerations, the TD rules as follows:

 

Case A: adjust to 4♥x by West, weighting the number if tricks if appropriate.

 

Case B: adjust to 3♥x by West, weighting the number if tricks if appropriate.

 

Case C: adjust assuming that East passes 2♥. Unless it is judged that North/South might now just bid 3NT, adjust to 2♥x by West, weighting the number if tricks if appropriate.

 

It might have helped avoid confusion if you had written "16A3" where you meant that (as I think you did), rather than "12A3". <_<

 

Regarding your case A, I would restate it as "if 3♥, 4♥, and pass are LAs, you cannot bid (among other things) 3♦". This syllogism is not valid. I suppose if I go back and re-read the thread, I might figure out why 3♦ is also verboten, but I think at this late date and in order to avoid confusion, you would have done better to include the reasoning for it in your post. The same applies to your case B. None of your 3 cases address the question of what "could demonstrably be suggested" by the UI, although that is also an important part of the journey to a ruling. So I disagree with your "the TD rules as follows". The TD has more things to consider than what calls are logical alternatives.

[jallerton]

It might have helped avoid confusion if you had written "16A3" where you meant that (as I think you did), rather than "12A3". <_<

 

Yes you are right, I did mean 16A3. I have edited the quote above as suggested, for clarity.

Regarding your case A, I would restate it as "if 3♥, 4♥, and pass are LAs, you cannot bid (among other things) 3♦". This syllogism is not valid. I suppose if I go back and re-read the thread, I might figure out why 3♦ is also verboten, but I think at this late date and in order to avoid confusion, you would have done better to include the reasoning for it in your post. The same applies to your case B. None of your 3 cases address the question of what "could demonstrably be suggested" by the UI, although that is also an important part of the journey to a ruling. So I disagree with your "the TD rules as follows". The TD has more things to consider than what calls are logical alternatives.

 

It has already been generally agreed earlier in the thread that the UI demonstrably suggests:

 

3♦ over Pass/3♥/4♥; and

Pass over 3♥/4♥; and

3♥ over 4♥.

 

Sorry for not stating this explicity as part of my reasoning.

[lamford]

Nowhere in the WBF Laws is a player authorised to use unauthorised information to determine which actions are logical alternatives.

We discussed this on the earlier thread, where you again posted voluminous extracts from the Lawbook for the unfortunate souls who have Internet access, but no download facility. I pointed out that it was illogical, and impossible, to have to avoid logical alternatives suggested by the UI without using the UI and the contradiction was caused by alternative meanings of the verb "to use", a view with which dburn seemed to concur. One issue is that the Laws are so badly worded that they are almost incapable of interpretation.

 

You are also recommending "using" the UI to decide which actions are demonstrably suggested in selecting pass over 2H or 3H over 4H, are you not?