Imprecision

[campboy]

But if he thought he was playing natural + weak NT, he would have opened 1NT. So I think we can rule on the assumption that he thought he was making a natural opening in a strong NT context.

Sure, I just included that for completeness since it's something that the table TD will find out about in the course of his investigation, rather than because I thought it was a serious possibility. I was thinking of the sort of player who won't open 1NT because all his strength is in his 5-card suit.

[Trinidad]

OK. I do play a strong club system. Now I had a brain fart and forgot that I was playing a strong club (*) and opened this hand 1♣. My partner alerts and that wakes me up that I am playing a strong club. The fact that 1♣ is strong and artificial is UI to me.

 

What are my logical alternatives? This is a very easy question, with a very easy answer. My logical alternatives are those bids that I seriously considered as my rebid after the 1♦ response before I had the UI. Presumably, I had an idea what I would rebid after 1♣-1♦;?? before I opened 1♣. Any bid that I seriously considered at that time is an LA.

 

South is the only one who really knows what he had planned to rebid after 1♣-1♦;?? at the time that he opened. Therefore, just ask him.

 

- It is entirely reasonable to assume that South somehow opened a natural 1♣ and had thought of rebidding 1NT.

- I could imagine that South was thinking: "Hey, this is one of those odd hands that would actually rebid 1♠ after 1♣-1♦ if we would be playing Polish club!" and that he ended up opening 1♣ by mistake. In that case, South would rebid 1♠.

- I think that you can make a case for raising 1♦ to 2♦ e.g. if South was thinking he played Walsh responses to 1♣.

- I can believe that South planned to rebid his clubs after 1♦.

 

The one thing that I cannot imagine -but maybe South would be able to explain his thoughts to me- is that South planned to pass a 1♦ response at the time when he opened 1♣. So unless South can explain it to me, Pass can not be an LA with the authorized information. It only becomes an LA with the unauthorized information. If that is not an example of demonstrably suggested (without UI: not even in the picture, with UI: a very attractive alternative), then I don't know what is.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

Also, the perpetrator correctly alerted his partner's 1♦ response. That means that he has woken up to his mistake.

Unless, of course, his mistake was in thinking he had a Precision 1♣ opener, and he still thinks so. You'd have to ask him about that.

 

I like Rik's analysis.

[lamford]

It would mean every UI case where somebody forgets a bid can be saved by this method. If this is the purpose of your post, I ve said this also a few times, and most directors know what the law means even if it's not what it says. If this happens to me again, I might try this argument to see what the TD does, but normally nobody interprets it this way.

No, the purpose of my post is to show that the Law can be followed exactly as it states, and there will still (generally) be a disadvantage to the forget, in that the player must select, according to the methods of the partnership, the LA that is not suggested. What he is not obliged to do is select an LA under other methods. And if UI cases have been ruled wrongly under the current Laws, so be it. The options seem to be as follows:

a) to decide that the Laws are correctly worded, and follow them,

b) to decide that they really mean "the believed partnership methods", despite the wording being quite specific

c) to change them to reflect the current praxis.

 

I think that the Laws are fine as they are, and the player is NOT obliged to follow some other system. He selects the LA, under his methods, that is not demonstrably suggested by the UI. WTP, as they say, despite the protestations of WellSpyder. As a TD (some would say rarely fortunately), or AC, I would rule exactly in accordance with the Law, not in accordance with some different Law that people think it should read.

[lamford]

South is the only one who really knows what he had planned to rebid after 1♣-1♦;?? at the time that he opened. Therefore, just ask him.

I am not sure that it matters what South's intentions were when he opened 1C. His first Law 16 duty is to establish the LAs without the UI. We can do that very easily by changing the conditions of contest as it were. I therefore asked six Precision players the following question:

"With screens you open 1C, Precision, and send the bid under the screen. Your screenmate gives you a quizzical look as you have alerted promptly previously, and now you self-alert and are about to write "16+, 17+ if unbalanced" when he waves away your attempts to write as he had previously done." The screen comes back with "Pass 1D" on it, and your RHO passes. What do you bid now? What other bids do you seriously consider?

100% of those polled passed - they knew the maximum combined holding was 19 points - and 2 of the six considered 1NT, which might stop the opponents coming in. They thought all other bids were "men in white coats" material or words to that effect.

If we decide that the only LA is Pass, then this is imposed on South. If we consider 1NT is also an LA, then we select between Pass and 1NT the one that is not demonstrably suggested by the UI. I think it is hard to argue that either is. 1NT was the winning action on the actual hand - the opponents get shut out, and Pass would let them get to the vulnerable game. I think that the ethical action is to Pass, as even if partner raises 1NT to 2NT or 3NT, we might still win on the board. But deciding on the LAs by using the UI is putting the cart before the horse, and is not what the Law says, implies, or intends.

[lamford]

OK, my earlier post was wrong - you did have a logical reason for arguing the way you did. Your argument is still rubbish, though, since it is universally accepted by everyone else that in the particular instance of system forgets the law has to be interpreted as referring to what the bidder thought the system was before the UI reminded him otherwise.

That is like saying that Lincoln was wrong on slavery because it was universally accepted. Your argument is rubbish because the Law says something else.

[blackshoe]

If we decide that the only LA is Pass, then this is imposed on South.

Since you are arguing that we should rule according to what the law says (with which I do not disagree, btw), I have to ask which law says this? I think you're on shaky ground here. B-)

[lamford]

Since you are arguing that we should rule according to what the law says (with which I do not disagree, btw), I have to ask which law says this? I think you're on shaky ground here. B-)

16B1a, surely: After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by <snip> an unexpected alert <snip> the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

So, if the LAs are Pass and 1NT, one is obliged to select the one that is not demonstrably suggested. If neither are, one chooses as one wishes, applying Law 73C if necessary.

 

16B1b is the one that defines the LA.

b) 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. (My emphasis)

 

But then I think you already knew that, and I am not sure what point you are making. Or is the ACBL version different to the EBU one?

[blackshoe]

16B1a, surely: After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by <snip> an unexpected alert <snip> the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

So, if the LAs are Pass and 1NT, one is obliged to select the one that is not demonstrably suggested. If neither are, one chooses as one wishes, applying Law 73C if necessary.

 

16B1b is the one that defines the LA.

b) 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. (My emphasis)

 

But then I think you already knew that, and I am not sure what point you are making. Or is the ACBL version different to the EBU one?

You apparently misread my post, or misunderstood it. I was referring to the case where, you said, "if the only LA is pass, then we impose this on south".

[lamford]

You apparently misread my post, or misunderstood it. I was referring to the case where, you said, "if the only LA is pass, then we impose this on south".

I misunderstood. There is case law, I believe, that selecting a non-LA does not get round the obligations of Law 16B. The phrase "among logical alternatives" is interpreted as meaning that these are the only bids considered when considering adjusting. Not perfect, but workable. Someone will correct me if I am wrong on that.

[blackshoe]

I misunderstood. There is case law, I believe, that selecting a non-LA does not get round the obligations of Law 16B. The phrase "among logical alternatives" is interpreted as meaning that these are the only bids considered when considering adjusting. Not perfect, but workable. Someone will correct me if I am wrong on that.

Ah. I think I know what you're referring to, although I'm not sure where one would find the case law. Some years ago, Grattan Endicott told me (on blml, I think) that when the law says "may not choose amongst logical alternatives," the law does not actually mean that. Instead we find the correct meaning by substituting the word "plausible" for logical, and thus we conclude that if a player chooses a call or play, logical or not, that may have been suggested to him by UI, he is in breach of the law. That exchange between Grattan and I took place long before 2007, though, so I wonder why, if the word "logical" was incorrect in the 1997 laws, it wasn't changed in the 2007 laws. Also, Grattan provided no reference to case law, LC minutes, or other evidence. It seems to me he was saying what is done, not its legal basis. So I still don't see a legal basis for this position, although I accept that it is what is done.

 

=======

 

"Show me" -- motto of the State of Missouri.

[gnasher]

I misunderstood. There is case law, I believe, that selecting a non-LA does not get round the obligations of Law 16B. The phrase "among logical alternatives" is interpreted as meaning that these are the only bids considered when considering adjusting. Not perfect, but workable. Someone will correct me if I am wrong on that.

Why are you willing to accept case law in respect of one's obligations under 16B1a, but not in respect of the definition in 16B1b?

[campboy]

I misunderstood. There is case law, I believe, that selecting a non-LA does not get round the obligations of Law 16B. The phrase "among logical alternatives" is interpreted as meaning that these are the only bids considered when considering adjusting. Not perfect, but workable. Someone will correct me if I am wrong on that.

Sure, law 16B is interpreted to mean that you may not select a non-LA which is suggested over an LA by the UI. But even supposing that pass is the only LA, I don't think the UI suggests bidding on over passing (quite the reverse).

 

In the EBU pass is not permitted because of OB 3D8. In other jurisdictions I think it is sensible to interpret law 73C as that regulation does.

[barmar]

The problem with the literal interpretation of the definition of LA in this case is that there are no LAs. No one playing the "methods of the partnership" can be in the situation where the auction started 1♣-1♦ and opener has to find a rebid with a flat 12-count. How are you supposed to determine what rebids most would consider, and some would choose, in a situation that none would be in? Everyone you poll will abstain.

 

The only way this makes any sense is to treat the player who has forgotten his methods as if he's playing in a hypothetical partnership, whose methods include what he intended when he made the bid.

[barmar]

OK. I do play a strong club system. Now I had a brain fart and forgot that I was playing a strong club (*) and opened this hand 1♣. My partner alerts and that wakes me up that I am playing a strong club. The fact that 1♣ is strong and artificial is UI to me.

 

What are my logical alternatives? This is a very easy question, with a very easy answer. My logical alternatives are those bids that I seriously considered as my rebid after the 1♦ response before I had the UI. Presumably, I had an idea what I would rebid after 1♣-1♦;?? before I opened 1♣. Any bid that I seriously considered at that time is an LA.

 

South is the only one who really knows what he had planned to rebid after 1♣-1♦;?? at the time that he opened. Therefore, just ask him.

Except that the definition of LA is not based on what the player in question was planning, but what others like him would consider and possibly choose. That's why "I was always going to..." is not a valid way to get around UI restrictions.

 

I suppose what you may be saying is that in the case of a system forget, there are no peers that can be considered, so we can only go by what this player was thinking.

[Cyberyeti]

Indeed the EBU do cover this, quoting OB 3D8 that Campboy references:

 

If as a result of partner’s explanation a player realises he has forgotten the partnership

agreement and has therefore misbid, he must continue to call as if in ignorance of the

correct meaning of the call, until it is obvious from the auction that something is amiss.

(Law 73C)

 

So yes you bid correctly for what you thought you were playing, not the methods of the partnership. This however gets murky if you thought you were playing a 2+ card club and the alert was not unexpected, and nobody asked, I presume you can do what you like in that situation as there is no UI.

 

I also presume that if you're woken up by an unexpected alert with no explanation asked for, it's treated the same way as being woken up by an explanation, and law 73C that Campboy quotes and the OB references seems to suggest it is.

[lamford]

Why are you willing to accept case law in respect of one's obligations under 16B1a, but not in respect of the definition in 16B1b?

It is not for me to decide whether the WBFLC is right to interpret "among logical alternatives" as meaning that if the player chooses a bid that is not a logical alternative, but is demonstrably suggested, he is still committing an infraction. I would prefer this part of the Law to be worded correctly as well, and would have no problem with a TD that ruled in strict accordance with this wording. This means, of course, that a previously cited example of someone opening 3NT (corrected typo) with Axx Axx Axx Axxx after a BIT from partner would get away with it, and the answer might be applying 73C in such cases. However, in the current example, following 16B exactly can hardly be said to taking any advantage from the UI. The Laws are badly worded, but we should follow them when they can be interpreted logically.

[lamford]

Indeed the EBU do cover this, quoting OB 3D8 that Campboy references:

 

So yes you bid correctly for what you thought you were playing, not the methods of the partnership. This however gets murky if you thought you were playing a 2+ card club and the alert was not unexpected, and nobody asked, I presume you can do what you like in that situation as there is no UI.

 

I also presume that if you're woken up by an unexpected alert with no explanation asked for, it's treated the same way as being woken up by an explanation, and law 73C that Campboy quotes and the OB references seems to suggest it is.

The EBU should not overrule the Laws of Bridge (except in the cases where the RA is given such powers).

[pran]

It is not for me to decide whether the WBFLC is right to interpret "among logical alternatives" as meaning that if the player chooses a bid that is not a logical alternative, but is demonstrably suggested, he is still committing an infraction. I would prefer this part of the Law to be worded correctly as well, and would have no problem with a TD that ruled in strict accordance with this wording. This means, of course, that a previously cited example of someone opening 1NT with Axx Axx Axx Axxx after a BIT from partner would get away with it, and the answer might be applying 73C in such cases. However, in the current example, following 16B exactly can hardly be said to taking any advantage from the UI. The Laws are badly worded, but we should follow them when they can be interpreted logically.

If a particular action is "demonstrably suggested" it is certainly one of the available "logical aternatives" that may not be selected even if it would definitely not have been an alternative without the irregularity.

 

Extreme example: A player "ends the auction" with a quite normal bid of 3NT. During the auction he and his partner have shown fairly flat hands with around 26 HCP between them (13 HCP each).

 

Now, before partner makes his final PASS he suddenly exclaims: "OH, I have miscounted my hand, I have 27 HCP!".

 

This remark demonstrably suggests that partner shall bid 7NT. Would anybody allow anything but PASS from the partner?

[Cyberyeti]

The EBU should not overrule the Laws of Bridge (except in the cases where the RA is given such powers).

Now you get heavily into semantics as to whether it's an interpretation or a rewrite.

[gnasher]

The EBU should not overrule the Laws of Bridge (except in the cases where the RA is given such powers).

Or where a literal interpretation of the rules is silly, which occurs in about 20 different places (or 19 from your point of view).

[campboy]

The EBU should not overrule the Laws of Bridge (except in the cases where the RA is given such powers).

They aren't, they're pointing out that any call which caters to your actual agreements and which you would not have made had you not been woken up by UI (such as pass in this case) is a flagrant breach of 73C.

[Trinidad]

Except that the definition of LA is not based on what the player in question was planning, but what others like him would consider and possibly choose. That's why "I was always going to..." is not a valid way to get around UI restrictions.

 

I suppose what you may be saying is that in the case of a system forget, there are no peers that can be considered, so we can only go by what this player was thinking.

No, I am saying that I just want to establish what system South thought he was playing when he opened 1♣, since it is UI that he is playing strong club (and as a result he will have to bid the rest of the hand with the system that made him open 1♣). Once we have established what system South thought he was playing, I would think that the question about what the LAs are in that system is relatively easy, since this hand won't make it into the MSC. Suppose, for example, that South says that he wanted to rebid 1NT since he thought he was playing SAYC, then I think it is relatively simple to say that 1NT is the only LA. To be sure, we would ask a couple of SAYC players what their rebid would be and what they would seriously consider.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

No, I am saying that I just want to establish what system South thought he was playing when he opened 1♣, since it is UI that he is playing strong club (and as a result he will have to bid the rest of the hand with the system that made him open 1♣). Once we have established what system South thought he was playing, I would think that the question about what the LAs are in that system is relatively easy, since this hand won't make it into the MSC. Suppose, for example, that South says that he wanted to rebid 1NT since he thought he was playing SAYC, then I think it is relatively simple to say that 1NT is the only LA. To be sure, we would ask a couple of SAYC players what their rebid would be and what they would seriously consider.

 

Rik

It seems to me that "South though he was playing some other system" is an assumption with not a lot of evidence to back it up, save for the one bit that he opened 1♣ with insufficient values for Precision. If you want to ask him what system he thought he was playing, the answer might be interesting, but it seems quite likely to me that South had a non-specific (in that he didn't actually think anything in particular) brain fart, and wasn't actually thinking that he was playing some other system. If that's the case, this line of inquiry goes nowhere.

[barmar]

From the limited evidence we have, he seems to have thought he was playing Martian Precision, where 1♣ shows either 16+ HCP and any shape or exactly 12 HCP, precisely 3=2=3=5 shape, and exactly 9 HCP in clubs. Unfortunately, this system is flawed, because all rebids are as in normal Precision -- there's no way to show the second option, because the designer of the system didn't think it would come up often enough to be a problem. That's why no pairs actually agree to play it; however, this player had recently read about it, and the Martian Rover landing put it in his mind so he thought he was playing it. Since the system doesn't prescribe a rebid, there are no LAs. Therefore, he can do anything he wants, including passing 1♦.

 

:)