Falling asleep

[lamford]

Presumably for pass to be an LA it would be chosen by a certain number of people playing a similar system and style, and in the same basic position, ie thinking the opening bid is 1NT but having heard no announcement.

Law 16B1(b) makes not mention of what the player thought the auction was for the purpose of deciding on LAs. I think the only factors that determine LAs are the actual auction and the class of player, using the methods of the partnership. So, to poll, we say:

 

"You overcall 1S with a natural 2C on Ax QJ10x KQxxx xx, and partner bids 3C. What bid do you make? What bids do you seriously consider? Then, and only then:

 

You have UI from partner's lack of an alert because you thought the opening bid was 1NT. Which of the above LAs is demonstrably suggested by this UI, and now which do you select?"

[mink]

You are a police officer investigating in a case of murder. You have found a person A and some evidence that he is guilty, but you cannot prove it, and A has an alibi. Now you ask a judge for permission to bug A's phone, and when the permission arrives you do so and tape a call where A confesses the murder to a friend. Unfortunately, the judge had forgotten to sign the permission, so it was not valid and the confession is now UI to you. But, now knowing that A is guilty, you take a closer look at some photos made by automatic cameras at the site where the murder happened, and suddenly you are able to identify A on some photo, proving that the alibi is false. What will the jury decide - is the photo legal evidence or must it be ignored, too, because it was discovered only after the illegal bugging?

 

Karl

[Zelandakh]

That depends on whether police investigations are played by the laws of bridge or not.

 

Or put another way, The opponents bid to 6NT in an auction where either partner or LHO must have psyched. If partner psyched then I want to pass; if the opponents then double will result in a massacre. While thinking I see partner wink at me, something he did the last time he psyched 3 years ago. Now re-evaluating the evidence I notice they are red against white so the vulnerability clearly suggests that partner was the one that psyched. But then, just as I am ready to pass I see partner stick his chin out, something he only ever does when maximum for his prior actions. I think again and this time notice that LHO opened in third seat. Of course! I think, a classic third seat opening - I have an obvious double. No problem, right?

 

The point is that comparing the rules of life with the rules of a card game is a silly exercise and we can both come up with ridiculous examples forever and this will only prove how pointless it is.

[mink]

Or put another way, The opponents bid ...

 

The UI in your text is not even close to the character of UI in the original post (which was no cheating at all only gave a clue that something must be wrong, but not what might be wrong), and the AI in your text is also different - the fact that the opening was in third seat and the and the the vulnerablility are much easier overlooked than an opening bid visible on the table. And what is more, the hints your partner give to you point directly in the same direction as you AI, which is not the case in the OP case.

 

 

So I think your example is far more away from the OP case than my police example is, where the similarity of bridge law and public law is incredibly close - in both cases it is forbidden to use UI. I posted it because it might be a good idea to see the case under a different light, but of course it proves nothing.

 

I would be grateful if somebody who thinks that in the police case the photo can be legally used points out what is the difference between the cases that makes the use of seeing the opening bid of 1S illegal.

 

Karl

 

Karl

[mr1303]

The director ruled no adjustment, or more specifically the director didn't adjust the score, because he said he'd have a look at the board once he'd played it, and never got back to us either way. Opponents weren't good enough to notice anything amiss during the play either.

 

The director didn't really understand why I'd called him over either.

[Lanor Fow]

To not come back to you is poor directing in any case, regarless of whether he though you had a valid complaint or not

[barmar]

So I think your example is far more away from the OP case than my police example is, where the similarity of bridge law and public law is incredibly close - in both cases it is forbidden to use UI. I posted it because it might be a good idea to see the case under a different light, but of course it proves nothing.

Although the courts have a rule of "inevitable discovery" -- if they think that the police would have eventually looked closer at the photographs, and the illegal wiretap just hastened the process, the evidence is allowed.

 

But in bridge, when you have both AI and UI, the UI usually trumps the AI unless the AI narrows you down to just one LA.