Is this Ruling Correct?

[blackshoe]

t is clearly likely to lead to a better result than both 3NT and Pass, and therefore is demonstrably suggested.

What? No. First you identify the UI, then you identify the LAs, and then you identify, based on what the UI says, which of them it may suggest. Whether a particular LA leads to a better result is not a criterion for that last determination. It is a criterion for whether there is damage, but that's a different question.

[lamford]

Whether a particular LA leads to a better result is not a criterion for that last determination. It is a criterion for whether there is damage, but that's a different question.

The player has to choose from among LAs one that is not demonstrably suggested by the UI. If the UI suggests that bidding 3H is likely to lead to a better result, then it is demonstrably suggested over 3NT or Pass. So, you identify LAs without the UI, and then choose between them considering the UI.

[blackshoe]

"If the UI suggests it may lead to a better result" is not the same thing as "it does lead to a better result".

[lamford]

"If the UI suggests it may lead to a better result" is not the same thing as "it does lead to a better result".

I wrote: "is likely to lead to a better result". That is my interpretation of "demonstrably suggested". And one establishes the LAs and then considers the UI, not the other way around.

 

Your "First you identify the UI, then you identify the LAs" suggests that you use the UI to identify the LAs. I disagree with that.

[jallerton]

The TD has to decide what the LAs are based on his assessment of what the class of players might do or consider, using the methods of the partnership

 

It doesn't say "agreed methods of the partnership", does it? Here it could be argued that South's method was to open 2NT on a strong balanced hand. South is a member of the partnership, so this is a "method of the partnership", albeit a particularly poor method when his partner is expecting a completely different hand type.

 

The methods of the partnership presumably also include a general agreement to play 3♦ as a transfer to hearts over a natural 2NT bid. for example after the uncontested auction 2♣-2♦-2NT, or a 2NT overcall of a 2♦ opening.

[blackshoe]

I wrote: "is likely to lead to a better result". That is my interpretation of "demonstrably suggested". And one establishes the LAs and then considers the UI, not the other way around.

 

Your "First you identify the UI, then you identify the LAs" suggests that you use the UI to identify the LAs. I disagree with that.

Okay, do those first two in your order. Or do them independently, which is what I meant. That still doesn't lead me to agree with your interpretation of "demonstrably suggested".

[campboy]

The TD has to decide what the LAs are based on his assessment of what the class of players might do or consider, using the methods of the partnership

Sure. So what might you do if you use the methods of the partnership and have forgotten them?

[gnasher]

The problem with that is the person can sue. He is entitled to follow the Law as written, and, if the RA does not follow it, it is acting "ultra vires". There is not even a supplementary regulation on the matter. And if you think that will not happen, Tottenham Hotspur sued and won when they had 12 points deducted, and the courts ruled that the FA had acted outside their own rules and gave them their points back. It was reduced to 6 points on appeal, but they still sued and reduced the penalty to nil.

 

The Law is not even ambiguous. It says "using the methods of the partnership". That must be followed. There is no need for any different interpretation.

 

And in case you think people will not sue in bridge, when I was Secretary of the newly formed Greater Manchester Chess Association in 1975, we and the British Chess Federation were sued by a Loony Lancastrian who did not think Greater Manchester should exist beause he disagreed with the new county boundaries. He lost, of course, but many thousands of pounds were wasted. And people in bridge are generally wealthier and possibly more litigious.

Sorry, but I don't see any logical connection between "the person can sue" and "The Law ... must be followed", with or without bolding.

 

It might be sensible to the RA to avoid the risk of being sued by adding a line to their regulations stating how this sentence is interpreted, or if necessary saying that it doesn't apply at all. In England this would be quite straightforward, because the regulations already (very sensibly) say that "Players entering events are required to submit themselves to the published regulations" and "Players are required to comply with regulations even though they may doubt the legality of the regulations (under the Laws of bridge)."

 

But the fact that the RA hasn't done this doesn't oblige it to apply a literal interpretation of the Laws. It's logically coherent to say "We're going to pretend that the Law says what we think it should say, but we're not going to state this except though training materials and case law. We'll accept a small risk of being sued because that's a lesser evil than obeying the unintended letter of the law. We don't think this risk is sufficient to justify the complications of explicitly stating that we're overriding the laws."

 

It's perhaps worth pointing out that there are several other Laws which are not interpreted as written by any bridge authority anywhere. The best example is 74A2, "A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game." If we applied this literally that would sometimes make it illegal to make a penalty double, bid a thin slam, endplay an opponent, or call the director in the face of a potential infraction.

[lamford]

It might be sensible to the RA to avoid the risk of being sued by adding a line to their regulations stating how this sentence is interpreted, or if necessary saying that it doesn't apply at all.

Law 16B is not ambiguous; it is just wrong, assuming the WBFLC do not intend it to mean what it says. No interpretation should lead to the current rulings in UI cases. You were advocating an adjusted score and a procedural penalty for someone following it literally. That action could inflame someone enough to take action. Dburn once wrote, as best I recall, that no disapprobation should apply to someone following the law precisely. The simple solution is to amend it to what, you, I and most TDs think it should say. Your suggestion of ruling that someone should know what the WBFLC meant seems quite wrong.

 

While 16B is wrong, we should rule as the wrong law says. Just as we ruled that someone could not change a bid if he learnt about his error from an alert, until the WBFLC ruled otherwise. If 16B is wrong, then people entering tournaments should indeeed be warned that it does not mean what it says.

 

I agree also that 74A2 could be improved by adding something like "other than in the normal course of the game". I would guess that many laws could be interpreted in an odd way. One is:

39A All calls after the final pass of the auction are canceled. That should read:

39A All calls on that board after the final pass of the auction are canceled.

But we are not talking about semantics here. Law 16B can only be interpreted in one way as it stands. "LAs are decided using the actual methods of the partnership."

[lamford]

Sure. So what might you do if you use the methods of the partnership and have forgotten them?

Accidentally commit a breach of 16B. But then most, I hope almost all, breaches of Law are accidental.

[lamford]

Okay, do those first two in your order. Or do them independently, which is what I meant. That still doesn't lead me to agree with your interpretation of "demonstrably suggested".

The order does not really matter. As long as the UI is not used to decide on the LAs. And how would you interpret "demonstrably suggested"? All ACs I have been on have interpreted it as "likely to do better than the other LAs based on the UI".

[lamford]

Players are required to comply with regulations even though they may doubt the legality of the regulations (under the Laws of bridge)."

I think that point is self-defeating. SB will see it and say, "Well I don't think 16B can really mean what it clearly says, but I am told that I must comply with it even though I doubt its legality". And you will decide that he should not do that; he should listen to what he has heard on the BBO forum even though he has been told otherwise!

[lamford]

It doesn't say "agreed methods of the partnership", does it?

I agree; the TD is responsible for the finding of fact as to what are the methods of the partnership. In this example, South had agreed to play 2NT as 5-5 in the minors, but forgot. If the TD decided the methods of the partnership were that 2NT was 20-22, you would be right. In the majority of cases a CC will clarify the methods of the partnership. The OP stated that the actual methods were as captioned.

[Finch]

The convention card is evidence.

The bid chosen is evidence.

I played against pairs more than once who are entirely in agreement about what a sequence means, in spite of the fact that their card says something completely different.

When opener bid 2NT he clearly did not believe the "methods of the partnership" were that 2NT shows 5-5 in the minors.

[lamford]

The convention card is evidence.

The bid chosen is evidence.

I played against pairs more than once who are entirely in agreement about what a sequence means, in spite of the fact that their card says something completely different.

When opener bid 2NT he clearly did not believe the "methods of the partnership" were that 2NT shows 5-5 in the minors.

I agree; but surely opener was just mistaken about the "methods of the partnership". The narrative in English Bridge stated that he realised he had agreed to play 2NT showing a weak hand with 5-5 in the minors. In the situation you describe, I expect the TD would decide the methods of the partnership were those stated by both players. This was a constructed situation, and it is pointless to dispute Mike Swanson's statement of facts.

[gnasher]

If 16B is wrong, then people entering tournaments should indeeed be warned that it does not mean what it says.

OK. Consider yourself warned. There's no need to warn anyone else, because they already know.

[campboy]

Accidentally commit a breach of 16B. But then most, I hope almost all, breaches of Law are accidental.

Ok, I'll try again. What might you do if you use the methods of the partnership and have forgotten them, but do not have any UI?

[lamford]

OK. Consider yourself warned. There's no need to warn anyone else, because they already know.

My guess is that only around 1% of those entering tournaments already know that 16B does not mean what it says. And I already knew that 16B was being misapplied, so did not need warning.

[lamford]

Ok, I'll try again. What might you do if you use the methods of the partnership and have forgotten them, but do not have any UI?

Anything you like. But for the purpose of establishing LAs, pollees are given the methods. And this thread is only concerned with when you have UI.

[aguahombre]

Ok, I'll try again. What might you do if you use the methods of the partnership and have forgotten them, but do not have any UI?

Accept the transfer. Just like if you did have UI.

[lamford]

Accept the transfer. Just like if you did have UI.

3D wasn't a transfer; it showed longer diamonds than clubs. Let us say that you are playing with screens, and you remembered yourself that you were playing 2NT as 5-5 in the minors. That is how you decide on LAs; without any UI. 3H is eccentric now, showing a void we are told, 3NT is surely the best choice, and Pass is reasonable - partner could have a Yarborough with longer diamonds. After you have picked the LAs, you decide which is demonstrably suggested by the UI and reject those.

 

Does anyone on here think that you use the UI to decide on the LAs? If so, why did my County Director course recommended always polling players without the UI?

[aguahombre]

You added an element, Lamford. Your screen example has you remembering your agreement before your rebid, with no UI. The OP case doesn't have that element.

 

You opened 2NT with a 2NT opening, and partner responded 3D. Whatever 3D means determines the L.A.'s. 3NT is not one. 3H is the only one.

 

Next, 4D is slammish showing the reds. You don't have four Diamonds, you don't have 3H; you do have a Maximum, so you accept the slam ---in Notrump. Oh, wait. That is what he did.

[nige1]

When you enter a bridge event, you submit yourself to the rules and practices of the RA, and you accept the RA's interpretation of the laws. If you believe that this interpretation is incorrect, you may try to persuade the RA to change it, or you may prefer not to play in the event, but you can't participate and then disregard the RA's interpretation.

IMO: The WBF (or empowered local regulators) may change a rule. Until rule-makers publish such a change officially, directors shouldn't knowingly "interpret" a rule to have a meaning that its words don't seem to bear. It's a bad example for players.

[gnasher]

My guess is that only around 1% of those entering tournaments already know that 16B does not mean what it says. And I already knew that 16B was being misapplied, so did not need warning.

 

And the other 99% won't be suing anyone, so they don't need to be warned either.

[Vampyr]

Dburn once wrote, as best I recall, that no disapprobation should apply to someone following the law precisely.

 

He writes it all the time, doesn't he, since his signature is:

 

When Senators have had their sport

And sealed the Law by vote,

It little matters what they thought -

We hang for what they wrote.

 

He doesn't attribute it; Chesterton is my guess.