Is this Ruling Correct?

[jallerton]

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.

 

 

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.

 

Law 16B doesn't say "actual methods of the partnership" either, it just says "methods of the partnership".

 

In isolation, I believe that both your and Campboy's suggested interpretation of Law 16B are equally valid. However, your interpretation of Law 16B is in direct conflict with Law 73C, whilst Campboy's interpretation is entirely consistent with Law 73C. Therefore, for Law 16B to make any sense, we should assume that Campboy's interpretation of Law 16B is the one intended by the WBFLC.

[barmar]

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".

I think what you two are disagreeing on is what "likely" means. Blackshoe is interpreting it in an absolute sense, lamford is interpreting it as the expectation of the player.

[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.

An amendment should be published before players and directors can be expected to comply with it. Even when a local legislature publishes such an "interpretation", I don't think players or directors should follow it, when it seems to conflict with the WBF law-book. For example ...

There seems to be a popular misconception about the responsibility of the hesitator's partner. Nothing could be further from the truth than "I had to pass. Partner's huddle barred me from the auction." Players are generally well advised to take the action they would have taken had there been no huddle.

[aguahombre]

Nige1, you are overthinking what is being said in that handbook. They are debunking the idea that hesitation=pass, not addressing the choice from among L.A.'s.

 

And generally means generally.

[lamford]

In isolation, I believe that both your and Campboy's suggested interpretation of Law 16B are equally valid. However, your interpretation of Law 16B is in direct conflict with Law 73C, whilst Campboy's interpretation is entirely consistent with Law 73C.

I don't agree with that (even though I am favour of changing the Law to fit Campboy's interpretation). But following 16B does not conflict with 73C at all, as the player still has to select from among LAs one not demonstrably suggested by the UI. In doing that he is following 73C. So how should the player think in this example?

 

a) The methods are that 2NT shows 5-5 in the minors, 6-10, as established by the TD, and as outlined in the narrative.

b) After 2NT-3D, what are the LAs using the methods of the partnership?

c) As the rustic said to the motorist, "I would not start from here", but we have to bid something. If the methods are that 2NT is 20-22, then 3H is the only LA. If the methods are that 2NT is 5-5 in the minors, 6-10, then no bid will describe the hand, so let us say the LAs are 3NT, 3H and Pass because those we polled with the methods chose those bids. I cannot think of any other bid, except 6NT, and none of those I polled chose 3H, but I am including it because some think it is the only LA.

d) Now, and only now, do we carefully avoid selecting from the LAs any that are demonstrably suggested by the UI. Pass is likely to be unsuccesful as game is favourite to make (around 70% I made it in a quick simulation), so that is not demonstrably suggested and can be chosen without breaching 16B. 3H will be interpreted by partner as a good hand with both minors (Phil King and I agree that it will not be interpreted as a void), and has the best chance of getting a good result, based on the UI. What actually happened was extremely likely, and bidding 6NT now would be as heinous a crime as bidding 3H. 3NT will be misinterpreted as something like 6-6 in the minors, but that is because of the UI, so that is the clearly least demonstrated LA and would be my choice. The bid most likely to take advantage of the UI is 3H.

d) Far from conflicting with 73C, a literal interpretation of 16B fully conforms with 73C. The only difference between my approach and campboy (and I think gnasher's) approach is that they use the UI to decide on the LAs. I think that the LAs should be selected using the methods of the partnership. Exactly what 16B says. And exactly what we are told to do in directors' courses - poll people using the methods of the partnership.

 

If the WBFLC pronounces that 16B is perfectly OK, I would have no problem with that. It does not conflict with 73C one iota.

[c_corgi]

...

c) As the rustic said to the motorist, "I would not start from here", but we have to bid something...

 

This is the point. If the pollee wouldn't have considered bidding in the same way if playing the methods of the partnership, he is not a valid peer and there is no point trying to construct LAs based on his decision. Since there are presumably going to be no peers available who would have opened 2NT showing 5-5 in the minors then the whole of L16B1b cannot be applicable. Fortunately there is L73 to fall back on.

[lamford]

This is the point. If the pollee wouldn't have considered bidding in the same way if playing the methods of the partnership, he is not a valid peer and there is no point trying to construct LAs based on his decision. Since there are presumably going to be no peers available who would have opened 2NT showing 5-5 in the minors then the whole of L16B1b cannot be applicable. Fortunately there is L73 to fall back on.

I do not agree. We all make misbids, and all that is required is to find players of the same ability who play that 2NT is 5-5 in the minors. In practice this would take too long, and we tell them "You are playing 2NT showing 5-5 in the minors, 6-10, and you open 2NT on the South hand. Partner bids 3D, better diamonds than clubs. What do you do now? What do you seriously consider?"

 

The practical problem of finding peers playing the same methods is usually solved by asking the pollees to imagine they are playing those methods, or at least we check that they understand what subsequent auctions would mean.

[billw55]

Eh ok lamford we get it. The literal word of the law says to use the actual methods.

 

When the literal wording leads to an action or ruling that is obviously nonsense, we know not to use it that way. Well, most of us do.

[lamford]

When the literal wording leads to an action or ruling that is obviously nonsense, we know not to use it that way.

Weak arguments are reinforced by using "obviously". In our example, and I think more often than not, a literal interpretation of 16B gets to a fairer ruling. South should have known that by bidding 3H he would likely end in 6NT, which might or might not have any play. He should have known that bidding 3NT or Pass could well result in a disaster. The literal meaning of 16B always works.

[billw55]

As I said, most of us do ;)

[Zelandakh]

Ignoring lamford's favourite side show and getting back to the OP question, I can see several LAs for South over 4♦ that would most likely not result in 6NT. 4♠ and 6♦ have already been mentioned. Another one is probably 5NT. I suspect that the more circuitous routes end up in 6♦.

[aguahombre]

Ignoring lamford's favourite side show and getting back to the OP question, I can see several LAs for South over 4♦ that would most likely not result in 6NT. 4♠ and 6♦ have already been mentioned. Another one is probably 5NT. I suspect that the more circuitous routes end up in 6♦.

Yes, that point was made. But, I don't believe it is universal or even practical for a heart transfer followed by a minor suit bid to guarantee five of the minor; and consequently I don't believe South should be compelled to make a bid confirming diamonds as trump without holding 4 himself.

[PhilKing]

South is obliged to follow law 73. Completing a transfer is not taking advantage of anything - South is merely ignoring the information he now has.

 

You just can't then do him under 16B1 by giving a load of his peers a scenario that is in no way relevant.

[Zelandakh]

Yes, that point was made. But, I don't believe it is universal or even practical for a heart transfer followed by a minor suit bid to guarantee five of the minor; and consequently I don't believe South should be compelled to make a bid confirming diamonds as trump without holding 4 himself.

This is why I was putting forward 5NT as another alternative, assuming this would ba PaS and not GSF (in the mistakenly believed methods of the partnership).

[nige1]

Nige1, you are overthinking what is being said in that handbook. They are debunking the idea that hesitation=pass, not addressing the choice from among L.A.'s. And generally means generally.

Unschooled in double-think, I read the handbook to mean what it says. I suspect that the authors may even have expressed their true intent. "Make the bid you would have made without the UI" is the gist of the advice of some good players, on US sites like "Bridge-winners".

[blackshoe]

That handbook is full of errors. Furthermore, it is my understanding that it is not "official" in the sense of stating how law is to be interpreted in the ACBL. So you follow it at your peril.

[lamford]

Yes, that point was made. But, I don't believe it is universal or even practical for a heart transfer followed by a minor suit bid to guarantee five of the minor; and consequently I don't believe South should be compelled to make a bid confirming diamonds as trump without holding 4 himself.

If South, in his own world, normally only completes the transfer with 3, as I play with some partners, and bids 3NT without 3, he can, under your thinking, bid 3NT. And what a transfer followed by a minor suit bid means is irrelevant for deciding on LAs. All that is relevant is what 4D means after 3H. We are told that - no interest. What it would mean after 2NT is relevant for selecting between LAs only.

 

I repeat. Is there anyone on here who thinks you use the UI to decide on LAs?

[nige1]

That handbook is full of errors. Furthermore, it is my understanding that it is not "official" in the sense of stating how law is to be interpreted in the ACBL. So you follow it at your peril.

IMO, it is equally fraught to follow the unofficial advice from this forum to ignore the Law. Just because some break the law and encourage others to do so, does not absolve you of moral responsibility :)

[blackshoe]

It has often been said that Law 16 is for directors, and Law 73C is for players. In this paradigm, ignoring 16B, or even not knowing what it says, is no crime. But the law does not literally say that players can ignore 16B, so I suppose that means that all players have to be taught that law and all its ramifications. Good luck with that.

[gnasher]

The only difference between my approach and campboy (and I think gnasher's) approach is that they use the UI to decide on the LAs.

 

I've rather lost the thread of your argument, but if the "they" in the above sentence refers to me, then you are mistaken. I use the AI to determine what the LAs are. The methods of the partnership are not AI to a player who has forgotten the methods of the partnership.

[lamford]

I've rather lost the thread of your argument, but if the "they" in the above sentence refers to me, then you are mistaken. I use the AI to determine what the LAs are. The methods of the partnership are not AI to a player who has forgotten the methods of the partnership.

16B(b) does not require the methods of the partnership to be AI. It defines an LA. Then you must not select between them one demonstrably suggested by the UI. The problem with this discussion is that you just fall back on saying "it does not mean that", so we are not achieving anything discussing what it says.

 

I have posted the issue on BLML and will see if I get any meaningful reply. Several of the WBFLC contribute.

[nige1]

It has often been said that Law 16 is for directors, and Law 73C is for players. In this paradigm, ignoring 16B, or even not knowing what it says, is no crime. But the law does not literally say that players can ignore 16B, so I suppose that means that all players have to be taught that law and all its ramifications. Good luck with that.

Directors should be taught the law too because it's worse when directors break the law. Cascade tried to bring schismatic directors back into the body of the kirk by drawing their attention to law 81 :)

The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws.

[barmar]

Weak arguments are reinforced by using "obviously".

An argument based on common sense is not inherently weak. Obviously. :)

[gnasher]

16B(b) does not require the methods of the partnership to be AI. It defines an LA. Then you must not select between them one demonstrably suggested by the UI. The problem with this discussion is that you just fall back on saying "it does not mean that", so we are not achieving anything discussing what it says.

So 96 posts later we know what we already knew, which is:

- You think that LAs are determined by considering the methods of the partnership, even when the knowledge of these is authorised.

- Almost everybody else thinks that LAs are determined by considering only the authorised information.

 

Anyway, maybe your post on BLML will give us some idea of the legislators' intent.

[aguahombre]

An argument based on common sense is not inherently weak. Obviously. :)

Depends on whose common sense is being applied.