Brighton 4 (EBU)

[VixTD]

I'm not sure I buy this argument. The law says "could demonstrably have been suggested", not "is suggested". Nor does the law distinguish possible LAs by likelihood.

I know what the law says, but I don't think there's a whole lot of semantic difference between "the hesitation suggests bidding 4♣" and "the hesitation could demonstrably suggest bidding 4♣".

 

I don't understand your second comment at all. What does "distinguish LAs by likelihood" mean?

[VixTD]

I did wonder whether 4♣ was a logical alternative. I managed to poll a player who I guessed was a peer of EW, and she took some time to decide what to do rather than say "Pass, what else?" so I decided it was.

 

There was some support among directors I consulted for the Campboy / Nigel view, but I was more persuaded by the Lamford / Cyberyeti argument (though with some misgivings), so the score was allowed to stand.

[blackshoe]

I know what the law says, but I don't think there's a whole lot of semantic difference between "the hesitation suggests bidding 4♣" and "the hesitation could demonstrably suggest bidding 4♣".

 

I don't understand your second comment at all. What does "distinguish LAs by likelihood" mean?

I mean that it doesn't say we look only at the most likely meaning of the UI.

[vigfus]

Pass is certanly an LA here.

I rule the 4♣ bid out. Play 3♦. Made 4 for both sides.

Defence error is not serious here.

[gnasher]

I know what the law says, but I don't think there's a whole lot of semantic difference between "the hesitation suggests bidding 4♣" and "the hesitation could demonstrably suggest bidding 4♣".

I think there's a difference in intelligibility.

[nige1]

... the arguments do seem to be saying that the hesitation suggests defending ...

If campboy and I are in your kill-file that would certainly be the case :(

 

We may not qualify as peers of the players involved in UI cases posted in this forum. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to include polls among plausible alternatives ...

1. Which actions would you consider without UI.
2. Which actions (if any) do you think are suggested by the UI.

[VixTD]

I mean that it doesn't say we look only at the most likely meaning of the UI.

The most likely meaning of the unauthorized information may not affect which actions are considered logical alternatives, but it surely affects which actions are demonstrably suggested [or may be demonstrably suggested, if you must].

 

If we agree for sake of argument that pass and 4♣ are West's only logical alternatives, and the most likely bridge reason for East's hesitation is that he is thinking of doubling 3♦, but that it is also possible that he was thinking of bidding 4♣ himself, that difference in probability is surely important. You can't forbid both actions by West, so do you allow either if there is any chance (however small) that East could have been thinking about either of these calls, or do you take the probability into account?

[VixTD]

If campboy and I are in your kill-file that would certainly be the case :(

 

We may not qualify as peers of the players involved in UI cases posted in this forum. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to include polls among plausible alternatives ...

1. Which actions would you consider without UI.
2. Which actions (if any) do you think are suggested by the UI.

I don't know what a "kill-file" is, but I can take a guess. I didn't say "all the arguments", and it's quite clear that I've noted your and Campboy's comments. I see Vigfus has joined you.

 

Pass is certanly an LA here.

I rule the 4♣ bid out. Play 3♦. Made 4 for both sides.

Defence error is not serious here.

You don't say so, but I assume you agree with Campboy and Nigel that the hesitation suggests a club fit rather than extra defensive values against a diamond contract. This is a necessary condition for adjusting the score.

[blackshoe]

The most likely meaning of the unauthorized information may not affect which actions are considered logical alternatives, but it surely affects which actions are demonstrably suggested [or may be demonstrably suggested, if you must].

 

If we agree for sake of argument that pass and 4♣ are West's only logical alternatives, and the most likely bridge reason for East's hesitation is that he is thinking of doubling 3♦, but that it is also possible that he was thinking of bidding 4♣ himself, that difference in probability is surely important. You can't forbid both actions by West, so do you allow either if there is any chance (however small) that East could have been thinking about either of these calls, or do you take the probability into account?

Your argument, if I understand it, works when there are only two LAs. If there are more than two, then there may well be more than one which demonstrably could be suggested. In such cases the "most likely meaning" is only one of several such actions.

[barmar]

Didn't there used to be language (maybe a footnote) in the Laws that explained what it meant for an action to be demonstrably suggested, something like the action is more likely to result in a better result? Or am I confusing it with the description of damage?

[Trinidad]

I mean that it doesn't say we look only at the most likely meaning of the UI.

No, we look at the action that -because of the UI- has an improved expected score. Those are actions that are demonstrably suggested by the UI.

 

If we have UI (because of a BIT) we can sometimes tell clearly what partner was thinking about. The UI is clear and it is fairly straightforward to determine the LAs that are suggested by it.

 

Sometimes, there are some options of what partner may have been thinking about (the classic example: 1♠-2♠; ...3♠). When the UI is really unclear, nothing is suggested. Everything is allowed.

 

From time to time, there are some options of what partner may have been thinking about, but one option is demonstrably more likely than the other. If you look at a void in the opponents' suit, it is more likely that partner was thinking of a penalty double than to bid one more. If you are looking at three trumps yourself, it is unlikely (but not impossible) that partner was thinking of a penalty double. The laws are talking about "demonstrably suggested", not about "demonstrably proven -beyond a reasonable doubt- that this is going to be the correct action with the UI".

 

So, if you bid on with a void in their suit -reasoning that partner probably was contemplating a penalty double- that is the way to go. After all, the UI suggested to double (bingo!) or pass (second choice), even if it is possible that partner actually wanted to bid one more.

 

This is even the way to go when partner was actually thinking about bidding rather than doubling. After all, you can only interpret partner's BIT with the information from your own hand, not from partner's actual hand.

 

Rik

[nige1]

No, we look at the action that -because of the UI- has an improved expected score. Those are actions that are demonstrably suggested by the UI. If we have UI (because of a BIT) we can sometimes tell clearly what partner was thinking about. The UI is clear and it is fairly straightforward to determine the LAs that are suggested by it. Sometimes, there are some options of what partner may have been thinking about (the classic example: 1♠-2♠; ...3♠). When the UI is really unclear, nothing is suggested. Everything is allowed.

In a real-life, experienced partnership, a hesitant 3♠ usually has clear inferences but there's not much the law can do about it.

From time to time, there are some options of what partner may have been thinking about, but one option is demonstrably more likely than the other. If you look at a void in the opponents' suit, it is more likely that partner was thinking of a penalty double than to bid one more. If you are looking at three trumps yourself, it is unlikely (but not impossible) that partner was thinking of a penalty double. The laws are talking about "demonstrably suggested", not about "demonstrably proven -beyond a reasonable doubt- that this is going to be the correct action with the UI". So, if you bid on with a void in their suit -reasoning that partner probably was contemplating a penalty double- that is the way to go. After all, the UI suggested to double (bingo!) or pass (second choice), even if it is possible that partner actually wanted to bid one more. This is even the way to go when partner was actually thinking about bidding rather than doubling. After all, you can only interpret partner's BIT with the information from your own hand, not from partner's actual hand.

In my experience, hesitations by non-experts usually suggest extra values or extra support -- and suggest action. In this auction, with a ♦ stack, I think most players would pass happily, especially as double may well be take-out. But I understand the counter-argument, here.

[blackshoe]

Didn't there used to be language (maybe a footnote) in the Laws that explained what it meant for an action to be demonstrably suggested, something like the action is more likely to result in a better result? Or am I confusing it with the description of damage?

Not in the current laws, and so far as I remember, not in previous laws.

[mycroft]

Not in the Laws. What you may be thinking of is the definition of Logical Alternative, which now exists in the Laws where before it was a matter of Regulation.

 

A lot of the ACBL's thinking about "demonstrably suggested" comes from the Appeals Books where the discussions on the move from "could reasonably have been suggested" and the meaning of demonstrate seemed to make sense (that's where I get the idea that "there has to be one call that won't be ruled against, and it can't just be 'the one you didn't take'" - because if you can demonstrate that the same UI implies A over B and B over A simultaneously, maybe your demonstration is a bit flawed?)

[aguahombre]

Not in the Laws. What you may be thinking of is the definition of Logical Alternative, which now exists in the Laws where before it was a matter of Regulation.

 

A lot of the ACBL's thinking about "demonstrably suggested" comes from the Appeals Books where the discussions on the move from "could reasonably have been suggested" and the meaning of demonstrate seemed to make sense (that's where I get the idea that "there has to be one call that won't be ruled against, and it can't just be 'the one you didn't take'" - because if you can demonstrate that the same UI implies A over B and B over A simultaneously, maybe your demonstration is a bit flawed?)

If you decide there are exactly two LA's here, and can demonstrate that A could have been suggested over B ---but can also demonstrate that B could have been suggested over A...then I don't think it is the demonstration which is flawed.

 

There should be one call that won't be ruled against, I agree. The OP situation has shown, IMO, that there doesn't "have to be" one call that won't be ruled against. If there is a flaw, it is in the laws; but I can't think of any way to improve them so that the OS has an option every time which will not be ruled against.

 

I chalk it up to same as the revoke penalty, where sometimes the OS just can't break even.

 

In the thread scenario, Campboy attempted to refute Gibson about the actual East hand's relevance. I agree that the actual East holding should not be considered when determining whether West's action demonstrably could have been suggested by UI. I would not consider passing, but if a poll were to produce Pass as a LA, then I would just plain be out of luck whether I passed or bid....when the other choice could have been less favorable.

[StevenG]

I chalk it up to same as the revoke penalty, where sometimes the OS just can't break even.

Hestitating isn't an infraction.

[aguahombre]

Hestitating isn't an infraction.

We are way past that obvious point. We are talking about the Law which addresses choosing from LA's, determining whether a bid is a LA, and whether there must be a LA which demonstrably could not have been suggested.

[StevenG]

No, you compared a situation where there is an infraction, and therefore an OS, to one where there isn't.

 

In your interpretation, player A hesitates but hasn't infracted. His partner, player B, who has done nothing wrong whatsoever, now has no bid that won't be ruled against despite there being no infraction. That is a lunatic way to run a game, and cannot possibly be the intent of the law-makers.

 

I don't think anyone has any real idea what the phrase "could demonstrably have been suggested over another" actually means. How do you parse it grammatically? "Could" suggests some sort of conditionality, but conditionality of what? Trying to establish this from grammar sites (not bridge-related, and without the word "demonstrably") online, it seems to suggest something genuinely likely, rather than something theoretical, and the word "demonstrably" can only be there to strenghen the need for likelihood.

[campboy]

I don't think anyone has any real idea what the phrase "could demonstrably have been suggested over another" actually means. How do you parse it grammatically? "Could" suggests some sort of conditionality, but conditionality of what? Trying to establish this from grammar sites (not bridge-related, and without the word "demonstrably") online, it seems to suggest something genuinely likely, rather than something theoretical, and the word "demonstrably" can only be there to strenghen the need for likelihood.

I believe the point of the "could" is just to avoid us having to speculate about what was actually going on in the player's mind when he chose the alternative in question, like the various "could have known" laws. If something would have been demonstrably suggested to most of a player's peers (which is what we actually try to determine) then it could demonstrably have been suggested to that particular player.

[StevenG]

I believe the point of the "could" is just to avoid us having to speculate about what was actually going on in the player's mind when he chose the alternative in question, like the various "could have known" laws. If something would have been demonstrably suggested to most of a player's peers (which is what we actually try to determine) then it could demonstrably have been suggested to that particular player.

I don't think that's true though. I often know what a partner is thinking about when they hesitate through knowledge of that partner. If I say why I chose an alternative, and the reason is valid, and partner has a hand consistent with that reason, is there any reason to adjust? On the other hand, if you postulate a situation where a partner's peer might hesitate, but my partner never does, and partner's hand is not consistent with your hypothesis, can you really justify adjusting? You have demonstrated nothing.

[c_corgi]

I believe the point of the "could" is just to avoid us having to speculate about what was actually going on in the player's mind when he chose the alternative in question, like the various "could have known" laws. If something would have been demonstrably suggested to most of a player's peers (which is what we actually try to determine) then it could demonstrably have been suggested to that particular player.

 

How do we try to determine if it would have been suggested to most of a player's peers? I thought that the polling and peers etc was for determining LAs and that the nature of the UI would not be revealed to the pollee where possible. I assumed that whether it could have been demonstrably suggested was determined by analysis rather than polling.

[campboy]

How do we try to determine if it would have been suggested to most of a player's peers? I thought that the polling and peers etc was for determining LAs and that the nature of the UI would not be revealed to the pollee where possible. I assumed that whether it could have been demonstrably suggested was determined by analysis rather than polling.

Yes, we analyse the situation rather than poll, but still we are trying to analyse what might be suggested to a hypothetical player. "Peers" was the wrong word to use, since as Steven points out what really matters is the similarity of the partner (and the player's knowledge of his partner), not of the player themselves.

 

I've certainly been polled about what was suggested on occasion -- at least I consider it "polled" rather than "consulted" if I'm there as a player :)

[pran]

"Could" is there so that the Director does not have to prove that something was indeed suggested, only that it "could be suggested".

 

But some real foundation for such assumption is still required, "could" does not imply that any wild theory could be suggested.

[gnasher]

"Could" is there so that the Director does not have to prove that something was indeed suggested, only that it "could be suggested".

 

But some real foundation for such assumption is still required, "could" does not imply that any wild theory could be suggested.

 

OK, so what is "demonstrably" there for?

[blackshoe]

No, you compared a situation where there is an infraction, and therefore an OS, to one where there isn't.

 

In your interpretation, player A hesitates but hasn't infracted. His partner, player B, who has done nothing wrong whatsoever, now has no bid that won't be ruled against despite there being no infraction. That is a lunatic way to run a game, and cannot possibly be the intent of the law-makers.

 

I don't think anyone has any real idea what the phrase "could demonstrably have been suggested over another" actually means. How do you parse it grammatically? "Could" suggests some sort of conditionality, but conditionality of what? Trying to establish this from grammar sites (not bridge-related, and without the word "demonstrably") online, it seems to suggest something genuinely likely, rather than something theoretical, and the word "demonstrably" can only be there to strenghen the need for likelihood.

"Demonstrably" means that you must be able to show how the UI might suggest a particular call over another. "Could" means that making that call is an infraction even if the player making it didn't "get" the suggestion. As Maddog Probst used to put it "you are not a cheat, but you have done something a cheat would do, so I must rule accordingly".