Logical alternatives after Texas Transfer

[aguahombre]

How does he know that 4♥ was interpreted as Texas?

Because Partner shouldn't be bidding 2NT with a long self-sufficient Spade suit, and won't be super accepting a drop-dead natural 4H bid.

Edited November 20, 2013 by aguahombre

[aguahombre]

When a player has both, and they lead to the same conclusion, he is using the AI and not the UI. If he can articulate the AI he is using, good luck proving he is not telling the truth.

What's the basis for this assertion?

My basis for the assertion in the first sentence (which you quoted) was stated in my next sentence (which you didn't). If the UI does not provide any additional information to that which the AI provided, and he says he was using the AI ---I will believe he is using the AI and not the UI.

[blackshoe]

Because Partner should be bidding 2NT with a long self-sufficient Spade suit, and won't be super accepting a drop-dead natural 4H bid.

Huh? Which one is "Partner"? Or did you leave a "not" out of that sentence?

[PeterAlan]

My basis for the assertion in the first sentence (which you quoted) was stated in my next sentence (which you didn't). If the UI does not provide any additional information to that which the AI provided, and he says he was using the AI ---I will believe he is using the AI and not the UI.

Then we're not speaking the same language. You wrote (omitting two earlier short sentences that are irrelevant to this point, but including the next two):

 

Authorized information is usable. Unauthorization is not. When a player has both, and they lead to the same conclusion, he is using the AI and not the UI. If he can articulate the AI he is using, good luck proving he is not telling the truth.

To me, the "first" (third in the fuller quote above) sentence is a general, stand-alone assertion, for which you have given no basis. You didn't link the next sentence to it in any way that means anything to me, and in any event I don't think that it does provide such support.

 

You are essentially saying "If the player has the same information available from AI and from UI then (a) if he can say so, and that he's used the AI and not the UI, then I will believe him, and (b) for bridge law purposes I will then treat him as having used AI and not having used UI." This is fine as a statement of personal views; it is questionable as a statement of what the bridge laws actually are, as blackshoe said:

 

This is a flawed interpretation of the law. In particular, Law 16B1{a} does not mention AI at all — it says that when a player has UI, he may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested by the UI. The presence of AI "saying the same thing" is irrelevant.

I'm sorry to be so picky - not least, because my personal views on what the laws should say are probably quite close to yours and campboy's - but it does seem to be an area where imprecise use of language leads us astray. For example:

 

The information content of the AI given the UI and that of the UI given the AI are both zero, as you say ...

No, I emphatically did not say that, because this slurs the distinction that I was careful to draw. What I said was that the additional information content was zero, but the actual information content remains the same. If both the AI and the UI have the same information content X, Y & Z then that is what they both have, but neither adds additional information to the other. blackshoe is saying (and this is what I understood the generally accepted interpretation to be) that because the UI retains its information content of X, Y & Z that information is what needs to be taken into account when considering what is "suggested". You and campboy appear to be arguing that it is only any additional information (nil in this example). Slurring this distinction leads campboy to fallacies (or at best careless use of language) such as:

 

And if the UI adds no new information then it can't suggest anything.

the point being that whilst the null additional information indeed suggests nothing the actual information content of the UI (here X, Y & Z) can suggest plenty.

 

We use "UI" rather loosely. I think that a more fruitful line of argument is to focus on the definition of "extraneous information" in Law 16A3, which broadly speaking seems to correspond to what we might loosely express as UI-AI, any information that is available from unauthorised sources and not also from authorised ones, essentially what you're both talking about. Law 16B is couched in terms of "extraneous information", not "unauthorised information". Unfortunately, Law 74C, which is rather more general in its scope, uses "unauthorised information" and not "extraneous information".

 

It seems that we're all giving the meaning of the wording rather more careful attention than the drafters did. It would be helpful if at the next revision they started out by deciding exactly what they wanted to achieve by the relevant laws, and then drafted them accordingly with a bit more care. Among the things to take into account is whether the AI was available before the UI with which it overlaps, or only afterwards.

[campboy]

No, I emphatically did not say that, because this slurs the distinction that I was careful to draw. What I said was that the additional information content was zero, but the actual information content remains the same.

I think you misunderstand what I mean. When I talk about the information content of UI given the AI I am using a technical term which essentially means the extra information you get from A if you already know B. You seem to have read my post as though the words "given the AI" make no difference.

 

Slurring this distinction leads campboy to fallacies (or at best careless use of language) such as:

That is neither a fallacy nor a careless use of language. I have defined precisely what I consider "suggested" to mean, and from that definition my assertion follows trivially. Now you clearly are using a different definition of "suggested"; what definition?

[PeterAlan]

I think you misunderstand what I mean. When I talk about the information content of UI given the AI I am using a technical term which essentially means the extra information you get from A if you already know B. You seem to have read my post as though the words "given the AI" make no difference.

No, I knew exactly what you were saying. However, I had deliberately not phrased what I was saying in this kind of way precisely because I wished to be very clear about the distinction between the information content of a piece of A/UI and the additional information content that a piece of A/UI brought. Your formulation, whilst accurate in the technical sense in which you used it, was therefore one that I was anxious to avoid using myself, because it obscured rather than highlighted this distinction.

 

And if the UI adds no new information then it can't suggest anything.

That is neither a fallacy nor a careless use of language. I have defined precisely what I consider "suggested" to mean, and from that definition my assertion follows trivially. Now you clearly are using a different definition of "suggested"; what definition?

This is where you and I part company. Your definition of "suggested" - which, incidentally, you only posted well after you used the word here - is not the normal one, because you import a specific restriction - namely, to the additional information, not the whole information, contained in the UI - into its semantics. That is not its normal English usage.

 

Let's analyse your statement, by first removing its conditional clause. "It [the UI] can't suggest anything." This is patently false - if the UI has information content, then it potentially suggests something. Now let's add back the conditional clause "if the UI adds no new information". My point is that the UI does not lose its original information content, and continues to suggest exactly what it always did. You and I can agree that it doesn't add anything to what it (and the corresponding AI) already suggested, but that's not the same as saying that it doesn't suggest anything at all - not unless you start to re-interpret "suggest", as you later did, in a highly specific and restricted way that does not, in my view, correspond to its normal usage. In saying all this, I'm following your line of looking at the use of "suggests" - but what I really think is happening is that whilst you're using "UI" in the first part of the sentence, your use of "it" is not in fact referring to "UI" but instead to "any new information that UI adds", which is not the same thing.

 

Since this question - is it the whole information content of the UI, or only that information which it adds to the AI, which matters for bridge law purposes - is the crux of the matter, it is particularly important to use language clearly, simply and naturally, and in a way that clarifies rather than obscures the point at issue.

[barmar]

I imagine some might argue that partner's having remembered our agreements is now UI and we may not choose from among LAs any option made more attractive by this information. :rolleyes:

I once raised this question in rec.games.bridge: if I make a bid using a rarely-used convention (e.g. some of our responses to Mexican 2♦), I might be unsure if partner will remember its meaning; if he alerts it and explains correctly, is it now UI to me that he remembered, and I should continue bidding as if he didn't?

 

The overwhelming concensus was that this isn't a problem, because unexpected alerts and their associated explanations are UI, but not expected ones.

 

On the other hand, if either of us does forget the meaning, the explanation will be unexpected (if I forgot, I'll expect the wrong explanation, but hear the right one; if he forgot, I'll expect the right explanation, but hear the wrong one), and in that case it's UI.

[Zelandakh]

The problem with the position articulated by Peter above can be summed up with a simple example. I open 1NT and partner responds 2♦, which I announce as a transfer. Unfortunately partner gets confused and also starts to announce transfer immediately afterwards. Now I have UI that partner remembered the system. Clearly the UI suggests bidding 2♥ over passing now, especially if we have ever played weak takeouts or if partner forgot once (20 years ago). So we should pass, right?

 

Here's a better one. We recently switched from playing normal Stayman to Puppet. So I alert (or not according to regs) partner's club response and give the appropriate response when an opponent asks. Is partner now constrained by this UI to continue the auction as per normal Stayman even when they had not forgotten? I think everyone here would agree not and yet that is the logical conclusion from the idea that is being suggested.

 

The argument against is simple. If the UI is exactly the same as the AI then it cannot suggest one alternative over another. Can you give a counter-example where this is not the case without it also resulting in a logical loop back the the (silly) examples earlier in this post?

[barmar]

The problem with the position articulated by Peter above can be summed up with a simple example. I open 1NT and partner responds 2♦, which I announce as a transfer. Unfortunately partner gets confused and also starts to announce transfer immediately afterwards. Now I have UI that partner remembered the system. Clearly the UI suggests bidding 2♥ over passing now, especially if we have ever played weak takeouts or if partner forgot once (20 years ago). So we should pass, right?

Not a problem. Just because partner once, many years ago, made a mistake, it doesn't become a LA every time to assume that he's repeated that mistake. The only LA is that partner has made the bid according to your agreements. Since there's only one LA, UI is not a problem, because that only constrains your choice among LAs.

 

Here's a better one. We recently switched from playing normal Stayman to Puppet. So I alert (or not according to regs) partner's club response and give the appropriate response when an opponent asks. Is partner now constrained by this UI to continue the auction as per normal Stayman even when they had not forgotten? I think everyone here would agree not and yet that is the logical conclusion from the idea that is being suggested.

This is a little more difficult, since it was a recent change and slip-ups may be common. But has partner been getting confused? If he hasn't yet forgotten the system, I think you can reasonable assume that he's remembering now, so it's not an LA to treat his bid as normal Stayman.

 

If he has actually had trouble remembering the change, it does seem like there's a UI problem. Every time you have a Stayman auction, you're unsure whether he remembers, so it's an LA to assume he forgot, and the UI helps you choose. Therefore, it seems like Law 16B forces you to interpret his bid in the opposite way that he explained it -- i.e. when he remembers, you have to forget, and vice versa.

 

The only answer in this case is to assume the lawmakers could not possibly have intended you to act like this, because it would make the game unplayable in conditions like this.

[mycroft]

There are 4 steps in delivering an adjusted score over use of UI:

 

• If there was UI
  
• that [edit: demonstrably] suggested one Alternative (or a class of Alternatives) over another from a list of Logical Alternatives
  
• and that Alternative was taken
  
• and there was a less successful Logical Alternative not suggested by the UI
  

then we adjust - with a definition of Logical Alternative.

 

That definition of Logical Alternative involves what would be considered and taken by the players peers *with only the AI* (or alternatively, without the UI).

 

So, "AI trumps UI" is wrong. "AI showing the same as the UI, so there's no UI" is also wrong. "AI shows the same as the UI, so there can't be damage" is also wrong, but frequently not a problem. "There's UI, but there's no LA to the call suggested given the AI only" - that we can do.

 

Yes, in almost all cases, this is semantic quibble only. But if I didn't worry about semantic quibble, I wouldn't style myself as I do, would I?

 

Note that Questions asked by partner, and answers to those questions, are UI. So theoretically, after partner asks about an Alert, I'll have to at my turn as well, if I want the information. Yes, sometimes we shortcut around the Law to make the game playable :-)

[chrism]

Note that Questions asked by partner, and answers to those questions, are UI.

I don't think so; it is UI that partner asked the question, but the answer to the question is AI.

 

Actually, though the Laws allow a question to be asked (20F1) they do not explicitly state that the answer is AI even to the questioner; however, assuming that it is, then the clause "The partner of a player who asks a question may not ask a supplementary question until his turn to call or play" makes sense only if the partner was allowed to be aware of the answer.

 

I realize that we are in yet another grey area where the Laws manage not to state clearly exactly what they mean, of course.

[WellSpyder]

There are 4 steps in delivering an adjusted score over use of UI:

 

• If there was UI
  
• that suggested one Alternative (or a class of Alternatives) over another from a list of Logical Alternatives
  
• and that Alternative was taken
  
• and there was a less successful Logical Alternative not suggested by the UI
  

then we adjust - with a definition of Logical Alternative.

 

That definition of Logical Alternative involves what would be considered and taken by the players peers *with only the AI* (or alternatively, without the UI).

 

So, "AI trumps UI" is wrong. "AI showing the same as the UI, so there's no UI" is also wrong. "AI shows the same as the UI, so there can't be damage" is also wrong, but frequently not a problem. "There's UI, but there's no LA to the call suggested given the AI only" - that we can do.

 

Yes, in almost all cases, this is semantic quibble only. But if I didn't worry about semantic quibble, I wouldn't style myself as I do, would I?

 

In my view it is far from a semantic quibble only - it is a manifesto for making the game unplayable! Frankly, I am amazed that we are having this discussion, since what you and PeterAlan (and maybe others earlier) appear to be arguing just looks crazy. But I know from real life that PeterAlan is an entirely sensible person, and although I don't know you irl, I have plenty of evidence that you understand the laws pretty well. So presumably I must be missing something pretty fundamental.

 

My problem is that the only get-out clause you have allowed above in the presence of UI is when there is no LA to the call suggested. But there are LAs to most of the decisions we take at the bridge table, so this isn't much help. Take the earlier example of a 1♠ opening out of turn, that is repeated after a pass by the correct dealer. I might have two choices as responder, say a 1NT or a 2♠ response. I think 1NT is a better response, and 75% of people agree with me, but 25% would bid 2♠. So both bids are LAs. 1NT certainly appears to be suggested by the UI, since that is the response the majority thinks is correct. So you are saying I must raise to 2♠, even though I think 1NT is a better bid and I know absolutely nothing from the UI that I don't also know from the AI???? It just doesn't make sense to me.

[mycroft]

I missed a word, and it's a critical word. That word is "demonstrably", and it modifies "suggested by the UI". I don't think you can say that "because the AI suggests that 1NT is a better call, that shows that the UI suggests that 1NT is a better call" and meet the standard.

 

The problem with "AI trumps UI" is that it's used in cases where the information isn't, you know, completely the same. It just is good for the arguing.

 

I don't know what to do in the original case - what is 4♠ over a "I know your hand to within a queen or a card, and I want to play exactly 4♥"? Partner just realized his clubs are spades? But I've seen way too many "forget transfer" auctions that everybody got right, and there's no UI (of course) except, except and except...that are "but it's obvious from the AI that partner can't have that hand" (and it sure is with the UI as well, at least).

[nige1]

IMO

• Few players understand or comply with UI law.
• Blackshoe and Peter Alan correctly interpret the law-makers' intentions.
• Different directors interpret UI law differently so it should be clarified.
• The words logical and demonstrably add confusion rather than value to the law and both should be expunged.
• It might be more sensible to penalize the giving of UI rather than the use of it.

[blackshoe]

It might be more sensible to penalize giving UI rather than using it

I doubt that, given how hard it is to not give UI.

[nate_m]

Just wondering, could one of PeterAlan/Blackshoe please explain what less successful logical alternatives West should choose from given that they are in possession of UI?

 

Should they pass, reasoning that pard probably overcalled 2NT on 7 solid?

Should they bid 5♣ reasoning that pard is making a slam try opposite a clear drop-dead signoff in an auction where W had room to make a slam try?

 

Who are "significant portion" of players who are seriously considering any of these calls? Who are the "some" who are actually making them? Is there really a significant portion of players who if polled about the auction in question, with no mention of alerts, does not automatically think, "Pard thought it was Texas?"

 

I mean I get that I hold the (apparently absurd) belief that UI that provides zero unique information should not constrain the recipient. Perhaps a strict literal reading of the laws does not justify that conclusion. I guess I just don't think there is any logical alternative to 5♥ in the given auction so I don't think that question arises. That opinion could be entirely off base, but I'm curious to see just what the logical alternatives are.

 

As an aside, I believe that while a strict literal reading of the laws might not lead one to the conclusion that UI that provides zero unique information is irrelevant, I do think the laws are interpreted that way in practice, because the alternative interpretation seemingly leads to absurd rulings. There are a lot of casebooks that discuss similar rulings in which a player is allowed to "wake up" to a misunderstanding despite the presence of UI when partner makes an "impossible" bid. (This type of transfer case has zillions of rulings, the first one I happened to find being here. (South bids 2♦ over pard's NT on ♦QJ10xxx, pard announces xfer and bids 2♥, director+committee+commentators all vote result stands after South continues 3♦ and pard bids 3N.)

 

I will readily admit that I could be totally off base in thinking that "AI duplicates UI" is a reason not to adjust score, and in looking I was unable to find support for that idea in the text of the laws alone. I realize that phrasing actually comes from Jeff Goldsmith's writings on the subject. However, that does not alter my belief that a lot of national AC's apply that idea in practice. Nor does it alter my belief that it is entirely desirable for them to do so.

[nige1]

IMO...It might be more sensible to penalize giving UI rather than using it,

I doubt that, given how hard it is to not give UI.

I agree it would be a massive simplification. Rules would need to change to reduce opportunities for UI and to convert some current UI to AI. Perhaps, for example

• Timed game: To reduce UI, during bidding and play, you should delay your action for at least 5 secs and complete it before 10 secs have elapsed.
• Information form alerts, questions, answers, and so on should be treated as AI to both sides (Rubens suggested something like that. Anyway most players seem incapable of the mental gymnastics needed to avoid taking advantage).
• Even more controversially, I feel that a player should be allowed to "switch-off" opponents' alerts and announcements it he thinks they overly benefit from them.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&w=shqjt642d52cajt94&e=saj974hk7dak7c876&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=2d2np4hp4sp]266|200|

East-West are both competent players but were not able to stay on the same wavelength on this auction. Their agreement (like many club players in the ACBL) is that Texas transfers are used to sign off at the 4-level over a natural NT bid, and that strong hands do not bid this way. What are East's logical alternatives at his second turn to call. And what are West's logical alternatives after each of those 2D=natural and weak; 2NT=15-18, natural; 4H=intended as natural, but East believes the agreement is that it is a transfer to spades. (yes, if East passes this second question is moot)?[/hv]

... Who are "significant portion" of players who are seriously considering any of these calls? Who are the "some" who are actually making them? Is there really a significant portion of players who if polled about the auction in question, with no mention of alerts, does not automatically think, "Pard thought it was Texas?"...

In many jurisdictions, in the first round of the auction, bids at the four-level are alertable. If 4♥ is alertable then East's alert or failure to alert would provide extra UI.

In answer to nate_m, I feel that a player in receipt of UI should try a thought experiment. For example here, West imagines that East explains 4♥ as natural and still bids 4♠ (presumably a cue-bid). Top directors say this interpretation is wrong. Nevertheless, if you do argue on my heretical lines, then, given the likely duplication, 5♥ may be the only logical alternative for West :)

[barmar]

I will readily admit that I could be totally off base in thinking that "AI duplicates UI" is a reason not to adjust score

The thing is that it's very rare that AI and UI exactly duplicate each other. In most cases where someone says that, the actual case is that one is more specific than the other.

[aguahombre]

The thing is that it's very rare that AI and UI exactly duplicate each other. In most cases where someone says that, the actual case is that one is more specific than the other.

I guess it depends on who might be saying that. However, let's assume the AI is different from the UI in some respects. It doesn't matter whether AI is fully contained in the UI or visa versa. It doesn't matter whether the only difference in the two is specificity.

 

The only thing that matters if we are trying to direct, rather than "director", is whether the player is using only the information contained in the AI. If the AI leads to more than one logical alternative, AND the UI provides something else which demonstrably could suggest one alternative over another, we consider adjusting. If not, we shouldn't.

[blackshoe]

In the ACBL, in the auction given in the OP [(2♦-2NT-( P)-4♥-( P)-4♠] the 4♥ bid requires an immediate announcement because it comes before the opening bidder's second call. If it came after the opening bidder's second call, the announcement would be delayed until the clarification period. We aren't told in the OP whether an announcement was made, or whether West reacted to an announcement or to 4♠ in such a way as to convey UI. There are several possibilities:

 

1. 4♥ was announced "transfer" by East (or alerted, but the law would be similar so let's ignore that possibility). This is unexpected by West, who intended his bid as natural, so information from the announcement is "extraneous" and "may suggest a call or play" so West "may not choose from among logical alternatives one which demonstrably could have been suggested over another by the extraneous information".

 

2. 4♥ was not announced or alerted. Now the only information West has comes from the 4♠ bid. That information is authorized to West (Law 16A1) so he can do what he likes.

 

3. In either of the above cases, West may have given some sign that he was displeased with or did not expect the 4♠ bid. In that case, East has "extraneous information that may suggest a call or play" and so is constrained as to choice among logical alternatives. This assumes, of course, that he gets another call.

 

Note that extraneous information may suggest a call or play. There is nothing in the law that says or suggests that it always does so. If it does not, then there are no constraints on the bidding or play of the recipient of the extraneous information. This is, I think, what Nate and others are arguing: the unexpected announcement (case 1) doesn't suggest a call or play. But it does. We've all heard David Burn's term for it: "unauthorized panic". Here, West may be thinking "oh, crap, he thinks I have spades, I have to make sure he understands I have hearts" and so may bid again. But this is exactly what he cannot do, because he is constrained by the UI laws.

 

In either case 1 or case 2, East has no UI. Now suppose that West does bid 5♥. Given the agreement that 4♠ simply complies with West's presumed desire that East declare in 4♠, what is East to make of 5♥? He may infer that it is some kind of slam try for spades, even though that's not part of their agreements. He may infer (correctly, as it happens) that West has hearts, not spades. Either way, East is not constrained; he can do what he wants. Note that I am assuming here that there is no significant prior experience of West forgetting this agreement, as that would just open a different can of worms.

 

In case 3, if West passes, East probably won't get another call, so his possession of UI won't matter. If East gets another call because West bid 5♥ we may have multiple infractions. If East gets another call because an opponent bid something or doubled, then we're in more complicated territory, so let's not assume that's happening. But even there, if East has EI that suggests a call he's constrained.

 

In general, when a player has "extraneous information that may suggest a call or play" and he chooses "from among logical alternatives one that demonstrably could have been suggested by the extraneous information" then he may be judged to have committed an infraction of Law 16, and the score may be adjusted. But note "may suggest". If it does not suggest anything, then there is no possibility of an infraction. That would be unusual, IMO. As has been said, the presence of AI, whatever the AI says, does not mitigate Law 16 unless given the AI there is no LA to the chosen action. Note also that even without "equivalent" AI there may be no LA to the chosen action.

 

How do we know what the LAs are? That is a judgement call for the TD. What about the players? Here they are at the table, they may have UI, they may be constrained, they may be confused about what the LAs are (because the UI tells them "do this" and that's all they can think about). That's why Law 16 is often described as a "director's law" telling the TD how to adjudicate these cases, and Law 73C, which simply says to players "don't take advantage of UI", is described as a "player's law". Most people will have a feeling that some action is "taking advantage of UI" even if they can't articulate what the LAs are or what the UI itself is. Of course, the problem then is that people have a tendency to rationalize, to convince themselves either that they don't have UI or that they're not taking advantage even when they are. If they do, they should get an adverse ruling, and perhaps they will learn from it.

 

If a player can truly argue that he has no UI, or that the UI doesn't suggest anything, then he should be off the hook. But "I have AI that says the same thing" is not good enough. If either AI or UI trumps the other, it's "UI trumps AI" not "AI trumps UI".

 

In answer to nate's question about LAs, I think the LAs for West in the given auction are 5♥ ("unauthorized panic") and pass ("oh, crap, we're going down"), and possibly 5♣ (cooperating with East's 4♠ "slam try" in hearts). That last is highly unlikely though. So it seems West should pass. Note that West, if he's in receipt of UI (case 1 above) is not allowed to use the UI to "wake up" ("oh, I forgot, we're playing Texas").

[nate_m]

In answer to nate's question about LAs, I think the LAs for West in the given auction are 5♥ ("unauthorized panic") and pass ("oh, crap, we're going down"), and possibly 5♣ (cooperating with East's 4♠ "slam try" in hearts). That last is highly unlikely though. So it seems West should pass. Note that West, if he's in receipt of UI (case 1 above) is not allowed to use the UI to "wake up" ("oh, I forgot, we're playing Texas").

 

I am SOOO confused over here. You think West should PASS 4♠??? That's your logical alternative? Is West supposed to play partner to have overcalled 2NT on 7 solid spades? The OP implied that the players in question were competent. Is West allowed to credit his partner to have something resembling a 2N bid? The standard for LAs is typically that a significant number of a peers would seriously consider the call and some would actually make it... I cannot accept that passing 4♠ with the West hand after pard bid 2N is an action a competent player would take. (Some might pass because they think that pard's alert requires they commit seppuku, but the presence of UI determines how you select between LAs, not what actions are LAs.)

 

The idea that we should force some kinda cooperation in a slam hunt on West is also pretty strange (and it seems you agree, though why it is not also "highly unlikely" for a partner who bypassed spades to bid 2N to try to play in them at the 4 level over a signoff is somewhat strange to me) because 4♥ if natural is an absolute signoff. I would not list 5♣ as a logical alternative...

 

I also (strongly) disagree with the idea that 5♥ is based purely on "unauthorized panic." Yes, West has UI that partner thinks they have spades. They also have authorized information that partner thinks the same because partner has just made an impossible bid. This authorized information makes it so there is no logical alternative to 5♥ hoping to correct the misunderstanding/place the contract in a reasonable spot. I don't consider myself in any way an expert on the laws, but what you are describing as logical alternatives in this case seem totally absurd to me... This type of forgotten transfer case happens a fair bit and the NABC casebooks are littered with decisions in which partners were allowed to "wake up" when partner makes an absurd sounding bid. In a lot of those cases "completing the transfer" was merely strange and suggested a misunderstanding, in this case the 4♠ bid is completely impossible. I listed one such case in my previous post and I'm certain there are a lot more out there. If a player with UI can never wake up to a misunderstanding, no matter how mind-blowingly obvious the authorized information makes it, why are top level AC's ruling that they can? Why are those who write commentary on the casebooks applauding their rulings? Why is somebody who consistently serves on top level AC's writing that if UI duplicates AI, there should be no adjustment?

[blackshoe]

I read the words of the laws and try to understand what they say and rule accordingly. This process is complicated by two things: sometimes the words are unclear, and sometimes (or so I'm told) they do not in fact mean what they say. The phrase "logical alternative" doesn't mean that. Instead it means something like "plausible alternative for the class of player involved". I don't particularly think this is a good idea, particularly when the lawmakers have had at least one opportunity to conclude they didn't mean what they said and to change it so it says what they do mean. Unfortunately, nobody on the various LCs really cares what I think. So we have what we have. That may or may not directly impact this discussion — I'm just trying to show where I'm coming from.

 

Partner just made an impossible bid. Okay, fair enough. Why is there no possible inference from this impossible bid other than that he thinks we have spades? Isn't it possible that we reach that conclusion because he announced 4♥ as a transfer? Suppose there had been no announcement. What then would we conclude 4♠ means? I know a lot of players who would say "damned if I know" — and if asked what they're going to do now they'd say the same thing.

 

I can't answer all your questions, but i'd guess the answer to the last one is "because he doesn't like the law as written and wants to see it changed," which is quite different from "this is what the law says now".

 

If there is no LA to 5♥ then of course West can bid that. If there's an LA he probably can't. You say there's no LA, but I'm not convinced. Not yet, anyway.

[nate_m]

I read the words of the laws and try to understand what they say and rule accordingly. This process is complicated by two things: sometimes the words are unclear, and sometimes (or so I'm told) they do not in fact mean what they say. The phrase "logical alternative" doesn't mean that. Instead it means something like "plausible alternative for the class of player involved". I don't particularly think this is a good idea, particularly when the lawmakers have had at least one opportunity to conclude they didn't mean what they said and to change it so it says what they do mean. Unfortunately, nobody on the various LCs really cares what I think. So we have what we have. That may or may not directly impact this discussion — I'm just trying to show where I'm coming from.

 

Partner just made an impossible bid. Okay, fair enough. Why is there no possible inference from this impossible bid other than that he thinks we have spades? Isn't it possible that we reach that conclusion because he announced 4♥ as a transfer? Suppose there had been no announcement. What then would we conclude 4♠ means? I know a lot of players who would say "damned if I know" — and if asked what they're going to do now they'd say the same thing.

 

I can't answer all your questions, but i'd guess the answer to the last one is "because he doesn't like the law as written and wants to see it changed," which is quite different from "this is what the law says now".

 

If there is no LA to 5♥ then of course West can bid that. If there's an LA he probably can't. You say there's no LA, but I'm not convinced. Not yet, anyway.

 

I guess that's where we differ. You might know a lot of players who'd say "damned if I know." If I showed this auction to any "competent" bridge player I know, at least those who are familiar with methods in common use in the U.S., they say that partner thought it was Texas. We can theorize all we want, but in practice when you sign off over pard's NT bid, and pard bids the next suit up, they thought it was a transfer almost 100% of the time. Suppose there is no announcement... I'd still be willing to lay heavy odds partner thought it was Texas and forgot to announce.

 

On the general laws question, my view FWIW is that the laws do not explicitly state the exact procedure one should follow when both UI and AI are present. Some infer that this means presence of AI which duplicates UI should not have any material affect. Some disagree... My view is that in practice a lot of AC's seem to think UI that adds no unique information does not call for adjustment. While AC rulings are hardly the same thing as a court precedent, and AC rulings can often be inconsistent, the "UI with xfer misunderstandings" case has been hashed out to death, with ACs often ruling that when partner comes up with an impossible bid you can wake up to find the wheels have come off. So even though the text of the laws are silent, it makes sense to continue to make rulings consistent with that precedent.

[blackshoe]

On the general laws question, my view FWIW is that the laws do not explicitly state the exact procedure one should follow when both UI and AI are present.

The laws say that when you have UI you may not choose from among LAs one which demonstrably could be suggested by the UI. If people (including those on ACs) want to interpret this as saying something other than what it says, that's up to them. But it says what it says, not what they would like it to say.