Logical alternatives after Texas Transfer

[GreenMan]

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.

 

And partner's explanations etc. are UI, so if partner correctly explains or announces our bid, we now have UI that partner understands our action and, since his future actions will be based upon that understanding, we are thus constrained from certain logical actions of our own (since UI overrides all other information). Do I have that right?

[blackshoe]

An expected announcement or alert does not convey UI. See Law 16B1{a}.

 

This is perhaps an area where the law is flawed, and "custom and practice" come into play. We do not rule that partner's correct explanations are UI unless they appear to be unexpected. For example, the instant case, where responder apparently forgot that he'd agreed to play Texas Transfers. If he had spades and a heart void, instead of hearts and a spade void, then the correct explanation of his 4♥ as a transfer would convey no UI.

[nate_m]

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.

 

The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution begins "Congress shall make no law..." and yet you can get in trouble for shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Somebody who did so might reasonably argue that the Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law..." it does not say "Congress shall make no law... save for those that constrain speech to be in a reasonable time, place, and manner." They might argue that it "says what it says, not what the Court wants it to say." Those arguments would not be well received because laws often do not enumerate each and every situation in which there can arise exceptions to a general principle. Laws also often have room for interpretation. The fact that the laws direct players to not choose among LAs one which has been demonstrably suggested by UI does not conclusively demonstrate that the lawmakers have conclusively resolved the UI vs. AI issue.

 

In any case, I don't think this theoretical laws question arises in this case, because I don't think there is a LA to 5♥. You previously mentioned that Pass and 5♣ would be LAs for West, and you said that probably it is right to enforce a Pass on West. I argued that neither were LAs and that partner's failure to pass 4♥ is on-face evidence that we have a bidding misunderstanding. As far as I saw it, passing 4♠ requires you to believe partner has overcalled 2NT on 7 solid spades, which seems unreasonable. Regardless of your opinion of AI duplicating UI, why do you believe passing 4♠ to be a logical alternative for West?

[OleBerg]

 

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 :)

 

I agree (a little) with the top-directors. The thought experiment you should make, would be more like: "What if we played with screens, and the sled comes through with a 4♠ bid. What do you do then?"

 

In the actual circumstance, this experiment would lead me to believe, that there where no logical alternatives to 5♥

 

Best Regards

 

Ole Berg

[GreenMan]

An expected announcement or alert does not convey UI. See Law 16B1{a}.

 

This is perhaps an area where the law is flawed, and "custom and practice" come into play. We do not rule that partner's correct explanations are UI unless they appear to be unexpected. For example, the instant case, where responder apparently forgot that he'd agreed to play Texas Transfers. If he had spades and a heart void, instead of hearts and a spade void, then the correct explanation of his 4♥ as a transfer would convey no UI.

 

Thanks.

[blackshoe]

The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution begins "Congress shall make no law..." and yet you can get in trouble for shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Somebody who did so might reasonably argue that the Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law..." it does not say "Congress shall make no law... save for those that constrain speech to be in a reasonable time, place, and manner." They might argue that it "says what it says, not what the Court wants it to say." Those arguments would not be well received because laws often do not enumerate each and every situation in which there can arise exceptions to a general principle. Laws also often have room for interpretation. The fact that the laws direct players to not choose among LAs one which has been demonstrably suggested by UI does not conclusively demonstrate that the lawmakers have conclusively resolved the UI vs. AI issue.

 

In any case, I don't think this theoretical laws question arises in this case, because I don't think there is a LA to 5♥. You previously mentioned that Pass and 5♣ would be LAs for West, and you said that probably it is right to enforce a Pass on West. I argued that neither were LAs and that partner's failure to pass 4♥ is on-face evidence that we have a bidding misunderstanding. As far as I saw it, passing 4♠ requires you to believe partner has overcalled 2NT on 7 solid spades, which seems unreasonable. Regardless of your opinion of AI duplicating UI, why do you believe passing 4♠ to be a logical alternative for West?

Comparing the rules of a game to the laws of a country is a waste of time.

 

The answer to your question is that I know several players who I think would pass 4♠. But the real key to the question is to poll the peers of the player who has the UI (but without giving them the UI). As I've already said at least twice, if there is no LA to 5♥ then bidding it is not an infraction of the rules.

[nige1]

Comparing the rules of a game to the laws of a country is a waste of time.

I agree with Mollo that Bridge is a microcosm with lessons both ways. IMO, the rules of a game need not be "fair" in outside-world terms but they should result in consistent rulings, as far as possible. The Bridge-Law obsession with the restoration of "Equity" seem to vitiate meaningful deterrence. Also, Civil-law seems to have many analogies with Bridge-law.

[Vampyr]

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.

 

I do not think that there is any chance of this; do you?

 

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

 

In other words, the Lawbook.