UI: the general approach

[bluejak]

Suppose partner considers deeply and passes over 4♥. It is obvious he is thinking of doubling for penalties. You have a choice between three LAs, double, clearly suggested by the UI, 4♠ and pass. You do not expect to make 4♠ but it will be a good save, if 4♥ makes. You pass.

 

Since 4♥ is going off pass was more successful than 4♠. Obviously double is best but will be ruled back by the TDs.

 

Do the TDs take any action?

 

I was struck by another thread and the question "What is suggested by the UI?" Here, the answer is clearly double, which was not chosen.

[billw55]

I sometimes wonder about this. Does "suggested" mean 1. suggested over all other LAs, or 2. suggested over one or more specific LAs? In your given case, double is clearly suggested. Whereas, pass is suggested only in preference to 4♠. I have never understood whether that makes pass acceptable or not.

[gordontd]

I sometimes wonder about this. Does "suggested" mean 1. suggested over all other LAs, or 2. suggested over one or more specific LAs? In your given case, double is clearly suggested. Whereas, pass is suggested only in preference to 4♠. I have never understood whether that makes pass acceptable or not.

The wording of the law is:

 

may not choose from among logical alternatives one that

could demonstrably have been suggested over another

which I think tells us to use your second meaning.

[MrAce]

I am not sure if this is a competitive auction, where one side has spades and the other one has hearts, and one of the players hesitated over 4♥ OR one side opened 4♥ and pd hesitated over this, when I hold some spades....

 

I guess it must be the former, because I do not think there is really not too many people left who plays penalty doubles over a 4♥ opening.

If it was a competitive auction, I have no idea why OP thinks it is obvious that hesitation suggests double for penalties and not suggests bidding 4♠ over 4♥.

[Trinidad]

Suppose partner considers deeply and passes over 4♥. It is obvious he is thinking of doubling for penalties.

It rarely is, but let's suppose -for the sake of argument- that it is obvious he is thinking of doubling.

You have a choice between three LAs, double, clearly suggested by the UI, 4♠ and pass. You do not expect to make 4♠ but it will be a good save, if 4♥ makes. You pass.

As Gordon pointed out, according to the UI laws, you are supposed to bid 4♠, since the UI suggests pass over 4♠.

 

I would estimate that, in practice, most players would get away with this, since their opponents do not understand the UI laws and won't call the TD.

 

Since 4♥ is going off pass was more successful than 4♠.

Since you are an experienced TD, this sentence only comes in this stage of your post.

 

In practice, however, this is often the starting point:

• 
   
  
• Pass is more successful than 4♠.
  
• There was UI.
  
• The UI must have suggested the more successful action (pass in this case). ("What else could it suggest?")
  
• The less successful alternative must be an LA.
  
• Adjust the score and give a stern warning.
   
  

 

In practice, the people involved (players at the table, TD) often have great difficulty in looking at the hand that had the UI in isolation, since they already know the result.

 

Do the TDs take any action?

Usually not, since they won't get called...

 

But if they are called, yes, they adjust to 4♠ (possibly doubled).

I was struck by another thread and the question "What is suggested by the UI?"

Wrong question. The right question is: "What is least suggested by the UI?".

 

______________________________________________________

 

Many cases are slightly different and more like this:

Partner thinks and passes over 4♥. Your LAs are pass, double and 4♠. You do not know what the UI means. Either partner wanted to double for penalties, or he wanted to compete.

 

The UI suggests to double: It will be winning when partner wanted to bid one more, since he will do that now. It will also be winning when he was thinking of doubling, since he will pass the double.

 

The UI does not suggest to pass or to bid 4♠. Those actions will put all eggs in one basket and they will fail half of the time. So, both pass and 4♠ are allowed.

 

The problem, however, when one chooses any of these LAs, and it turns out to be successful, the opponents (and often the TD) will conclude that the UI must somehow have suggested your action.

 

This means that in practice as a player in a situation like that I typically pass. The probability that the opponents think that UI suggests action is higher than for the opponents thinking that it suggested a pass.

 

Rik

[jallerton]

I was struck by another thread and the question "What is suggested by the UI?"

 

Wrong question. The right question is: "What is least suggested by the UI?".

 

Closer, but still the wrong question! The right question is, "Which logical alternative is least suggested by the UI?"

[bluejak]

I am not sure if this is a competitive auction, where one side has spades and the other one has hearts, and one of the players hesitated over 4♥ OR one side opened 4♥ and pd hesitated over this, when I hold some spades....

 

I guess it must be the former, because I do not think there is really not too many people left who plays penalty doubles over a 4♥ opening.

If it was a competitive auction, I have no idea why OP thinks it is obvious that hesitation suggests double for penalties and not suggests bidding 4♠ over 4♥.

I ask a legal question, with an invented auction, and as usual people argue over what actually happened. Why? Does it help?

 

Please either answer the question given, or don't.

 

Do the TDs take any action?

Usually not, since they won't get called...

 

But if they are called, yes, they adjust to 4♠ (possibly doubled).

Do I really have to say "if they get called" every time? Of course they will not take action if they do not hear about it !!!!!!!

 

I was struck by another thread and the question "What is suggested by the UI?"

Wrong question. The right question is: "What is least suggested by the UI?".

Excuse me, it is the right question: I quoted a question from another thread, and if you go and look, that was the question asked.

[MrAce]

I ask a legal question, with an invented auction, and as usual people argue over what actually happened. Why? Does it help?

 

Please either answer the question given, or don't.

 

 

Suppose partner considers deeply and passes over 4♥. It is obvious he is thinking of doubling for penalties.....

 

I did not understand this part. Looking at your reaction, I am guessing, you meant to say "lets assume it is obvious he is thinking of doubling for penalties..." while I thought you assumed hesitation suggests a double regardless of the auction.

 

Since I did not know which other topic this one is related to, I could not even understand what Rik meant when he said "What else could it suggest?" If it was that obvious what hesitation suggests, then I would try to answer your question accordingly of course.

 

I'd probably correct the score to 4♠ but I would not give any warning tbh. I am a player and I know from the first hand that we players are thinking way too many other things during a session. Your example incident is very rare, and I can not expect players to fully focus on this type of rare and complex situations when they have a lot of other things that their mind is focused on. It will not be realistic to expect this from players imo/

[aguahombre]

Closer, but still the wrong question! The right question is, "Which logical alternative is least suggested by the UI?"

I thought I could read. Apparently I can't. What I read is paraphrased below/compiled from the laws as written and the interpretations I have seen.

 

1) An action is chosen. Otherwise there is nothing to talk about. If you just ask what the L.A.'s are, the question would be: "Alternatives to what?"

2) Does the action chosen have one or more logical alternatives?

3) If there are logical alternative(S), then among the action chosen and the L.A.'s, could the action chosen have been suggested by UI over another L.A.?

4) The action taken doesn't have to be logical; it just has to have a logical alternative.

"Least", "most", "more", etc. are moot.

[blackshoe]

The law says that a player "may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another" by UI. The means that if the alternative chosen could not have been suggested over another by UI, there has been no infraction, even if the "offenders" get a good result. It also means that if the alternative chosen was not logical, there has been no infraction, although I've been told (by Grattan Endicott, as I recall) that whatever call an "offender" chooses is a "logical alternative" for him. That may be what the lawmakers want, but it's not what the law actually says.

 

I gather that in David's scenario pass is not suggested over either of the other logical alternatives by the UI. In such a case, as the law is written, the TD should allow the score to stand, even when the putative offenders get a good score.

[RSliwinski]

The law says that a player "may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another" by UI. The means that if the alternative chosen could not have been suggested over another by UI, there has been no infraction, even if the "offenders" get a good result. It also means that if the alternative chosen was not logical, there has been no infraction, although I've been told (by Grattan Endicott, as I recall) that whatever call an "offender" chooses is a "logical alternative" for him. That may be what the lawmakers want, but it's not what the law actually says.

 

I gather that in David's scenario pass is not suggested over either of the other logical alternatives by the UI. In such a case, as the law is written, the TD should allow the score to stand, even when the putative offenders get a good score.

Well, it is not in the law book but it is in the Minutes of the Law Committtee. See Philadelphia, October 8, 2010 , item 3.

[campboy]

It also means that if the alternative chosen was not logical, there has been no infraction, although I've been told (by Grattan Endicott, as I recall) that whatever call an "offender" chooses is a "logical alternative" for him. That may be what the lawmakers want, but it's not what the law actually says.

It doesn't follow that there has been no infraction if a non-LA was chosen. All we can say is that the player hasn't broken law 16B. He might well have broken law 73C.

[Trinidad]

Since I did not know which other topic this one is related to,

Neither do I, but somehow it must be obvious.

I could not even understand what Rik meant when he said "What else could it suggest?"

Rik meant to say that often, after all the facts are known and a result has been obtained, everyone involved thinks it is obvious that the hesitation suggested the hand the hesitator had (to the extent that they wonder "What else could it suggest?").

 

This is in strong contrast with the situation that the partner of the hesitator is in when he needs to chose an action from the LAs. Then it is often completely unclear what the hesitation suggested.

 

Rik

[helene_t]

Why don't you all just take the assumptions stated in the OP at face value? We could also speculate about whether declarer made a SEWoG when he went down in 4♥, or if partner was silenced due to a BOOT so he must have been thinking of something else, or whether 4♠ is really a LA yadayadayada. But Bluejak asked a clear question so I think we should just answer that.

[blackshoe]

Well, it is not in the law book but it is in the Minutes of the Law Committtee. See Philadelphia, October 8, 2010 , item 3.

That link is broken.

[blackshoe]

It doesn't follow that there has been no infraction if a non-LA was chosen. All we can say is that the player hasn't broken law 16B. He might well have broken law 73C.

I meant "no infraction of Law 16B", of course. That there is no infraction of that law says nothing about any other law.

[RSliwinski]

That link is broken.

Ok, I will try again.

philadelphia_2010. See item 3.

[MrAce]

Why don't you all just take the assumptions stated in the OP at face value? We could also speculate about whether declarer made a SEWoG when he went down in 4♥, or if partner was silenced due to a BOOT so he must have been thinking of something else, or whether 4♠ is really a LA yadayadayada. But Bluejak asked a clear question so I think we should just answer that.

 

Helene, as I said above, if I understood the situation correctly I would have done what you just suggested. I honestly was confused. Probably my bad English, and Bluejak wrote clearly. But I wasn't trying to do what he thought I did.

 

Anyway, apologies to Bluejak if I sounded like different.

[barmar]

This means that in practice as a player in a situation like that I typically pass. The probability that the opponents think that UI suggests action is higher than for the opponents thinking that it suggested a pass.

 

That tends to be the source of the common admonishment to partner: "You shouldn't go into the tank and then pass, it effectively bars me." It's not technically correct, but it's often the most practical reaction.

[mycroft]

So, my problem is "assume it's obvious that partner was thinking of doubling for penalties." That implies "4♥ is going down." The consideration (as in, he didn't double) implies that *either* he wasn't sure it was going down, or he wasn't sure it was going down *enough* to pay for 4♠ (or, he was sure it was going down less than 4♠, but he wasn't sure 4♠ was making, I guess).

 

I can argue with that information that pass could be suggested over 4♠, given that with a "I'm not sure we're getting enough out of 4♥ to pay for 4♠" type tank, if I still don't think that 4♠ will make, then pass is our best chance for a positive score and therefore our best chance for a good board (we'll beat all the 4♠ bidders, after all).

 

I can argue with that information that 4♠ is suggested over pass, especially if double is "obvious" over a tank pass. Now, we know that there are going to be some -300s or -500s, and -100 or -200 just isn't going to cut it. 4♠ is now trading a bad (but shared, there will be others who let 4♥ lie) zero board for an unshared zero (usually, when 4♠ doesn't make) or a top (when 4♠ magically rolls).

 

So, I'm really not sure, given just the problem posed, if I can argue that pass is suggested over bid (at least not in a way that I can't argue that bid is similarly suggested over pass), just because double is.

[blackshoe]

Ok, I will try again.

philadelphia_2010. See item 3.

Ah, right, that one. I love it when the lawmakers don't write what they intended, and then "fix" it by redefining plain English. :(

[gnasher]

I think when we write "What is suggested?" that's just shorthand for "Which actions could demonstrably have been suggested over which other actions?" Similarly, sometimes we write "Did West take advantage" when we actually mean "Did West fail to carefully avoid taking advantage", or we say "The comment is UI" when we mean "The comment is extraneous and any information conveyed by it is UI."

 

None of these are interpretations of the Laws or descriptions of procedure. They're just a way of making conversation easier.

[blackshoe]

I think when we write "What is suggested?" that's just shorthand for "Which actions could demonstrably have been suggested over which other actions?" Similarly, sometimes we write "Did West take advantage" when we actually mean "Did West fail to carefully avoid taking advantage", or we say "The comment is UI" when we mean "The comment is extraneous and any information conveyed by it is UI."

 

None of these are interpretations of the Laws or descriptions of procedure. They're just a way of making conversation easier.

Perhaps so, but it seems to me the goal in speaking of what the laws requires should be precision, rather than ease.

[bluejak]

Perhaps so, but it seems to me the goal in speaking of what the laws requires should be precision, rather than ease.

For the sake of this forum, I think the goal should be "how should we be ruling?", nothing else.

[blackshoe]

For the sake of this forum, I think the goal should be "how should we be ruling?", nothing else.

Hm. That gives me an idea. New thread, I think. B-)