Spectacular Stop

[blackshoe]

I do have a copy of the Landau book, and played (effectively) the Landau book two weeks ago Wednesday.

[snip]

I'm not sure what to make of this, Mycroft. You seem to be disagreeing with me, but your post doesn't help me understand why, or why I am (if I am) wrong in Law.

[blackshoe]

I think you are contradicting yourself here...

 

But yes, this is the issue, that North took deliberate advantage of the UI.

I think it's rather that he did not make every (or perhaps any) effort to avoid taking advantage of it.

 

If you think his taking advantage was deliberate, show us, via the evidence, that he knew he was violating the law. Not that he did violate the law, that proves nothing about this question, but that he knew he was doing it.

[ArtK78]

I think you are contradicting yourself here...

 

But yes, this is the issue, that North took deliberate advantage of the UI.

Pardon me for considering this question as a laywer, but there is a distinction between unethical conduct and cheating in bridge. I am not going to go so far as to say that the disinction is something that "I know it when I see it," but it is close to that.

 

Cheating is usually reserved for conduct that is beyond the pale, such as an agreement by partners to send, receive and use illegal signals. In a sense, this is a matter of degree, as such signals are also "unauthorized information." However, it is the agreement of the partners to TRANSMIT, RECEIVE and USE such signals and their subsequent conduct in following through on that agreement that constitutes cheating. Most unauthorized information situations, such as the one discussed in this thread, are transmitted without prior discussion and by inadvertance rather than through a preconceived scheme. Furthermore, the interpretation of the unauthorized information "transmitted," by a hesitation or other inadvertant action or remark, is not always clear, as is clearly the case in this thread. Still, the use of unauthorized information in order to gain an advantage is unethical conduct. It is not cheating (IMHO).

[Vampyr]

Pardon me for considering this question as a laywer, but there is a distinction between unethical conduct and cheating in bridge. I am not going to go so far as to say that the disinction is something that "I know it when I see it," but it is close to that.

 

Cheating is usually reserved for conduct that is beyond the pale, such as an agreement by partners to send, receive and use illegal signals. In a sense, this is a matter of degree, as such signals are also "unauthorized information." However, it is the agreement of the partners to TRANSMIT, RECEIVE and USE such signals and their subsequent conduct in following through on that agreement that constitutes cheating. Most unauthorized information situations, such as the one discussed in this thread, are transmitted without prior discussion and by inadvertance rather than through a preconceived scheme. Furthermore, the interpretation of the unauthorized information "transmitted," by a hesitation or other inadvertant action or remark, is not always clear, as is clearly the case in this thread. Still, the use of unauthorized information in order to gain an advantage is unethical conduct. It is not cheating (IMHO).

 

So you believe that it is cheating only if there is a prior arrangement between partners? I disagree.

[mycroft]

I'm not sure I am disagreeing with you (yet again), Blackshoe.

 

I'm not sure I can make a L16 case when (unless they aren't playing EHAA by The Book) passing 2NT with this hand is either a psychic pass or catering to a psychic partner, just like you.

 

I understand the intent of the construction is to give a "we know the slow 2NT shows a non-2NT hand, but is it: understrength (like a 15?); overstrength (like a good 19 that has chosen to duck a point in case North pushed); or really off-shape (5=1=4=3 17?) And does that mean we're off the hook if we "guess right"? It's just that this particular construction hits a different question - "your bid is insane, no matter what the I; is it legal, in the presence of UI, even 'undecidable UI', to be illogical?"

 

Which, again, is an interesting question. The fact that it's a highly unusual system, so that the "not quite a 2NT" calls are unique in the room, doesn't really mean anything, I don't think.

 

I, again, agree with you that it's a clear L73C case, and I don't even have to demonstrate what the UI suggests; without the slow 2NT the only options are 3NT or look for 4♥ on the way to 3NT; barring "I didn't see the ♣K" or the like, passing 2NT with this hand doesn't come even close to "carefully avoiding using the UI". It's blatant enough that I think we need to bring it out of just the table and a ruling; what that is I don't know.

 

I guess the other thing I would take is "every time she hesitates and I bid, I'm told I have to pass." Unfortunately, the state of Law education, and the manner in which many people educate their opponents around here might convince me that he actually thought that. In the case of the OP, of course, that doesn't apply.

[Vampyr]

I think it's rather that he did not make every (or perhaps any) effort to avoid taking advantage of it.

 

If you think his taking advantage was deliberate, show us, via the evidence, that he knew he was violating the law. Not that he did violate the law, that proves nothing about this question, but that he knew he was doing it.

 

His action was so odd it had to have been based on something other than the legal auction.

[Cthulhu D]

Isn't this linked to the other thread where it's deemed a hesitation shows a heavy invite? If the SB is correct and the hesitation can show partner is stretching, surely the other thread (where the hesitation showed heaviness).

 

I really do not understand the laws re: logical alternatives at all I have realized.

[lamford]

Isn't this linked to the other thread where it's deemed a hesitation shows a heavy invite? If the SB is correct and the hesitation can show partner is stretching, surely the other thread (where the hesitation showed heaviness).

 

I really do not understand the laws re: logical alternatives at all I have realized.

No, it was just a coincidence that a hand occurred two days after my standing (should that be sitting?) on an AC, where the UI might suggest the opposite. I don't fully understand the Laws on logical alternatives either, and I discovered a year ago that Law 75 contradicts and takes priority over Law 16B, in that the actual methods of the partnership are not relevant, as what the person with UI thinks they are takes priority.

 

Some, including campboy, think that a call is demonstrably suggested if it is more likely to be successful with the UI than without it, even if that percentage goes up from 0% to 0.1%. If this is the case, I am far from convinced that Pass on the North hand breaches any Laws. Playing EHAA, partner is far, far more likely to be heavy than light, and a slow 2NT actually suggests that he is heavy. 3NT is the obvious bid, and is, if anything, more obvious after a slow 2NT. So, bidding game is demonstrably suggested, as I would guess it has gone up from 90% to 95% owing to the UI, but Pass is not a logical alternative on this chunky nine-count, so we would not adjust if North chose 3NT. We clearly should not adjust if North chooses Pass, a call that is abysmal, but not demonstrably suggested. Law 40A3 allows any player to make any call he wants provides it is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding, and North is therefore allowed to Pass, and I think Trinidad is absolutely correct, and SB and others are wrong.

[Cthulhu D]

By linked, I meant conceptually, in that in both partner makes an invitation very slowly. Given partner takes the same action both times, isn't the suggested action both times to bid.

[lamford]

By linked, I meant conceptually, in that in both partner makes an invitation very slowly. Given partner takes the same action both times, isn't the suggested action both times to bid.

That depends on the form of scoring and what the auction has told both sides to date. I agree, however, that a slow invite probably suggests extra values, certainly at teams.

[nige1]

The difficult thing about this case is that the actual reason for the hesitation is the exact opposite of the reason that would suggest passing. If North knew that South was actually heavy for his bid, he would bid 3NT eagerly. It's just really bad luck that they can't make 3NT with 28 HCP. That's what makes it difficult to believe that North is "taking advantage" of the UI -- how can you be taking advantage of an inference if your inference is wrong?

IMO when judging whether North chose an action suggested by UI,

• South's actual hand is irrelevant.
• Also irrelevant is if it transpires that apparently suggestive UI was, in fact, spurious, For example, South was watching some cows fly by, rather than deciding what to call.

.

[lamford]

So, North knows that South will be careful about taking a second call such as 2NT with marginal values.

Exactly. Therefore South is much more likely to be heavy for a slow 2NT than light when he invites slowly. This makes 3NT demonstrably suggested. Fortunately every man and his dog seem to agree that there is no LA to 3NT.

[campboy]

Some, including campboy, think that a call is demonstrably suggested if it is more likely to be successful with the UI than without it, even if that percentage goes up from 0% to 0.1%. If this is the case, I am far from convinced that Pass on the North hand breaches any Laws. Playing EHAA, partner is far, far more likely to be heavy than light, and a slow 2NT actually suggests that he is heavy. 3NT is the obvious bid, and is, if anything, more obvious after a slow 2NT. So, bidding game is demonstrably suggested, as I think it has gone up from 90% to 95% from the UI, but Pass is not a logical alternative on this chunky nine-count, so we would not adjust if North chose 3NT. We clearly should not adjust if North chooses Pass, a call that is abysmal, but not demonstrably suggested. Law 40A3 allows any player to make any call he wants provides it is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding, and North is therefore allowed to Pass, and I think Trinidad is absolutely correct, and SB and others are wrong.

I don't think such a small change is likely to be "demonstrably suggested". But yes, I believe that "A is suggested over B by UI" when the UI increases the attractiveness of A, and decreases that of B, even if B is still more attractive than A.

 

If I agreed with your judgement (that bidding game has gone from 90% to 95%) I would certainly also agree with your conclusion. But as I said upthread, my judgement is that actually the chance of game going off has gone up significantly -- unless partner has a minimum, game should be very good, and the UI tells you he is more likely to hold a minimum. Yes, he is also more likely to hold a maximum, but I would guess that the chance of game making opposite a normal hand is already very high, and therefore won't change much between "normal" and "maximum". I also don't think it is true that partner is more likely to be heavy than light -- 15-counts are much much more common than 19-counts, after all. But I admit that I have no real knowledge of EHAA.

[campboy]

His action was so odd it had to have been based on something other than the legal auction.

Perhaps, but that on its own isn't enough. Did he pass because he thought the BIT made it more attractive? Or did he pass because he thought the BIT made it less attractive, and he was trying too hard to be ethical?

[WellSpyder]

IMO when judging whether North chose an action suggested by UI,

• South's actual hand is irrelevant.
• Also irrelevant is if it transpires that apparently suggestive UI was, in fact, spurious

.

Is this a generally held view? I seem to recall we have discussed this before, but I don't recall the conclusion, if any. It is surely at least arguable that it cannot be the UI that suggests a course of action if it isn't actually correct information.

[lamford]

It is surely at least arguable that it cannot be the UI that suggests a course of action if it isn't actually correct information.

The UI is the BIT and what it suggests. In this example, North wrongly, and rather stupidly, concluded that South was stretching. However, the UI from the speed of the 2NT bid, combined with the NS system, is that South was probably considering bidding game rather than passing. What North thought is largely irrelevant. What his peers playing the same system would think is used to determine whether we adjust.

[lamford]

Did he pass because he thought the BIT made it more attractive?

He may well have done, but if his peers playing the same system think the BIT makes pass less attractive, then North has complied with 16B. And I think if you comply with 16B, you also comply with 73C. I think RMB1 once said that 73C is largely irrelevant as the test of whether you are taking any advantage is 16B.

[Vampyr]

Is this a generally held view? I seem to recall we have discussed this before, but I don't recall the conclusion, if any. It is surely at least arguable that it cannot be the UI that suggests a course of action if it isn't actually correct information.

 

I don't remember either what the conclusion was when a player deliberately tried to take advantage of UI but got it wrong. Of course this is cheating, but the adjustment is less clear.

[WellSpyder]

The UI is the BIT and what it suggests. In this example, North wrongly, and rather stupidly, concluded that South was stretching. However, the UI from the speed of the 2NT bid, combined with the NS system, is that South was probably considering bidding game rather than passing. What North thought is largely irrelevant. What his peers playing the same system would think is used to determine whether we adjust.

I wasn't raising the question of what North thought relative to what his peers would think was suggested, but rather the question of what South actually had relative to what North's peers would think was suggested.

[lamford]

If I agreed with your judgement (that bidding game has gone from 90% to 95%) I would certainly also agree with your conclusion. But as I said upthread, my judgement is that actually the chance of game going off has gone up significantly -- unless partner has a minimum, game should be very good, and the UI tells you he is more likely to hold a minimum. Yes, he is also more likely to hold a maximum, but I would guess that the chance of game making opposite a normal hand is already very high, and therefore won't change much between "normal" and "maximum". I also don't think it is true that partner is more likely to be heavy than light -- 15-counts are much much more common than 19-counts, after all. But I admit that I have no real knowledge of EHAA.

The one factor that we cannot for certain estimate is the chance of this particular South having a minimum. However, we can look at some simulations before we make a decision. For each possible point count for South, using the same North hand, we have the following (on 1000 deals): 15 3NT 60.3% 16 83.2% 17 92.3% 18 98.5% 19 3NT 99.3%. For 16-18, a normal invite, it is 88.6%. So you are correct, of course, that the low end will always be less than the middle and the high end will always be more than middle. Queen Anne is dead. I submit that for Pass to be demonstrably suggested, it would have to BOTH be more likely to be successful than 3NT as a result of the UI, AND have a (deemed) expectancy of >50% or >0 IMPs whichever is applicable in the form of scoring. Here that is not the case, as even opposite a sub-minimum invite game is clear favourite and most Norths should be able to judge that. The chief aim of the game is to score better than your opponents or other people, so it cannot be demonstrably suggested to make a call with a negative expectancy even if that negative expectancy is better than it would have been without the UI.

[lamford]

I don't remember either what the conclusion was when a player deliberately tried to take advantage of UI but got it wrong. Of course this is cheating, but the adjustment is less clear.

I wondered what the ruling would have been if the (mythical) person on another thread who sneaked into the (mythical) director's room and printed out the hands for the next session and memorised them had printed out the wrong hands. The information then transpired to be of no use. The Laws do not seem to punish failed attempts to cheat.

[campboy]

So you are correct, of course, that the low end will always be less than the middle and the high end will always be more than middle. Queen Anne is dead.

My point was that the high end will be significantly closer to the middle than the low end is. Your figures bear this out. Consequently, the chance of game making is lower opposite a random 15-or-19-count than it is opposite a normal invitation.

[blackshoe]

Is this a generally held view? I seem to recall we have discussed this before, but I don't recall the conclusion, if any. It is surely at least arguable that it cannot be the UI that suggests a course of action if it isn't actually correct information.

The law asks us to determine what information the player had, and what that information demonstrably could suggest. It does not ask us to determine the validity (truth or falsehood) of the information.

[jallerton]

Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner

 

When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information.

 

Law 73C is a "must" Law. The definitions within the introduction to the Laws imply that "must" Laws takes precedence over "may" and "is allowed to" Laws/footnotes.

 

He may well have done, but if his peers playing the same system think the BIT makes pass less attractive, then North has complied with 16B. And I think if you comply with 16B, you also comply with 73C. I think RMB1 once said that 73C is largely irrelevant as the test of whether you are taking any advantage is 16B.

 

If you really think that (you never used to do so) then you are wrong. Laws 16B and 73C say different things. Often complying with one of them will help to comply with the other, but not necessarily. Atempting to gain an advantage by making a call that would never occurred to you had you not received UI is clearly not "carefully avoiding taking any advantage" from that UI and is an obvious breach of Law 73C. If 16B has not been breached, the TD can use Law 12A1 to adjust for a breach of this Law.

[lamford]

Law 73C is a "must" Law. The definitions within the introduction to the Laws imply that "must" Laws takes precedence over "may" and "is allowed to" Laws/footnotes.

I think Richard Hills referred to a different WBFLC minute that a more specific Law takes priority over a general Law. Law 75 takes priority over Law 16B apparently even though it contradicts it! Law 16B is more specific than 73C so that if one complies with 16B but breaks 73C the former is the Law by which one is judged in UI cases. And RMB1 expressed the opinion (I cannot find the thread now) that 73C was left in by accident when 16B came in. All TDs follow 16B, both in polling and ruling.

 

And the WBFLC have decreed that you are allowed to breach 73C when partner's alert or announcement indicates that you have made a mechanical error. So much for the "must" in 73C. And the "may not" in 16B is pretty strong: "Again, “must not” is the strongest prohibition,“shall not” is strong but “may not” is stronger – just short of “must not”."

 

Finally 73C has the word "advantage". Every definition of that word I can find on the Internet is associated with "benefit" or "gain". I see no benefit or gain in passing 2NT on this hand, so there is no breach of 73C.