No LA?

[nige1]

[hv=pc=&w=sj63hjt86dj2c9754&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1sp2hp3cp3d(4SF)p3nppp]199|300|

SBU. Match-pointed pairs. National final.

NS play Acol, weak notrump and 4 card majors.

As West what do you lead to South's 3N?[/hv]

 

[hv=pc=&w=sj63hjt86dj2c9754&n=sk2haq742dq93cj62&e=sa85hk93dat865ct3&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1sp2hp3cp3d(4SF)p3nppp]399|300| North won the opening ♦J lead with ♦K. He lost the ♠ finesse to West's ♠J, finishing 3-down. As you may have suspected, West was in possession of UI. NS called the director to tell him that, before the opening lead, East asked if the (alerted) 3♦ bid was fourth-suit forcing).

The director judged no logical alternative to the ♦J lead. He ruled result stands. He asked NS if they wanted to appeal. They did.

West told the appeals committee that East asked about the ♦ bid, before his final pass but West had already decided to lead the ♦J, before the question. West ignored UI and always made the lead that he would have made without it.

The point was made that the question was AI to Declarer, and he might use it to cover ♦J with dummy's ♦Q. Also he might have finessed ♠ the other way.

The committee judged that, at a lower level, a player might consider a ♥ lead but that could be fatal if declarer had ♥Kx. For a player of West's expertise, there was no LA to ♦J lead, although the lead might have been even clearer had East doubled 3♦. Result stands.

Comments please. There was no poll. Deep finesse shows that 4N can be made on any lead and 3 (of 7) NSs made 3N+1, for a shared top. 3N-3 was a bottom.[/hv]

[aguahombre]

PP to East, who could have asked without a problem routinely when 3D was bid and alerted; but, he waited to ask before his final pass (although legal, unnecessary for any reason at that point other than to show Diamond interest.

 

The TD has made his ruling about no LA to Diamond Jack lead; although I disagree from way over here, he is there and the result should stand --- real matchpoint PP to E/W is fully justified.

[paulg]

PP to East, who could have asked without a problem routinely when 3D was bid and alerted; but, he waited to ask before his final pass (although legal, unnecessary for any reason at that point other than to show Diamond interest.

Much as I'd love to give a PP to East, I'm unclear what law has been broken.

 

I could not see a logical alternative to the diamond lead with no entries to the hand.

[Trinidad]

I agree with Paulg. There is no alternative to a diamond lead, no law has been broken.

 

But I think the TD could advice East that the timing of his question was pretty clumsy. He could also advice West that "doing (with the UI) what you were always going to do (without the UI)" is not what the laws require of you: When there are LAs, you need to do the opposite of what the UI suggests.

 

Rik

[paulg]

There was no poll.

Although this was a national final it is slightly misleading because readers may assume that it consists of experienced and regular tournament players. I only recognise nine regular players of twenty-eight, so limited ability to both run an appeals committee and a poll (especially as your pair cannot participate and the opponents cannot participate, and some of the others should never be asked for an opinion if you want a sensible answer!).

[lamford]

No adjustment, although I agree partner's failure to double 3D might give an LA on a different hand. On this hand the alternative leads are horrible. PP to South for breach of 74B1 in the play. :)

[aguahombre]

Much as I'd love to give a PP to East, I'm unclear what law has been broken.

 

Law 73

B. Inappropriate Communication between Partners

1. Partners shall not communicate by..... questions asked or not asked of the opponents

 

This seems to establish that East's question at that particular time and manner was an inappropriate communication -- thus breaking a law.

 

Law 90

A. Director’s Authority

The Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these Laws, may also assess procedural penalties for any offence that violates correct procedure...

 

So, in addition to the rectification (none because there was no LA), a PP may be assessed. In accordance with L23, the TD determines that East could have been aware when breaking L90B1 that his violation might well damage the opponents. East could not know whether his partner had a logical alternative to a Diamond lead.

[blackshoe]

You are ruling on the basis that East's intent was to suggest to his partner lead a diamond. East will deny this of course. Does the preponderance of evidence suggest that the denial is BS?

[aguahombre]

You are ruling on the basis that East's intent was to suggest to his partner lead a diamond. East will deny this of course. Does the preponderance of evidence suggest that the denial is BS?

Yes. He didn't ask when alerted (an acceptable procedure which should carry no UI). He asked prior to ending the auction, and he himself was not going to be on opening lead.

 

However, if we go through L23 (the path I suggested), intent doesn't need to be established...it is a Probst thing.

[paulg]

As I dislike aguahombre's solution, I decided to look at some SBU regulations. In the Alerting Policy it states

 

"When opponents make an alerted or non-alertable conventional call you are entitled to ask specifically about that call at your first turn to call thereafter. Otherwise any questions should be directed at the whole auction, not a specific call."

 

The emphasis on 'first' is in the regulations.

 

If East specifically asked about the three diamonds call prior to the final pass, then it would be a breach of regulation and a PP could be, and in this case imo should have been, assessed.

[aguahombre]

As I dislike aguahombre's solution, I decided to look at some SBU regulations. In the Alerting Policy it states

 

"When opponents make an alerted or non-alertable conventional call you are entitled to ask specifically about that call at your first turn to call thereafter. Otherwise any questions should be directed at the whole auction, not a specific call."

 

The emphasis on 'first' is in the regulations.

 

If East specifically asked about the three diamonds call prior to the final pass, then it would be a breach of regulation and a PP could be, and in this case imo should have been, assessed.

 

Interesting. so, you arrived at the solution you dislike via the jurisdiction's regulations which say virtually the same thing and were probably derived by the same path.

[paulg]

Interesting. so, you arrived at the solution you dislike via the jurisdiction's regulations which say virtually the same thing and were probably derived by the same path.

Perhaps here is a specific regulation because they wanted to penalise this behaviour but did not like the path you took? :)

 

I'm not saying your path is wrong, it just feels to me that using L73B1 and L23 is a stretch.

[aguahombre]

Scotland Bridge administration has been kind enough to eliminate the need for its TD's to re-invent the wheel. The EBU tries to do it with its colored books. The WBF and the ACBL are content with their minutes. All things equal, I would rather be in Scotland.

[nige1]

There was no poll.

Although this was a national final it is slightly misleading because readers may assume that it consists of experienced and regular tournament players. I only recognise nine regular players of twenty-eight, so limited ability to both run an appeals committee and a poll (especially as your pair cannot participate and the opponents cannot participate, and some of the others should never be asked for an opinion if you want a sensible answer!).

The director/appeals committee can contact players by 'phone if, in such circumstances, they need a poll.

After the appeal, 6 good players were told the West hand and the auction without the UI.

 

None chose to lead ♦J. For most ♦J was their 3rd choice. (Declarer's likely shape is 5134. Partner, marked with values, hadn't doubled 3♦. Hence, they feared that lead might give away a critical trick, at matchpoints).

Before the appeal, I felt it wrong to consult, because that might "taint" potential pollees.

[Zelandakh]

I also think a ♥ is a LA and for precisely the same reason as others have said it is not. We have no entry so this might be the only chance to lead through an honour holding in Dummy. It is not impossible for Declarer to be 5044 and Dummy 1435 for example. I also think that "I always ignore UI and make the lead I would have anyway" is unacceptable at a national event, esepcially when giving the same player credit for being of a high level.

[weejonnie]

I also think a ♥ is a LA and for precisely the same reason as others have said it is not. We have no entry so this might be the only chance to lead through an honour holding in Dummy. It is not impossible for Declarer to be 5044 and Dummy 1435 for example. I also think that "I always ignore UI and make the lead I would have anyway" is unacceptable at a national event, esepcially when giving the same player credit for being of a high level.

 

I considered a high heart, however North has 5 of them (at least he does in 'pristine acol')

 

I agree that "I always ignore UI and make the lead I would have anyway" is unacceptable - West needs to be educated in the proactive nature of UI.

[lamford]

I considered a high heart, however North has 5 of them (at least he does in 'pristine acol')

 

I agree that "I always ignore UI and make the lead I would have anyway" is unacceptable - West needs to be educated in the proactive nature of UI.

Only to the extent that he must not take any advantage of the UI. If he and the TD consider that a diamond is the only LA, then he is not taking any advantage.

[weejonnie]

Only to the extent that he must not take any advantage of the UI. If he and the TD consider that a diamond is the only LA, then he is not taking any advantage.

 

Well at the moment there is a LA. However I agree - if there is no LA then there is no problem.

[barmar]

I agree that "I always ignore UI and make the lead I would have anyway" is unacceptable - West needs to be educated in the proactive nature of UI.

That method of dealing with UI is frequently recommended by experts. Try to ignore the UI (as L73 requires), and if the TD decides that you violated L16B accept the adjustment with grace.

 

The problem is that it's extremely difficult for the player themselves to determine what is or isn't an LA. It's hard enough for the TD to figure out what LAs there are, and what is demonstrably shown, and he can conduct a poll. The player can't poll, and they'll naturally give the most weight to the action they were "always" going to do -- from their perspective, it seems like the only LA.

[aguahombre]

That method of dealing with UI is frequently recommended by experts. Try to ignore the UI (as L73 requires), and if the TD decides that you violated L16B accept the adjustment with grace.

 

The problem is that it's extremely difficult for the player themselves to determine what is or isn't an LA. It's hard enough for the TD to figure out what LAs there are, and what is demonstrably shown, and he can conduct a poll. The player can't poll, and they'll naturally give the most weight to the action they were "always" going to do -- from their perspective, it seems like the only LA.

In other words, your second paragraph is a good argument in support of the recommendations referenced in the first paragraph... since the player can't be objective about L.A.'s, he should just do what he would do without UI and let the chips fall.

 

IMO, real experts (my opinion of what a real expert is --don't go there) are in the best position to determine whether the action they wish to make has a L.A. within his partnership's experience and agreements, and even to determine what partner's irregularity could have suggested. I believe he should consider those things, articulate them afterward if necessary, and then let the chips fall after not necessarily making the call or play he "would always make".

 

This thread is about a play -- not a call. Thus, the above would always apply.

 

There are auctions where considering LA's after an irregularity is just plain silly and the player should just do what he would do if there were screens.

 

1) After a BIT, an asking bid or convention should still be treated as such.

2) A failure to alert should still be treated as if the alert had ocurred.

3) The converse of 2) above.

4) A sign-off is still a sign-off.

etc.

[richlp]

That method of dealing with UI is frequently recommended by experts. Try to ignore the UI (as L73 requires), and if the TD decides that you violated L16B accept the adjustment with grace.

 

The problem is that it's extremely difficult for the player themselves to determine what is or isn't an LA. It's hard enough for the TD to figure out what LAs there are, and what is demonstrably shown, and he can conduct a poll. The player can't poll, and they'll naturally give the most weight to the action they were "always" going to do -- from their perspective, it seems like the only LA.

 

I'm glad somebody else feels this way. My college roommate is now an ACBL National Director and we've discussed this. We've talked about a large number of ACBL appeals cases and in a significant majority of them my analysis of what is a logical alternative, and what is suggested by the UI, has been so far from what the appeals committee decided and what the commentators discussed as to make my attempts to work it out almost meaningless. I'm willing to take a bad score in UI cases if there are LAs and my choice is suggested. I'll take the committee's judgement with good grace. But I don't want to take a bad score because I misjudged what the LAs actually are.

 

Yes, I'm aware that this contravenes the letter of the law - but I think it's a practical solution to a difficult situation.

[Trinidad]

The problem with UI is that there is one very difficult thing a player should do:

 

He should stop to try and win.

 

Winning is not priority anymore. Doing the right thing is. As long as you think in terms of winning, it is impossible to be objective about LA's and what the UI suggests.

 

If you do not want to win the board anymore you might be able to be objective. Then you can reason what the UI suggested and you can tell what the LAs are. You will also be able to explain calmly why you chose the action you took. Your explanation will be based on the laws rather than on "what you always would have done".

 

Of course, it is still possible to misjudge (or to run into an AC that disagrees with you), but your best chance of "winning in the AC" is to stop wanting to win in the first place.

 

Rik

[mycroft]

"Try to ignore" is not what L73 requests; "must carefully avoid [using]" is the quote. With normal biases, "carefully avoid using" will almost always *be* succeeding "to ignore"; "try[ing] to ignore" will lead to "using unless it's at least moderately obvious that there's a legitimate (as opposed to the legal definition of Logical) alternative".

 

I agree with the rest of the sentence, however. Do your best to carefully avoid using UI at the table, and if the opponents and the TD believe otherwise, accept the judgement gracefully. If the opponents make it obvious that you failed (and this has happened to me, I'm sure it's happened to everybody), call the TD yourself, and accept the ruling gracefully.

 

If you try to avoid using UI and fail, you've been ethical and proper and made a poor judgement in an uncommon situation. If you try to avoid being ruled against for using UI and fail, less so.

[Phil]

A heart lead isn't really crazy. Don't know (nor care to know) Acol, but it seems South could be 5=0=3=5 here (5=0=4=4?)?

 

Since English directors are so much better than their American counterparts, why wasn't this polled?

 

The part about AI to declarer is pretty hilarious.

[aguahombre]

There is a good reason to avoid the term "using". When you decide your preferred call has a LA, then you must use the UI (your assessment of the UI) to determine whether that UI could suggest the action you want to take. You are using the UI to choose your ethically appropriate call, not using it to gain a better result.