An Illogical Alternative

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa92ha2daq43cq654&w=s8765h765dt9ck973&n=s43hk843dj82cat82&e=skqjthqjt9dk765cj&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1n(15-17)p2cp2dp2n(with%20a%20remark)p6nppp]399|300[/hv]

Lead 7♠. Table result 6NT=

 

SB has been reading the new laws keenly, and saw an opportunity to salvage something on this hand from Tuesday's duplicate at a North London Club which now uses the 2017 Laws. North, the Rabbit, when bidding 2NT, said, "I hope you won't think just inviting is insulting you, SB". SB assumed that North would have a good 9-count for this careless comment, which he knew full well was UI, and if he bid and made 3NT it would be wound back, as Pass was surely an LA. After some thought he jumped to 6NT.

 

West led the seven of spades and East won the spade and continued them, but SB won, ran the queen of clubs, covered, and then ran the jack of diamonds. The third round of clubs began a progressive squeeze on East, of course, and SB soon notched up 12 tricks.

 

"Thank goodness for the blunder in the new laws," gloated SB, "without that I could not have escaped."

 

"I am not happy," retorted Charlie the Chimp, "and what do you mean the blunder in the new laws?" He queried. "Pray tell."

 

"Well 16B1a states:

(a) A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative."

 

The emphasis was SB's, in his usual loud and boorish manner. He warmed to his task. "That wording specifically means that it is not an infraction to choose a call or play that is not a logical alternative." "And I think you will all agree that 6NT was not a logical alternative and it was not demonstrably suggested at all." "We have a second board to play. Can we move on, please. You are only moaning as you failed to find the heart lead which beats the slam trivially."

 

How would you rule?

[pran]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa92ha2daq43cq654&w=s8765h765dt9ck973&n=s43hk843dj82cat82&e=skqjthqjt9dk765cj&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1n(15-17)p2cp2dp2n(with%20a%20remark)p6nppp]399|300[/hv]

Lead 7♠. Table result 6NT=

 

SB has been reading the new laws keenly, and saw an opportunity to salvage something on this hand from Tuesday's duplicate at a North London Club which now uses the 2017 Laws. North, the Rabbit, when bidding 2NT, said, "I hope you won't think just inviting is insulting you, SB". SB assumed that North would have a good 9-count for this careless comment, which he knew full well was UI, and if he bid and made 3NT it would be wound back, as Pass was surely an LA. After some thought he jumped to 6NT.

 

West led the seven of spades and East won the spade and continued them, but SB won, ran the queen of clubs, covered, and then ran the jack of diamonds. The third round of clubs began a progressive squeeze on East, of course, and SB soon notched up 12 tricks.

 

"Thank goodness for the blunder in the new laws," gloated SB, "without that I could not have escaped."

 

"I am not happy," retorted Charlie the Chimp, "and what do you mean the blunder in the new laws?" He queried. "Pray tell."

 

"Well 16B1a states:

(a) A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative."

 

The emphasis was SB's, in his usual loud and boorish manner. He warmed to his task. "That wording specifically means that it is not an infraction to choose a call or play that is not a logical alternative." "And I think you will all agree that 6NT was not a logical alternative and it was not demonstrably suggested at all." "We have a second board to play. Can we move on, please. You are only moaning as you failed to find the heart lead which beats the slam trivially."

 

How would you rule?

 

That "logical alternatives" include any alternative that is actually chosen by a player who is under Law 16 restrictions (simply because it was indeed chosen).

[lamford]

That "logical alternatives" include any alternative that is actually chosen by a player who is under Law 16 restrictions (simply because it was indeed chosen).

Where does it say that in the new Laws? SB might have missed it on his speed-read.

 

It defines a logical alternative as:

(b) A logical alternative is an action that a significant proportion of the class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and some might select.

 

In this case, nobody using the methods of the partnership would seriously consider or select 6NT. I polled 10 players and had 75% for 3NT and 25% for Pass. None even mentioned 6NT.

[manudude03]

The way I'm reading that law is when there is UI, you must choose among the logical alternatives. The SB failed to do so and hence should be rolled back. I'm inclined to roll it back to 50% 2NT+4 and 50% 3NT+3 seeing as the actual hand seems like a very borderline accept.

 

I'm surprised the SB thinks that 6NT rates to score better than 2NT, but that's another story.

[lamford]

The way I'm reading that law is when there is UI, you must choose among the logical alternatives.

It certainly does not say that. Your interpretation would be consistent with

 

(a) A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information and must choose a call or play that is a logical alternative."

 

rather than:

 

(a) A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative."

 

I think a player can make any call he wishes if it is not demonstrably suggested over another call or play. One can bid as madly as one likes.

[gordontd]

I think you are reading it the wrong way around Paul. The question is whether Pass is a logical alternative, since that is "the other call" referred to, not whether 6NT is a logical alternative. Now, if you were to argue that 6NT was not suggested over Pass, you might have a case...

[barmar]

The way I'm reading that law is when there is UI, you must choose among the logical alternatives.

I don't think so. What it says is that if X is a logical alternative, and Y (which might be an LA, but isn't required to be) is demonstrably suggested by the UI, you can't choose Y over X.

I'm surprised the SB thinks that 6NT rates to score better than 2NT, but that's another story.

Which is why it's not a violation of Law 16B1. There's nothing in the UI that suggests that 6NT is a good contract. It was a gamble and it paid off.

 

However, we might still be able to get him on a violation of 73C1, which stil says that you have to avoid taking any advantage from the UI. Being in receipt of UI, he knows that he can't get a good board by bidding and making 3NT -- it will be adjusted by the TD. So he's destined for a bad result, and there's little downside to trying the gamble -- at worst it turns an average minus into a bottom. This seems like taking advantage of the UI.

[lamford]

However, we might still be able to get him on a violation of 73C1, which stil says that you have to avoid taking any advantage from the UI. Being in receipt of UI, he knows that he can't get a good board by bidding and making 3NT -- it will be adjusted by the TD. So he's destined for a bad result, and there's little downside to trying the gamble -- at worst it turns an average minus into a bottom. This seems like taking advantage of the UI.

As manudude said, 6NT does not rate to be a success, so it cannot be taking any advantage of the UI. "taking advantage of" means "gaining by using". This is clearly not the case here, and he is allowed to gamble.

[lamford]

I think you are reading it the wrong way around Paul. The question is whether Pass is a logical alternative, since that is "the other call" referred to, not whether 6NT is a logical alternative. Now, if you were to argue that 6NT was not suggested over Pass, you might have a case...

I see your point and think you are right. However, Pass AND 3NT are the logical alternatives. He chose 6NT. The test is therefore whether 6NT is demonstrably suggested over EITHER of the two logical alternatives, I think. I submit it is not and one can therefore always choose any call that is not demonstrably suggested over any of the LAs. Not ideal, but if the only LA you can really get away with is very bad, then it pays to gamble on a non-LA.

 

One wonders why this is not sufficient if the meaning should be as you suggest: "A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over a logical alternative by unauthorized information."

[barmar]

As manudude said, 6NT does not rate to be a success, so it cannot be taking any advantage of the UI. "taking advantage of" means "gaining by using". This is clearly not the case here, and he is allowed to gamble.

Yeah, it was a stretch.

 

This isn't really much of a change from the 2007 Laws. The old law said "may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information". If you don't consider the chosen action to be an LA, then he obviously didn't choose it "from among LAs". And if you do consider it to be an LA, it's still the case that the UI didn't demonstrably suggest it.

 

So I think SB wins this one.

[pran]

Let me pose a challenge for anyone to rule upon. (And I can assure that this situation has actually occurred, but I am not yet disclosing the circumstances):

 

The dealer picks up his cards and bids 7NT! (For the record: Yes he first looked at his cards and no, he has no UI).

 

How do you rule with quotation of any relevant Law? (Depending on the further developments on that board if relevant.)

 

 

(Take it for granted that there is no way 7NT as the first bid can be part of any systemic agreements).

[nige1]

Lamford is right again.

 

Weird. Many times, in the past, here and in other Bridge-law discussion-groups I've suggested a protocol that a director might use as a thought-experiment to help with UI decisions. Most ridiculed it. Nevertheless, it had the merit of stating explicitly that the call actually chosen should be treated as a logical alternative..

[barmar]

The dealer picks up his cards and bids 7NT! (For the record: Yes he first looked at his cards and no, he has no UI).

 

How do you rule with quotation of any relevant Law? (Depending on the further developments on that board if relevant.)

I don't think there's anything in the Laws to prohibit it, so result stands.

 

I'm happy to play against anyone who likes to randomly open 7NT. I'll double it, and 99% of the time I expect it to be a good result for us. Once in a blue moon it might be a decent sacrifice against our slam.

 

If someone discovers that he only pulls this stunt in cases where it actually is a good sac, I think it should spur an investigation into whether they have a wire on the boards. Even if you only do it with a Yarborough, it still seems like a poor gamble.

[barmar]

Lamford is right again.

 

Weird. Many times, in the past, here and in other Bridge-law discussion-groups I've suggested a protocol that a director might use as a mind-experiment to help with UI decisions. Most ridiculed it. Nevertheless, it had the merit of stating explicitly that the call actually chosen should be treated as a logical alternative..

I think EBU regulations say that the call actually chosen should be treated as an LA. But as I pointed out, it doesn't really affect the ruling, because a random gambling action is not likely to be suggested.

 

I think the point I was trying to make in my digression to 73C was that when the UI happens to suggest what you consider to be the normal action, you're basically screwed. So you might as well try something random, it can't hurt. The UI doesn't actually suggest this particular action, it's just that being in receipt of UI suggests that you try something unusual.

 

But in real life, these types of gambles almost never pay off. We only hear about them here because Lamford carefully constructs deals where they can. Only the Abbot is as unlucky as the opponents in a SB hypothetical.

[axman]

 

 

"Well 16B1a states:

(a) A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative."

 

The emphasis was SB's, in his usual loud and boorish manner. He warmed to his task. "That wording specifically means that it is not an infraction to choose a call or play that is not a logical alternative." "And I think you will all agree that 6NT was not a logical alternative and it was not demonstrably suggested at all." "We have a second board to play. Can we move on, please. You are only moaning as you failed to find the heart lead which beats the slam trivially."

 

How would you rule?

 

What is the antecedent to 'the other call'?

[blackshoe]

You know, we hear from time to time that club directors are reluctant to do anything that might drive players away from the game. In SB's case, though, I'm not so sure that would be a bad thing. :ph34r:

 

Give SB his 6NT, and impose a DP of 100% of a top for gloating, and another 100% of a top for his boorish manner.

[mycroft]

There is case law in the EBU, for exactly this case, that the alternative chosen is logical *for this player* due to the simple fact that the player took it. I can't imagine this being overturned with "over another" being changed to "if the other call is a logical alternative." I'm sure, however, that the EBU LC will give chapter and verse eventually (and by eventually, I mean "the first time someone tries this IRL.")

[lamford]

There is case law in the EBU, for exactly this case, that the alternative chosen is logical *for this player* due to the simple fact that the player took it. I can't imagine this being overturned with "over another" being changed to "if the other call is a logical alternative." I'm sure, however, that the EBU LC will give chapter and verse eventually (and by eventually, I mean "the first time someone tries this IRL.")

It does not matter one iota what the EBU case law says. "Logical alternative" is defined by Law 16B, so the TD is obliged to follow that. In addition, there is still a requirement that a selected call be demonstrably suggested for it to be illegal.

[jeffford76]

The way I'm reading that law is when there is UI, you must choose among the logical alternatives. The SB failed to do so and hence should be rolled back. I'm inclined to roll it back to 50% 2NT+4 and 50% 3NT+3 seeing as the actual hand seems like a very borderline accept.

 

You can't do this - if 3NT wasn't a legal bid, then it shouldn't be in the weighting.

[Vampyr]

I see your point and think you are right.

 

 

I think so too. It is a pity that I could not have been written in English. Oh, that was English?

 

However, Pass AND 3NT are the logical alternatives. He chose 6NT. The test is therefore whether 6NT is demonstrably suggested over EITHER of the two logical alternatives, I think. I submit it is not and one can therefore always choose any call that is not demonstrably suggested over any of the LAs.

 

You may be right here. Perhaps it is not such a bad thing. And if it is, it's okay, because the new laws are basically designed to reward offenders. As long as you accept that, there will be no problem.

[weejonnie]

'Illogical, logical alternatives' have been discussed before - with the note that, in this case, SB belongs to the class of players who would consider 6NT as a logical alternative, given the bidding sequence.

 

HOWEVER - the laws of bridge have now changed and any call made need NOT be a logical alternative

 

2017 laws (16B1a)

 

"(a) A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative."

 

2007 laws (16B1a)

 

(a) After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected2 alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

 

This definition does NOT say that the call or play actually made need be a logical alternative, just that there are logical alternatives to it. In this case of course the 6NT isn't demonstrably suggested by the unauthorised information and so is allowed.

[gordontd]

This definition does NOT say that the call or play actually made need be a logical alternative, just that there are logical alternatives to it.

I believe that was the reason for the new wording.

[Manastorm]

It seems that 6NT is more likely to make with the remark than without. Surely the law doesn't allow it.

[lamford]

It seems that 6NT is more likely to make with the remark than without. Surely the law doesn't allow it.

Drivel. You could say the same thing about 7NT.

[weejonnie]

It seems that 6NT is more likely to make with the remark than without. Surely the law doesn't allow it.

The law allows it - what the law doesn't allow is for someone to base their call or play on the remark, if there are 'logical alternatives'.

 

In this case RRs comment* suggests that he has a 'good' invitational raise of 1NT. This means that 3NT is more likely to make than if there had been no comment. If SB hasn't an 'obvious' raise of 2NT to 3NT (i.e. one that 75%+** of his peers would make) then he has to pass. If he has an 'obvious' raise then he is allowed to make it. (In teams for instance it is more likely that 3NT would be called than in pairs.)

 

* RR is a scrupulously ethical player and wouldn't make such a comment; if it had been the Chimp, however, ...

** or however your RA defines a position where there is no Logical Alternative.