[lamford]

---

There was a BIT by North at his first turn. Table result N/S +2140.

North-South had recently taken up Roman non-jump overcalls after 3M openers. South decided to gamble that his partner had a natural 4C or 4D overcall, and he thought there was a 50-50 chance it would be clubs. Why he thought this might make a grand is anybody's guess.

a) Do you think 7C is a logical alternative?
b) Do you think it is demonstrably suggested by the BIT?
c) Do you leave the result but give South a PP?
d) Do you adjust under 73C?

[iviehoff]

a) No, (but that doesn't matter - illegal bids don't have to be LAs - when you have UI, some non-LAs become attractive).
b) Probably not, even if I agree with South as to what the UI suggests.
c) No, I'm not leaving the result. I may give South a PP, his conduct is outrageous (but see (d)).
d) Certainly if I am told, on asking where 7C came from, that South "decided to gamble that his partner had a natural 4C or 4D overcall", on the basis of the hesitation. To make that judgment on the basis of your partner's hesitation is quite clearly illegal. I think there's a good case even if South finds himself unable to explain what produced the bid. Just about South's only plausible defences, if backed up by evidence, is that it fell out when he knocked the bidding box over, and he didn't think he could do anything about it.

Your aim in presenting this highly artificial constructed example is presumably to show that Law 16B doesn't cover everything we consider to be an illegal abuse of UI. But I think that is already well known, and it occurs in real world cases as well as implausible constructions.

[bluejak]

I adjust under Law 16.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2011-March-03, 10:28, said:

I adjust under Law 16.

16C1 would be my guess

I can hear JLOGIC laughing from here. DeJavu?

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-March-03, 11:05

[wyman]

A player may not choose <<from among logical alternative actions>> one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

I don't think 7C is logical at all (in fact, it's ludicrous), so I see no need to adjust.

Which infraction did south commit, exactly?

(Note also that even if South took advantage of the UI, that's not an immediate adjustment: "To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law." The emphasis on MAY is mine.)

[iviehoff]

wyman, on 2011-March-03, 10:55, said:

Which infraction did south commit, exactly?

Like Lamford, I'd say 73C.

L73C 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.

We are told he judged his partner could have a natural 4C/4D bid, that he is now debarred from making, and clearly the only reason for South contemplating that was the hesitation. You are not allowed to contemplate what reason your partner had for hesitating. That is a quite plain infraction. Clearly South thought sometimes he would make enough profit from this bid to outweigh the losses, and the fact he was right today shows he wasn't totally stupid, except in breaking the law.

But 73C is not a law you "adjust under" so Lamford's question isn't quite right.

One "real world" case we once came across of this was when a player had UI that his partner's raise to 3S was on the heavy side, and, knowing 4S now to be illegal, punted a "ludicrous" 6S instead, which, with a little bit of help from the opposition, he then made.

[wyman]

iviehoff, on 2011-March-03, 12:18, said:

Like Lamford, I'd say 73C.

L73C 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.

We are told he judged his partner could have a natural 4C/4D bid, that he is now debarred from making, and clearly the only reason for South contemplating that was the hesitation. You are not allowed to contemplate what reason your partner had for hesitating. That is a quite plain infraction. Clearly South thought sometimes he would make enough profit from this bid to outweigh the losses, and the fact he was right today shows he wasn't totally stupid, except in breaking the law.

But 73C is not a law you "adjust under" so Lamford's question isn't quite right.

One "real world" case we once came across of this was when a player had UI that his partner's raise to 3S was on the heavy side, and, knowing 4S now to be illegal, punted a "ludicrous" 6S instead, which, with a little bit of help from the opposition, he then made.

So what do you "adjust under," then?

In the "real world" case, it sounds like the defense went from a minus to a plus after the 6S bid. That they turned it back into a (substantial) minus doesn't seem a cause for adjusting.

As a caveat, it may well be the case that I don't understand the relevant laws well enough.

[lamford]

iviehoff, on 2011-March-03, 12:18, said:

Like Lamford, I'd say 73C.

<snip>

But 73C is not a law you "adjust under" so Lamford's question isn't quite right.

However, if the TD decides there is a breach of 73C, and there is no prescribed remedy, he can apply 12A1:

1. The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent.

So all we need is a violation. I do not see a violation of Law 16b in this case, but a clear one of 73C.

[wyman]

I am still a bit uneasy about this. I assume that the BIT by north was considerably longer than the 10 seconds that north is supposed to wait after a skip bid.

Just because South guessed right doesn't mean that he was doing anything more than guessing. In particular, I don't think that North's huddle suggests anything other than possibly bidding instead of passing; I'd be surprised if the field is passing here (that is, I doubt passing is a LA). It certainly doesn't suggest bidding clubs over bidding anything else. If p has a minor-stack, a takeout double will get that out too, so even if we know what kind of problem partner has, I don't think that bidding 7C is taking advantage of it; in fact (as I said earlier) it's totally ludicrous.

I really don't see a case for adjustment, as fishy as the whole auction smells.

[Vampyr]

wyman, on 2011-March-03, 10:55, said:

A player may not choose <<from among logical alternative actions>> one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

I don't think 7C is logical at all (in fact, it's ludicrous), so I see no need to adjust.

Law 16 is poorly written. I don't believe it was the intention of the WBFLC to suggest that the chosen action must be a logical action, just that the alternative action(s) be logical.

But it is difficult to tell which of the 2007 Laws are poorly written and which are poorly conceived. All we can know for sure is they must be one or the other.

[wyman]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-03, 13:19, said:

Law 16 is poorly written. I don't believe it was the intention of the WBFLC to suggest that the chosen action must be a logical action, just that the alternative action(s) be logical.

But it is difficult to tell which of the 2007 Laws are poorly written and which are poorly conceived. All we can know for sure is they must be one or the other.

I don't disagree; as I said, this hand reeks! But, I am given a set of rules to the game, and we must live with (or lobby to change, but abide by nonetheless in the meantime) those poorly written and/or conceived laws. Committees and directors IMO are not meant to "interpret the constitution" as the supreme court does; they should enforce the letter of the law instead.

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-03, 13:19, said:

But it is difficult to tell which of the 2007 Laws are poorly written and which are poorly conceived. All we can know for sure is they must be one or the other.

Unless they happen to be both well written and well conceived. Law 1 isn't too bad.

[dburn]

The minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission when it met in Reno in the spring of 2010 contain this:

ACBL Laws Commission said:

Chip Martel brought up the issue of what constitutes a logical alternative. Suppose someone with UI makes a call that is not considered to be a logical alternative but that works out for the offenders [...]. Have we the right to penalize this? Martel moved that the call actually chosen by a player is considered to be a logical alternative with respect to application of law 16B1. Seconded by Wildavsky. Motion carried.

In the ACBL's jurisdiction at any rate, even if you attempt to avoid the provisions of Law 16 by selecting an illogical (in the wider context) action when in possession of UI, you may still be ruled against under Law 16 without recourse to Law 73. At the time I recall observing on these forums that this might be problematic, and that Jan Martel observed that she didn't see why I thought this, but the matter was not pursued at any great length or with any great vehemence, nor can I be bothered to locate the original correspondence.

Of course, even the ACBL fiat does not mean that one automatically finds against South in the case in question here; to do that, the minute would have had to read:

"Martel moved that the call actually chosen by a player is considered to be a demonstrably suggested logical alternative with respect to application of law 16B1."

but perhaps that is what they meant.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2011-March-03, 10:28, said:

I adjust under Law 16.

I agree.

Based on the authorised auction and South's hand, the 7♣ bid is completely inconceivable. Even if South were allowed to take advantage of the information from North's pause, the 7♣ bid would still be completely inconceivable.

So unless Paul has made the hand up [surely not, Ed.] there is only one logical conclusion to draw: South has received unauthorised information about the hand from another source, e.g. he had overheard from another table that 7♣ is cold. Therefore, I rule under Law 16C. Normal play was impossible and both sides receive average plus. Then I give South a large procedural penalty for failing to notify the TD (as required by Law 16C1) of the UI he appears to have received.

[bluejak]

I do worry when we have BLML type threads, especially plural, since that is not what this forum is for. I am not prepared to argue - it may surprise you that I do actually dislike being shouted at and get tired of it - for example, that is why I did not rise to pran's attempt to get me back into a thread where I had given an opinion he did not share.

So I shall just post this one article, for the sake of the people who actually use this forum for its proper purpose, namely to get help in how to rule, and not to argue the minutiae of the wording of the Laws. I shall get some upsetting replies, of course, but there you go.

When you have a situation where someone has UI, and gains because of it, you rule against him. If he chooses an action which is more successful than an LA, and it is suggested by the UI over that LA, then you adjust. You do not worry about whether the action taken is an LA or not because the authorities expect you to rule that way, and because there are several arguments as to why you should.

I strongly suggest that for those of you who merely want to know how to rule, you follow this advice, and for those of you who want to discuss interminably why you should rule this way, or whether, you take it to a suitable forum. Changing Laws & Regulations is a forum where this sort of thing is not unsuitable, since one obvious solution is to change th Law to read as we rule. In fact, if it is moved there, I might add the odd post, since I do have views as to why we rule this way. But not here where they are not suited.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2011-March-03, 14:01, said:

Unless they happen to be both well written and well conceived. Law 1 isn't too bad.

True. Unfortunately the EBU have been in breach of this Law for several years, with the all-blue cards they have been using...

[wyman]

jallerton, on 2011-March-03, 17:29, said:

there is only one logical conclusion to draw: South has received unauthorised information about the hand from another source, e.g. he had overheard from another table that 7♣ is cold. Therefore, I rule under Law 16C. Normal play was impossible and both sides receive average plus. Then I give South a large procedural penalty for failing to notify the TD (as required by Law 16C1) of the UI he appears to have received.

This is inconceivable imo. Might as well say that the player has a wire. I think it's horrible if a director can just decide that a player must have overheard the result.

Let me be clear: players do dumb and/or wild things. 7C is insane, but that he bid it is not clear evidence that he overheard the result from another table, and I don't think a director should be able to make a ruling as such.

edit: Recall, for example, the controversial 6D over 3S.

bluejak, on 2011-March-03, 20:23, said:

I do worry when we have BLML type threads, especially plural, since that is not what this forum is for. I am not prepared to argue - it may surprise you that I do actually dislike being shouted at and get tired of it - for example, that is why I did not rise to pran's attempt to get me back into a thread where I had given an opinion he did not share.

So I shall just post this one article, for the sake of the people who actually use this forum for its proper purpose, namely to get help in how to rule, and not to argue the minutiae of the wording of the Laws. I shall get some upsetting replies, of course, but there you go.

When you have a situation where someone has UI, and gains because of it, you rule against him. If he chooses an action which is more successful than an LA, and it is suggested by the UI over that LA, then you adjust. You do not worry about whether the action taken is an LA or not because the authorities expect you to rule that way, and because there are several arguments as to why you should.

I strongly suggest that for those of you who merely want to know how to rule, you follow this advice, and for those of you who want to discuss interminably why you should rule this way, or whether, you take it to a suitable forum. Changing Laws & Regulations is a forum where this sort of thing is not unsuitable, since one obvious solution is to change th Law to read as we rule. In fact, if it is moved there, I might add the odd post, since I do have views as to why we rule this way. But not here where they are not suited.

BJ,

I think I'm the only dissenter in the thread, so I assume that the above is at least partially aimed at me. My reply: I'm trying to learn. I'm not a director, and I get what I believe are inconsistent rulings from other directors. When this happens, my only way to decide who is right is to consult the laws. You are suggesting that directors rule by what you/they believe is the spirit of -- rather than the letter of -- the law. I don't necessarily disagree with your stance, and clearly most people agree with you.

I strongly disagree, however, that this is the wrong forum for this discussion. The question being raised here is fundamental, in fact, to laws and rulings. Namely, is it within the director's scope to interpret? Or must he go strictly by the letter of the law? [I don't know the answer, and this was not meant rhetorically.]

[wyman]

dburn, on 2011-March-03, 17:02, said:

The minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission when it met in Reno in the spring of 2010 contain this:


In the ACBL's jurisdiction at any rate, even if you attempt to avoid the provisions of Law 16 by selecting an illogical (in the wider context) action when in possession of UI, you may still be ruled against under Law 16 without recourse to Law 73. At the time I recall observing on these forums that this might be problematic, and that Jan Martel observed that she didn't see why I thought this, but the matter was not pursued at any great length or with any great vehemence, nor can I be bothered to locate the original correspondence.

Of course, even the ACBL fiat does not mean that one automatically finds against South in the case in question here; to do that, the minute would have had to read:

"Martel moved that the call actually chosen by a player is considered to be a demonstrably suggested logical alternative with respect to application of law 16B1."

but perhaps that is what they meant.

This does put things into perspective a bit; thanks.

[blackshoe]

Where there is guidance from the pertinent RA TDs should follow that guidance. Where there is no such guidance, I would follow

Quote

Law 81C2: The director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The director’s duties and powers normally include also the following… 2. to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder.

Where there is accepted practice, in effect a body of TD interpretation, it is generally best to follow that practice. The emphasis in the law quoted is mine. One purpose of this forum is to inform interested people (TDs and players) what constitutes "accepted practice". As I've alluded to before, it is sometimes not simply a matter of "common sense", but of a long history of the practice in question. I note that approaches do change, so that what was accepted practice 50 years ago may no longer be such (for example, the Kaplanesque approach of "decide how you want to rule, and then find a law that fits"), and that is another reason for this forum.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-March-03, 17:29, said:

So unless Paul has made the hand up [surely not, Ed.] there is only one logical conclusion to draw: South has received unauthorised information about the hand from another source, e.g. he had overheard from another table that 7♣ is cold. Therefore, I rule under Law 16C. Normal play was impossible and both sides receive average plus. Then I give South a large procedural penalty for failing to notify the TD (as required by Law 16C1) of the UI he appears to have received.

This was my inclination when I saw the 7C bid, but it was the first time the board had been played, and the board had been duplicated about 5 minutes earlier by Ms McGonagall, a lady who operates the dealing software. I don't know why people suspect a hand I provide is made up - surely any specific deal has exactly the same probability of occurring randomly as any other?

On Bluejak's point, I accept that the chosen bid is always treated as a logical alternative, however absurd it is, because that is accepted practice, despite the faulty definition in Law 16B. However, I was not aware that there is no longer a requirement for it to be demonstrably suggested before it is disallowed. Perhaps 16B should now read:
1. After a player makes available to his partner any extraneous information that may suggest a call or play the partner must pass for the remainder of the auction (see Law 23 when a pass damages the non-offending side).

This way we remove the requirement for the bid to be a logical alternative and for it to be demonstrably suggested, and we might as well impose Pass as we have to start somewhere, and we will adjust if Pass turns out to be best. And, no, this is not a suggested Law change, so it does not need to be moved to Changing Laws and Regulations.