[Vampyr]

 bluejak, on 2012-August-21, 16:44, said:

I am surprised that you think lamford would put it in the wrong forum then.

Well, if he put it in the right forum, his post would just be "this Law should be changed". Doing it this way, he can make a stronger case for the change. I guess. What, do you think he confides in me?

[blackshoe]

 blackshoe, on 2012-August-21, 14:56, said:

Call the director and decline to make any more calls on this hand, on the grounds that you have made a complete mess of it and it is now unbiddable.

 bluejak, on 2012-August-21, 16:42, said:

If I am the TD that will get you thrown out of the event pretty smartish. It is cheating to avoid bottoms this way, there is no legal justification, and you are upsetting other players and spoiling the event. I shall suggest to your RA that a ban of some months would be suitable.

Jeez, I can't even make a joke any more?

[lamford]

 bluejak, on 2012-August-21, 16:15, said:

It appears that lamford put forward this case to suggest that where someone has forgotten his system LAs are based on his system and not what he thinks he is playing at the moment. Not only is this fairly ridiculous but also it means that Law 16B and Law 73C are at loggerheads. I believe that such an interpretation is not to be followed.

I don't think Law 16B and Law 73C are at loggerheads in this example, if we follow through exactly what the Laws say. One first decides on LAs "using the methods of the partnership", and then selects among those the one that is not demonstrably suggested by the UI, at the same time carefully avoiding taking advantage of the UI, but not breaching Law 16B in order to do so.

To say that a player should do something else because the Law is misworded is the same as to disallow the Alcatraz Coup when the Laws did permit it. My reading of bridge laws history indicates that this was the case for a few years, and I recall reading that Jacoby campaigned to change the Laws to prevent it.

There is a school of thought that if the Laws do not fit in with our view of what they should be trying to achieve, we should overrule them. I do not share that view, and there is no inconsistency in applying Law 16B exactly as it is written. It just means that misbids are less disastrous, but still can never be beneficial.

And, for the avoidance of doubt, I do think the Law should be changed, but in the meantime it should be applied as it reads.

[Quartic]

 lamford, on 2012-August-21, 05:02, said:

Yes, in Precision, after 1C-1D-Pass shows 0-15 and is psyche-exposing (usually a weak two in diamonds when I play it; this frees up an opening 2D to be a multi). I wonder if this means the 1D is a psyche control?!

Why can it not be a 16-17 hand with decent !ds that thinks game is unlikely?

[lamford]

 Quartic, on 2012-August-21, 18:00, said:

Why can it not be a 16-17 hand with decent !ds that thinks game is unlikely?

Except that partner might have produced some "impossible negative", and I must confess I have never seen a Precision auction go 1C - 1D - Pass. I understand partner can have a strongish 4441, and this is why 1D is normally played as unconditionally forcing. But I am no Precision expert.

[Quartic]

 lamford, on 2012-August-21, 18:06, said:

Except that partner might have produced some "impossible negative", and I must confess I have never seen a Precision auction go 1C - 1D - Pass. I understand partner can have a strongish 4441, and this is why 1D is normally played as unconditionally forcing. But I am no Precision expert.

Kit Woolsey discusses the idea in a Bridge Winners Article. Admittedly the hand is a 15 count, but 1♣ wasn't bid as a psych.

[blackshoe]

I play Standard American and 2/1 GF with the partners I'm playing with now, but I've played Precision before, and hope to do so again. IAC, I know the system.

If I were playing Precision with someone today, I would certainly be aware of it. It's unusual to find a willing partner, and I like the system, so I'm very unlikely to "forget" that I'm playing it. So it would never occur to me, in the normal course of events, to pass 1♦. It would also never occur to me that if I miscounted my hand, and opened 1♣ when I don't have enough strength, I must think I'm playing some other system. No, I know I'm playing Precision. I made a mistake. Partner, not unexpectedly, alerts. I know why - we're playing Precision. I'm going to make whatever rebid I was going to make, based on the hand I thought I had when I opened 1♣. If the director wants to adjust the score, fine. I do not think I've failed to "carefully avoid taking advantage of UI", and if anyone wants to disagree with me on that, he's welcome, as a friend of mine used to put it, to his wrong opinion. I'm not going to waste time trying to figure out precisely what UI I have, what my LAs are, and what the UI could demonstrably suggest, because I'd like to go home sometime.

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2012-August-21, 18:38, said:

If I were playing Precision with someone today, I would certainly be aware of it. It's unusual to find a willing partner, and I like the system, so I'm very unlikely to "forget" that I'm playing it. So it would never occur to me, in the normal course of events, to pass 1♦. It would also never occur to me that if I miscounted my hand, and opened 1♣ when I don't have enough strength, I must think I'm playing some other system.

But that's not what happened here. Opener didn't miscount his hand, because if he had he would have said, when asked, "I opened 1♣ because I thought I had a 16-count."

bluejak said:

In the actual hand there is the problem of what happened which one or two people have noticed. If South knew he was playing Precision and miscounted his points then he has done nothing wrong so result stands. If he forgot he was playing Precision and opened a natural 1♣ then we have to decide what LAs are for the peers of South assuming a system similar to the one he thought he was playing.

According to the original post, neither of these things occurred. Opener simply "could not explain" why he opened 1♣. If that's really all that we can get out of him, how should we rule?

[Trinidad]

 gnasher, on 2012-August-22, 01:01, said:

But that's not what happened here. Opener didn't miscount his hand, because if he had he would have said, when asked, "I opened 1♣ because I thought I had a 16-count."


According to the original post, neither of these things occurred. Opener simply "could not explain" why he opened 1♣. If that's really all that we can get out of him, how should we rule?

We don't know why South opened 1♣. But there must have been a reason. All the reasons that I can imagine lead to the same ruling: Result stands. For the ruling, in practice, I think it would be smart to ask EW what they think the infraction was. I can't think of a reason for South to open 1♣ that leads to an infraction by North or South. Then the ruling should be "Result stands".

I will list the reasons that I can come up with:
A) South opened 1♣ because he miscounted his hand. There is no infraction. Result stands.
B) South opened 1♣ because he wanted to psyche. Again, no infraction. Result stands.
C) South opened 1♣ because he dreamt that he was playing something natural. The alert wakes him up, but that is UI. South has to bid on as if he was playing something natural. The only LA is 1NT. That is the bid South chose. South didn't take advantage of the UI. There is no infraction. Result stands.
D) South was well aware that he was playing a strong club system, nevertheless he opened 1♣, because he was hearing voices that made him do it. South doesnot have UI. He can bid what he wants: No infraction. Result stands.

In order to rule something other than "Result stands", there needs to be an infraction.

We don't know why South opened 1♣. But can you come up with a reason for South to open 1♣ that would make the 1NT rebid (or the 1♣ opening itself) an infraction? I can't. I think it would be smart to ask EW what they think the infraction could be. If none of us can come up with a reason South could have for opening 1♣ that would lead to an infraction, we might well conclude that such a reason doesn't exist and that, therefore, there was no infraction.

The only possible infraction that I could imagine is if South has these brain farts more often. Then one could argue that North's explanation was wrong. But the OP is pretty clear that this was a one time incident, so this is ruled out.

Rik

[campboy]

 lamford, on 2012-August-21, 17:58, said:

I don't think Law 16B and Law 73C are at loggerheads in this example, if we follow through exactly what the Laws say. One first decides on LAs "using the methods of the partnership", and then selects among those the one that is not demonstrably suggested by the UI, at the same time carefully avoiding taking advantage of the UI, but not breaching Law 16B in order to do so.

You keep suggesting that 16B requires the player to choose an LA, but it does not. He is merely prohibited from choosing any call suggested over an LA. For me there is no conflict: 73C requires him to bid 1NT and 16B does not prohibit this because it is not suggested over pass, no matter which subset of the two you consider to be LAs.

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2012-August-21, 15:31, said:

Then why mention it?

Because I thought that it could be relevant if I were correct. I used the qualifier to make it clear that I didn't research it, so hopefully no one would take it as gospel or accuse me of trying to mislead. I guess that wasn't good enough for you.

Quote

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. -- A. Lincoln

Stop beating around the bush. I was wrong, so just say so. What's the big deal? Do I really have to do a web search before every little remark?

[Vampyr]

 campboy, on 2012-August-22, 04:15, said:

You keep suggesting that 16B requires the player to choose an LA, but it does not. He is merely prohibited from choosing any call suggested over an LA.

Obviously this is the only sensible way to rule, but again it is custom and practice rather than following the Laws as they are written, since "may not choose from among logical alternatives one that..." is simply not clear, and can be interpreted in any number of ways. A near-universal interpretation has been agreed, but this practice is, if I may use a word in its legal sense, unsafe. The fact that Law 16 is not clear in its own right and must be interpreted means that all kinds of silly interpretations may be used, and no one can say categorically that they are wrong.

[barmar]

This is the first time I can recall someone saying that "may not choose from among logical alternatives one that..." is unclear. It's not always easy to determine the LAs or which were demonstrably suggested, but the intent of the Law seems pretty clear. What are the differing interpretations you can think of for that phrase?

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2012-August-22, 05:12, said:

This is the first time I can recall someone saying that "may not choose from among logical alternatives one that..." is unclear. It's not always easy to determine the LAs or which were demonstrably suggested, but the intent of the Law seems pretty clear. What are the differing interpretations you can think of for that phrase?

The two chief questions have been discussed in these forums quite a lot:

1. If all LAs "could demonstrably be suggested" is the player required to make a call that is not an LA (or be damned if he does, etc)? (and even the word "could" is a problem -- is it "could conceivably"? "could often"?

2. And the flipside, is the player permitted to not choose any call at all from among logical alternatives but instead make an "ilLA"?

The answers to these questions can produce all sorts of convoluted variants; and then we move on to 16B1(b), where the notional peers must be playing the methods of the partnership, when the methods are not entirely clear. Under the actual methods, a poll will get the exact same anser from every pollee: "I wouldn't have started from here". Anyway, it does say the "methods of the partnership", so any but a very loose reading would seem to provide a get-out-of-jail-free card for many instances of UI.

Mhy partner and I had a ruling last year in which the AC was required to invent methods that we did not have. They then decided what the continuations would be, and they were not the ones we thought we would have chosen. The partner who had forgotten was the one who had failed to alert, and he wasn't even permitted the actual bids he made while playing the above-mentioned imaginary methods.

Ah, now the light begins to dawn -- with "interpretations" rather than intelligible guidelines, it is inevitable that individual cases will turn out to veer much too far in one direction or the other.

[Trinidad]

 Vampyr, on 2012-August-22, 05:51, said:

The two chief questions have been discussed in these forums quite a lot:

1. If all LAs "could demonstrably be suggested" is the player required to make a call that is not an LA (or be damned if he does, etc)? (and even the word "could" is a problem -- is it "could conceivably"? "could often"?

You are missing an important part of Law 16B:

Quote

[After a player receives UI, he] may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

In order to be able to demonstrate that the UI has made an LA more attractive than another, you will have to come up with a ranking for LA's: Which one is most attractive, given the UI? Which one is second, etc.

Two cases are possible:
- The UI did not make any LA more or less attractive. => No LA is suggested over another and the player may chose freely.
- The UI did make one or more LAs more attractive. In that cases there always is at least one LA that is made least attractive. This is the LA the player must chose/these are the LAs the player may chose from. A choice for another action "could have been demonstrably suggested" over this/these LA(s) and is not allowed.

It is simply not possible to demonstrate that the UI made all LAs more attractive than some other LA. One needs to be least attractive. Therefore, a TD (or anyone else) will not be able to demonstrate that a choice for this alternative "could have been suggested" by the UI.

As to "could": It is not "could often", nor is it "could conceivably". It is "could demonstrably", i.e. the TD has to demonstrate (proof) that the UI did actually make the chosen action more attractive than an other LA, and that, therefore, the choice for this action "could demonstrably have been suggested" over the other LA by the UI.

Rik

[blackshoe]

 gnasher, on 2012-August-22, 01:01, said:

But that's not what happened here. Opener didn't miscount his hand, because if he had he would have said, when asked, "I opened 1♣ because I thought I had a 16-count."


According to the original post, neither of these things occurred. Opener simply "could not explain" why he opened 1♣. If that's really all that we can get out of him, how should we rule?

I was not saying what happened in the OP, I'm saying what would have been the case had I been South in that situation. Your last question pinpoints the problem with the OP, of course.

[blackshoe]

 campboy, on 2012-August-22, 04:15, said:

You keep suggesting that 16B requires the player to choose an LA, but it does not. He is merely prohibited from choosing any call suggested over an LA. For me there is no conflict: 73C requires him to bid 1NT and 16B does not prohibit this because it is not suggested over pass, no matter which subset of the two you consider to be LAs.

The highlighted sentence is not what the law says, although it is the recommended practice. The law says he's not permitted to choose a call from amongst the LAs if it is suggested over another LA. The law does not say anything about "ilLAs" (see below).

 Vampyr, on 2012-August-22, 05:08, said:

Obviously this is the only sensible way to rule, but again it is custom and practice rather than following the Laws as they are written, since "may not choose from among logical alternatives one that..." is simply not clear, and can be interpreted in any number of ways. A near-universal interpretation has been agreed, but this practice is, if I may use a word in its legal sense, unsafe. The fact that Law 16 is not clear in its own right and must be interpreted means that all kinds of silly interpretations may be used, and no one can say categorically that they are wrong.

 barmar, on 2012-August-22, 05:12, said:

This is the first time I can recall someone saying that "may not choose from among logical alternatives one that..." is unclear. It's not always easy to determine the LAs or which were demonstrably suggested, but the intent of the Law seems pretty clear. What are the differing interpretations you can think of for that phrase?

The law is perfectly clear, as Barry says.

 Vampyr, on 2012-August-22, 05:51, said:

The two chief questions have been discussed in these forums quite a lot:

1. If all LAs "could demonstrably be suggested" is the player required to make a call that is not an LA (or be damned if he does, etc)? (and even the word "could" is a problem -- is it "could conceivably"? "could often"?

2. And the flipside, is the player permitted to not choose any call at all from among logical alternatives but instead make an "ilLA"?

#2 is the rub, and is why Grattan Endicott told me some years ago that the law should not be read literally, but instead read as if the word "logical" were replaced with "plausible". Then you can argue that the "ilLA" is a "plausible" alternative, because the player chose it, and if it could demonstrably have been suggested, etc., we can adjust the score.

 Trinidad, on 2012-August-22, 06:41, said:

You are missing an important part of Law 16B:

In order to be able to demonstrate that the UI has made an LA more attractive than another, you will have to come up with a ranking for LA's: Which one is most attractive, given the UI? Which one is second, etc.

Two cases are possible:
- The UI did not make any LA more or less attractive. => No LA is suggested over another and the player may chose freely.
- The UI did make one or more LAs more attractive. In that cases there always is at least one LA that is made least attractive. This is the LA the player must chose/these are the LAs the player may chose from. A choice for another action "could have been demonstrably suggested" over this/these LA(s) and is not allowed.

It is simply not possible to demonstrate that the UI made all LAs more attractive than some other LA. One needs to be least attractive. Therefore, a TD (or anyone else) will not be able to demonstrate that a choice for this alternative "could have been suggested" by the UI.

As to "could": It is not "could often", nor is it "could conceivably". It is "could demonstrably", i.e. the TD has to demonstrate (proof) that the UI did actually make the chosen action more attractive than an other LA, and that, therefore, the choice for this action "could demonstrably have been suggested" over the other LA by the UI.

Rik

Yep.

[bluejak]

 gnasher, on 2012-August-22, 01:01, said:

But that's not what happened here. Opener didn't miscount his hand, because if he had he would have said, when asked, "I opened 1♣ because I thought I had a 16-count."


According to the original post, neither of these things occurred. Opener simply "could not explain" why he opened 1♣. If that's really all that we can get out of him, how should we rule?

How you can say "that's not what happened here" and then and "neither of these things happened" and then admit that opener could not explain is beyond me! If he could not explain, then of course one of the two things may have occurred.

How do we rule? We talk to all four players and then make a judgement. Since on this forum we cannot, it is reasonable to consider the various possibilities that such a judgement might reach. TDs don't give up and refuse to decide - well, not competent ones anyway.

 barmar, on 2012-August-22, 05:12, said:

This is the first time I can recall someone saying that "may not choose from among logical alternatives one that..." is unclear. It's not always easy to determine the LAs or which were demonstrably suggested, but the intent of the Law seems pretty clear. What are the differing interpretations you can think of for that phrase?

First time! Ye gods! The meaning of this has been discussed at least five times here, at least thirty times on RGB, and probably more than those two together on BLML. If someone chooses a call or play that is not apparently an LA but is suggested over an LA we rule it back, but the legal basis for this has been discussed many many times and different people have different views as to that legal basis.

About 15 years ago a player opened 1♠, his partner bid a slow 2♠. He decided that he was top of range for this so 4♠ would make but a 4♠ bid would be ruled back. So he bid 6♠ which was not an apparent LA and made it. The discussion on RGB was interminable!

[Vampyr]

 Trinidad, on 2012-August-22, 06:41, said:

It is simply not possible to demonstrate that the UI made all LAs more attractive than some other LA. One needs to be least attractive. Therefore, a TD (or anyone else) will not be able to demonstrate that a choice for this alternative "could have been suggested" by the UI.

But sometimes it is not clear which ones are more or least attractive, as when it is not clear why partner eg hesitated.

Quote

As to "could": It is not "could often", nor is it "could conceivably". It is "could demonstrably", i.e. the TD has to demonstrate (proof) that the UI did actually make the chosen action more attractive than an other LA, and that, therefore, the choice for this action "could demonstrably have been suggested" over the other LA by the UI.

I commented recently about how people see "could demonstrably have been suggested" and read "was demonstrably suggested". LOL

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2012-August-22, 05:03, said:

<lots of defensive whining>

ROFLMAO!

Seriously we should all be careful and try to avoid randomly guessing about factual data. People will be misled.