[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2012-August-20, 10:10, said:

To repeat, I don't know the exact legal basis for your stance ---nor for the stance of the others who disagree with you. But, common sense to me would be LA's from a natural opening system should be considered in this case.

The issue is that the law that says "using the methods of the partnership" in the definition of LAs apparently precludes applying common sense in this case.

I prefer to believe that when a law is so obviously misguided, common sense should win out. The lawgivers could not possibly have intended this interpretation, they just didn't think of this case when drafting it.

[barmar]

BTW, my "Martian Precision" posts were intended as Devil's Advocate, to show how trying to figure out the "system" they were thinking they were playing at the time can lead to nonsense. You can make up any system you want, so long as the hand matches the opening bid. Maybe he thought he was playing Intermediate Club, where 1♣ shows any 12+.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2012-August-20, 14:16, said:

The issue is that the law that says "using the methods of the partnership" in the definition of LAs apparently precludes applying common sense in this case.

Yes. However, the "methods of the partnership" are not authorized information to the opening bidder; so, IMHO, we cannot apply that definition to opener's rebid ---and thus cannot use that Section to rule in this case....the only alternative is to interpret the Section as "alleged methods of the partnership known at the time of the opening bid and before the UI."

[blackshoe]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-20, 10:06, said:

Missing the point, there is no situation where a hole in my system requires me to make a bid specifically prohibited as an agreement by the RA. There can also be systems with no holes, you just have to make some bids wider range than you want to so you make "correct" system bids to bad contracts as you lose some of your precision.

Wait a minute. We're talking about a situation where the agreed system of the partnership is legal, and where the bid actually made, although anti-system, is also legal per the convention regulations. So what bid are you talking about that's "specifically prohibited", and by which RA?

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2012-August-20, 10:10, said:

I don't know. But, back at you (and Barry) What law says that we can consider whether there are logical alternatives from a Strong Club system when it is unauthorized information to opener that he was playing that system?

To repeat, I don't know the exact legal basis for your stance ---nor for the stance of the others who disagree with you. But, common sense to me would be LA's from a natural opening system should be considered in this case.

aguahombre, on 2012-August-20, 14:54, said:

Yes. However, the "methods of the partnership" are not authorized information to the opening bidder; so, IMHO, we cannot apply that definition to opener's rebid ---and thus cannot use that Section to rule in this case....the only alternative is to interpret the Section as "alleged methods of the partnership known at the time of the opening bid and before the UI."

Law 16 says nothing about "methods of the partnership" being UI. First off, before we can talk about "UI" we need to talk about "I". The "I" in this case is that opener has shown 16+ HCP (and nothing else) by his opening bid. That information (not the information that he's playing Precision) is what's unauthorized to him. What does it mean to say information is unauthorized? It means that he may not use that information in choosing from amongst logical alernatives one suggested over another by the UI. How are the LAs determined? By examining what calls might be considered using the methods of the partnership. The methods of this partnership are the methods of the Precision system. So that's where we look for LAs. Not some system the TD (or the player's opponent) makes up as the "system he is playing".

No, I haven't quoted a specific provision of law that says precisely this. I haven't because there isn't one. But everything I've said is logically derived from what Law 16 actually does say.

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2012-August-20, 15:27, said:

Wait a minute. We're talking about a situation where the agreed system of the partnership is legal, and where the bid actually made, although anti-system, is also legal per the convention regulations. So what bid are you talking about that's "specifically prohibited", and by which RA?

You used not to be able to agree in the EBU that the 1♦ negative to an artificial club was NF. You can now.

[blackshoe]

Even if your agreement is that it is forcing, you are not prohibited (absent UI, anyway) from passing it.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2012-August-20, 15:40, said:

That information (not the information that he's playing Precision) is what's unauthorized to him.

I see the problem now. You don't believe that when pard alerted 1C, the fact that he is playing Precision became UI, and before that opener apparently was playing something else.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2012-August-20, 10:10, said:

I don't know. But, back at you (and Barry) What law says that we can consider whether there are logical alternatives from a Strong Club system when it is unauthorized information to opener that he was playing that system?

To repeat, I don't know the exact legal basis for your stance ---nor for the stance of the others who disagree with you. But, common sense to me would be LA's from a natural opening system should be considered in this case.

That is completely against the wording in the Law which is that he must select LAs "using the methods of the partnership." There is already a precedent in the Laws, where someone makes a mechanical error, for him to use UI to discover that he has done something wrong. To say that he only knows he is playing Precision because of the UI is ridiculous. He has become aware that he misbid in Precision because of the UI, yes, but he still knows that his partner's response shows 0-7. If his partner had failed to alert 1C, inadvertently, but I have seen it happen, then he would still have alerted 1D and explained it if asked as 0-7. The overall methods of the partnership are AI to both sides, and I think that many rulings have been contrary to the wording of the Laws. The fact that he misbid comes from the alert and that is UI. But he knows that the combined assets of the partnership are a maximum of 19 points, from his own hand and his basic system, and he should select his rebid accordingly. That is obviously Pass. The opponents will also get to game now, which they will miss if he lies again with 1NT, so he is carefully avoiding taking advantage of the UI. I would disallow bids other than Pass, and 1NT, as they were not seriously considered by those polled, and I would disallow 1NT, as I think it is marginally demonstrably suggested.

Blackshoe covers the issue extremely well.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2012-August-20, 16:25, said:

I see the problem now. You don't believe that when pard alerted 1C, the fact that he is playing Precision became UI, and before that opener apparently was playing something else.

I do not believe that the alert makes the fact that the partnership is playing Precision UI. I do not believe that the opener was playing some other system. So?

[barmar]

I'll bring it up again. If "the methods of the partnership" are Precision, how can there possibly be any LAs after opener opens 1♣ with a 12 count? Every bid he makes shows at least 16 HCP, because there's nothing in the system that allows taking back what the opening bid showed.

It makes absolutely no sense to try to rule based on the actual methods of the partnership, it causes a logical paradox (similar to the Barber Paradox). But if you instead base the determination of LAs on a likely system consistent with his previous bidding, then you do not have a contradiction and can make a reasonable ruling.

Actually, I suppose there's a way out of this. If there are no LAs, you can conclude that EVERYTHING is an LA. Then you just have to decide which of the 34 possible bids are demonstrably suggested by the UI, and prohibit them. In this case, the UI indicates that your side has less than half the points in the deck, which implies that you should try to keep the bidding low. To avoid taking advantage of this UI, you must keep making forcing bids until you reach at least the 3 level.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2012-August-20, 19:02, said:

I do not believe that the alert makes the fact that the partnership is playing Precision UI. I do not believe that the opener was playing some other system. So?

So?? So, I have expressed what you don't believe correctly, and that it is a problem keeping me from agreeing with you.

The conclusion from what you don't believe is that opener psyched, and we are back to an illegal bid of 1C and a ruling in accordance with that. LA's become moot. Can't have it both ways; either he knew he was playing Precision when he opened 1C (psyche), or he thought he was playing something else and woke up (UI). There is nothing in the OP about saying he miscounted his hand or pulled the wrong card from the bid box. How easy it would have been to say so, if that had ocurred

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2012-August-20, 21:28, said:

either he knew he was playing Precision when he opened 1C (psyche), or he thought he was playing something else and woke up (UI).

or he knew he was playing Precision, but had a brain fart and bid 1♣ anyway. Since he didn't intend to mislead, it's not a psyche, it's a misbid.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2012-August-20, 21:28, said:

So?? So, I have expressed what you don't believe correctly, and that it is a problem keeping me from agreeing with you.

The conclusion from what you don't believe is that opener psyched, and we are back to an illegal bid of 1C and a ruling in accordance with that. LA's become moot. Can't have it both ways; either he knew he was playing Precision when he opened 1C (psyche), or he thought he was playing something else and woke up (UI). There is nothing in the OP about saying he miscounted his hand or pulled the wrong card from the bid box. How easy it would have been to say so, if that had ocurred

You appear to be saying that once a pair agrees to play Precision (and why Precision exactly, other than it's the system the pair in this thread had agreed to play? Why not <insert any system name here, including Standard American or Acol>?) they cannot possibly misbid the 1♣ opening. They either have a legitimate 1♣ bid, or they psyched. I don't buy that. It is not impossible to misbid when you're playing <insert system name here>.

You also seem to think that "UI" is some kind of mantra, and all you need to do is chant it. It's not.

Edit: Thanks, Barry, you expressed what I was trying to say better than I did.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2012-August-20, 22:50
Reason for edit: add a sentence.

[campboy]

barmar, on 2012-August-20, 21:25, said:

I'll bring it up again. If "the methods of the partnership" are Precision, how can there possibly be any LAs after opener opens 1♣ with a 12 count? Every bid he makes shows at least 16 HCP, because there's nothing in the system that allows taking back what the opening bid showed.

Of course there are LAs under that assumption. You ask players what they might do if they opened 1♣ by mistake and then had to deal with a 1♦ response. The LAs are those calls that "a significant proportion" would seriously consider, "some" of whom would select. There are no good calls at this point because of the earlier misbid, but an LA does not have to be a good call.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2012-August-20, 16:45, said:

I would disallow bids other than Pass, and 1NT, as they were not seriously considered by those polled, and I would disallow 1NT, as I think it is marginally demonstrably suggested.

You seem to be confusing "suggested" with "better". It may be that 1NT is slightly better than pass even given the UI, but without UI 1NT would be massively better than pass. The UI has turned pass from a non-runner into a serious contender, therefore pass was demonstrably suggested by the UI.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2012-August-20, 21:28, said:

The conclusion from what you don't believe is that opener psyched, and we are back to an illegal bid of 1C and a ruling in accordance with that.

It is clear according to the OP that it was a misbid not a psyche. Psyches have to be intentional. Even so, it would not be illegal any more to psyche a strong club in the UK, and I do not think it is illegal to misbid 1C, except in North Korea.

It is clear that North's One Diamond is not fielding the misbid. The question is whether it is authorised to South that this shows 0-7. That bid is not affected by any UI, unless you argue that once South has misbid, all subsequent bids are unauthorised. If you decide that the meaning of One Diamond is authorised, then Pass is the only LA, and 1NT, showing 17-19, is an attempt to keep the vulnerable opponents out of the auction, and that uses the UI that you have misbid, as they will be expecting a better hand.

And the Barber Paradox is not the same. Either you apply the methods of the partnership, or you apply some other methods, for the purpose of deciding the LAs only. The Laws say that you do the former. People are arguing that this is not logical, and you should apply the methods that the misbidder misthought. I would agree that this change should be made to the Laws, and I had already sent it to Endicott in response to a request for such suggestions in another forum. The current Laws are unambiguous in this, however, and can be followed, so should be followed.

The aspect of the Barber Paradox I do agree is Russell's "the whole form of words is noise without meaning", but that could be written about most Laws.

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2012-August-20, 15:43, said:

Even if your agreement is that it is forcing, you are not prohibited (absent UI, anyway) from passing it.

Yes but I would have thought that arguing it's the only LA in a TD situation implies you were playing an illegal system.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-21, 02:56, said:

Yes but I would have thought that arguing it's the only LA in a TD situation implies you were playing an illegal system.

No. You misbid 1C in a legal system.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2012-August-20, 10:10, said:

What law says that we can consider whether there are logical alternatives from a Strong Club system when it is unauthorized information to opener that he was playing that system?

He has to use the unauthorised information to decide on the LAs, as he is told to by Law 16. He uses the unauthorised information to tell himself to alert 1D, unless you are a member of the de Wael school, so why should this be any different?