[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2013-April-20, 12:47, said:

Okay, do those first two in your order. Or do them independently, which is what I meant. That still doesn't lead me to agree with your interpretation of "demonstrably suggested".

The order does not really matter. As long as the UI is not used to decide on the LAs. And how would you interpret "demonstrably suggested"? All ACs I have been on have interpreted it as "likely to do better than the other LAs based on the UI".

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2013-April-20, 13:22, said:

Players are required to comply with regulations even though they may doubt the legality of the regulations (under the Laws of bridge)."

I think that point is self-defeating. SB will see it and say, "Well I don't think 16B can really mean what it clearly says, but I am told that I must comply with it even though I doubt its legality". And you will decide that he should not do that; he should listen to what he has heard on the BBO forum even though he has been told otherwise!

[lamford]

 jallerton, on 2013-April-20, 12:32, said:

It doesn't say "agreed methods of the partnership", does it?

I agree; the TD is responsible for the finding of fact as to what are the methods of the partnership. In this example, South had agreed to play 2NT as 5-5 in the minors, but forgot. If the TD decided the methods of the partnership were that 2NT was 20-22, you would be right. In the majority of cases a CC will clarify the methods of the partnership. The OP stated that the actual methods were as captioned.

[FrancesHinden]

The convention card is evidence.
The bid chosen is evidence.
I played against pairs more than once who are entirely in agreement about what a sequence means, in spite of the fact that their card says something completely different.
When opener bid 2NT he clearly did not believe the "methods of the partnership" were that 2NT shows 5-5 in the minors.

[lamford]

 FrancesHinden, on 2013-April-20, 14:51, said:

The convention card is evidence.
The bid chosen is evidence.
I played against pairs more than once who are entirely in agreement about what a sequence means, in spite of the fact that their card says something completely different.
When opener bid 2NT he clearly did not believe the "methods of the partnership" were that 2NT shows 5-5 in the minors.

I agree; but surely opener was just mistaken about the "methods of the partnership". The narrative in English Bridge stated that he realised he had agreed to play 2NT showing a weak hand with 5-5 in the minors. In the situation you describe, I expect the TD would decide the methods of the partnership were those stated by both players. This was a constructed situation, and it is pointless to dispute Mike Swanson's statement of facts.

[gnasher]

 lamford, on 2013-April-20, 14:15, said:

If 16B is wrong, then people entering tournaments should indeeed be warned that it does not mean what it says.

OK. Consider yourself warned. There's no need to warn anyone else, because they already know.

[campboy]

 lamford, on 2013-April-20, 14:17, said:

Accidentally commit a breach of 16B. But then most, I hope almost all, breaches of Law are accidental.

Ok, I'll try again. What might you do if you use the methods of the partnership and have forgotten them, but do not have any UI?

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2013-April-20, 15:05, said:

OK. Consider yourself warned. There's no need to warn anyone else, because they already know.

My guess is that only around 1% of those entering tournaments already know that 16B does not mean what it says. And I already knew that 16B was being misapplied, so did not need warning.

[lamford]

 campboy, on 2013-April-20, 15:17, said:

Ok, I'll try again. What might you do if you use the methods of the partnership and have forgotten them, but do not have any UI?

Anything you like. But for the purpose of establishing LAs, pollees are given the methods. And this thread is only concerned with when you have UI.

[aguahombre]

 campboy, on 2013-April-20, 15:17, said:

Ok, I'll try again. What might you do if you use the methods of the partnership and have forgotten them, but do not have any UI?

Accept the transfer. Just like if you did have UI.

[lamford]

 aguahombre, on 2013-April-20, 15:53, said:

Accept the transfer. Just like if you did have UI.

3D wasn't a transfer; it showed longer diamonds than clubs. Let us say that you are playing with screens, and you remembered yourself that you were playing 2NT as 5-5 in the minors. That is how you decide on LAs; without any UI. 3H is eccentric now, showing a void we are told, 3NT is surely the best choice, and Pass is reasonable - partner could have a Yarborough with longer diamonds. After you have picked the LAs, you decide which is demonstrably suggested by the UI and reject those.

Does anyone on here think that you use the UI to decide on the LAs? If so, why did my County Director course recommended always polling players without the UI?

[aguahombre]

You added an element, Lamford. Your screen example has you remembering your agreement before your rebid, with no UI. The OP case doesn't have that element.

You opened 2NT with a 2NT opening, and partner responded 3D. Whatever 3D means determines the L.A.'s. 3NT is not one. 3H is the only one.

Next, 4D is slammish showing the reds. You don't have four Diamonds, you don't have 3H; you do have a Maximum, so you accept the slam ---in Notrump. Oh, wait. That is what he did.

[nige1]

 gnasher, on 2013-April-20, 01:25, said:

When you enter a bridge event, you submit yourself to the rules and practices of the RA, and you accept the RA's interpretation of the laws. If you believe that this interpretation is incorrect, you may try to persuade the RA to change it, or you may prefer not to play in the event, but you can't participate and then disregard the RA's interpretation.

IMO: The WBF (or empowered local regulators) may change a rule. Until rule-makers publish such a change officially, directors shouldn't knowingly "interpret" a rule to have a meaning that its words don't seem to bear. It's a bad example for players.

[gnasher]

 lamford, on 2013-April-20, 15:46, said:

My guess is that only around 1% of those entering tournaments already know that 16B does not mean what it says. And I already knew that 16B was being misapplied, so did not need warning.

And the other 99% won't be suing anyone, so they don't need to be warned either.

[Vampyr]

 lamford, on 2013-April-20, 14:15, said:

Dburn once wrote, as best I recall, that no disapprobation should apply to someone following the law precisely.

He writes it all the time, doesn't he, since his signature is:

When Senators have had their sport
And sealed the Law by vote,
It little matters what they thought -
We hang for what they wrote.

He doesn't attribute it; Chesterton is my guess.

[jallerton]

 jallerton, on 2013-April-20, 12:32, said:

It doesn't say "agreed methods of the partnership", does it? Here it could be argued that South's method was to open 2NT on a strong balanced hand. South is a member of the partnership, so this is a "method of the partnership", albeit a particularly poor method when his partner is expecting a completely different hand type.

 lamford, on 2013-April-20, 14:39, said:

I agree; the TD is responsible for the finding of fact as to what are the methods of the partnership. In this example, South had agreed to play 2NT as 5-5 in the minors, but forgot. If the TD decided the methods of the partnership were that 2NT was 20-22, you would be right. In the majority of cases a CC will clarify the methods of the partnership. The OP stated that the actual methods were as captioned.

Law 16B doesn't say "actual methods of the partnership" either, it just says "methods of the partnership".

In isolation, I believe that both your and Campboy's suggested interpretation of Law 16B are equally valid. However, your interpretation of Law 16B is in direct conflict with Law 73C, whilst Campboy's interpretation is entirely consistent with Law 73C. Therefore, for Law 16B to make any sense, we should assume that Campboy's interpretation of Law 16B is the one intended by the WBFLC.

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2013-April-20, 14:18, said:

The order does not really matter. As long as the UI is not used to decide on the LAs. And how would you interpret "demonstrably suggested"? All ACs I have been on have interpreted it as "likely to do better than the other LAs based on the UI".

I think what you two are disagreeing on is what "likely" means. Blackshoe is interpreting it in an absolute sense, lamford is interpreting it as the expectation of the player.

[nige1]

 gnasher, on 2013-April-20, 01:25, said:

When you enter a bridge event, you submit yourself to the rules and practices of the RA, and you accept the RA's interpretation of the laws. If you believe that this interpretation is incorrect, you may try to persuade the RA to change it, or you may prefer not to play in the event, but you can't participate and then disregard the RA's interpretation.

An amendment should be published before players and directors can be expected to comply with it. Even when a local legislature publishes such an "interpretation", I don't think players or directors should follow it, when it seems to conflict with the WBF law-book. For example ...

ACBL club directors handbook said:

There seems to be a popular misconception about the responsibility of the hesitator's partner. Nothing could be further from the truth than "I had to pass. Partner's huddle barred me from the auction." Players are generally well advised to take the action they would have taken had there been no huddle.

[aguahombre]

Nige1, you are overthinking what is being said in that handbook. They are debunking the idea that hesitation=pass, not addressing the choice from among L.A.'s.

And generally means generally.

[lamford]

 jallerton, on 2013-April-21, 12:05, said:

In isolation, I believe that both your and Campboy's suggested interpretation of Law 16B are equally valid. However, your interpretation of Law 16B is in direct conflict with Law 73C, whilst Campboy's interpretation is entirely consistent with Law 73C.

I don't agree with that (even though I am favour of changing the Law to fit Campboy's interpretation). But following 16B does not conflict with 73C at all, as the player still has to select from among LAs one not demonstrably suggested by the UI. In doing that he is following 73C. So how should the player think in this example?

a) The methods are that 2NT shows 5-5 in the minors, 6-10, as established by the TD, and as outlined in the narrative.
b) After 2NT-3D, what are the LAs using the methods of the partnership?
c) As the rustic said to the motorist, "I would not start from here", but we have to bid something. If the methods are that 2NT is 20-22, then 3H is the only LA. If the methods are that 2NT is 5-5 in the minors, 6-10, then no bid will describe the hand, so let us say the LAs are 3NT, 3H and Pass because those we polled with the methods chose those bids. I cannot think of any other bid, except 6NT, and none of those I polled chose 3H, but I am including it because some think it is the only LA.
d) Now, and only now, do we carefully avoid selecting from the LAs any that are demonstrably suggested by the UI. Pass is likely to be unsuccesful as game is favourite to make (around 70% I made it in a quick simulation), so that is not demonstrably suggested and can be chosen without breaching 16B. 3H will be interpreted by partner as a good hand with both minors (Phil King and I agree that it will not be interpreted as a void), and has the best chance of getting a good result, based on the UI. What actually happened was extremely likely, and bidding 6NT now would be as heinous a crime as bidding 3H. 3NT will be misinterpreted as something like 6-6 in the minors, but that is because of the UI, so that is the clearly least demonstrated LA and would be my choice. The bid most likely to take advantage of the UI is 3H.
d) Far from conflicting with 73C, a literal interpretation of 16B fully conforms with 73C. The only difference between my approach and campboy (and I think gnasher's) approach is that they use the UI to decide on the LAs. I think that the LAs should be selected using the methods of the partnership. Exactly what 16B says. And exactly what we are told to do in directors' courses - poll people using the methods of the partnership.

If the WBFLC pronounces that 16B is perfectly OK, I would have no problem with that. It does not conflict with 73C one iota.