[lamford]

---

North-South were a new partnership here, and South thought (correctly) they had agreed to play Bergen raises but was unsure if North had remembered. The slow 3S, 3-6 with four spades, cast further doubts in his mind, and he added a fourth. Luck was on his side and there was no defence, for 11 IMPs to NS. The TD was called, and he polled ten people, none of whom bid 4S, so it was not an LA, and it was clearly not suggested by the UI. How would you rule?

[FrancesHinden]

I don't understand the question.
The slow 3S bid "cast further doubts in his mind" because he was "unsure if North had remembered". How can you say that 4S is not suggested by the UI when your explanation of the facts is that South is unsure if North has a weak raise or a limit raise and the slow 3S bid, so you say, made South doubt the meaning of 3S?

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-June-02, 16:31, said:

I don't understand the question.
The slow 3S bid "cast further doubts in his mind" because he was "unsure if North had remembered". How can you say that 4S is not suggested by the UI when your explanation of the facts is that South is unsure if North has a weak raise or a limit raise and the slow 3S bid, so you say, made South doubt the meaning of 3S?

4S was not an LA, as it was not considered by any of those polled, using the methods of the partnership, which were Bergen raises on the card. Now I think one should not be allowed to choose a non-LA either but that is not clear in the Laws.

The UI is the speed of 3S, and that could be for any reason - he might have been recalling that they were playing Bergen raises, or he might have five trumps, or he might have been too weak or too balanced. Having misbid is only one possible, and unlikely, reason for the tempo, and that certainly does not demonstrably suggest bidding 4S.

[blackshoe]

I would ask South why he bid 4♠. It wouldn't be too hard to convince me he did it because he didn't expect to benefit. Put it another way: there are many hands that would make a weak raise and with which game has no chance, and few hands on which game might make. South got lucky. If we don't let him enjoy his luck, we come dangerously close, IMO, to a return to "if it hesitates, shoot it".

[gnasher]

4♠ was a logical alternative for the purpose of Law 16B1. See the WBFLC Minutes, Philadelphia 2010. Here's the text, for those unlucky enough to have missed the other thread:
There was a discussion of the definition of a 'logical alternative'. It was agreed that the call actually chosen by a player is normally considered to be among the logical alternatives with respect to the application of Law 16B1. An exception may arise in the case of a call that it would be impossible to contemplate in the particular circumstances.

I've even worked out how to finesse the final sentence. In these particular circumstances, South intentionally bid 4♠. Before doing that, he contemplated it. That tells us that contemplation of this action is possible, in the particular circumstances faced by South. Hence no exception arises.

[jhenrikj]

From the WBF LC Minute 2010-10-08

There was a discussion of the definition of a 'logical alternative'. It was agreed that the call actually chosen by a player is normally considered to be among the logical alternatives with respect to the application of Law 16B1. An exception may arise in the case of a call that it would be impossible to contemplate in the particular circumstances.


Edit: To slow ;=)

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-June-03, 01:15, said:

4♠ was a logical alternative for the purpose of Law 16B1. See the WBFLC Minutes, Philadelphia 2010. Here's the text, for those unlucky enough to have missed the other thread:
There was a discussion of the definition of a 'logical alternative'. It was agreed that the call actually chosen by a player is normally considered to be among the logical alternatives with respect to the application of Law 16B1. An exception may arise in the case of a call that it would be impossible to contemplate in the particular circumstances.

I've even worked out how to finesse the final sentence. In these particular circumstances, South intentionally bid 4♠. Before doing that, he contemplated it. That tells us that contemplation of this action is possible, in the particular circumstances faced by South. Hence no exception arises.

I don't think there is another minute other than the ones you correctly unearthed. I looked through the last dozen minutes, and I think that dburn's posting was based on the interpretation in Reno. Most of the postings at the time suggested that selecting an "illogical alternative" was not carefully avoiding taking any advantage of the UI.

You are also interpreting "would be impossible to contemplate" in an unusual way. It clearly means "would be impossible to contemplate for his peers", not for the player himself. But I think you knew that, and did not really believe your own argument. Now the minute does not say what action we take against such a bid, which is indeed unhelpful.

If the player fails to "carefully avoid" taking advantage of the UI, adjust the score. If the player has a
random accident that happens to work, unaffected by UI, no adjustment. was one opinion.

If this example is not a random accident, I do not know what is. Did the player select from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested by the UI? No, even if you consider 4S to be a logical alternative, the UI, as in the other thread could suggest many things. Did the player carefully avoid taking any advantage of the UI? Given that 4S was extremely unlikely to be successful (a simulation opposite a limit raise - any hand with 8 losers and four spades for simplicity - made it less than 30%), he clearly did.

So, the opinion of some, including dburn and me, is that selecting a call that is not a logical alternative, when it is likely that the logical alternatives will not score well, is not carefully avoiding taking advantage of the UI. So, I take issue with your claim that one can select an incredible call if it is not demonstrably suggested over a credible call.

I also disagree that the player making the "normal call" can breach 16B. He is carefully avoiding taking any advantage of the UI in doing so. Where he will, and should, be ruled against is when his opinion of the "normal call" is not substantiated by a poll.

[helene_t]

Doesn't it fall under the EBU regulation concerning fielded misbids?

[lamford]

helene_t, on 2013-June-03, 02:11, said:

Doesn't it fall under the EBU regulation concerning fielded misbids?

It might, expect North did not misbid.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-June-03, 01:53, said:

A bid that would not be seriously considered by any of the player's peers falls into that category. Now the minute does not say what action we take against such a bid, which is indeed unhelpful.

The minute tells us that it may be correct to treat such a bid as an LA, or it may not. So either:
(1) It's an LA, so a decision to choose it is constrained by Law 16, or
(2) It's not an LA, so for the purposes of Law 16 you are free to choose it.

A non-suggested illogical action is therefore allowed by Law 16, regardless of how we're supposed to act upon the WBFLC's final sentence. A problem would arise only in the case of an illogical action which is also suggested by the UI.

Quote

So, the opinion of some, including dburn and me, is that selecting a call that is not a logical alternative, when it is likely that the logical alternatives
will not score well, is not carefully avoiding taking advantage of the UI.

Sorry, but I don't understand. Are you saying that there is a category of call which takes advantage of the UI but is not suggested by the UI?

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-June-03, 02:21, said:

The minute tells us that it may be correct to treat such a bid as an LA, or it may not. So either:
(1) It's an LA, so a decision to choose it is constrained by Law 16, or
(2) It's not an LA, so for the purposes of Law 16 you are free to choose it.

I think it's not an LA, and agree that for the purposes of Law 16 you are free to choose it. However, selecting it is a breach of Law 73 if you would have done less well by selecting a logical alternative and could reasonably have foreseen that.

[gnasher]

I'm not sure what we're arguing about. If a player does something unusual that is suggested by the UI, or (equivalently IMO), takes advantage of the UI, then either:
- It's an LA, and prohibited under both laws.
- It's not an LA, so allowed under law 16 but prohibited under Law 73.
That makes this 4♠ illegal, and I don't think it matters which specific law makes it illegal.

Similarly, whether the 5♥ in the other thread is legal depends on what is suggested by the UI, or (equivalently IMO), which actions take advantage of the UI. Again, the choice of law seems unimportant.

Anyway, I'm glad we've found a use for Law 73C1.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-June-03, 04:29, said:

I'm not sure what we're arguing about. If a player does something unusual that is suggested by the UI, or (equivalently IMO), takes advantage of the UI, then either:
- It's an LA, and prohibited under both laws.
- It's not an LA, so allowed under law 16 but prohibited under Law 73.
That makes this 4♠ illegal, and I don't think it matters which specific law makes it illegal.

Similarly, whether the 5♥ in the other thread is legal depends on what is suggested by the UI, or (equivalently IMO), which actions take advantage of the UI. Again, the choice of law seems unimportant.

Anyway, I'm glad we've found a use for Law 73C1.

The 5H in the other thread could be an LA, as both FrancesHinden, and Cyberyeti in another thread, gave it consideration, which seemed to be serious consideration. If it is an LA, then I agree it depends on what is suggested, as we rule under 16B. If it is not an LA, we have no choice but to rule under Law 73.

However, the 4S in this thread is not an LA so 16B is irrelevant. For you to disallow it therefore, you now would have to rule that bidding it was not carefully avoiding taking any advantage of the UI. It does not matter what is demonstrably suggested, as we are now ruling under 73C. I submit that bidding 4S here does not take any advantage, as the contract reached as a result was under 2.5%. Any advantage gained, just as with a lottery ticket, was from luck, and 73C states "taking any advantage" not "getting any advantage". A disadvantage was "taken" by bidding 4S, in that the expectancy went down from something like -100 to -200.

So, yes, when someone makes a wild punt, because he does not want to choose an LA, we just rule according to 73C, and decide whether he was taking any advantage. And yes, it does matter under which Law. If there is a foreseeable chance that the person will do better from the illogical alternative then we rule against him, as "any advantage" means that. For 16B we only have to show it was demonstrably suggested (and more successful).

[iviehoff]

lamford, on 2013-June-03, 01:53, said:

Did the player carefully avoid taking any advantage of the UI? Given that 4S was extremely unlikely to be successful (a simulation opposite a limit raise - any hand with 8 losers and four spades for simplicity - made it less than 30%), he clearly did.

I don't think a bit "less than 30%" makes something "extremely unlikely to succeed". It can even be profitable on balance to bid 30% contracts. Often the possession of some UI makes you know that the ethical action is very likely to be bad score, so even a 5% action might be net profitable in that context, if the best action is now known to be off limits.

This is just another case-study pointing out that the law about not taking advantage of UI, and the law about not choosing a demonstrably suggested LA, aren't consistent. We know that. The problem is we haven't been told what to do.

Clearly the lawmakers haven't explicitly thought through what the ruling should be in the case of hands like the present one and told us what to do. An interesting issue for the lawmakers is whether the director should be made to calculate, for the purpose of his ruling, whether an action such as the 4S call here is one that is on average profitable to the player given the UI restriction he suffers, a calculation one might make to distinguish things that are and aren't suggested by the UI. My personal view is that directors have enough difficult calculations to make without having to make that one too. It should be an offence to make any call that appears to take advantage of the UI. In the present case, the player saw from the UI that there was a chance he might be missing a game, he didn't really know what the odds were, took the chance and got lucky. That ought to be good enough to find him guilty.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-June-03, 04:55, said:

For you to disallow it therefore, you now would have to rule that bidding it was not carefully avoiding taking any advantage of the UI. It does not matter what is demonstrably suggested, as we are now ruling under 73C.

If you want me to understand your point, I think you should start by answering my earlier question. Are you saying that there is a category of call which takes advantage of the UI but is not suggested by the UI?

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-June-03, 05:03, said:

If you want me to understand your point, I think you should start by answering my earlier question. Are you saying that there is a category of call which takes advantage of the UI but is not suggested by the UI?

Yes, the category of calls which are "impossible to contemplate". These calls may not be suggested by the UI, but selecting one and hoping to get lucky, because the only LA that will be allowed is likely to be bad, is a breach of 73C. Let us say that you have AJTxx x AKQJxx x and partner opens 1S, you bid 2NT, game-forcing raise, partner bids 4NT, RKCB, and you bid 5H. Partner, a client, bids 5S slowly, so you know you are not off two keycards, but are probably off one, so Pass and 6S are the only LAs. 6S is demonstrably suggested by the BIT, and you know you will not survive a ruling if you bid it. Instead you leap to 7S and it makes on the trump finesse. You poll ten people and nobody bids 7S. It is counter-suggested, if anything, by the slow 5S, as you cannot have all the key cards, and they may have a cashing ace. It is this type of bid that may not be suggested by the UI, but can still take advantage of it. Would you allow 7S here?

[lamford]

iviehoff, on 2013-June-03, 04:57, said:

I don't think a bit "less than 30%" makes something "extremely unlikely to succeed". It can even be profitable on balance to bid 30% contracts. Often the possession of some UI makes you know that the ethical action is very likely to be bad score, so even a 5% action might be net profitable in that context, if the best action is now known to be off limits.

This is just another case-study pointing out that the law about not taking advantage of UI, and the law about not choosing a demonstrably suggested LA, aren't consistent. We know that. The problem is we haven't been told what to do.

Clearly the lawmakers haven't explicitly thought through what the ruling should be in the case of hands like the present one and told us what to do. An interesting issue for the lawmakers is whether the director should be made to calculate, for the purpose of his ruling, whether an action such as the 4S call here is one that is on average profitable to the player given the UI restriction he suffers, a calculation one might make to distinguish things that are and aren't suggested by the UI. My personal view is that directors have enough difficult calculations to make without having to make that one too. It should be an offence to make any call that appears to take advantage of the UI. In the present case, the player saw from the UI that there was a chance he might be missing a game, he didn't really know what the odds were, took the chance and got lucky. That ought to be good enough to find him guilty.

I agree it should be an offence to make a call that appears to take advantage of the UI. I think it should also be an offence to choose a non-LA that happens to gain. However, the chance of 4S making is not 30%; it is only 30% if partner has a limit raise. That is only one of the possible reasons for the BIT. If we estimate that the chance of partner having misbid is 20%, the chance of him being too weak for 3S is 20%, the chance of him being too balanced for 3S is 20% etc, then we are down to 6% for the chance of 4S making.

That means that bidding 4S is hardly taking advantage of the UI. But I agree that the Laws could be improved here.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2013-June-03, 06:12, said:

Yes, the category of calls which are "impossible to contemplate". These calls may not be suggested by the UI, but selecting one and hoping to get lucky, because the only LA that will be allowed is likely to be bad, is a breach of 73C. Let us say that you have AJTxx x AKQJxx x and partner opens 1S, you bid 2NT, game-forcing raise, partner bids 4NT, RKCB, and you bid 5H. Partner, a client, bids 5S slowly, so you know you are not off two keycards, but are probably off one, so Pass and 6S are the only LAs. 6S is demonstrably suggested by the BIT, and you know you will not survive a ruling if you bid it. Instead you leap to 7S and it makes on the trump finesse. You poll ten people and nobody bids 7S. It is counter-suggested, if anything, by the slow 5S, as you cannot have all the key cards, and they may have a cashing ace. It is this type of bid that may not be suggested by the UI, but can still take advantage of it. Would you allow 7S here?

Of course not, because it is demonstrably suggested. While 7♠ is unlikely to make even with the UI, it would be much less likely to make without the UI.

[billw55]

This horse is dead lamford !!

[lamford]

campboy, on 2013-June-03, 06:35, said:

Of course not, because it is demonstrably suggested. While 7♠ is unlikely to make even with the UI, it would be much less likely to make without the UI.

The test is whether it is demonstrably suggested over 6S and Pass, not whether it is demonstrably suggested in its own right. The law says:

<snip> one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

The UI from a slow 5S is that you are off one key-card. If you pass, 5S must be a lock, and 7S is likely to go one down. 7S is not demonstrably suggested over 6S either, as it is likely to fail, and 6S is extremely likely to make. Therefore there is no breach of 16B.