[gwnn]

Suppose declarer is playing some contract where his distribution is unclear. Declarer plays K, Q of some suit and partner is starting to think on the Q. Obviously if he eventually plays low, you have UI that partner has the ace and you had better not use it in planning your defence. But there's also the possibility that he is planning to discard. Can I already start to place some cards assuming that he has a singleton? Or am I legally obligated not to use this information (presumption of information) before he indeed discards? I imagine doing this might make for a 0.01 IMP edge, give or take a few, but maybe it's still interesting.

[pran]

gwnn, on 2012-November-29, 02:30, said:

Suppose declarer is playing some contract where his distribution is unclear. Declarer plays K, Q of some suit and partner is starting to think on the Q. Obviously if he eventually plays low, you have UI that partner has the ace and you had better not use it in planning your defence. But there's also the possibility that he is planning to discard. Can I already start to place some cards assuming that he has a singleton? Or am I legally obligated not to use this information (presumption of information) before he indeed discards? I imagine doing this might make for a 0.01 IMP edge, give or take a few, but maybe it's still interesting.

There is no fixed rule on what cards you may or may not play during the rest of the play.

The law is very explicit in that you may not choose an action that could have been suggested by the UI you received from your partner's BIT.

What that action might be is often a matter of hindsight and judgement by the Director.

[Trinidad]

Interesting question.

Until proven otherwise, my position would be that you can use the time that you have to your best advantage. That may be to plan how to play when partner discards, it may be how to play when partner decides to take his ace.

But you could also use the time to plan the play when partner ducks. It is often not so easy to untangle the authorized and the unauthorized information. You can start planning the play under the assumption that partner does not have the ace. Do you have LA's in the play? What LA's are suggested? At what point will you have to play partner for the ace (because otherwise it can't go down -assuming IMPs for simplicity's sake)?

I would suggest you use it for the last option. After all, it is the hardest to find a legal, yet successful way to defend.

Rik

[mink]

If a law restricts you in some way, and you break this restriction, it must be possible for the TD to find out about this. But if some path of thinking was illegal, we would need TDs with mind-reading capabilities.

Karl

[ArtK78]

There is nothing in the laws that restricts what you might be thinking about. The laws only provide sanctions for actions.

While I understand that you might think it is somewhat sleazy to think about your defense assuming that partner is spending time thinking about what to discard, it does not violate any rules. You can think about anything you want to think about. Acting on such information is another matter.

The criminal law is similar. You may think about robbing a bank, or committing a murder, but until you act upon your thoughts you have done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law.

[gnasher]

ArtK78, on 2012-November-29, 08:57, said:

There is nothing in the laws that restricts what you might be thinking about. The laws only provide sanctions for actions.

While I understand that you might think it is somewhat sleazy to think about your defense assuming that partner is spending time thinking about what to discard, it does not violate any rules. You can think about anything you want to think about. Acting on such information is another matter.

The criminal law is similar. You may think about robbing a bank, or committing a murder, but until you act upon your thoughts you have done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law.

If we use UI to tell us the most effective way to use the available time, aren't we taking advantage of it, in defiance of Law 73C?

I'm not sure that we'd be doing that in Gwnn's example, because the hesitation doesn't tell us what to think about. But if the hesitation told us that partner was about to discard, it would be arguably be illegal to spend all the available time thinking about how to defend following a discard.

Of course, this interpretation was almost certainly not intended by the law-makers, so it's probably best ignored (together with all other attempts to give meaning to Law 73C).

[Trinidad]

ArtK78, on 2012-November-29, 08:57, said:

There is nothing in the laws that restricts what you might be thinking about. The laws only provide sanctions for actions.

There is a difference between "thinking" and "thinking". You are free to think (have an opinion) that Smolen is a great convention or that Multi should be GCC legal. But one could certainly argue that in the game of bridge thinking (as in planning the play or auction) is an action.

This is not limited to bridge. While for Archie Bunker thinking may mainly be to have an opinion, others (e.g. theoretical physicists) are professional thinkers. The latter form of thinking is certainly an action. If it would not be an action why would these professionals get a salary?

Rik

[Zelandakh]

Trinidad, on 2012-November-30, 03:15, said:

others (e.g. theoretical physicists) are professional thinkers. The latter form of thinking is certainly an action. If it would not be an action why would these professionals get a salary?

Mostly because they take those thoughts and write papers from them. That in turn brings cash into the university through research grants. If you know the system you can basically work out how many papers you need to reach a certain grading level, and therby work out how many "thinkers" you need not to lose funding.

[gwnn]

gnasher, on 2012-November-29, 09:33, said:

not sure that we'd be doing that in Gwnn's example, because the hesitation doesn't tell us what to think about. But if the hesitation told us that partner was about to discard, it would be arguably be illegal to spend all the available time thinking about how to defend following a discard.

Of course, this interpretation was almost certainly not intended by the law-makers, so it's probably best ignored (together with all other attempts to give meaning to Law 73C).

The point would be that if I start thinking of layouts where my p has the ace and he plays small, I need to knowingly play the opposite plan (so long as it is plausible). That is painful. If I start thinking of layouts where p had a singleton and he does indeed have a singleton, I can now use my clever layouts that I have built (legally or illegally). Of course in practice I try to just think of nothing, which is quite legal (or my p would need to call the director a lot), or think of some other suit, or think of which are plausible plans disregarding the UI.

[Trinidad]

Zelandakh, on 2012-November-30, 04:19, said:

Mostly because they take those thoughts and write papers from them. That in turn brings cash into the university through research grants. If you know the system you can basically work out how many papers you need to reach a certain grading level, and therby work out how many "thinkers" you need not to lose funding.

Sure, the thinking is not the only work they do. Without papers they wouldn't think for long. But the thinking is work. Without thinking they wouldn't write papers at all.

If you would ask theoretical physicists what they get paid for, only the cynical ones might say: "to write papers".

Rik

[ArtK78]

gnasher, on 2012-November-29, 09:33, said:

If we use UI to tell us the most effective way to use the available time, aren't we taking advantage of it, in defiance of Law 73C?

I can't wait to see this argued in an Appeals Committee.

"He was using his time thinking about what to do based upon his partner's hesitation!"

"But did he take advantage of this information? Did he base his bidding or play on the information?"

"No, but he thought about it in clear violation of Law 73C! I demand redress!"

With all due respect, this is just silly. If a player does not take advantage of UI, there is no damage. Punishing thoughts is beyond the scope of the laws.

[nige1]

Good Question but common sense dictates that you can think about what to do after the action that partner is likely to take after his hesitation, during

• The auction when he is presumably contemplating a predictable bid.
• The play, when he is likely to be considering what to discard.

[Trinidad]

ArtK78, on 2012-November-30, 07:36, said:

I can't wait to see this argued in an Appeals Committee.

"He was using his time thinking about what to do based upon his partner's hesitation!"

"But did he take advantage of this information? Did he base his bidding or play on the information?"

"No, but he thought about it in clear violation of Law 73C! I demand redress!"

With all due respect, this is just silly. If a player does not take advantage of UI, there is no damage. Punishing thoughts is beyond the scope of the laws.

Did you read the thread title?

Gwnn asked an ethical/moral question. These questions are supposed to be answered based on what is right. The question whether something is right has nothing to do with the question whether it is possible to enforce (gwnn alreasy said it wasn't) or whether opponents will demand redress.

I would hate it if the local sheriff would start looking to see if everybody does the right thing all the time. The same goes for a society where grannies sue boy scouts because they didn't help them cross the road.

Rik

[blackshoe]

It is frequently said that the ethics of a game are defined by its rules. Nothing in the rules of bridge defines what you are not allowed to think about, so nothing in the rules of bridges makes it unethical to think about any particular thing. If you want to apply some other ethical rule to your play of the game, you do so at your own risk, and such rule(s) cannot be enforced or applied against other players. Such rules are extraneous to the game.

[ArtK78]

Trinidad, on 2012-November-30, 08:45, said:

Did you read the thread title?

Gwnn asked an ethical/moral question. These questions are supposed to be answered based on what is right. The question whether something is right has nothing to do with the question whether it is possible to enforce (gwnn alreasy said it wasn't) or whether opponents will demand redress.

I would hate it if the local sheriff would start looking to see if everybody does the right thing all the time. The same goes for a society where grannies sue boy scouts because they didn't help them cross the road.

Rik

Did you notice that my post was in response to gnasher's post and not in response to the OP?

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2012-November-29, 09:33, said:

If we use UI to tell us the most effective way to use the available time, aren't we taking advantage of it, in defiance of Law 73C?

What if he uses the time to try to figure out the ethical restrictions that the hesitation places on him? Catch-22?

[Trinidad]

ArtK78, on 2012-November-30, 10:10, said:

Did you notice that my post was in response to gnasher's post and not in response to the OP?

No, I didn't.

Rik

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2012-November-30, 12:23, said:

What if he uses the time to try to figure out the ethical restrictions that the hesitation places on him? Catch-22?

That's what I would do now, after the start of this thread. And -in hindsight- it is also pretty much what I have been doing so far.

Just as an aside: You do need to think of something. If I need to order a drink every time my partner breaks tempo, I will be heavily intoxicated by the end of the evening.

Rik

[gnasher]

ArtK78, on 2012-November-30, 07:36, said:

this is just silly.

Yes. That was what I was getting at in the conclusion to my post, where I suggested that this interpretation of the Laws be ignored.