[lamford]

---

IMPs; Lead 8♦; Table Result NS+2210

This was an interesting hand from a match at the local Woodenhead Bridge Club in North London last night. North was the most ethical player in the club, and South looks and behaves like the Secretary Bird. The auction needs some explaining. The TD thought South was regretting his 4D cue the moment he made it and bid a very slow 4S to try to put the brakes on the auction opposite an ethical partner (denied by SB, of course, who said that he was thinking of making a move with his crisp values and excellent 5431 shape). North suspected SB, and decided to punish him by leaping to 7S, a contract he knew could have no chance, as South clearly had not wanted to make a slam-try. West led a diamond, but SB, whose card play is about as good as his knowledge of the Laws, won in dummy, ruffed a diamond, cashed two high trumps, finessed a heart, ruffed a diamond, crossed to the ace of hearts and drew the last trump, East discarding a club. Now declarer cashed the ten of diamonds to catch East in a rare trump squeeze in a blocked position. Winning 17 IMPs against 4S+2 in the other room.

East-West were not happy but the TD, who was fully conversant with the Philadelphia WBFLC minutes, had to decide whether North's 7S was a) "impossible to contemplate" and therefore not an LA, and b) if so whether it carefully avoided taking any advantage of the UI. EW argued that the bid chosen by the player was always an LA, as it must have been contemplated by him, and the UI had elevated the chances of 7S being successful from something like 10^-10 to 10^-7 (East's hand has to be exactly as it is, pip for pip, to make), so it was "demonstrably" suggested, applying the "campboy rule".

At the end of the hand, SB was gloating that, after a rounded-suit lead, even he would fail, but West was 8-5 on to let it through as he tended to lead randomly. After giving SB his PP, how would you rule?

[billw55]

lamford, on 2013-June-05, 12:08, said:

North suspected SB, and decided to punish him by leaping to 7S

North clearly chose his bid based on UI. Pass is clearly an LA. EW were clearly damaged. Obvious to adjust, I suppose to 4♠+3 and +1 IMP, unless there is some reason to suppose only 12 tricks will be made.

I like the club name btw

[lamford]

billw55, on 2013-June-05, 12:35, said:

North clearly chose his bid based on UI.

I agree. But that is not an infraction. In fact it is a requirement not to select from LAs one that could be demonstrably suggested by the UI. So all calls have to be "based on the UI", but one cannot use the UI. And I would not expect +3 in 4S, as risks have to be taken.

[CSGibson]

Rub of the green.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2013-June-05, 12:08, said:

IMPs; Lead 8♦; Table Result NS+2210
This was an interesting hand from a match at the local Woodenhead Bridge Club in North London last night. North was the most ethical player in the club, and South looks and behaves like the Secretary Bird. The auction needs some explaining. The TD thought South was regretting his 4D cue the moment he made it and bid a very slow 4S to try to put the brakes on the auction opposite an ethical partner (denied by SB, of course, who said that he was thinking of making a move with his crisp values and excellent 5431 shape). North suspected SB, and decided to punish him by leaping to 7S, a contract he knew could have no chance, as South clearly had not wanted to make a slam-try. West led a diamond, but SB, whose card play is about as good as his knowledge of the Laws, won in dummy, ruffed a diamond, cashed two high trumps, finessed a heart, ruffed a diamond, crossed to the ace of hearts and drew the last trump, East discarding a club, and cashed the ten of diamonds to catch East in a rare trump squeeze in a blocked position. Winning 17 IMPs against 4S+2 in the other room.
East-West were not happy but the TD, who was fully conversant with the Philadelphia WBFLC minutes, had to decide whether North's 7S was a) "impossible to contemplate" and therefore not an LA, and b) if so whether it carefully avoided taking any advantage of the UI. EW argued that the bid chosen by the player was always an LA, as it must have been contemplated by him, and the UI had elevated the chances of 7S being successful from something like 10^-10 to 10^-7 (East's hand has to be exactly as it is, pip for pip, to make), so it was "demonstrably" suggested, applying the "campboy rule".
At the end of the hand, SB was gloating that, after a rounded-suit lead, even he would fail, but West was 8-5 on to let it through as he tended to lead randomly. After giving SB his PP, how would you rule?

---

Thank you Paul. Great stuff.
For any South except SB, the slow 4♠ would express doubt -- presumably about a slam -- so would demonstrably suggest going on to slam. Hence, if Pass is an LA for North (and I think it is), then he should choose it. 7♠ is a bit of a stretch but, IMO, is still a suggested LA (according to the WBFLC minute).
If North suspects that South's tank might be an attempted judo manoeuvre, intended to take advantage of North's reputation for ethical behaviour, North should still follow the law and pass. North should report the incident (in neutral terms), in case it raises similar suspicions in others and he should find a new partner

[Vampyr]

Regardless of the adjustment if any, if South was really attempting to influence partner with his hesitation, he should be banned from the club. If North's intention really was to "punish" his partner, he should be banned too, but perhaps not for quite as long.

[campboy]

If we accept South's story that his hesitation shows extra values then 7♠ is demonstrably suggested and we adjust. On the other hand, if we accept North's story that South's hesitation shows a desire to shut partner up then it is an irregularity (law 73D1) and South might know that it could well work to his advantage, even though he could hardly predict the precise manner in which it would do so, so we adjust (law 23) as well as imposing severe sanctions against South (law 72B1). So we should determine which of these is probably true (law 85A1) and then adjust the score (law of excluded middle).

[iviehoff]

lamford, on 2013-June-05, 12:08, said:

and the UI had elevated the chances of 7S being successful from something like 10^-10 to 10^-7 (East's hand has to be exactly as it is, pip for pip, to make),

You only know that because you can see all of NS's cards, and can calculate objective probabilities. The UI does not reveal the exact hand to partner. When you can't see the cards, the a priori probabilities are rather less extreme.

[iviehoff]

lamford, on 2013-June-05, 12:53, said:

I agree. But that is not an infraction. In fact it is a requirement not to select from LAs one that could be demonstrably suggested by the UI. So all calls have to be "based on the UI", but one cannot use the UI. And I would not expect +3 in 4S, as risks have to be taken.

I thought you yourself usually argued such actions are an offence against L73C: "...must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information."

[lamford]

iviehoff, on 2013-June-06, 02:52, said:

I thought you yourself usually argued such actions are an offence against L73C: "...must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information."

I (well, dburn originally) argued that selecting an "impossible call" that could gain over the LAs was an offence against Law 73C. In this example, North's 7S is carefully avoiding taking any advantage of the UI. It is the least likely best contract at that stage. So I am not inconsistent.

[lamford]

iviehoff, on 2013-June-06, 02:49, said:

You only know that because you can see all of NS's cards, and can calculate objective probabilities. The UI does not reveal the exact hand to partner. When you can't see the cards, the a priori probabilities are rather less extreme.

Indeed, but the AI, that partner did not move on over 4H, suggests that the a priori probabilities for the best contract are something like 4S 90%; 6S 9.99% 7S 0.01%. The UI suggests that it might be 4S 80% 6S 19.99% 7S 0.01%. I cannot agree therefore that 7S is demonstrably suggested. The Philadelphia minute suggests that, as it is "impossible to contemplate", that "demonstrably suggested" is no longer the benchmark. 7S is disallowed if it is not carefully avoiding taking any advantage of the UI. On the contrary, if the UI suggests to North that South is trying to slow down the auction, he is correct to bid 7S which is the call which does not take any advantage of the UI.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2013-June-05, 13:35, said:

Regardless of the adjustment if any, if South was really attempting to influence partner with his hesitation, he should be banned from the club. If North's intention really was to "punish" his partner, he should be banned too, but perhaps not for quite as long.

Under which Law would North even get a PP for trying to punish his partner by bidding 7S? 40A3 states: A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding.

Indeed if North thinks the UI suggests that South is trying to put a brake on the auction, then 7S is the only legal call, as it is the call that does not take any advantage of the UI.

[lamford]

CSGibson, on 2013-June-05, 13:16, said:

Rub of the green.

I agree. In your last two posts, in this and another thread, you have summed up the situation in a few words, while the combined brains of iviehoff and campboy have used far more words to less effect.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2013-June-05, 16:07, said:

If we accept South's story that his hesitation shows extra values then 7♠ is demonstrably suggested and we adjust.

For a sanction against South, we would have to be pretty certain he passed to try to shut his partner up. Unless we are certain, we just rule as though he hesitated because he was thinking. In fact we know that SB would be familiar with 72B1, and there has never been a single instance of him not following the Laws exactly in the 30 year history of the WBC. Apart from the odd remark goading opponents which might well have spoiled their enjoyment of the game.

For us to rule that 7♠ is demonstrably suggested it has first to be an LA. Even if it were, it is not demonstrably suggested in my view. Your opinion that something which has been elevated from 0.1% to 0.2% (and that is generous) by the UI, while the other LAs have remained much the same, becomes a demonstrably suggested UI is not mainstream, and is not adopted by a single TD in the world. And if 7S is not an LA we can only disallow it under 73C. Now that says "taking any advantage", whereas North's selection of 7S was intended to be "taking any disadvantage". If anything it was over-ethical.

[PhilKing]

I think Paul has got this one right.

North has used UI, but not in a way to take advantage. South's hand conforms with North's table feel that South was trying to shut him out, so bidding on is not suggested by the slow 4♠ in any way. Result stands.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2013-June-06, 04:56, said:

For us to rule that 7♠ is demonstrably suggested it has first to be an LA. Even if it were, it is not demonstrably suggested in my view. Your opinion that something which has been elevated from 0.1% to 0.2% (and that is generous) by the UI, while the other LAs have remained much the same, becomes a demonstrably suggested UI is not mainstream, and is not adopted by a single TD in the world. And if 7S is not an LA we can only disallow it under 73C. Now that says "taking any advantage", whereas North's selection of 7S was intended to be "taking any disadvantage". If anything it was over-ethical.

I do not believe your 0.2% is generous at all. If partner actually has the values to make his initial slam-try and then consider going above game on his own then I think there is a reasonable chance that we can take 13 tricks in spades. (Assuming, as you seem to be, that partner has not denied the ♣A.)

You presumably mean "a single other TD in the world". Anyway, since so far as I can see no TD has commented in support of either my position or yours I think it is pointless to speculate as to what they might believe.

In order for North's 7♠ to be "carefully avoiding any advantage" he would have to be very sure that South intended to shut him up by the hesitation. If we are convinced that he had grounds to be sure of this then we should be doing something about South. In any case I think it is worth pointing out that if South is actually anything like Mollo's Secretary Bird then he would not dream of doing any such thing.

[billw55]

lamford, on 2013-June-06, 04:36, said:

In this example, North's 7S is carefully avoiding taking any advantage of the UI. It is the least likely best contract at that stage.

Nope. 7NT.

[lamford]

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

If partner actually has the values to make his initial slam-try and then consider going above game on his own then I think there is a reasonable chance that we can take 13 tricks in spades.

If you add the king of clubs and king of hearts to the South hand, 7S is still very poor; a back of the envelope calculation makes it under 5%, needing QJ doubleton in spades, plus something else good. So, I don't see where you get this "reasonable chance" that we can take 13 tricks. And if there is no reasonable chance, he cannot be "taking any advantage". He might have thought, "maybe partner is trying to shut me up", so I should make a slam-try or bid 6S; "maybe partner has his hesitation, so I should Pass." He actually chose 7S, a contract that was very unlikely to make. Both the two LAs are demonstrably suggested over 7S. Pass because that will be ethically right if partner has extras, and 6S because that will be ethically right if partner is trying to shut me up. So, even if you conclude that 7S is an LA, it is the other two LAs, not 7S, that are demonstrably suggested.

And billw's 7NT falls into the same category as the other 7-level contracts. Bids that are "impossible to contemplate". Choosing them is not an infraction, but you cannot be obliged to do so.

And your argument that something is demonstrably suggested if its chances go up relative to the other LAs will work in most situations where it is difficult to choose between the LAs. It does not work where a call has been classed as an LA because it was chosen, but is still a hopeless choice despite the UI. I would submit that for a call to be demonstrably suggested, the UI must also elevate its chance of success to perhaps 30% - which is a bit like the old "70% rule". You would still have to choose it instead of a call that was deemed 69%.

So, if you were pretty sure that 7S was 5% based on the UI, and maybe 2% without it, I presume you would regard that as "demonstrably suggested"?

[iviehoff]

On reflection, I think there is no offence here. The point is that the expectation in 7S is quite clearly far, far worse than the expectation in a clearly legal action such as passing.

I said in another thread it was a bit unfair on a director to expect him to estimate the likely expectation of the bid chosen vs the clearly legal bids, thus one could be expected to be found to be guilty of an illegal action if it seemed possibly to be taking advantage of the UI without the benefit of such a careful calculation. But there has to be a point where the chosen bid has such a poor expectation in comparison to legal actions that they are clearly legal. Of course there will be dubious cases in the middle.

[billw55]

Well, some knowledgeable people are advocating no adjustment, so maybe that is right.

Something still feels wrong about it though. South deliberately sent UI, north deliberately used it to choose his bid over an obvious LA, NOS was obviously damaged and yet ...