[axman]

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

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.

When reviewing the auction from N’s point of view, when south called 4D he has promised diamond control [as in first round?]. Well, that is a problem.

The nature of which becomes evident from the answer of this trick question:

What valid reason can N have to commit to 13 tricks when south has denied having first round control of clubs and N does not have first round control of clubs?

Answer to trick question: there is the expectation of north that S does have first round control of clubs.

Not a trick question:

How might N come by such an expectation in this case?

Answer to not a trick question:

Inferences from variations in south's manner.

Rub of the green can exist with 6S- but [once south dithers] cannot exist with 7S.

[campboy]

 lamford, on 2013-June-06, 07:25, said:

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.

Sure, there isn't much chance opposite that particular hand, but there is some play opposite, say, AKQx, xx, Kx, Axxxx. And personally I wouldn't be thinking about going to the five-level on my own with either of those hands.

[lamford]

 campboy, on 2013-June-06, 08:01, said:

Sure, there isn't much chance opposite that particular hand, but there is some play opposite, say, AKQx, xx, Kx, Axxxx. And personally I wouldn't be thinking about going to the five-level on my own with either of those hands.

Even on that hand, with trumps 3-2 and the heart finesse right, you still need quite a lot more. Even arranging three ruffs in North is not enough. But, more importantly, whatever hand you give for South, you will find that 6S is demonstrably suggested over 7S. It uses the UI more, and its chance relative to Pass has gone up.

[campboy]

I completely agree that 6♠ is suggested over 7♠. I was arguing that 7♠ is suggested over pass, though looking at it again it is not clear that pass is an LA. I certainly wouldn't pass. If pass is not an LA then I agree that bidding 7♠ is legal.

[barmar]

If a player might break tempo deliberately, because he expects his partner to take the opposite to normal action from him because of his presumed ethics, don't we run into a "bluff and double bluff" problem? If partner knows that he might do this deliberately, he'll flip the decision again. But if the bluffer knows that his partner knows this, he should break tempo in the opposite way again. You just keep going around and around like this, so nothing is demonstrably suggested, which means that partner is unconstrained.

You should still give South a PP for trying to communicate illegally. And you could penalize the punisher based on 72A: "The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants"

[GreenMan]

 barmar, on 2013-June-06, 11:38, said:

And you could penalize the punisher based on 72A: "The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants"

Did we ever determine whether that means "on this deal" or "in the session"? Because one might argue (and this being BBF, someone surely will ) that getting partner's attention on this deal may encourage him to "play bridge" the rest of the way, resulting in a higher score overall.

[blackshoe]

You are reading South's hesitation as "OMG, I screwed up, I have to tell partner somehow to shut up". If he did that, he violated Law 73A2 and probably 73B1. The former is a "should" law, the latter a "shall not" law, so a PP in the former case would be rare, a PP in the latter case should be common, but probably won't be, given the attitude of many people, TDs and players, to PPs.

I don't remember if the EBU has a regulation similar to the ACBL's "no dumping, play each hand to win," but if they do, North may have violated it.

I may be in the minority (and maybe in a minority of one) on this point, but the law says North "may not choose from among logical alternatives…" Seven spades is not a logical alternative, in spite of the fact that North chose it. So North has not violated Law 16. To me, "taking advantage of the UI" (Law 73C) means taking some action that, given the UI, is likely to work out well for the OS. Seven spades is not such an action, the probability of success is extremely low. So North has not violated Law 73C either. So I think in order to adjust the score we have to go through 73A2 and/or 73B1 to 73F, but even that won't work, because North could not have known that seven spades would work to his benefit, so that law doesn't apply either. Can we just award an adjusted score under 12A1? I don't think we can - this case doesn't fit any of the criteria. So I agree with CSGibson and Lamford - this is rub of the green (although if 73B1 has been violated, I might award a PP). IAC, no score adjustment.

[campboy]

 blackshoe, on 2013-June-06, 12:26, said:

I don't remember if the EBU has a regulation similar to the ACBL's "no dumping, play each hand to win," but if they do, North may have violated it.

In the EBU you are permitted to deliberately lose a match if you think doing so will increase your chances of winning the event.

[mycroft]

Eventually you will get to a point where passing 4♠ will still be an alternative; where 6♠ is clearly using the UI, but is also clearly also the winning call; and where 7 is still worse than 4. The Probst Cheat will think "If I pass like I'm supposed to given the UI, I'm booked for a poor score; 6 will get rolled back if it works, because partner rooked me; so since 7 is clearly less likely, even with the UI, than 4, let's go for that."

At Matchpoints, on a 24 top, he's going to assume that 6 will score 16/24, say; 7 is either 0 or 24; 4 is 4 or so. Barring the possibility that 6 goes down and passing comes out smelling like a rose, he's gambling 4 MPs against 20. Whether it's a L16 issue, it's certainly a L73 one.

At IMPs, he's booked for -13 by passing; bidding 7 means either losing another 4 or gaining 26. Even better odds!

Now in this case, the "teach partner a lesson" line *isn't* trying the 8-1 odds the Probst Cheat is; but the Probst Cheat will also explain he's "teaching partner a lesson". The Laws, of course, are written to ensure the "most ethical player in the club" and the PC get the same ruling, so that we don't have to tell the PC we think he's trying one on; the MEPlayer will of course understand that.

Now the case made in the OP isn't the above case; 7 only makes on this exact lie of the cards. It's obvious to everyone that 7 isn't even an 8-1 long shot, it's more 400-1. I would suggest that 7 is still a L73 issue, and at least a stern warning should be given; and I hope North is suitably apologetic to E/W if we let the score stand (I forgot what the trump suit was at one point and ended up in 5♥ when I "obviously" should be in exactly 4. To make it, the hearts have to be exactly QT onside. They were, and I was 450 into a room of 420s. "suitably apologetic", indeed).

[gnasher]

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

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

Does "fully conversant with" imply that he read them at some point? The WBFLC minute says that a bid which is "impossible to contemplate" may not be an LA, not that it is not an LA. Whilst it's rather unsatisfactory that they inflicted this ambiguity on us, they did do so, and we should interpret the minute in the way that they apparently intended.

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2013-June-06, 17:33, said:

The WBFLC minute says that a bid which is "impossible to contemplate" may not be an LA, not that it is not an LA. Whilst it's rather unsatisfactory that they inflicted this ambiguity on us, they did do so, and we should interpret the minute in the way that they apparently intended.

But any call may not be an LA, so are you saying that the WBFLC minute does not add anything? Or is it for the TD to decide whether a selected call is not an LA because it is "impossible to contemplate" and how does he arrive at the decision? The minute is hopeless, but I think they intended that a bid that was considered "impossible to contemplate" was not an LA.

And the minute does not say the call may not be an LA. It says "an exception may arise". I think this is just a quaint way of saying "an exception will arise", but it uses "may" because it is hypothetical. gordontd mentioned this use in connection with another "may" or "might".

“Writing in English is like throwing mud at a wall.” ― Joseph Conrad

[gnasher]

 lamford, on 2013-June-07, 04:08, said:

But any call may not be an LA, so are you saying that the WBFLC minute does not add anything? Or is it for the TD to decide whether a selected call is not an LA because it is "impossible to contemplate" and how does he arrive at the decision? The minute is hopeless, but I think they intended that a bid that was considered "impossible to contemplate" was not an LA.

I'm saying that the WBFLC minutes tells us that:
- If the chosen action is possible to contemplate, it is to be treated as an LA.
- If the chosen action is impossible to contemplate, they aren't telling us how to treat it.

So the WBF minute does add something, but only with respect to the first category of action. That is, they answered part of the question, couldn't or didn't answer the rest of it, and told us that's what they were doing.

Quote

And the minute does not say the call may not be an LA. It says "an exception may arise". I think this is just a quaint way of saying "an exception will arise", but it uses "may" because it is hypothetical. gordontd mentioned this use in connection with another "may" or "might".

If that is what they meant, they would have said "An exception would arise ...", thereby conveying both the hypothetical nature of the occurrence and their certainty about how such an occurrence should be dealt with.

Quote

"Writing in English is like throwing mud at a wall." ― Joseph Conrad

Interpreting the pronouncements of the WBFLC makes me want to throw mud at its members, or occasionally the members at a brick wall.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-June-07, 06:16

[Vampyr]

 gnasher, on 2013-June-07, 05:24, said:

- If the chosen action is impossible to contemplate, they aren't telling us how to treat it.

So the WBF minute does add something, but only with respect to the first category of action. That is, they answered part of the question, couldn't or didn't answer the rest of it, and told us that's what they were doing.

....

Interpreting the pronouncements of the WBFLC makes me want to throw mud at its members, or occasionally the members at a brick wall.

Yes, it's really frustrating. Whether they are aware that there are people out there who are relying on them for guidance is open to debate.

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2013-June-07, 05:24, said:

If that is what they meant, they would have said "An exception would arise ...", thereby conveying both the hypothetical nature of the occurrence and their certainty about how such an occurrence should be dealt with.

If that is what they meant, they should have said "An exception would arise ..." And, otherwise, why include the last sentence of the minute at all?

[gnasher]

 lamford, on 2013-June-07, 06:57, said:

And, otherwise, why include the last sentence of the minute at all?

To tell us that the preceding sentence didn't necessarily apply to all actions that might be chosen.

There are three things that they might have said:
(1) Any action actually chosen is an LA.
(2) A action chosen will usually be an LA, but sometimes it won't be.
(3) A action chosen will usually be an LA, but sometimes it will fall into a category that we're not sure about, or which we're not going to discuss.

If they had missed off the last sentence, it would have meant (1). If they had included the last sentence with the word "would" in place of "may", it would have meant (2). The last sentence as actually written means (3).

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2013-June-07, 07:30, said:

To tell us that the preceding sentence didn't necessarily apply to all actions that might be chosen.

I agree. Therefore there is another possibility. An LA is defined by 16B1(b):
A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

The first sentence of the minute says that we usually ignore this definition for the call chosen, and treat it as an LA anyway. The second sentence of the minute says that, if the call chosen is "impossible to contemplate", we do not have to treat it as an LA, nor are we obliged to treat it as a non-LA. Therefore we follow 16B1(b) for such calls, which will invariably result in them not being LAs. Is there any reason that you can see not to do so?

[Vampyr]

 lamford, on 2013-June-07, 07:42, said:

... if the call chosen is "impossible to contemplate", we do not have to treat it as an LA, nor are we obliged to treat it as a non-LA. Therefore we follow 16B1(b) for such calls, which will invariably result in them not being LAs. Is there any reason that you can see not to do so?

Yes. If the player chose the call, he must have contemplated it, however briefly. And he is, after all, his own #1 peer.

Perhaps the sentence refers to things like inadvertent or insufficient calls. Of course it would not have hurt the Drafting Committee to tell us what they meant.

[lamford]

 Vampyr, on 2013-June-07, 08:07, said:

Yes. If the player chose the call, he must have contemplated it, however briefly. And he is, after all, his own #1 peer.

Perhaps the sentence refers to things like inadvertent or insufficient calls.

So, you are arguing that the set of calls that are both selected by the player and "impossible to contemplate" is empty. gnasher tried to argue that if the player chose the call, he must have contemplated it, but then there would be no need for the second sentence. And if the player chose the call, it cannot have been impossible to contemplate, if you apply "impossible" literally. That must refer to other peers.

And no, I don't think inadvertent or insufficient calls are the exceptions mooted. The more specific Laws dealing with them will take priority, as per some WBFLC minute in 2009. I can never recall any discussion of whether an insufficient or inadvertent call is an LA, either. I think the minute refers to calls that nobody else would consider.

[CSGibson]

 Vampyr, on 2013-June-07, 08:07, said:

Yes. If the player chose the call, he must have contemplated it, however briefly. And he is, after all, his own #1 peer.

Perhaps the sentence refers to things like inadvertent or insufficient calls. Of course it would not have hurt the Drafting Committee to tell us what they meant.

You cannot use the actual player and his call to choose what is and what is not a LA in the theoretical "no UI/MI" world - he is contemplating calls living in a UI/MI situation, and is fundamentally incapable of saying what he would have done for sure in a non-UI/MI situation.

[gnasher]

 lamford, on 2013-June-07, 07:42, said:

I agree. Therefore there is another possibility. An LA is defined by 16B1(b):
A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

The first sentence of the minute says that we usually ignore this definition for the call chosen, and treat it as an LA anyway. The second sentence of the minute says that, if the call chosen is "impossible to contemplate", we do not have to treat it as an LA, nor are we obliged to treat it as a non-LA. Therefore we follow 16B1(b) for such calls, which will invariably result in them not being LAs. Is there any reason that you can see not to do so?

I think you're reading more into this than is wise. I expect that what actually happened was that they discussed a few examples, got most of the way to a complete agreement, couldn't agree on the extreme cases, and intentionally left it vague.