Help
Just wondering, could one of PeterAlan/Blackshoe please explain what less successful logical alternatives West should choose from given that they are in possession of UI?
Should they pass, reasoning that pard probably overcalled 2NT on 7 solid?
Should they bid 5♣ reasoning that pard is making a slam try opposite a clear drop-dead signoff in an auction where W had room to make a slam try?
Who are "significant portion" of players who are seriously considering any of these calls? Who are the "some" who are actually making them? Is there really a significant portion of players who if polled about the auction in question, with no mention of alerts, does not automatically think, "Pard thought it was Texas?"
I mean I get that I hold the (apparently absurd) belief that UI that provides zero unique information should not constrain the recipient. Perhaps a strict literal reading of the laws does not justify that conclusion. I guess I just don't think there is any logical alternative to 5♥ in the given auction so I don't think that question arises. That opinion could be entirely off base, but I'm curious to see just what the logical alternatives are.
As an aside, I believe that while a strict literal reading of the laws might not lead one to the conclusion that UI that provides zero unique information is irrelevant, I do think the laws are interpreted that way in practice, because the alternative interpretation seemingly leads to absurd rulings. There are a lot of casebooks that discuss similar rulings in which a player is allowed to "wake up" to a misunderstanding despite the presence of UI when partner makes an "impossible" bid. (This type of transfer case has zillions of rulings, the first one I happened to find being here. (South bids 2♦ over pard's NT on ♦QJ10xxx, pard announces xfer and bids 2♥, director+committee+commentators all vote result stands after South continues 3♦ and pard bids 3N.)
I will readily admit that I could be totally off base in thinking that "AI duplicates UI" is a reason not to adjust score, and in looking I was unable to find support for that idea in the text of the laws alone. I realize that phrasing actually comes from Jeff Goldsmith's writings on the subject. However, that does not alter my belief that a lot of national AC's apply that idea in practice. Nor does it alter my belief that it is entirely desirable for them to do so.
Logical alternatives after Texas Transfer ACBL
#42
- 5-level belongs to me
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,128
- Joined: 2004-August-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Glasgow Scotland
- Interests:Poems Computers
Posted 2013-November-22, 06:44
nige1, on 2013-November-21, 19:07, said:
IMO...It might be more sensible to penalize giving UI rather than using it,
blackshoe, on 2013-November-21, 19:57, said:
I doubt that, given how hard it is to not give UI.
- Timed game: To reduce UI, during bidding and play, you should delay your action for at least 5 secs and complete it before 10 secs have elapsed.
- Information form alerts, questions, answers, and so on should be treated as AI to both sides (Rubens suggested something like that. Anyway most players seem incapable of the mental gymnastics needed to avoid taking advantage).
- Even more controversially, I feel that a player should be allowed to "switch-off" opponents' alerts and announcements it he thinks they overly benefit from them.
#43
- 5-level belongs to me
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,128
- Joined: 2004-August-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Glasgow Scotland
- Interests:Poems Computers
Posted 2013-November-22, 07:10
suprgrover, on 2013-November-19, 16:28, said:
nate_m, on 2013-November-22, 02:32, said:
... Who are "significant portion" of players who are seriously considering any of these calls? Who are the "some" who are actually making them? Is there really a significant portion of players who if polled about the auction in question, with no mention of alerts, does not automatically think, "Pard thought it was Texas?"...
In answer to nate_m, I feel that a player in receipt of UI should try a thought experiment. For example here, West imagines that East explains 4♥ as natural and still bids 4♠ (presumably a cue-bid). Top directors say this interpretation is wrong. Nevertheless, if you do argue on my heretical lines, then, given the likely duplication, 5♥ may be the only logical alternative for West
#44
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 21,594
- Joined: 2004-August-21
- Gender:Male
Posted 2013-November-22, 09:50
nate_m, on 2013-November-22, 02:32, said:
I will readily admit that I could be totally off base in thinking that "AI duplicates UI" is a reason not to adjust score
The thing is that it's very rare that AI and UI exactly duplicate each other. In most cases where someone says that, the actual case is that one is more specific than the other.
#45
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 12,029
- Joined: 2009-February-21
- Gender:Male
- Location:St. George, UT
Posted 2013-November-22, 10:35
barmar, on 2013-November-22, 09:50, said:
The thing is that it's very rare that AI and UI exactly duplicate each other. In most cases where someone says that, the actual case is that one is more specific than the other.
I guess it depends on who might be saying that. However, let's assume the AI is different from the UI in some respects. It doesn't matter whether AI is fully contained in the UI or visa versa. It doesn't matter whether the only difference in the two is specificity.
The only thing that matters if we are trying to direct, rather than "director", is whether the player is using only the information contained in the AI. If the AI leads to more than one logical alternative, AND the UI provides something else which demonstrably could suggest one alternative over another, we consider adjusting. If not, we shouldn't.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
#46
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,693
- Joined: 2006-April-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rochester, NY
Posted 2013-November-22, 11:53
In the ACBL, in the auction given in the OP [(2♦-2NT-( P)-4♥-( P)-4♠] the 4♥ bid requires an immediate announcement because it comes before the opening bidder's second call. If it came after the opening bidder's second call, the announcement would be delayed until the clarification period. We aren't told in the OP whether an announcement was made, or whether West reacted to an announcement or to 4♠ in such a way as to convey UI. There are several possibilities:
1. 4♥ was announced "transfer" by East (or alerted, but the law would be similar so let's ignore that possibility). This is unexpected by West, who intended his bid as natural, so information from the announcement is "extraneous" and "may suggest a call or play" so West "may not choose from among logical alternatives one which demonstrably could have been suggested over another by the extraneous information".
2. 4♥ was not announced or alerted. Now the only information West has comes from the 4♠ bid. That information is authorized to West (Law 16A1) so he can do what he likes.
3. In either of the above cases, West may have given some sign that he was displeased with or did not expect the 4♠ bid. In that case, East has "extraneous information that may suggest a call or play" and so is constrained as to choice among logical alternatives. This assumes, of course, that he gets another call.
Note that extraneous information may suggest a call or play. There is nothing in the law that says or suggests that it always does so. If it does not, then there are no constraints on the bidding or play of the recipient of the extraneous information. This is, I think, what Nate and others are arguing: the unexpected announcement (case 1) doesn't suggest a call or play. But it does. We've all heard David Burn's term for it: "unauthorized panic". Here, West may be thinking "oh, crap, he thinks I have spades, I have to make sure he understands I have hearts" and so may bid again. But this is exactly what he cannot do, because he is constrained by the UI laws.
In either case 1 or case 2, East has no UI. Now suppose that West does bid 5♥. Given the agreement that 4♠ simply complies with West's presumed desire that East declare in 4♠, what is East to make of 5♥? He may infer that it is some kind of slam try for spades, even though that's not part of their agreements. He may infer (correctly, as it happens) that West has hearts, not spades. Either way, East is not constrained; he can do what he wants. Note that I am assuming here that there is no significant prior experience of West forgetting this agreement, as that would just open a different can of worms.
In case 3, if West passes, East probably won't get another call, so his possession of UI won't matter. If East gets another call because West bid 5♥ we may have multiple infractions. If East gets another call because an opponent bid something or doubled, then we're in more complicated territory, so let's not assume that's happening. But even there, if East has EI that suggests a call he's constrained.
In general, when a player has "extraneous information that may suggest a call or play" and he chooses "from among logical alternatives one that demonstrably could have been suggested by the extraneous information" then he may be judged to have committed an infraction of Law 16, and the score may be adjusted. But note "may suggest". If it does not suggest anything, then there is no possibility of an infraction. That would be unusual, IMO. As has been said, the presence of AI, whatever the AI says, does not mitigate Law 16 unless given the AI there is no LA to the chosen action. Note also that even without "equivalent" AI there may be no LA to the chosen action.
How do we know what the LAs are? That is a judgement call for the TD. What about the players? Here they are at the table, they may have UI, they may be constrained, they may be confused about what the LAs are (because the UI tells them "do this" and that's all they can think about). That's why Law 16 is often described as a "director's law" telling the TD how to adjudicate these cases, and Law 73C, which simply says to players "don't take advantage of UI", is described as a "player's law". Most people will have a feeling that some action is "taking advantage of UI" even if they can't articulate what the LAs are or what the UI itself is. Of course, the problem then is that people have a tendency to rationalize, to convince themselves either that they don't have UI or that they're not taking advantage even when they are. If they do, they should get an adverse ruling, and perhaps they will learn from it.
If a player can truly argue that he has no UI, or that the UI doesn't suggest anything, then he should be off the hook. But "I have AI that says the same thing" is not good enough. If either AI or UI trumps the other, it's "UI trumps AI" not "AI trumps UI".
In answer to nate's question about LAs, I think the LAs for West in the given auction are 5♥ ("unauthorized panic") and pass ("oh, crap, we're going down"), and possibly 5♣ (cooperating with East's 4♠ "slam try" in hearts). That last is highly unlikely though. So it seems West should pass. Note that West, if he's in receipt of UI (case 1 above) is not allowed to use the UI to "wake up" ("oh, I forgot, we're playing Texas").
1. 4♥ was announced "transfer" by East (or alerted, but the law would be similar so let's ignore that possibility). This is unexpected by West, who intended his bid as natural, so information from the announcement is "extraneous" and "may suggest a call or play" so West "may not choose from among logical alternatives one which demonstrably could have been suggested over another by the extraneous information".
2. 4♥ was not announced or alerted. Now the only information West has comes from the 4♠ bid. That information is authorized to West (Law 16A1) so he can do what he likes.
3. In either of the above cases, West may have given some sign that he was displeased with or did not expect the 4♠ bid. In that case, East has "extraneous information that may suggest a call or play" and so is constrained as to choice among logical alternatives. This assumes, of course, that he gets another call.
Note that extraneous information may suggest a call or play. There is nothing in the law that says or suggests that it always does so. If it does not, then there are no constraints on the bidding or play of the recipient of the extraneous information. This is, I think, what Nate and others are arguing: the unexpected announcement (case 1) doesn't suggest a call or play. But it does. We've all heard David Burn's term for it: "unauthorized panic". Here, West may be thinking "oh, crap, he thinks I have spades, I have to make sure he understands I have hearts" and so may bid again. But this is exactly what he cannot do, because he is constrained by the UI laws.
In either case 1 or case 2, East has no UI. Now suppose that West does bid 5♥. Given the agreement that 4♠ simply complies with West's presumed desire that East declare in 4♠, what is East to make of 5♥? He may infer that it is some kind of slam try for spades, even though that's not part of their agreements. He may infer (correctly, as it happens) that West has hearts, not spades. Either way, East is not constrained; he can do what he wants. Note that I am assuming here that there is no significant prior experience of West forgetting this agreement, as that would just open a different can of worms.
In case 3, if West passes, East probably won't get another call, so his possession of UI won't matter. If East gets another call because West bid 5♥ we may have multiple infractions. If East gets another call because an opponent bid something or doubled, then we're in more complicated territory, so let's not assume that's happening. But even there, if East has EI that suggests a call he's constrained.
In general, when a player has "extraneous information that may suggest a call or play" and he chooses "from among logical alternatives one that demonstrably could have been suggested by the extraneous information" then he may be judged to have committed an infraction of Law 16, and the score may be adjusted. But note "may suggest". If it does not suggest anything, then there is no possibility of an infraction. That would be unusual, IMO. As has been said, the presence of AI, whatever the AI says, does not mitigate Law 16 unless given the AI there is no LA to the chosen action. Note also that even without "equivalent" AI there may be no LA to the chosen action.
How do we know what the LAs are? That is a judgement call for the TD. What about the players? Here they are at the table, they may have UI, they may be constrained, they may be confused about what the LAs are (because the UI tells them "do this" and that's all they can think about). That's why Law 16 is often described as a "director's law" telling the TD how to adjudicate these cases, and Law 73C, which simply says to players "don't take advantage of UI", is described as a "player's law". Most people will have a feeling that some action is "taking advantage of UI" even if they can't articulate what the LAs are or what the UI itself is. Of course, the problem then is that people have a tendency to rationalize, to convince themselves either that they don't have UI or that they're not taking advantage even when they are. If they do, they should get an adverse ruling, and perhaps they will learn from it.
If a player can truly argue that he has no UI, or that the UI doesn't suggest anything, then he should be off the hook. But "I have AI that says the same thing" is not good enough. If either AI or UI trumps the other, it's "UI trumps AI" not "AI trumps UI".
In answer to nate's question about LAs, I think the LAs for West in the given auction are 5♥ ("unauthorized panic") and pass ("oh, crap, we're going down"), and possibly 5♣ (cooperating with East's 4♠ "slam try" in hearts). That last is highly unlikely though. So it seems West should pass. Note that West, if he's in receipt of UI (case 1 above) is not allowed to use the UI to "wake up" ("oh, I forgot, we're playing Texas").
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#47
- Group: Members
- Posts: 47
- Joined: 2012-September-18
Posted 2013-November-22, 14:48
blackshoe, on 2013-November-22, 11:53, said:
In answer to nate's question about LAs, I think the LAs for West in the given auction are 5♥ ("unauthorized panic") and pass ("oh, crap, we're going down"), and possibly 5♣ (cooperating with East's 4♠ "slam try" in hearts). That last is highly unlikely though. So it seems West should pass. Note that West, if he's in receipt of UI (case 1 above) is not allowed to use the UI to "wake up" ("oh, I forgot, we're playing Texas").
I am SOOO confused over here. You think West should PASS 4♠??? That's your logical alternative? Is West supposed to play partner to have overcalled 2NT on 7 solid spades? The OP implied that the players in question were competent. Is West allowed to credit his partner to have something resembling a 2N bid? The standard for LAs is typically that a significant number of a peers would seriously consider the call and some would actually make it... I cannot accept that passing 4♠ with the West hand after pard bid 2N is an action a competent player would take. (Some might pass because they think that pard's alert requires they commit seppuku, but the presence of UI determines how you select between LAs, not what actions are LAs.)
The idea that we should force some kinda cooperation in a slam hunt on West is also pretty strange (and it seems you agree, though why it is not also "highly unlikely" for a partner who bypassed spades to bid 2N to try to play in them at the 4 level over a signoff is somewhat strange to me) because 4♥ if natural is an absolute signoff. I would not list 5♣ as a logical alternative...
I also (strongly) disagree with the idea that 5♥ is based purely on "unauthorized panic." Yes, West has UI that partner thinks they have spades. They also have authorized information that partner thinks the same because partner has just made an impossible bid. This authorized information makes it so there is no logical alternative to 5♥ hoping to correct the misunderstanding/place the contract in a reasonable spot. I don't consider myself in any way an expert on the laws, but what you are describing as logical alternatives in this case seem totally absurd to me... This type of forgotten transfer case happens a fair bit and the NABC casebooks are littered with decisions in which partners were allowed to "wake up" when partner makes an absurd sounding bid. In a lot of those cases "completing the transfer" was merely strange and suggested a misunderstanding, in this case the 4♠ bid is completely impossible. I listed one such case in my previous post and I'm certain there are a lot more out there. If a player with UI can never wake up to a misunderstanding, no matter how mind-blowingly obvious the authorized information makes it, why are top level AC's ruling that they can? Why are those who write commentary on the casebooks applauding their rulings? Why is somebody who consistently serves on top level AC's writing that if UI duplicates AI, there should be no adjustment?
#48
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,693
- Joined: 2006-April-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rochester, NY
Posted 2013-November-22, 22:17
I read the words of the laws and try to understand what they say and rule accordingly. This process is complicated by two things: sometimes the words are unclear, and sometimes (or so I'm told) they do not in fact mean what they say. The phrase "logical alternative" doesn't mean that. Instead it means something like "plausible alternative for the class of player involved". I don't particularly think this is a good idea, particularly when the lawmakers have had at least one opportunity to conclude they didn't mean what they said and to change it so it says what they do mean. Unfortunately, nobody on the various LCs really cares what I think. So we have what we have. That may or may not directly impact this discussion I'm just trying to show where I'm coming from.
Partner just made an impossible bid. Okay, fair enough. Why is there no possible inference from this impossible bid other than that he thinks we have spades? Isn't it possible that we reach that conclusion because he announced 4♥ as a transfer? Suppose there had been no announcement. What then would we conclude 4♠ means? I know a lot of players who would say "damned if I know" and if asked what they're going to do now they'd say the same thing.
I can't answer all your questions, but i'd guess the answer to the last one is "because he doesn't like the law as written and wants to see it changed," which is quite different from "this is what the law says now".
If there is no LA to 5♥ then of course West can bid that. If there's an LA he probably can't. You say there's no LA, but I'm not convinced. Not yet, anyway.
Partner just made an impossible bid. Okay, fair enough. Why is there no possible inference from this impossible bid other than that he thinks we have spades? Isn't it possible that we reach that conclusion because he announced 4♥ as a transfer? Suppose there had been no announcement. What then would we conclude 4♠ means? I know a lot of players who would say "damned if I know" and if asked what they're going to do now they'd say the same thing.
I can't answer all your questions, but i'd guess the answer to the last one is "because he doesn't like the law as written and wants to see it changed," which is quite different from "this is what the law says now".
If there is no LA to 5♥ then of course West can bid that. If there's an LA he probably can't. You say there's no LA, but I'm not convinced. Not yet, anyway.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#49
- Group: Members
- Posts: 47
- Joined: 2012-September-18
Posted 2013-November-23, 20:31
blackshoe, on 2013-November-22, 22:17, said:
I read the words of the laws and try to understand what they say and rule accordingly. This process is complicated by two things: sometimes the words are unclear, and sometimes (or so I'm told) they do not in fact mean what they say. The phrase "logical alternative" doesn't mean that. Instead it means something like "plausible alternative for the class of player involved". I don't particularly think this is a good idea, particularly when the lawmakers have had at least one opportunity to conclude they didn't mean what they said and to change it so it says what they do mean. Unfortunately, nobody on the various LCs really cares what I think. So we have what we have. That may or may not directly impact this discussion I'm just trying to show where I'm coming from.
Partner just made an impossible bid. Okay, fair enough. Why is there no possible inference from this impossible bid other than that he thinks we have spades? Isn't it possible that we reach that conclusion because he announced 4♥ as a transfer? Suppose there had been no announcement. What then would we conclude 4♠ means? I know a lot of players who would say "damned if I know" and if asked what they're going to do now they'd say the same thing.
I can't answer all your questions, but i'd guess the answer to the last one is "because he doesn't like the law as written and wants to see it changed," which is quite different from "this is what the law says now".
If there is no LA to 5♥ then of course West can bid that. If there's an LA he probably can't. You say there's no LA, but I'm not convinced. Not yet, anyway.
Partner just made an impossible bid. Okay, fair enough. Why is there no possible inference from this impossible bid other than that he thinks we have spades? Isn't it possible that we reach that conclusion because he announced 4♥ as a transfer? Suppose there had been no announcement. What then would we conclude 4♠ means? I know a lot of players who would say "damned if I know" and if asked what they're going to do now they'd say the same thing.
I can't answer all your questions, but i'd guess the answer to the last one is "because he doesn't like the law as written and wants to see it changed," which is quite different from "this is what the law says now".
If there is no LA to 5♥ then of course West can bid that. If there's an LA he probably can't. You say there's no LA, but I'm not convinced. Not yet, anyway.
I guess that's where we differ. You might know a lot of players who'd say "damned if I know." If I showed this auction to any "competent" bridge player I know, at least those who are familiar with methods in common use in the U.S., they say that partner thought it was Texas. We can theorize all we want, but in practice when you sign off over pard's NT bid, and pard bids the next suit up, they thought it was a transfer almost 100% of the time. Suppose there is no announcement... I'd still be willing to lay heavy odds partner thought it was Texas and forgot to announce.
On the general laws question, my view FWIW is that the laws do not explicitly state the exact procedure one should follow when both UI and AI are present. Some infer that this means presence of AI which duplicates UI should not have any material affect. Some disagree... My view is that in practice a lot of AC's seem to think UI that adds no unique information does not call for adjustment. While AC rulings are hardly the same thing as a court precedent, and AC rulings can often be inconsistent, the "UI with xfer misunderstandings" case has been hashed out to death, with ACs often ruling that when partner comes up with an impossible bid you can wake up to find the wheels have come off. So even though the text of the laws are silent, it makes sense to continue to make rulings consistent with that precedent.
#50
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,693
- Joined: 2006-April-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rochester, NY
Posted 2013-November-23, 21:37
nate_m, on 2013-November-23, 20:31, said:
On the general laws question, my view FWIW is that the laws do not explicitly state the exact procedure one should follow when both UI and AI are present.
The laws say that when you have UI you may not choose from among LAs one which demonstrably could be suggested by the UI. If people (including those on ACs) want to interpret this as saying something other than what it says, that's up to them. But it says what it says, not what they would like it to say.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#51
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 767
- Joined: 2005-October-26
Posted 2013-November-23, 22:14
blackshoe, on 2013-November-23, 21:37, said:
The laws say that when you have UI you may not choose from among LAs one which demonstrably could be suggested by the UI. If people (including those on ACs) want to interpret this as saying something other than what it says, that's up to them. But it says what it says, not what they would like it to say.
And partner's explanations etc. are UI, so if partner correctly explains or announces our bid, we now have UI that partner understands our action and, since his future actions will be based upon that understanding, we are thus constrained from certain logical actions of our own (since UI overrides all other information). Do I have that right?
If you put an accurate skill level in your profile, you get a bonus 5% extra finesses working. --johnu
#52
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,693
- Joined: 2006-April-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rochester, NY
Posted 2013-November-24, 00:28
An expected announcement or alert does not convey UI. See Law 16B1{a}.
This is perhaps an area where the law is flawed, and "custom and practice" come into play. We do not rule that partner's correct explanations are UI unless they appear to be unexpected. For example, the instant case, where responder apparently forgot that he'd agreed to play Texas Transfers. If he had spades and a heart void, instead of hearts and a spade void, then the correct explanation of his 4♥ as a transfer would convey no UI.
This is perhaps an area where the law is flawed, and "custom and practice" come into play. We do not rule that partner's correct explanations are UI unless they appear to be unexpected. For example, the instant case, where responder apparently forgot that he'd agreed to play Texas Transfers. If he had spades and a heart void, instead of hearts and a spade void, then the correct explanation of his 4♥ as a transfer would convey no UI.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#53
- Group: Members
- Posts: 47
- Joined: 2012-September-18
Posted 2013-November-24, 02:00
blackshoe, on 2013-November-23, 21:37, said:
The laws say that when you have UI you may not choose from among LAs one which demonstrably could be suggested by the UI. If people (including those on ACs) want to interpret this as saying something other than what it says, that's up to them. But it says what it says, not what they would like it to say.
The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution begins "Congress shall make no law..." and yet you can get in trouble for shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Somebody who did so might reasonably argue that the Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law..." it does not say "Congress shall make no law... save for those that constrain speech to be in a reasonable time, place, and manner." They might argue that it "says what it says, not what the Court wants it to say." Those arguments would not be well received because laws often do not enumerate each and every situation in which there can arise exceptions to a general principle. Laws also often have room for interpretation. The fact that the laws direct players to not choose among LAs one which has been demonstrably suggested by UI does not conclusively demonstrate that the lawmakers have conclusively resolved the UI vs. AI issue.
In any case, I don't think this theoretical laws question arises in this case, because I don't think there is a LA to 5♥. You previously mentioned that Pass and 5♣ would be LAs for West, and you said that probably it is right to enforce a Pass on West. I argued that neither were LAs and that partner's failure to pass 4♥ is on-face evidence that we have a bidding misunderstanding. As far as I saw it, passing 4♠ requires you to believe partner has overcalled 2NT on 7 solid spades, which seems unreasonable. Regardless of your opinion of AI duplicating UI, why do you believe passing 4♠ to be a logical alternative for West?
#54
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,950
- Joined: 2008-April-05
- Gender:Male
- Location:Copenhagen
- Interests:Model-Railways.
Posted 2013-November-24, 07:35
nige1, on 2013-November-22, 07:10, said:
In answer to nate_m, I feel that a player in receipt of UI should try a thought experiment. For example here, West imagines that East explains 4♥ as natural and still bids 4♠ (presumably a cue-bid). Top directors say this interpretation is wrong. Nevertheless, if you do argue on my heretical lines, then, given the likely duplication, 5♥ may be the only logical alternative for West
I agree (a little) with the top-directors. The thought experiment you should make, would be more like: "What if we played with screens, and the sled comes through with a 4♠ bid. What do you do then?"
In the actual circumstance, this experiment would lead me to believe, that there where no logical alternatives to 5♥
Best Regards
Ole Berg
_____________________________________
Do not underestimate the power of the dark side. Or the ninth trumph.
Best Regards Ole Berg
_____________________________________
We should always assume 2/1 unless otherwise stated, because:
- If the original poster didn't bother to state his system, that means that he thinks it's obvious what he's playing. The only people who think this are 2/1 players.
Gnasher
Do not underestimate the power of the dark side. Or the ninth trumph.
Best Regards Ole Berg
_____________________________________
We should always assume 2/1 unless otherwise stated, because:
- If the original poster didn't bother to state his system, that means that he thinks it's obvious what he's playing. The only people who think this are 2/1 players.
Gnasher
#55
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 767
- Joined: 2005-October-26
Posted 2013-November-24, 12:00
blackshoe, on 2013-November-24, 00:28, said:
An expected announcement or alert does not convey UI. See Law 16B1{a}.
This is perhaps an area where the law is flawed, and "custom and practice" come into play. We do not rule that partner's correct explanations are UI unless they appear to be unexpected. For example, the instant case, where responder apparently forgot that he'd agreed to play Texas Transfers. If he had spades and a heart void, instead of hearts and a spade void, then the correct explanation of his 4♥ as a transfer would convey no UI.
This is perhaps an area where the law is flawed, and "custom and practice" come into play. We do not rule that partner's correct explanations are UI unless they appear to be unexpected. For example, the instant case, where responder apparently forgot that he'd agreed to play Texas Transfers. If he had spades and a heart void, instead of hearts and a spade void, then the correct explanation of his 4♥ as a transfer would convey no UI.
Thanks.
If you put an accurate skill level in your profile, you get a bonus 5% extra finesses working. --johnu
#56
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,693
- Joined: 2006-April-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rochester, NY
Posted 2013-November-24, 12:03
nate_m, on 2013-November-24, 02:00, said:
The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution begins "Congress shall make no law..." and yet you can get in trouble for shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Somebody who did so might reasonably argue that the Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law..." it does not say "Congress shall make no law... save for those that constrain speech to be in a reasonable time, place, and manner." They might argue that it "says what it says, not what the Court wants it to say." Those arguments would not be well received because laws often do not enumerate each and every situation in which there can arise exceptions to a general principle. Laws also often have room for interpretation. The fact that the laws direct players to not choose among LAs one which has been demonstrably suggested by UI does not conclusively demonstrate that the lawmakers have conclusively resolved the UI vs. AI issue.
In any case, I don't think this theoretical laws question arises in this case, because I don't think there is a LA to 5♥. You previously mentioned that Pass and 5♣ would be LAs for West, and you said that probably it is right to enforce a Pass on West. I argued that neither were LAs and that partner's failure to pass 4♥ is on-face evidence that we have a bidding misunderstanding. As far as I saw it, passing 4♠ requires you to believe partner has overcalled 2NT on 7 solid spades, which seems unreasonable. Regardless of your opinion of AI duplicating UI, why do you believe passing 4♠ to be a logical alternative for West?
In any case, I don't think this theoretical laws question arises in this case, because I don't think there is a LA to 5♥. You previously mentioned that Pass and 5♣ would be LAs for West, and you said that probably it is right to enforce a Pass on West. I argued that neither were LAs and that partner's failure to pass 4♥ is on-face evidence that we have a bidding misunderstanding. As far as I saw it, passing 4♠ requires you to believe partner has overcalled 2NT on 7 solid spades, which seems unreasonable. Regardless of your opinion of AI duplicating UI, why do you believe passing 4♠ to be a logical alternative for West?
Comparing the rules of a game to the laws of a country is a waste of time.
The answer to your question is that I know several players who I think would pass 4♠. But the real key to the question is to poll the peers of the player who has the UI (but without giving them the UI). As I've already said at least twice, if there is no LA to 5♥ then bidding it is not an infraction of the rules.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#57
- 5-level belongs to me
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,128
- Joined: 2004-August-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Glasgow Scotland
- Interests:Poems Computers
Posted 2013-November-25, 09:51
blackshoe, on 2013-November-24, 12:03, said:
Comparing the rules of a game to the laws of a country is a waste of time.
#58
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,611
- Joined: 2009-September-15
- Gender:Female
- Location:London
Posted 2013-November-25, 17:24
PeterAlan, on 2013-November-21, 07:38, said:
It would be helpful if at the next revision they started out by deciding exactly what they wanted to achieve by the relevant laws, and then drafted them accordingly with a bit more care.
I do not think that there is any chance of this; do you?
chrism, on 2013-November-21, 11:14, said:
I realize that we are in yet another grey area where the Laws manage not to state clearly exactly what they mean, of course.
In other words, the Lawbook.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
East-West are both competent players but were not able to stay on the same wavelength on this auction. Their agreement (like many club players in the ACBL) is that Texas transfers are used to sign off at the 4-level over a natural NT bid, and that strong hands do not bid this way. What are East's logical alternatives at his second turn to call. And what are West's logical alternatives after each of those 2D=natural and weak; 2NT=15-18, natural; 4H=intended as natural, but East believes the agreement is that it is a transfer to spades. (yes, if East passes this second question is moot)?