[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2014-November-26, 09:56, said:

So you would rule "score stands" in this example?

In this "spectacular stop" example? Absolutely. How can North deduce whether South is light or heavy for his invite? He can't.

As a bridge player, I would not see pass as an LA, and North's pass makes my head hurt. But we have already established in many previous discussions that we can consider the action taken by the player to be an LA (no matter how absurd it is). North is simply RR and RR always beats SB.

Rik

[ArtK78]

barmar, on 2014-November-26, 10:34, said:

Conduct and Ethics -- essentially charging North with cheating.

Strictly speaking, I would suggest that North was guilty of unethical conduct. Cheating is too strong of a term.

In this case, there was no logical alternative to bidding 3NT. Yet North chose to pass. Why? The combination of the hesitation and, possibly, a history of playing with this partner. North somehow knew that the hesitation was more likely to be based on a light 2NT bid rather than a heavy one. He was wrong in that partner had a heavy 2NT, but right in that 3NT could not make. But that is not the issue. He attempted to take advantage of UI by making a call that virtually no one else would take given the information legally and ethically available to him. That is the issue.

[blackshoe]

I can't find my copy of Landau's book, but wikipedia suggests that a 2NT rebid shows 16-18, and a 3NT rebid shows 19-20. A 2NT opening shows 21-24, 3NT 25+. Now this pair may have different agreements, and the TD should investigate them, but we aren't told what they are, so let's go with this. South has 19 points, 20 if you count his spade length. By the agreements just mentioned, he's too weak for a 2NT opening, and too strong for a 2NT rebid. South correctly evaluated his hand as not worth a 2NT opening, and then when he thought North might have stretched to respond 1NT, re-evaluated his hand downward even further (incorrectly, imo, as I understand EHAA). Then North, holding 9 HCP decided he was not worth 3NT opposite 16-18. This is not cheating, these are bidding mistakes (but see below).

The first thing I'm going to do is make it perfectly clear to both sides, but especially the SB, that the proper thing to do when there seems to be a problem is to call the director. There is only one alternative to that: don't say anything. Then I'm going to issue a disciplinary penalty to both sides for violation of the "best behaviour" policy. SB may wish to argue. If so, he gets one warning. If he doesn't shut up, he gets another DP.

South's BIT provides UI to North. What is the "I" here? What could it demonstrably suggest? I don't know, and at the moment I don't care. I'm with Barry — this is a 73C violation. North clearly did not "carefully avoid taking advantage of UI", because the fact that South broke tempo before bidding 2NT clearly suggested to North that South might be at the low end, or even a point or so lower, for 2NT. In spite of that, North passed 2NT.

Okay, now what?

Quote

Law 73F: When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo or the like of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C).

I'm not real happy with calling the SB "innocent," but never mind that. It was North, not South, who violated 73C. So what false inference did SB (or his partner) draw from North's "remark, manner, tempo or the like"? As far as I can see, none. So there is no basis here for a score adjustment. Ah, but wait! The law refers to "opponent," which means "a player of the other side". So this part of Law 73C applies to South as well as North. So again, what false inference did SB (or his partner) draw from South's "remark, manner, tempo or the like"? And again, no such inference is in evidence, so again there is no basis for a score adjustment.

I'm tempted to rule "result stands" and give North a PP for violation of 73C, but that will no doubt raise screams of outrage here, and probably from the SB as well.

Should we now look at 16 again? Probably. Back to "what is the "I", and what could it demonstrably suggest?" The "I" is that South was unsure whether 2NT is the right call. As it happens, South was right: 3NT is the right call. But it is possible that North was considering passing over 1NT. In the former case, the "I" suggests bidding 3NT. In the latter case, the "I" suggests passing. Could we demonstrate that this "I" suggests passing over bidding? I'm in the "no" camp, in spite of what happened at the table. So again, no basis for a score adjustment. If your judgement is that the "I" does suggest passing over bidding, then yeah, adjust the score. But at this moment, I'm not convinced. I still want to give North a PP for violating 73C, though, noting that 73C is a "must" law.

Is there another route to a score adjustment?

Quote

Law 12A1: The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent.

I suppose one could argue that neither Law 73F nor Law 16B3 "provides indemnity" here, but…

Quote

Law 12B2: The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

One could argue that "result stands" is "unduly severe" to the NOS and "unduly advantageous" to the OS, but this law says that none of that matters.

Note: I have made a distinction here between 73C's "don't take advantage of UI" and 16B3's "the UI suggests one LA over another". This is deliberate, as I think the distinction is built into these laws.

Perhaps I have misread the law. I would be pleased in that case if someone would show me how.

[mycroft]

I do have a copy of the Landau book, and played (essentially) the Landau book two weeks ago Wednesday.

1m-1x; 2NT is indeed "good 16 to not-good 19" (and 3NT is "good 19-20"). I don't know what it would be after 1♠, but I can't imagine anyone thinking this didn't show "good 16 to not-good 19" (and probably only 4 spades). As such, North has zero reason from system to not bid 3NT with a hand that everybody would just blast 3NT (after Stayman, presumably) after a 15-17 1NT opener, never mind a "16-18"+ opener. Frankly, I'm surprised (given that they're playing not even "semi-forcing" NT) that this hand didn't get upgraded into a 10 and therefore into a 2♦ call over 1♠. I also personally would have upgraded this into a 3NT response with the South hand (has South seen North's responses before?) But you can't regulate bad (or even unthinking) judgement; you can regulate ludicrous judgement in combination with UI.

North's "this is 6-10 (well, maybe good 4-10), I only have a 9-count, so I won't accept" is hilarious, unless EHAA is the only system North has ever played in the 4 months he's being playing bridge. That's what the other meaning of "self-serving statements" came from.

As everyone says, this is a clear Law 73C violation. South could have upgraded his hand into a "good 16"? So? Aren't you *still* going to game? What does he think, South upgraded a decent 13-with-5-spades? Or one of those "extra-special 12s that aren't 2-bids" like AKJTxx x KJTx xx? Language filters bar me from expressing my opinion, but I think it would start with "I object to the concession" (*). North "guessed" that South had dredged up an invitation? Sorry, UI, no guessing (and if South did decide to hitch-raise with a random 14 and 3NT magically rolled, I'd say "well, you had to bid 3NT given what the bid shows. Score stands" over the SB's objections that this time it could have been an overstrength 19 thing (and 4NT was an option?)).

I believe that 3NT is the *only* alternative playing the system as I do (basically, From The Book) and that any other call is Not Logical (okay, 3♥ I'll give; partner could still be 4=4=(32). The Book does Wolff Signoff after this auction, so no CBS available. Any NGF call is Not Logical). If anyone tries that with me, there's the interpretation-in-force that "the call actually taken is always considered a LA for the purposes of Law 16"). What does the UI demonstrably suggest? That's a discussion, but when the only logical information from AI is "16+9 = game; 19+good 9 != slam, bid accordingly", I can't imagine the UI didn't suggest *something* (and yes, I'd have the same argument here if North bid 4NT guessing that South decided to undervalue his hand because he didn't want to bid 3NT in case partner responded on 3, South bid 6 with his supermax, and it rolled).

I understand the purpose of this particular construction, but unfortunately unless the system is played quite differently from The Book with this pair, I don't think there's any case here - North psyched, or hid information about the system. Psyching in the face of UI is a clear violation of L73C. The only argument I'd grant the time of day from North would be "I'm sorry, after I passed I found the ♣K."

(*) This post and thread, for those who don't get the reference.

[Vampyr]

ArtK78, on 2014-November-26, 12:16, said:

Strictly speaking, I would suggest that North was guilty of unethical conduct. Cheating is too strong of a term.

... He attempted to take advantage of UI by making a call that virtually no one else would take given the information legally and ethically available to him. That is the issue.

I think you are contradicting yourself here...

But yes, this is the issue, that North took deliberate advantage of the UI.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2014-November-26, 14:23, said:

I do have a copy of the Landau book, and played (effectively) the Landau book two weeks ago Wednesday.
[snip]

I'm not sure what to make of this, Mycroft. You seem to be disagreeing with me, but your post doesn't help me understand why, or why I am (if I am) wrong in Law.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2014-November-26, 14:29, said:

I think you are contradicting yourself here...

But yes, this is the issue, that North took deliberate advantage of the UI.

I think it's rather that he did not make every (or perhaps any) effort to avoid taking advantage of it.

If you think his taking advantage was deliberate, show us, via the evidence, that he knew he was violating the law. Not that he did violate the law, that proves nothing about this question, but that he knew he was doing it.

[ArtK78]

Vampyr, on 2014-November-26, 14:29, said:

I think you are contradicting yourself here...

But yes, this is the issue, that North took deliberate advantage of the UI.

Pardon me for considering this question as a laywer, but there is a distinction between unethical conduct and cheating in bridge. I am not going to go so far as to say that the disinction is something that "I know it when I see it," but it is close to that.

Cheating is usually reserved for conduct that is beyond the pale, such as an agreement by partners to send, receive and use illegal signals. In a sense, this is a matter of degree, as such signals are also "unauthorized information." However, it is the agreement of the partners to TRANSMIT, RECEIVE and USE such signals and their subsequent conduct in following through on that agreement that constitutes cheating. Most unauthorized information situations, such as the one discussed in this thread, are transmitted without prior discussion and by inadvertance rather than through a preconceived scheme. Furthermore, the interpretation of the unauthorized information "transmitted," by a hesitation or other inadvertant action or remark, is not always clear, as is clearly the case in this thread. Still, the use of unauthorized information in order to gain an advantage is unethical conduct. It is not cheating (IMHO).

[Vampyr]

ArtK78, on 2014-November-26, 16:19, said:

Pardon me for considering this question as a laywer, but there is a distinction between unethical conduct and cheating in bridge. I am not going to go so far as to say that the disinction is something that "I know it when I see it," but it is close to that.

Cheating is usually reserved for conduct that is beyond the pale, such as an agreement by partners to send, receive and use illegal signals. In a sense, this is a matter of degree, as such signals are also "unauthorized information." However, it is the agreement of the partners to TRANSMIT, RECEIVE and USE such signals and their subsequent conduct in following through on that agreement that constitutes cheating. Most unauthorized information situations, such as the one discussed in this thread, are transmitted without prior discussion and by inadvertance rather than through a preconceived scheme. Furthermore, the interpretation of the unauthorized information "transmitted," by a hesitation or other inadvertant action or remark, is not always clear, as is clearly the case in this thread. Still, the use of unauthorized information in order to gain an advantage is unethical conduct. It is not cheating (IMHO).

So you believe that it is cheating only if there is a prior arrangement between partners? I disagree.

[mycroft]

I'm not sure I am disagreeing with you (yet again), Blackshoe.

I'm not sure I can make a L16 case when (unless they aren't playing EHAA by The Book) passing 2NT with this hand is either a psychic pass or catering to a psychic partner, just like you.

I understand the intent of the construction is to give a "we know the slow 2NT shows a non-2NT hand, but is it: understrength (like a 15?); overstrength (like a good 19 that has chosen to duck a point in case North pushed); or really off-shape (5=1=4=3 17?) And does that mean we're off the hook if we "guess right"? It's just that this particular construction hits a different question - "your bid is insane, no matter what the I; is it legal, in the presence of UI, even 'undecidable UI', to be illogical?"

Which, again, is an interesting question. The fact that it's a highly unusual system, so that the "not quite a 2NT" calls are unique in the room, doesn't really mean anything, I don't think.

I, again, agree with you that it's a clear L73C case, and I don't even have to demonstrate what the UI suggests; without the slow 2NT the only options are 3NT or look for 4♥ on the way to 3NT; barring "I didn't see the ♣K" or the like, passing 2NT with this hand doesn't come even close to "carefully avoiding using the UI". It's blatant enough that I think we need to bring it out of just the table and a ruling; what that is I don't know.

I guess the other thing I would take is "every time she hesitates and I bid, I'm told I have to pass." Unfortunately, the state of Law education, and the manner in which many people educate their opponents around here might convince me that he actually thought that. In the case of the OP, of course, that doesn't apply.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-26, 14:52, said:

I think it's rather that he did not make every (or perhaps any) effort to avoid taking advantage of it.

If you think his taking advantage was deliberate, show us, via the evidence, that he knew he was violating the law. Not that he did violate the law, that proves nothing about this question, but that he knew he was doing it.

His action was so odd it had to have been based on something other than the legal auction.

[Cthulhu D]

Isn't this linked to the other thread where it's deemed a hesitation shows a heavy invite? If the SB is correct and the hesitation can show partner is stretching, surely the other thread (where the hesitation showed heaviness).

I really do not understand the laws re: logical alternatives at all I have realized.

[lamford]

Cthulhu D, on 2014-November-26, 18:18, said:

Isn't this linked to the other thread where it's deemed a hesitation shows a heavy invite? If the SB is correct and the hesitation can show partner is stretching, surely the other thread (where the hesitation showed heaviness).

I really do not understand the laws re: logical alternatives at all I have realized.

No, it was just a coincidence that a hand occurred two days after my standing (should that be sitting?) on an AC, where the UI might suggest the opposite. I don't fully understand the Laws on logical alternatives either, and I discovered a year ago that Law 75 contradicts and takes priority over Law 16B, in that the actual methods of the partnership are not relevant, as what the person with UI thinks they are takes priority.

Some, including campboy, think that a call is demonstrably suggested if it is more likely to be successful with the UI than without it, even if that percentage goes up from 0% to 0.1%. If this is the case, I am far from convinced that Pass on the North hand breaches any Laws. Playing EHAA, partner is far, far more likely to be heavy than light, and a slow 2NT actually suggests that he is heavy. 3NT is the obvious bid, and is, if anything, more obvious after a slow 2NT. So, bidding game is demonstrably suggested, as I would guess it has gone up from 90% to 95% owing to the UI, but Pass is not a logical alternative on this chunky nine-count, so we would not adjust if North chose 3NT. We clearly should not adjust if North chooses Pass, a call that is abysmal, but not demonstrably suggested. Law 40A3 allows any player to make any call he wants provides it is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding, and North is therefore allowed to Pass, and I think Trinidad is absolutely correct, and SB and others are wrong.

[Cthulhu D]

By linked, I meant conceptually, in that in both partner makes an invitation very slowly. Given partner takes the same action both times, isn't the suggested action both times to bid.

[lamford]

Cthulhu D, on 2014-November-26, 18:43, said:

By linked, I meant conceptually, in that in both partner makes an invitation very slowly. Given partner takes the same action both times, isn't the suggested action both times to bid.

That depends on the form of scoring and what the auction has told both sides to date. I agree, however, that a slow invite probably suggests extra values, certainly at teams.

[nige1]

barmar, on 2014-November-26, 10:41, said:

The difficult thing about this case is that the actual reason for the hesitation is the exact opposite of the reason that would suggest passing. If North knew that South was actually heavy for his bid, he would bid 3NT eagerly. It's just really bad luck that they can't make 3NT with 28 HCP. That's what makes it difficult to believe that North is "taking advantage" of the UI -- how can you be taking advantage of an inference if your inference is wrong?

IMO when judging whether North chose an action suggested by UI,

• South's actual hand is irrelevant.
• Also irrelevant is if it transpires that apparently suggestive UI was, in fact, spurious, For example, South was watching some cows fly by, rather than deciding what to call.

.

[lamford]

ArtK78, on 2014-November-26, 09:28, said:

So, North knows that South will be careful about taking a second call such as 2NT with marginal values.

Exactly. Therefore South is much more likely to be heavy for a slow 2NT than light when he invites slowly. This makes 3NT demonstrably suggested. Fortunately every man and his dog seem to agree that there is no LA to 3NT.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2014-November-26, 18:33, said:

Some, including campboy, think that a call is demonstrably suggested if it is more likely to be successful with the UI than without it, even if that percentage goes up from 0% to 0.1%. If this is the case, I am far from convinced that Pass on the North hand breaches any Laws. Playing EHAA, partner is far, far more likely to be heavy than light, and a slow 2NT actually suggests that he is heavy. 3NT is the obvious bid, and is, if anything, more obvious after a slow 2NT. So, bidding game is demonstrably suggested, as I think it has gone up from 90% to 95% from the UI, but Pass is not a logical alternative on this chunky nine-count, so we would not adjust if North chose 3NT. We clearly should not adjust if North chooses Pass, a call that is abysmal, but not demonstrably suggested. Law 40A3 allows any player to make any call he wants provides it is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding, and North is therefore allowed to Pass, and I think Trinidad is absolutely correct, and SB and others are wrong.

I don't think such a small change is likely to be "demonstrably suggested". But yes, I believe that "A is suggested over B by UI" when the UI increases the attractiveness of A, and decreases that of B, even if B is still more attractive than A.

If I agreed with your judgement (that bidding game has gone from 90% to 95%) I would certainly also agree with your conclusion. But as I said upthread, my judgement is that actually the chance of game going off has gone up significantly -- unless partner has a minimum, game should be very good, and the UI tells you he is more likely to hold a minimum. Yes, he is also more likely to hold a maximum, but I would guess that the chance of game making opposite a normal hand is already very high, and therefore won't change much between "normal" and "maximum". I also don't think it is true that partner is more likely to be heavy than light -- 15-counts are much much more common than 19-counts, after all. But I admit that I have no real knowledge of EHAA.

[campboy]

Vampyr, on 2014-November-26, 17:17, said:

His action was so odd it had to have been based on something other than the legal auction.

Perhaps, but that on its own isn't enough. Did he pass because he thought the BIT made it more attractive? Or did he pass because he thought the BIT made it less attractive, and he was trying too hard to be ethical?

[WellSpyder]

nige1, on 2014-November-26, 20:11, said:

IMO when judging whether North chose an action suggested by UI,

• South's actual hand is irrelevant.
• Also irrelevant is if it transpires that apparently suggestive UI was, in fact, spurious

.

Is this a generally held view? I seem to recall we have discussed this before, but I don't recall the conclusion, if any. It is surely at least arguable that it cannot be the UI that suggests a course of action if it isn't actually correct information.