[LH2650]

mycroft, on Oct 5 2005, 11:48 AM, said:

2) Because the original bid was insufficient, the footnote to Law 25B directs us to Law 27 instead of allowing LHO to accept the change.

I accept that if LHO condones neither the double or the 1 diamond bid, the heart bidder would be barred, but LHO has the option to accept either call. The footnote should be eliminated, since it is logically unreachable.

I would not award +140 because there are good players who would consider 2H clear. They are not mainstream, and therefore their action would be overturned based on the LA rule, but that is not the issue. They must take the action that they consider right, and declarer must live with his mistaken inferences.

[pigpenz]

all you can do is hope your opps are ethical, if not much you can do about it. Maybe that is their style to bid like that.

I remember a hand I had where i played 3NT doubled after an opp in first seat opened 2♥ red at imps, the contract hinged on me bringin home the heart suit without a loser, yes me. Turns out he had opened 2♥ on 10xxxxx and an outside ace. Not realy much i good do as i lost to the jack♥ offside, but deep in my mind I feel I got cheated that they didnt disclose that their vul weak twos were that undisciplined but that was several thousand hands ago and I am sure they have gone for numbers if still using that tactic. so its water under the bridge and off to the next board

[McBruce]

So far in my investigations, without the UI:

--four players have chosen 2♥, only one listing pass as an alternative
--one player has passed

At this point pass is a LA but it is close and probably more input would be needed.

[pigpenz]

McBruce, on Oct 6 2005, 03:10 PM, said:

So far in my investigations, without the UI:

--four players have chosen 2♥, only one listing pass as an alternative
--one player has passed

At this point pass is a LA but it is close and probably more input would be needed.

and with that in mind it now becomes a play problem.
Its like playing to take the pedestrian finesse or playing to smother the tenholding ajxxx q9xx

but it was a good topic

[barmar]

pigpenz, on Oct 4 2005, 08:49 PM, said:

the problem is how do you prove that there was unauthorized information give?

There's clearly UI given, that's not in dispute. I think you meant to ask "how do you prove that the UI affected the bidding?"

And the answer is that this doesn't have to be proved. The relevant law doesn't require that you determine that the player actually made his call based on the UI, just that he could have. To summarize the law, if there's UI, and a player has several reasonable choices of actions (called "Logical Alternatives" in the Laws), and the UI suggests that any of them are likely to be more successful, the player may not choose those.

This is why the excuse "I was planning to bid that anyway" bears little weight. If the UI suggests doing what you were planning on doing, but there are other logical alternatives, you may be screwed. When UI is involved, the Laws are biased in favor of the non-offending side.

[LH2650]

barmar, on Oct 7 2005, 05:46 PM, said:

There's clearly UI given, that's not in dispute.  I think you meant to ask "how do you prove that the UI affected the bidding?"

And the answer is that this doesn't have to be proved.  The relevant law doesn't require that you determine that the player actually made his call based on the UI, just that he could have.  To summarize the law, if there's UI, and a player has several reasonable choices of actions (called "Logical Alternatives" in the Laws), and the UI suggests that any of them are likely to be more successful, the player may not choose those.

Most of your statements are correct, but you draw the wrong conclusion. The relevant law is 73C. The player receiving the UI must do exactly what he would have done without it. It would be a violation for him to pass because he felt that the Director would overturn what he thought was a clear 2 heart bid.

Consider the case where the bidding had continued to 3 hearts and then 3 spades, which went down 1. NS ask for a score adjustment on the basis of UI. The Director determines that less than a substantial majority of East's peers would have made the 2 heart bid, so he disallows it and restores the contract to 2 spades. Most emphatically, the Director did NOT find that East actually used UI. Therefore, he cannot make a score adjustment based on that assumption, and +140 cannot be awarded.

In order to pursue a claim that East actually used UI, he would have to determine that nobody would bid 2 hearts, and that conclusion would be incorrect.

[david_c]

LH2650, on Oct 8 2005, 01:36 AM, said:

Most of your statements are correct, but you draw the wrong conclusion.  The relevant law is 73C.  The player receiving  the UI must do exactly what he would have done without it.

There's no Law which says that. 73C says only that you must carefully avoid taking advantage. So here, if the player thinks he would have bid 2♥ without the UI then he's perfectly entitled to pass instead: that's not taking advantage, because pass is likely to turn out worse.

[McBruce]

Trouble is that the decisions of TDs and Appeal Committees on what constitutes "taking advantage" are very inconsistent. One thing that is clear from reading the decisions on UI cases are that the mindset of the player who has to decide what he is allowed by L73C to do is biased by his self-interest in a good result. Because of this, I don't think it is fair for anyone to criticize someone who bids what he figures he would have bid without the UI as unethical. Usually it is not an ethical lapse, but a mistake in judgment.

In this case, I have asked several players what they would do without giving them the UI aspect and the majority opinion is 2♥, with a small minority view being pass. Pass may or may not be a logical alternative, depending on the criteria used. When it's this close, I think we have to allow the player in the UI situation some lenience: roll the score back if the TD or AC so judges, but don't draw the conclusion that the player has broken L73C or acted unethically. He did his best in a difficult and borderline situation, and he didn't create the UI in the first place: why hit on him?

Whenever I adjust or consider adjusting a score based on L73C in a borderline situation, I tell the players (and the AC if one results) that there is no infraction of ethics. And if the non-offending side tries to insinuate that there was, I warn severely and penalize if necessary. The intimidation that some non-offending sides exhibit in these cases is far worse than the breach of L73C that they seize upon.

[pigpenz]

yes exactly mcbruce....
active ethics ...look at how many times people used to forget flannery or mino roman as an example and then knowing their partner bid in response to it, when they had a weak two in diamonds.

I have never yet see anyone raise with four card support let alone pass, they almost always rebid their six card diamonds suit. Bobby Wolf is always waiting there to give the active ethics award to the guy who passes on the 3-1 fit.

[McBruce]

Active Ethics has its place. There was a story about Al Roth defending 7NT in a high stakes rubber game with the Q♣. Declarer, Al's LHO, took some time before starting and watched all the discards carefully before coming down to a three card ending with twelve clubs left in the four hands, KJ9 in dummy, AT8 in hand.

After an eternity, the declarer finally played the 8♣ toward the dummy. Al's partner looked at the ceiling and hmmmed a bit and finally played a very tentative low card. Declarer played the jack and when it won claimed his grand.

Al's partner went nuts when he saw declarer's last two cards. "AL," he shrieked, "WHY THE HELL DIDN'T YOU WIN THE QUEEN?"

"I thought you had it," said Al.



Where Active Ethics falls down is in non-obvious situations. Every player has the right to decide what is allowed when there is UI. But whenever it is arguable whether a logical alternative exists, I don't think we should force people to invoke Active Ethics and take a potentially unnecessary bad result. Nor should we take their decision as an indication of their own personal ethics. It's hard enough to play this game without UI, and even harder when there is and it MIGHT meet the L73C standard--or might not.

I wouldn't impugn Al's ethics if he chose to take his queen, but as Director I would rule making seven (Law 73F2). Al saw that coming and took the shorter (and more entertaining) route.

[pigpenz]

But I am sure his partner learned a lesson about coffee housing

[barmar]

The advice that's usually given to players is that they should do what they would have bid without the UI. I don't think the reason for this is because it's what the Law says, but because it's usually the most pragmatic. Figuring out what the UI suggests, and trying to calculate how this restricts your bidding, is hard enough for TDs and appeals committees to do when they're not under time pressure and can survey other players; it's nearly impossible to get right at the table. AFAIK, there are no books that teach how to proceed when in possession of UI; there are just a few poorly-understood laws.

So unless it's clear what the implication of the UI is, just go ahead and bid/play normally. A TD or AC might change the result, but this should not be taken as an accusation of cheating or poor ethics, any more than a penalty card or a transferred trick due to a revoke is.

[mycroft]

Anybody who makes a call in a UI situation because "it's the call I would always have made" is doing something improper. Frequently, they're deluding themselves (and absolutely everybody can - that's why the Law is written the way it is), but even when they're not, and even when the call happens to follow Law 16 perfectly, they are still being improper, and if they do so knowing it to be improper, they are being unethical.

If, however, they look at their hand and truly believe that there's no sane option but the suggested alternative, and the TD in consultation rules otherwise, no impropriety has occurred, and I (as TD) will defend them to the wall against opponents who start commenting about Ethics (or worse, the "C" word). The bidder's judgement simply is different from the findings of the TD and the peers consulted, that's all.

David Stevenson says "Law 16 is for TDs; Law 73C is for players." And, given the different definitions of Logical Alternative in the world, this is probably a good way to think about it.

Active Ethics is one thing; being Proper and Lawful is another. I think at times AE goes beyond the Proprieties, and if someone wants to be Actively Ethical, I praise them. If someone wants to follow the Laws without "Active" ethics, that's just fine. If someone violates the Proprieties, they're being improper, and that's wrong.

Michael.

[mycroft]

barmar, on Oct 10 2005, 11:29 AM, said:

The advice that's usually given to players is that they should do what they would have bid without the UI.  I don't think the reason for this is because it's what the Law says, but because it's usually the most pragmatic.

The reason for it is more often than not because that's the information the teacher was given 15 years ago, and she has never looked it up in the Book either. Law 73 is neither esoteric or convoluted (I will admit, Law 16C is, especially with differing definitions of LA from different SOs). One just has to read to understand.

Quote

Figuring out what the UI suggests, and trying to calculate how this restricts your bidding, is hard enough for TDs and appeals committees to do when they're not under time pressure and can survey other players; it's nearly impossible to get right at the table.

Figuring out what the UI suggests is usually pretty easy. Working out the logical alternatives and deciding on 60% vs. 75% vs 80% is hard. Luckily, at the table, the player doesn't need to do that. "Will I get away with X?" is not the question - and if you are deciding based on that, you are violating Law 73C. "I know the UI suggests X - is there a reason for Not X? And is it reasonable?" is the right question.

Quote

AFAIK, there are no books that teach how to proceed when in possession of UI; there are just a few poorly-understood laws.

As far as I know, just the One Book. And frankly, the reason Law 73C is poorly understood is that nobody reads it, nobody teaches the Proprieties in any of the lessons, and the wrong advice keeps being handed down from player to player.

Quote

So unless it's clear what the implication of the UI is, just go ahead and bid/play normally.  A TD or AC might change the result, but this should not be taken as an accusation of cheating or poor ethics, any more than a penalty card or a transferred trick due to a revoke is.

This, however, is exactly right. If you can't work out what the UI suggests, then you are under no restrictions; and if others disagree with you, there's no ethical implications. It really is rare that you can't work out what the UI suggests, though.

Michael.

[barmar]

mycroft, on Oct 10 2005, 02:23 PM, said:

barmar, on Oct 10 2005, 11:29 AM, said:

The advice that's usually given to players is that they should do what they would have bid without the UI.  I don't think the reason for this is because it's what the Law says, but because it's usually the most pragmatic.

The reason for it is more often than not because that's the information the teacher was given 15 years ago, and she has never looked it up in the Book either. Law 73 is neither esoteric or convoluted (I will admit, Law 16C is, especially with differing definitions of LA from different SOs). One just has to read to understand.

I'm pretty sure I've seen the advice given by Mike Flader, the ACBL national TD who writes the "Ruling the Game" column in the Bridge Bulletin.

I've seen debates on what is an LA in some particular circumstance, and which LAs are suggested by the UI, go on for a week in rec.games.bridge. And if any decision is non-clearcut enough to warrant hearing by an appeals committee, I think you're in the clear ethics-wise.

[pigpenz]

barmar, on Oct 11 2005, 09:03 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure I've seen the advice given by Mike Flader, the ACBL national TD who writes the "Ruling the Game" column in the Bridge Bulletin.

Mike is just another employee of the ACBL who happens to be a director. A long time ago someo of the good players from Minnesota where Mike is from and Nebraksa, Iowa always used to say, If you want to really piss off an TD quoate from Bridge World ruling the game.

TD's attempt to interpet the laws how they best understand them, and not all of them interpet them the same way. If that was the case we would never have Appeals Committees.

So TD's are sort of like the lower courts, and Appeals Committees are like the Supreme Court. In otherwords TD's aren infallible but the Committees get the final say if there is question.

[mycroft]

barmar, on Oct 11 2005, 08:03 AM, said:

I've seen debates on what is an LA in some particular circumstance, and which LAs are suggested by the UI, go on for a week in rec.games.bridge.  And if any decision is non-clearcut enough to warrant hearing by an appeals committee, I think you're in the clear ethics-wise.

I think that is my main point - the ethics in this case isn't about results, be it at-the-table results or the results of the LA poll or the AC decision.

People can appeal any case at any level to an AC, except that they can't appeal TD's use of their disciplinary powers. ACs can't overturn TDs on a point of Law, but can try to convince them that they are wrong. They can, however, decide on any point of judgement. Just because the case gets appealed doesn't mean anything except that the appealer has some goes remaining (be it AWMPs to spare or cash in pocket). If the deposit is returned, however, even if the score isn't changed - or the appeal is deemed to have merit - then maybe one has a case for it being close.

[Generic "you" from now on]

But as far as ethics are concerned, if you follow Law 73C to the best of your ability, you are being proper. If the TD rules against you - even if the screening TD says you have absolutely no case, even if the AC keeps your deposit, even if your partner later manages to explain to you why your judgement was wrong, you are being proper.

If, however, you fail to follow 73C, but happen to sneak past the LA poll required for the TD to adjust the score under Law 16, you have been improper. If you bid with the thought "maybe I'll get away with it, and if I don't, I'm no worse off" - then it doesn't matter if 100% of the pollers agree with you, you're doing something unethical - because you know what you're trying on is wrong.

Michael.

[barmar]

Let me put it another way that's perhaps clearer.

When my partner hesitates, what usually goes through my mind is "Damn, what the f--- does that mean I can or can't do?" In some cases it's pretty obvious: if he hesitates and then passes, he must have something extra and was thinking about bidding more, so I shouldn't do anything that depends on partner having more than a minimum for his previous bidding. But if a hand that has not yet been limited hesitates before accepting an invitation, was he thinking about passing, or was he thinking about exploring for slam? Then there's a whole range of other possibilities -- cue-bidding versus ace-asking, doubling vs. bidding on vs. passing, etc. It could even be the case that he thought you hesitated previously, so his hesitation was due to trying to figure out what his own constraints are.

If you're in one of these dilemmas where you're really not sure what your constraints are, I think you are on solid ethical footing by just bidding as if there hadn't been UI. You're not trying to "get away" with something, you're just hoping that it doesn't matter. And I suspect that these cases are among the most common situations, not the exceptions.

[pigpenz]

barmar, on Oct 12 2005, 03:49 PM, said:

Let me put it another way that's perhaps clearer.

When my partner hesitates, what usually goes through my mind is "Damn, what the f--- does that mean I can or can't do?" In some cases it's pretty obvious: if he hesitates and then passes, he must have something extra and was thinking about bidding more, so I shouldn't do anything that depends on partner having more than a minimum for his previous bidding. But if a hand that has not yet been limited hesitates before accepting an invitation, was he thinking about passing, or was he thinking about exploring for slam? Then there's a whole range of other possibilities -- cue-bidding versus ace-asking, doubling vs. bidding on vs. passing, etc. It could even be the case that he thought you hesitated previously, so his hesitation was due to trying to figure out what his own constraints are.

If you're in one of these dilemmas where you're really not sure what your constraints are, I think you are on solid ethical footing by just bidding as if there hadn't been UI. You're not trying to "get away" with something, you're just hoping that it doesn't matter. And I suspect that these cases are among the most common situations, not the exceptions.

but I have seen committees in regionals rule in favor of good rated players when their opps hesitate and it wasnt really clear if any thing was taken advantage of. I remember in one case a friend after his partner hesitated over a 4NT response bid slam and made, even though his partner didnt have anything extra or unusual for his hesitation....the committee vote in favor of Linda(Peterson) Lewis at the time.

Now at the regional level committees I have been on have usually seemed to be biased in favor of the better players. I dont know about at the National level.

[barmar]

It's hard to comment on the case without seeing the facts. But it doesn't really matter whether the hesitator actually had what his hesitation suggested, only whether the partner took an action that could be based on the suggestion.

"Hesitation Blackwood" is an extremely thorny issue -- the Bulletin or Bridge World had a whole series of articles on this a couple of years ago (I think the title was "If it hesitates -- shoot it"). If one player signs off after getting a Blackwood response, and his partner then raises to a making slam without a clear bridge reason (e.g. he made a 03 or 14 response, so he's expected to convert to slam if he has 3 or 4), it's not uncommon for it to be reversed if there's the slightest hint of UI.