[VixTD]

This happened at the club last night (matchpointed pairs):

---

3♦ was alerted and showed 5-5 or longer in the majors, 5-6 losers.
Result: 5♦ (E)-1, NS +50

I cannot explain how the contract went only one down (perhaps South led a spade).

NS called the director and queried East's 4♦ bid after the agreed hesitation.

How would you rule?

[WellSpyder]

I think pass has to be a LA for East. Just imagine the West and South hands reversed. The bidding would probably be the same other than where the hesitation occurred - until South doubled 4♦ with glee....

[wank]

double sized PP for east.

[weejonnie]

There aren't many hands that would protect at the 4-level and this is not one of them. In fact the 4♦ call is so off the mark that it could be called an 'illogical alternative'.

Now until last August making an 'illogical alternative' was not, technically, a breach of law 16 - since it deals only with 'logical alternatives'.

The White book was amended (in fact this is the only major addition)

If a player (in receipt of unauthorised information) chooses an action that no one else would choose, that action is not a logical alternative (based on Law 16B1(b)). If the action is suggested by the unauthorised information, it appears that the player is not in breach of Law 16B1(a).

To avoid this unfortunate conclusion, we interpret Law 16B1(a) as if it says:
‘… the partner may not choose an action if there are logical alternatives and the action could demonstrably have been suggested over a logical alternative by the extraneous information.’
Choosing an action which no one else would choose but which is suggested by the unauthorised information is likely to be a breach of Law 73C and subject to a procedural penalty (see §2.8.3.2 and §8.73.3).

Whether the EBU has this power is, of course, another matter.

[blackshoe]

Grattan Endicott once told me that that the phrase "logical alternative" doesn't mean what it says. Instead, it means something like "plausible alternative for the class of player concerned". There's also an interpretation I've heard quite a bit in the ACBL: if the player chose it, it's a logical alternative. Perhaps only for him, but it still counts. Or so they say.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-04, 22:17, said:

Grattan Endicott once told me that that the phrase "logical alternative" doesn't mean what it says. Instead, it means something like "plausible alternative for the class of player concerned". There's also an interpretation I've heard quite a bit in the ACBL: if the player chose it, it's a logical alternative. Perhaps only for him, but it still counts. Or so they say.

I have always interpreted it this way. It is a pity that the lawbook needs so much interpretation.

Anyway 4♦ is the most egregious abuse of UI that I have seen in a long while.

[Trinidad]

Use of UI, Pass is an LA. There is damage.

AS: 100% 4♥= (Everybody will lead the ♦A (or K) from the West hand.)

I do not often hand out PPs for the use of UI, since often:
at the table it is not as clear what the UI suggests as it is when a TD looks at it objectively (and often seeing all 5 hands)
in complex situations, it is difficult to separate the UI and AI in your brain
often the player at the table tried to do the right thing, but failed

In this case, however, the situation is clear:
The suggestion from the UI is clear: I have values and I would like to bid.
The situation is simple, it is easy to separate the UI from the AI.
It is inconceivable that East was trying to do the right thing.

PP to EW for East's use of UI.

Rik

[gordontd]

Trinidad, on 2017-January-05, 02:40, said:

Use of UI, Pass is an LA. There is damage.

AS: 100% 4♥= (Everybody will lead the ♦A (or K) from the West hand.)

Rik

You can't award a result of 4♥ since if you disallow 4♦ the final contract will be 3♥

[sanst]

Vampyr, on 2017-January-04, 23:24, said:

I have always interpreted it this way. It is a pity that the lawbook needs so much interpretation.

That's the case with all law books. I used to work for a legal publisher that made enormous profits by publishing jurisprudence and comments. Iit was already the same in antiquity. Think of the Halacha, the interpretation of the Thora !(the five books of Moses).

[Vampyr]

sanst, on 2017-January-05, 06:37, said:

That's the case with all law books. I used to work for a legal publisher that made enormous profits by publishing jurisprudence and comments. Iit was already the same in antiquity. Think of the Halacha, the interpretation of the Thora !(the five books of Moses).

Fine, but language like "blah blah.... may not choose, from among logical alternatives ..... blah blah blah" is entirely unnecessary. Long sentences containing multiple concepts, embedded clauses,the use of the passive... the lawbook is rife with these. Short simple sentences with a list or flowchart-like mentality could help a lot. Unfortunately, since Kaplan's day the lawmakers have been proud of their elegant(?) prose, so I don't see things changing.

[sanst]

Vampyr, on 2017-January-05, 10:34, said:

Fine, but language like "blah blah.... may not choose, from among logical alternatives ..... blah blah blah" is entirely unnecessary. Long sentences containing multiple concepts, embedded clauses,the use of the passive... the lawbook is rife with these. Short simple sentences with a list or flowchart-like mentality could help a lot. Unfortunately, since Kaplan's day the lawmakers have been proud of their elegant(?) prose, so I don't see things changing.

There is a booklet with flowcharts to be found at the site of the Dutch bridge that union (http://www.bridge.nl...ts/download/154), but I'm afraid that it's not very useful for those who are unfamiliar with the language.

[Vampyr]

sanst, on 2017-January-05, 10:54, said:

There is a booklet with flowcharts to be found at the site of the Dutch bridge that union (http://www.bridge.nl...ts/download/154), but I'm afraid that it's not very useful for those who are unfamiliar with the language.

Do you agree that it's crazy to have to create this?

[mycroft]

I've seen another of those from Quebec (in English). No, not really; anyone capable of understanding "judgment when deciding to bid 1NT 14-16 with good 12s vs 1♦ could be 1 vs 40 pages of 1♣ responses" is capable of reading Law English and understanding it. They just don't, because "how bridge, at least at *my level* [read: anyone who can play] works" is more important than what the Laws actually say.

Have you read Law books for other sports? Golf? Baseball? Cricket? Having said that, one thing that they religiously do is release annual "case law and interpretations" books *that are incorporated into the Laws* and that people who rule the game are required to read and understand. I wish we had people who religiously did this and made them available globally.

Bridge is the only game I've ever played where it's considered a point of honour not to know the Laws; one of the few where "using the Laws to your advantage" is not considered a game skill, in fact it's a black mark; and, unfortunately, one of a few where, in competitive play, the onus is on the players to alert the referee to an infraction as opposed to having the referee oversee the play and "if the refs didn't see it, it didn't happen". The last tends to work badly with the former two.

My comparison is M:tG, again; and yeah, some of the approbation bridge lawyers get is flung at "pros taking advantage of lesser players (who they should be able to beat straight up) by calling Judge for trivial infractions the other player probably didn't know even were a problem." But not as much, and "the rules are there for a reason, if you're going to play at this level, you have to follow them" is a minority, but always present, response.

There are many games (of the Ameritrash variety, I will admit) where there have been entire books of flowcharts created by players to make following the Laws easier - or even possible. The makers of those charts are lauded as pillars of the community and thanked every time someone had to use them for the first time.

Could we reduce the Grattanese? Sure, and I assume we will. Will we make a Law book that is as easy to understand as a Farage speech? No, it would be as incomplete and misleading if we tried. Will we make a complete set of unambiguous Laws? Again, no; it's as impossible to do so as to create a bidding system that doesn't have "holes". Will it always read like a lawyer wrote it? Probably, and for very good reason. Will there be commentary to translate Lawyer into English, probably *not* official and always with the caveat that "this is glossing over several corner cases, TDs should always rule to the Law Book, not this, but it will make it easier to understand for 99.5% of the bridge population in 99.5% of the cases."? Yes, probably.

[Trinidad]

gordontd, on 2017-January-05, 06:25, said:

You can't award a result of 4♥ since if you disallow 4♦ the final contract will be 3♥

You're more awake then I am...

Rik

[jallerton]

weejonnie, on 2017-January-04, 12:04, said:

There aren't many hands that would protect at the 4-level and this is not one of them. In fact the 4♦ call is so off the mark that it could be called an 'illogical alternative'.

Now until last August making an 'illogical alternative' was not, technically, a breach of law 16 - since it deals only with 'logical alternatives'.

The White book was amended (in fact this is the only major addition)

If a player (in receipt of unauthorised information) chooses an action that no one else would choose, that action is not a logical alternative (based on Law 16B1(b)). If the action is suggested by the unauthorised information, it appears that the player is not in breach of Law 16B1(a).

To avoid this unfortunate conclusion, we interpret Law 16B1(a) as if it says:
‘… the partner may not choose an action if there are logical alternatives and the action could demonstrably have been suggested over a logical alternative by the extraneous information.’
Choosing an action which no one else would choose but which is suggested by the unauthorised information is likely to be a breach of Law 73C and subject to a procedural penalty (see §2.8.3.2 and §8.73.3).

Whether the EBU has this power is, of course, another matter.

This is a moot point. There has been a clear breach of Law 73C. If it is judged that Law 16 has not been breached using the alternative interpretation, then the TD just uses Law 12A1 (or Law 23) to adjust for the damage caused by the breach of Law 73C.

[mr1303]

As Gordon implied, 3H + 1, castration for East. Hanging is too good for him.