[avoscill]

A few days ago, at our local tournament in Pula, Croatia, I played as East the following deal:

---

North opened a weak two in hearts, which South raised preemptively to 3. At this point West, my partner, started to think, and, after a long time, decided to pass (I must say in his excuse that he plays bridge just a year or so, and is still unable to quickly find the correct action at such high levels). I had, to my mind, a clear-cut take-out double at this point, for it was the opponents weak bidding that told me about my partner's values, not his long thinking. He bid 4♦, and I followed with 4♠, showing finally my two-suited shape.

Here our opponents put back their cards in the board, saying that, after passing at my first turn, and after my partner's huddle, I had not the right to bid. We dont'h have a director in the tournament, and the next day I learned that the deal had been scored as If our opponents had played 3♥. I want to add an important detail. This deal has been played at the Cap Gemini Top Tnvitational pairs event in the year 2000 (we use a dealing machine for our local touraments), and the contract of 4♠ by EW has been reached in 7 of 8 games.

Please, can someone explain how should this case should be judged?

[blackshoe]

Well, it certainly shouldn't be "judged" by your opponents refusing to play the hand.

It is the responsibility of the Tournament Organizer to provide a director. Why did the TO not do this?

In the absence of an appointed director, the players are supposed to choose someone to act as director. I gather this was not done, either.

Your opponents' "ruling" is flat wrong. You certainly do have the right to bid, provided either that any UI you received did not suggest making the bid over some other action, or that you had no LA to the bid you made. There is also the question whether your partner bid in "normal" tempo for him in this auction. If he did, you have no UI.

It is unconscionable for a score to have been awarded without informing both contestants involved at the time the decision was made. In this case, I would want to know also who made the decision, and on what basis.

If you do have UI, then "UI trumps AI", which means that even though you have AI that partner has values, if you have UI that tells you he has values, you are contrained by the UI — you cannot choose an LA suggested by the UI, even if it is also suggested by AI, over another LA. So if pass is an LA (which it may well be) you cannot double or bid, if the UI suggests (as it would here) taking some other action.

[iviehoff]

 avoscill, on 2011-April-03, 16:27, said:

Here our opponents put back their cards in the board,

This is a serious offence by your opponents. (1) Players cannot abandon their hands because they don't like what the opponents did, this is a far more serious offence that what they have accused you of. (2) Players may not make their own rulings. (3) Even if your bid was ruled (by an impartial party) an offence against the UI laws - a ruling that should not be made until the end of the hand - the hand must be played out with the bidding that actually occurred. Any adjustment of the score is made at the end of the hand.

 avoscill, on 2011-April-03, 16:27, said:

the next day I learned that the deal had been scored as If our opponents had played 3♥.

This is not right, you should have had the opportunity to present your case to the director, have the ruling read to you, and been given the opportunity to appeal against it if you thought the ruling was wrong.

 avoscill, on 2011-April-03, 16:27, said:

I want to add an important detail. This deal has been played at the Cap Gemini Top Tnvitational pairs event in the year 2000 (we use a dealing machine for our local touraments), and the contract of 4♠ by EW has been reached in 7 of 8 games.

In general this is not relevant. It is unlikely that precisely what happened at your table happened at every other table. The relevant question is, whether after the auction 2H (weak) - p - 3H(pre-emptive) - p - p - ? would such a large proportion of your peers reopen on your hand that pass could not be described as a logical alternative. I may be wrong, but I my strong suspicion is that is not case; I think it highly probable that pass is a logical alternative on your hand and you should have passed. But at least you should have had had the chance to make the case.

So whilst you have been appallingly treated at almost every corner, which is inexcusable, and your opponents have escaped harmless from a terrible offence, you can at least console yourself that from your side what happened to you was was probably what would have happened anyway if everyone else had behaved properly.

[bluejak]

Some South players have been known to bid 3♥ on a mixed bag of hands, some a but stronger, so that you cannot rely on this sequence to prove partner is strong. While your gamble is reasonable without partner's hesitation, you should pass once he does. So I believe you should have passed, and the ruling was in fact right.

But the method is appalling. Your opponents' actions are beyond belief and would have got them expelled from any normal tournament.

Surely there must be a way of ensuring a TD is present? In England you get clubs where there are only five or six pairs playing but they all have a TD, one of the players will direct.

[avoscill]

 bluejak, on 2011-April-04, 09:32, said:

Some South players have been known to bid 3♥ on a mixed bag of hands, some a but stronger, so that you cannot rely on this sequence to prove partner is strong.

On another deal of the same tournament our opponents opened 2♥with these cards:
♠ 9
♥ K Q J 10 7 2
♦ 9 6 5 3
♣ A 9
and they are quite good players, who know each other very well, having played together for many years, so I don't think responder, in the deal I have submitted, holding opening strength and assured of a 9-card fit, wouldn't even make a game invitation. I reasoned that forces were at least equally distributed, and East's action should be considered a two-way shot: to make game or just competitive. But anyway, I may be wrong in this particular case, but what interests me now is a question of principle, for blackshoe said:

Quote

If you do have UI, then "UI trumps AI", which means that even though you have AI that partner has values, if you have UI that tells you he has values, you are contrained by the UI — you cannot choose an LA suggested by the UI, even if it is also suggested by AI, over another LA.

This really surprised me. Making logical inferences is in the spirit of the game, and it sounds strange to me that one should be denied the right to use legitimate information, just because there is also samo UI hanging around. This contradiction is particularly striking if you consider that the AI could consist in quite clean pieces of information, while the unauthorized hesitant pass could be due to a wide range of possible problems in partner's head (especially if he is a beginner!). Is it really clearly stated in the Laws the idea that "UI trumps AI"?

[blackshoe]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "clearly". It's not explicit that "UI trumps AI", that's just a phrase I thought up. But Law 16 says "A player may use information in the auction or play if: (a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source…" This seems pretty clear.

[mycroft]

Welcome, avoscil1, to "how the Laws say it works". The relevant laws are 16B and 73C, and the restrictions are surprisingly (to those who come against them for the first time) stringent. Law 73C says in part "[you] must carefully avoid taking any advantage" from the UI; Law 16 is more convoluted, but effectively says that if the UI clearly shows something, and there's a call that is suggested *against* by the UI that even some of your peers would have taken without the UI, you have to take it (I'm glossing over "peers", "demonstrably suggested" and "logical alternative" here, because they're jargon with defined meanings, and unless you care about the fiddly details (in which case there's lots of threads here to delve into) my summary is "good enough").

While what happened to you was Very Wrong, had I been the TD and called to the table, almost certainly with the explanations you've given, you'd be assigned the score in 3H, as I'm pretty certain that pass is a logical alternative that some of your peers would take after 2H-p-3H-p; p. In fact, at the bar, I'd be surprised if more than half of the people there would take any other action. And that's reasonably common, in UI rulings - so I'm not saying you did anything bad, just not legal under the circumstances.

The issue is that humans are incredible rationalizing beings, and can *always* come up with a reasonable explanation why what they want to do is the clearly right thing to do. I'm not saying that you did that on purpose, or are doing so on purpose; most of the time it is without conscious thought. And because of that, it will most often look (to the person ruled against) that "the AI could consist in quite clean pieces of information, while the unauthorized hesitant pass could be due to a wide range of possible problems in partner's head."

For instance, I play a very wide-ranging weak 2 structure with most of my partners - at equal vul, my suit could be JTxxxx or AKJTxx, and my outside cards could be useful or not (my only rule is that I avoid having "too much defence" outside my suit). Partner has some ways of finding out if I'm joking around (again) or if I have a real hand; but it can be dangerous to do so on borderline hands, so we frequently just "raise to the LAW level". We especially do that if we have a lot of defence but few quicks - at which point, if the opponents get into the auction, all they see from then on is red cards. Yes, our style does lead to a fair few +170s (and +200s!), but it puts the opponents to the test much more often than more traditional preempts do.

An example: say, South's hand with West's DKQ and CJ, and without the HQJ. You think that it wouldn't go the same way? You think partner isn't going to think with Qxx QJ ATxxx Axx (well, no, maybe not so much. But you're still "at least equally distributed", and now you're losing a trick in each suit. See?) And that's even without changing his shape - he could easily be 2=3=4=4 or 3=3=4=3 with that same 13-count (in fact it's more likely on the AI!), and now you're in 5Cx with the same loser in each suit, plus possibly another one in the wash. Another danger is that, with this hand, partner could very easily take you for the kind of 13-count that didn't want to force to the 5 level (4NT - any good two-suiter) or maybe you're not playing Leaping Michaels (where an immediate 4C would show your hand shape and good strength), and after 4S, jump to 6, as he *clearly* could have been weaker!

Yes, we do pay attention to "he's a beginner", and yes, sometimes the UI simply says "he has no clue what to do here". But here, it's clear that even a beginner has stuff if he thinks, and probably a hand that isn't a clean takeout double, and is also not a clean one-suiter. And what does he have? 3=2=5=3 and stuff. Unfortunately, he has exactly what one would expect for a hesitation-pass (except I'd expect "wasted heart values" - the aforementioned HQJ or Qx or Kx), and you have a "preempt-over-preempt", but somehow you managed to know it was your hand. I wonder how?

That said, refusal-to-play is wrong, and shouldn't be allowed. Assigning a score without letting you know what happened is wrong, and shouldn't be allowed. But also, as others have said, the fact that most people got to 4S is irrelevant, too - because *most people* did something with your partner's hand (over either 3H or 4H). It doesn't matter what partner does - double, or 4D - all roads lead to 4S (obviously, over 2H-p-4H, only double is going to get you to 4S, but it's the "obvious" forced call). Anther reasonable auction would be 1H-2H-3H-4S - which also is irrelevant to what happens at your table.

[bluejak]

There are two simple ways of looking at the problem when a player has UI and AI. First you are limited by Laws 16 and 73C when partner makes UI available to you: the Laws say that, and they do not say "unless you have AI" or some such.

Perhaps a more useful way of looking at it is to consider Law 16B. Partner makes UI available to you, and you are considering whether to double or not. You have AI that suggests doubling. What then?

Well, the Law says you may not choose amongst LAs one suggested over another by the UI. Now, when deciding what are LAs, the TD will consider the AI. So, in this case, are you allowed to double rather than pass considering partner's BIT? The answer is simple, is pass an LA? Remember, if you find out what others would do on the sequence - a good approach in UI cases - those other people have the same AI as you. So if several of them consider pass, and some of them choose pass, pass is an LA, and double must be disallowed.

[barmar]

Basically, the UI laws tend to bend over backwards to prevent potential use of UI. The result of this is the "UI trumps AI" philosophy, and explanations like "I was always going to bid XXX" hold little sway. It's not enough that you didn't make use of the UI, you have to avoid even the appearance of taking advantage of it.

[avoscill]

mycroft has expounded very sound arguments in favor of passing, so I decided to check out the probabilities by a computer simulation. It resulted that in the given situation, EW chances of having game are even somewhat less than 50%, so passing was definitely an option, and, given the UI from my partner's huddle, should have passed. Now, I would like to clarify just one point.

 bluejak, on 2011-April-05, 08:03, said:

Well, the Law says you may not choose amongst LAs one suggested over another by the UI. Now, when deciding what are LAs, the TD will consider the AI. So, in this case, are you allowed to double rather than pass considering partner's BIT? The answer is simple, is pass an LA? Remember, if you find out what others would do on the sequence - a good approach in UI cases - those other people have the same AI as you. So if several of them consider pass, and some of them choose pass, pass is an LA, and double must be disallowed.

When considering the LA, do probabilities play a role? I mean: let's suppose the above simulation had shown a high 70% in favor of bidding. Should in that case the TO continue to consider pass a logical alternative, albeit a poor one? I think that choosing an action with low percentage of success should not be regarded as logical, but you will always find someone who will do just that...

[barmar]

 avoscill, on 2011-April-06, 01:51, said:

When considering the LA, do probabilities play a role? I mean: let's suppose the above simulation had shown a high 70% in favor of bidding. Should in that case the TO continue to consider pass a logical alternative, albeit a poor one? I think that choosing an action with low percentage of success should not be regarded as logical, but you will always find someone who will do just that...

Read Law 16b1b:

Quote

A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

So unless you're in the class of players that always calculates probabilities when making decisions, I don't think they play a significant role.

[mycroft]

Barry has the "right" answer, but the smartalec answer is "yes, probabilities do enter into it. If a significant number of your peers would think about (the other call), and a (non-trivial) number of them would choose it, then in the presence of UI, you will be forced to. The probabilities of the suggested call being the right one absent UI? No, that doesn't apply at all, except as your peers are smart enough to be able to work them out."

If you are interested in the technical aspects of this, do read the definition of Logical Alternative in the Law book (at which point you'll be as befogged as before), and then balance that against case policy that if it's doubtful, the TDs will if possible poll several (3-7 or so, what we can) people we think are at your general level, and capable of understanding your system (if they don't play it), and ask them what they would do on a no-UI auction (doing our best to hide the "decision point" - people pretty quickly realize what's likely to have happened). It's pretty easy to see how the LA definition is applied in practise.

But as a player, I believe it's best to "carefully avoid" using UI, and don't worry about logical alternatives. If you can't see any other sane choice, fine, bid it; if the TD is called and disagrees with you, well, swings and roundabouts, and you can feel comfortable knowing you did what you thought was right, and maybe the TD is too hasty.

[avoscill]

Thanks to all for the exhaustive explanations. And, regarding

 bluejak, on 2011-April-04, 09:32, said:

Surely there must be a way of ensuring a TD is present? In England you get clubs where there are only five or six pairs playing but they all have a TD, one of the players will direct.

the situation is not so bad as it may seem from the present case. There is a player who also act as a director, when needed. But usually, we play until late on Tuesdays, so we calculate the scores and settle possible questions the next day.

[barmar]

 mycroft, on 2011-April-06, 11:25, said:

But as a player, I believe it's best to "carefully avoid" using UI, and don't worry about logical alternatives. If you can't see any other sane choice, fine, bid it; if the TD is called and disagrees with you, well, swings and roundabouts, and you can feel comfortable knowing you did what you thought was right, and maybe the TD is too hasty.

That's my general recommendation as well.

As discussions like this demonstrate, it can be difficult to figure out what the implications of UI are. If it's hard when you're just casually reading a forum, it's practically impossible under the pressure of bidding or playing a hand. And if you take a long time to try to figure out what your ethical obligations are, you're creating more UI for your partner.

So do what you think is best while trying to avoid using the UI, with the understanding that the TD might rule against you. Sometimes UI puts you in a no-win situation. That's why you should try not to transmit UI if possible (sometimes it's not -- normal alerting and answering questions creates UI unless you're behind screens).

[RMB1]

 barmar, on 2011-April-09, 01:39, said:

As discussions like this demonstrate, it can be difficult to figure out what the implications of UI are. If it's hard when you're just casually reading a forum, it's practically impossible under the pressure of bidding or playing a hand. ...

It hard enough for a TD to try and explain a player's obligations in the presence of unauthorised information, and often still harder for the player to comply.

Today, towards the bottom of the field of my county's major event, North held ♠Q82 ♥Q10976 ♦943 ♣AK. South opened a weak NT and North bid 2♦, a transfer to hearts. Unfortunately, South announced "spades" and, after West had passed, she pulled 2♠ out of the bidding box. (Now the only possible announcement of 2♦ is "hearts" but EW chose not to point this out.) South realised what she had done, and attempted to change her 2♠ bid but (righly or wrongly) the TD ruled that Law 25A did not apply and so 2♠ was her bid.

North did not know what to bid, they had no agreement about any calls except 2♥ after 2♦; and North certainly did not know what to bid when instructed to assume that partner knew what she was doing when she bid 2♠. He bid 2NT (presumably this is what he would have bid after 1NT=2♦=2♥) but EW thought he should have bid 3♠.

[blackshoe]

This is interesting. I gather South indicated that she realized she had misexplained their agreement, and corrected the explanation. Does North still have UI?

I think the TD was right about 25A not applying here, but what about 25B? It sounds like South tried to change 2♠ to (presumably) 2♥, and West declined to accept this. He's within his rights of course, but…

And then "EW thought he should have bid 3♠." I don't much care what they thought. If North is constrained by UI, he is constrained to think in terms of South, who has a weak NT, knowing that North has hearts. Therefore, 2♠ cannot logically be "I want to play in spades", so "he should have bid 3♠" is BS. The question is what North's peers would bid under the assumption that South has some kind of maximum weak NT with good heart support.

[pran]

 RMB1, on 2011-April-10, 15:36, said:

It hard enough for a TD to try and explain a player's obligations in the presence of unauthorised information, and often still harder for the player to comply.

Today, towards the bottom of the field of my county's major event, North held ♠Q82 ♥Q10976 ♦943 ♣AK. South opened a weak NT and North bid 2♦, a transfer to hearts. Unfortunately, South announced "spades" and, after West had passed, she pulled 2♠ out of the bidding box. (Now the only possible announcement of 2♦ is "hearts" but EW chose not to point this out.) South realised what she had done, and attempted to change her 2♠ bid but (righly or wrongly) the TD ruled that Law 25A did not apply and so 2♠ was her bid.

North did not know what to bid, they had no agreement about any calls except 2♥ after 2♦; and North certainly did not know what to bid when instructed to assume that partner knew what she was doing when she bid 2♠. He bid 2NT (presumably this is what he would have bid after 1NT=2♦=2♥) but EW thought he should have bid 3♠.

If faced with this situation (as TD) I would agree that Law 25A does not apply, but I would have accepted a bid of 2NT by North. This bid must be (at least) invitational and combines the possibilities that

a: South really intended to show a solid spade and little support for hearts (hardly possible for a 1NT opener, but the only reasonable cause for bidding 2♠) in which case South will probably bid 3♠, 3NT, 4♠ or even PASS.

b: South misbid (highly probable even without the misinformation in the announcement) in which case South will probably bid 3♥, 3NT, 4♥, or even PASS.

North certainly has UI from the incorrect announcement, but the evidence of a probable misbid is so overwhelming even without this misinformation that I cannot see any reason to deny North the possibility to save the board. Note that South will not have any UI from North with this procedure!

[jallerton]

 pran, on 2011-April-10, 16:20, said:

If faced with this situation (as TD) I would agree that Law 25A does not apply, but I would have accepted a bid of 2NT by North. This bid must be (at least) invitational and combines the possibilities that

a: South really intended to show a solid spade and little support for hearts (hardly possible for a 1NT opener, but the only reasonable cause for bidding 2♠) in which case South will probably bid 3♠, 3NT, 4♠ or even PASS.

b: South misbid (highly probable even without the misinformation in the announcement) in which case South will probably bid 3♥, 3NT, 4♥, or even PASS.

Have you ever come across the concept of "breaking the transfer"? Many players would consider excellent support for the suit partner has shown as being a reasonable cause for bidding 2♠.

[Vampyr]

 jallerton, on 2011-April-10, 16:33, said:

Have you ever come across the concept of "breaking the transfer"? Many players would consider excellent support for the suit partner has shown as being a reasonable cause for bidding 2♠.

Robin stated that "they had no agreement about any calls except 2♥ after 2♦". This being the case, they are probably not very experienced players, and it is possible that the player in question has never heard of a transfer break.

[blackshoe]

Anything is possible. That's why TD's are supposed to investigate.