[gwnn]

No I didn't There has been a funny thread or two about the possibility of somebody choosing an "illogical alternative" for one reason or another (perhaps maliciously using UI or perhaps trying too hard to do the right thing, or perhaps something in between). But this is really a tiny detail and a situation that almost never comes up, except mostly on these forums in entertaining but made-up situations.

this is one of the recent ones: http://www.bridgebas...ishing-partner/

[blackshoe]

gwnn, on 2013-June-28, 08:17, said:

You should either

• carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI, or
  
• make a conscious effort to figure out what the logical alternatives (LA's) are and then exclude any LA that has been (may have been demonstrably) suggested by the UI

The either/or and the parentheses above are there because there are two laws that apply to this situation and because the construction "may have been demonstrably" is kind of absurd (one is making the requirement stronger, the other one just incredibly vague). Some people say the first one is written for practical play and the second one is written for directors, but I would think the laws are written for everyone. And a LA is any action that either a significant portion of your peers would choose, or they would seriously consider, or maybe any action that although nobody would consider, some people (usually, you) would choose.

Hopefully that's clear.

I would say "may demonstrably have been suggested," which I think has a slightly different meaning. IOW, what you need to be able to show (demonstrate) is that a particular LA may have been suggested over another.

It has been said that Law 73C ("carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI") is for players and Law 16B ("may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another…" So a reasonable guide would be to follow 73C and not worry too much about LAs. There has been some discussion here of the possibility of violating one of these laws without violating the other, but I don't think we reached any consensus on that point. IMO, the possibility is very rare, at best. IAC, asking yourself "could my desire to make whatever call I'm contemplating be influenced by partner's action, or comment, or whatever?" is probably easier and quicker for most people than "what are the Logical Alternatives, and which, if any, could be suggested by UI?" Particularly if one is inexperienced in making such determinations.

If the TD later judges that, in spite of your effort to avoid taking advantage, you have chosen a "forbidden" LA, he will adjust the score. This is not an indictment of your actions, nor is it a punishment. Just accept it gratefully, make a note (so that next time, if there is a next time, you can avoid the score adjustment) of the circumstances, and move on. Remember that the TD's job here is to restore equity. If you're unsure of the basis for the TD's ruling, ask him to explain it.

[billw55]

blackshoe, on 2013-June-28, 08:56, said:

I would say "may demonstrably have been suggested," which I think has a slightly different meaning. IOW, what you need to be able to show (demonstrate) is that a particular LA may have been suggested over another.

It has been said that Law 73C ("carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI") is for players and Law 16B ("may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another…" So a reasonable guide would be to follow 73C and not worry too much about LAs. There has been some discussion here of the possibility of violating one of these laws without violating the other, but I don't think we reached any consensus on that point. IMO, the possibility is very rare, at best. IAC, asking yourself "could my desire to make whatever call I'm contemplating be influenced by partner's action, or comment, or whatever?" is probably easier and quicker for most people than "what are the Logical Alternatives, and which, if any, could be suggested by UI?" Particularly if one is inexperienced in making such determinations.

If the TD later judges that, in spite of your effort to avoid taking advantage, you have chosen a "forbidden" LA, he will adjust the score. This is not an indictment of your actions, nor is it a punishment. Just accept it gratefully, make a note (so that next time, if there is a next time, you can avoid the score adjustment) of the circumstances, and move on. Remember that the TD's job here is to restore equity. If you're unsure of the basis for the TD's ruling, ask him to explain it.

I agree that the marked bit is good guidance. I think the case in this thread is particularly interesting, because it is a situation where I am sure I would balance 2♠ without the UI, but also that the UI undeniably makes it more attractive. Does that mean my desire to make the call has been influenced, or not?

Also what about my last questions from my first post. If I consciously choose pass for ethical reasons, and this turns out to score better, then what is the ruling? I did "carefully avoid taking advantage" of the UI. But at the same time, my call was clearly influenced by the UI. So what happens?

[RMB1]

I think Law 16A/B tells you to Pass
I think Law 73C tells you to Pass

I do not think it is close

[ggwhiz]

I guess I've been lucky and have never been in a position of accusing or thinking that an opponent deliberately took advantage of UI. All you can do is take your best shot and I know lots of players that consider 2♠ to be automatic period here and am introduced to a few more that posted.

As to making your best "ethical" choice and getting a good result from it that's just a rub of the green. You are not required to roll over and die because of the presence of UI and to do so would damage the rest of the field.

In the heat of battle and possibly under time pressure it's not required to get them all right, just to try. That's why we pay the Directors the big bucks.

[blackshoe]

billw55, on 2013-June-28, 09:23, said:

I agree that the marked bit is good guidance. I think the case in this thread is particularly interesting, because it is a situation where I am sure I would balance 2♠ without the UI, but also that the UI undeniably makes it more attractive. Does that mean my desire to make the call has been influenced, or not?

Yes, your desire has been influenced.

billw55, on 2013-June-28, 09:23, said:

Also what about my last questions from my first post. If I consciously choose pass for ethical reasons, and this turns out to score better, then what is the ruling? I did "carefully avoid taking advantage" of the UI. But at the same time, my call was clearly influenced by the UI. So what happens?

Score stands. The mere fact you were "influenced" by UI does not necessarily lead to score adjustment. The call you chose must also have been one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the UI. In this case, the UI suggests bidding over passing. If passing works out well for you, well, you were lucky. Next board!

[barmar]

billw55, on 2013-June-28, 08:10, said:

This is interesting, and brings me to questions I often have about such a situation. Ethically and/or lawfully, am I supposed to sort of self-rule by passing? Or am I supposed to make what I think is the normal bid on the hand, and let the ruling take its course?

There are two ways to answer this, the legal way and the practical way.

Legally, you're required to apply Laws 16A/B and 73C, so you have to figure out what all the LAs are, which of them demonstrably suggested, avoid choosing them, and also avoid taking advantage of the UI.

Practically, trying to figure that out at in the heat of the moment can drive you crazy. Are you really supposed to figure out what actions other players of your calibre would consider? Sometimes it's hard enough knowing what you're supposed to do in your own system. If the UI obviously points in a particular direction, I'd avoid going that way if there's a reasonable alternative. But trying to analyze the whole LA calculus is not really feasible.

This also raises the spectre of 72B1: "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." Which means you can't just ignore the fact that you received UI because you're willing to let the TD adjust. Especially since there's a good chance the opponents will never call the TD at all.

Quote

For example, if (trying to be ethical) I choose pass, and this actually works out better than balancing, have not the opponents been damaged, in a way? Should the director then adjust?

The choice has to have been "demonstrably suggested" by the UI. If it wasn't, but just happens to turn out well, that's rub of the green.

[FrancesHinden]

I haven't replied to the poll because I'd pass with or without the UI.
Perhaps those saying it's obvious to bid haven't spotted the form of scoring.

[Cyberyeti]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-June-29, 02:27, said:

I haven't replied to the poll because I'd pass with or without the UI.
Perhaps those saying it's obvious to bid haven't spotted the form of scoring.

This was my feeling too.

[aguahombre]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-June-29, 02:27, said:

I haven't replied to the poll because I'd pass with or without the UI.
Perhaps those saying it's obvious to bid haven't spotted the form of scoring.

You believe the first poll choice is the correct answer, so you didn't reply to the poll?

[FrancesHinden]

aguahombre, on 2013-June-29, 05:55, said:

You believe the first poll choice is the correct answer, so you didn't reply to the poll?

I missed the first poll choice and only saw the other 3 (scrolling problems)

[mycroft]

If it works, I'm somewhere between +100 and +200. If it doesn't work, I'm -100 to -1000 or so. If I'm really unlucky, I'm -1100 into -110, or (possibly worse) -500 into +100. Is this a good gamble on a flat 8 with no intermediates? I don't know.

Oh, but partner has a problem. So I'm not catching -1100 on this hand, I guess. I bet they can't even double me - and it might even make. Now is it a good gamble? Well, of course.

Having said all that, South *passed* 2♠? Why? [Edit: answer to the rhetorical question: "Because he'd already shown his hand by the tank."]