[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2023-January-13, 10:58, said:

I hate the wording "reserves their rights" too

Just out of curiosity, how would you change the wording?

[mycroft]

Law 16B2 said:

When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result this player may announce, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that the Director be called), their intention to reserve the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed).

I'm not pescetom, but he was responding to my comment, so: my preference would be to go back to the old Regulation that required the Director to be called. It's still an option, but I know it's another "despite the Law, this is what they'll do anyway", so it's not going to happen.

If that is not the case (and it won't be), I would like to change the law so that it is clear that players have those rights, and need not say anything to keep them. Which is in fact the case in practise (viz my the "1400 MP" appeal from Washington). Frankly, since the Law is a "may announce", it is already clear that failure to do so does not impact the NOS rights (except by making it potentially harder to show evidence of UI and use thereof, given "passage of time").

If not, at the table, replace with "I believe there was use of <information>." Frankly, by preference, I would like "Do we agree there was <action causing information>?" and, if disagreement, "Director", before there is a possibility to use it. Yes, the ability to do this is called "reserving one's rights" in the Law, but my answer to "what was the Alert on 2♦" should not be the phrase "full disclosure", despite what the Law says.

The problem is that the phrase "I reserve my rights" is:

• legalistic and makes zero sense to the 90+% of players who don't know the Law;
  
• Therefore unhelpful for its intended purpose, because if the opponents do not understand, they won't know to dispute it and trigger the parenthetical;
  
• It implies but does not state what action they believe passed UI. The opponents could be seeing something else they agree with, but not the actual problem;
  
• And gives the Legal Person the argument when the TD is called that "I pointed it out at the time, and they didn't dispute it then" (sometimes, even in all innocence because *they* knew what they meant. But I bet sometimes it isn't innocent).
  
• Also, frequently when I hear the "reserve my rights" comment, it has the same edge and connotation as "DIE-REK-TOR!" That is: "you know what you did, and you should feel bad. I'm going to get you punished." with a side order of "how dare you do that against *me*?" Which works even better when the opponents do not realize "what they did", never mind what they're being accused of.

Just stop being Bridge Lawyers and make it clear, at the table, what the problem might be; if the opponents disagree, call the TD (even though 16B2 says the opponents should; 9B1b takes preference. Again "if they had enough of a disagreement, they should have called you" is a great post facto Bridge Lawyer argument. Like "they didn't dispute it", it should be given the weight it deserves by the Director). Don't use Lawyerese, whether it's because you want to show your superiority, or bamboozle the opponents, or whether you think this sequence is 'General Bridge Knowledge' (inference very definitely intended). Just get agreement as to what happened; if agreement isn't there, call the director.

[pescetom]

axman, on 2023-January-13, 12:48, said:

I don't know what you were after but I suspect that it more likely would be achieved by the questions:

I told them they had opened a hand as 2NT 20-22 opposite a beginner and the auction proceeded 2N-3D-3H-4H

What types of responder holdings would be expected after N rebids 4H after a one minute pause, given that after removing cards from the board south told N that unlike most pairs 2N was 20-22? And a next likely holding? etc

And to different pollees

What types of responder holdings would be expected after N rebids 4H given that after removing cards from the board south told N that unlike most pairs 2N was 20-22? And a next likely holding? etc

Thanks for the input.

What I was after is to identify which calls were LAs and which were actually chosen, first without then with the UI. In this case, it looks (from this small sample) that after 4♥ by N, both 4♠ and 4NT are LAs and are less suggested by the UI than 6♦.

It would be nice to have enough close peers to poll two different groups with and without UI, but unfortunately I had barely enough to form even one group. I can see that there is some pontential bias induced by asking the same group twice, although I suspect that might be less important than reducing variance by maximising the sample in the first place.

Your alternative approach of asking about expected holdings is interesting, although it sounds difficult to me in practice: there will be nuances by each player that are difficult to aggregate objectively and after the UI they will be listing multiple conflicting possibilities (or at least I would) rather than a single expected type. And the collective verdict still has to be mapped to a Law 16 decision somehow.

Curious to know what others think about either approach.

[mycroft]

I'm surprised at the polling that you didn't have anyone pass 4♥. When you say "some took more convincing than others", does that mean "I would have opened 2♣, this is much too strong to open 2NT" or "Suppressing that diamond suit is wrong, I'd open 1♦"? One of the issues with polling is that if you have to shoehorn people into a call they don't like, they're going to be biased with their original thought. If you had to convince most of them to downgrade this into 2NT, then I'm less surprised that they all want to go on opposite "a king and 6 hearts, hopefully in the same suit".

Possibly a better question (or an additional question) about the UI is "it takes [how long] for partner to bid 4♥. What do you think that means?" rather than just "what does the UI suggest?" Frankly, you can frequently work out yourself what calls are suggested by the UI to the pollee if they tell you what they think the UI is.

I absolutely agree that asking "what might this tell you" to the novices is likely to be unhelpful. And anyway, we all know what it means: "hey partner, I have 22". Here, asking "you have reason to believe partner is an absolute max for their opening. Does that suggest anything over 6♦?"

But based on the result of the polling, I rule "pass of 4♥ is not a LA. [If I know it, explain what the pollees told me about what they thought the UI showed] [If the pollees say that the pause implies 'partner may not have 6 hearts, but couldn't remember 3NT', then do the spiel here about cue-bid or keycard, and after 5♥, whatever you decide] Score stands. PP for the blatant deliberate illegal communication to partner, you haven't been doing this all day, I'm sure? You're not going to say anything about your system to partner with cards in your hands any more, yes?" And, at a tournament, expect an appeal (but I likely will only get grumbles).\

One more "we need to know their system" thing (besides "does this pair play Texas?"); what is 4NT? If it's straight-Ace, well, South is looking at 150 honours, so how should South "investigate" slam in hearts (i.e. what alternative do E-W suggest to 6♦)? If it's keycard/Turbo/whatever, does South find out it's Ax opposite Jxxxxx by 5♥? And what do the experienced players do when that happens? Maybe score doesn't stand - if the UI suggests 5 hearts not 6, and if they're playing 1430 so South doesn't get a queen ask, and if the experienced players either settle for 5♥ or don't offer "choice of slams" with 6♦ (if they just blast 6NT and hope, well then "score stands").

[mycroft]

Argh, monopolising the conversation again. Sorry about this. Just remembered, re: my last statement:

It doesn't matter if "the novices" know what Texas is, or how that changes the Jacoby-and-game auction (except, if it matters, you have to let them know this is an option. None of them are going to take it).

It does matter if it's on N-S's card, because if it is, then South's argument - legitimately so - is "Partner showed slam interest. The UI implies that he doesn't have it, and maybe forgot at 3♦ time that 4♦ was an option. I have a supermax, passing would be using the UI." Whether or not North understands what she's playing. Whether or not "pro carrying client" South would assume in most cases that North forgot. With UI, he has to follow the agreed system, not "assuming partner didn't get it right".

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2023-January-13, 21:58, said:

Just out of curiosity, how would you change the wording?

I agree basically with mycroft's reply, even if too long to quote entirely

And specifically that the phrase is legalese which means nothing to many players who really need the TD to defend them.
I also agree that it would be better to return to the old law if there is any suspicion of an infraction.

I'm not so keen on his idea of "I believe there was use of <information>.", rather than just ponting out the UI and saying that they wish the TD to investigate the successive auction. Maybe player just feels the auction after the UI looks wrong but is not sure if the law was broken or not and rightly wants the TD to decide.

Whatever solution we adopt, I think the laws could usefully have a concept of "establishing" UI, which has direct implications for online bidding software (automatically determine BIT and flag the call to opponents and TD) but also for F2FwoS play ("do we all agree that <statement of fact> occurred here?" and/or red "Zzz" cards to attach to a bidding card laid down out of tempo could be a precondition to any later complaint about possible use of the UI).

[mycroft]

The problem is that (unintentionally) providing UI isn't an infraction; so while I prefer "can we agree <action transmitting UI>?", it's not something we can enforce (and anyway, it would be every 6th board at least). So I have to go with "It's possible <call-or-play> was suggested by <action transmitting UI>, do we agree on the facts?", or "I believe there was/may have been use of <action transmitting UI>".

Which is still better than what I usually hear, which was "she hesitated and he bid!" Which again has overtones of not just "how dare they do this", but "how dare they do this against *me*?"

<Bluebottle>Thinks. Perhaps this thread should be sent to the Laws review people. Unthinks.</bluebottle>

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2023-January-14, 10:49, said:

I'm surprised at the polling that you didn't have anyone pass 4♥. When you say "some took more convincing than others", does that mean "I would have opened 2♣, this is much too strong to open 2NT" or "Suppressing that diamond suit is wrong, I'd open 1♦"? One of the issues with polling is that if you have to shoehorn people into a call they don't like, they're going to be biased with their original thought. If you had to convince most of them to downgrade this into 2NT, then I'm less surprised that they all want to go on opposite "a king and 6 hearts, hopefully in the same suit".

I wasn't surprised at the lack of pass, if anything by 5NT (which I would never spring on a beginner here, in their time was Josephine) and 4♠ (which I agree is the standout call, but again would never spring on a beginner: he was adamant that they should learn now).
The surprise was more about suppressing diamonds, older club players are very conservative about NT distribution partly due to restrictive rules until a few years ago. No coincidence that only the strongest (national level) player was comfortable with the denomination but not the strength.

mycroft, on 2023-January-14, 10:49, said:

Possibly a better question (or an additional question) about the UI is "it takes [how long] for partner to bid 4♥. What do you think that means?" rather than just "what does the UI suggest?" Frankly, you can frequently work out yourself what calls are suggested by the UI to the pollee if they tell you what they think the UI is.

Thanks. Probably both questions would be ideal, I guess.

mycroft, on 2023-January-14, 10:49, said:

"does this pair play Texas?"

Even the name is a minefield, because most Italians call Jacoby transfer "Texas" and have no name for the 4-level equivalent even though most 5cM pairs play both. I wouldn't expect a beginner to know (4-level) Texas and I strongly doubt N would expect S to do so either. I asked our beginners as promised and only one had heard of 4-level transfers, but he was unsure if they were on over 2NT too and did not know the difference between Texas and Jacoby followed by repetition of target suit. So there is no mild slam interest information conveyed, assuming a beginner has any idea whether he should or should not be interested in slam in the first place. [Actually, it would even be risky to make such assumptions opposite a good pickup partner, as much of Italy inverts the difference with 2NT-3♦; 3♥-4♥ *denying* any slam interest (except perhaps opposite a superaccept), and also some might take 4♦ as a spades transfer or avoid it in case pickup did the same].

mycroft, on 2023-January-14, 10:49, said:

what is 4NT? If it's straight-Ace, well, South is looking at 150 honours, so how should South "investigate" slam in hearts (i.e. what alternative do E-W suggest to 6♦)? If it's keycard/Turbo/whatever, does South find out it's Ax opposite Jxxxxx by 5♥? And what do the experienced players do when that happens? Maybe score doesn't stand - if the UI suggests 5 hearts not 6, and if they're playing 1430 so South doesn't get a queen ask, and if the experienced players either settle for 5♥ or don't offer "choice of slams" with 6♦ (if they just blast 6NT and hope, well then "score stands").

4NT is unequivocably 5 "Ace" RKCB in hearts for any Italian 5cM player (which includes any beginner). 4♠ is unequivocably a control-bid fixing trumps in hearts, although developments after that depend upon the level of partnership - the most likely response by a beginner is 4NT, which is clearly to be taken as RKCB in this case. In RKCB a beginner would use and expect 0314, even over hearts. A serious pair experienced-experienced would probably start with 4♠ and continue with Turbo/control-bids (maybe 5♣ ambiguous lack of Q). But if their style is to play RKCB then N replies 1430, so they get to ask Q if K is present (some might show K holding QJTxxx).
I don't think the score stands.

mycroft, on 2023-January-14, 10:49, said:

But based on the result of the polling, I rule "pass of 4♥ is not a LA.

I would also rule that over 4♥, 4NT was an LA less suggested by the BIT than 6♦, which leads to 5♥-1.

[mycroft]

It might. I wouldn't guarantee it. Ax opposite Jxxxxx, if partner has two entries, makes 6♦ most of the time even opposite a singleton; and if North doesn't have two entries, 5♥ isn't making either. I could certainly see a fraction of 5♥-1, but not all of it.

Interestingly DD supports both points, which I'm surprised at (criteria: responder's hand is x6xx with 3-10 HCP):
Before RKC, heart slam 566/1000, with 5♥ safe another 276, diamond slam 560, NT slam 458.
After RKC (so we know no HK or Q): 5+♥ 596/1000, 6♦ 255.

Ah well, I learn something every day. Okay, maybe I can accept 100% of 5♥-1, especially with that bit about "3 players thought 6♦ was suggested by the UI, without being told 6♦ was bid at the table."

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2023-January-14, 11:56, said:

<Bluebottle>Thinks. Perhaps this thread should be sent to the Laws review people. Unthinks.</bluebottle>

Be my guest. :-)

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2023-January-14, 17:24, said:

It might. I wouldn't guarantee it. Ax opposite Jxxxxx, if partner has two entries, makes 6♦ most of the time even opposite a singleton; and if North doesn't have two entries, 5♥ isn't making either. I could certainly see a fraction of 5♥-1, but not all of it.

Interestingly DD supports both points, which I'm surprised at (criteria: responder's hand is x6xx with 3-10 HCP):
Before RKC, heart slam 566/1000, with 5♥ safe another 276, diamond slam 560, NT slam 458.
After RKC (so we know no HK or Q): 5+♥ 596/1000, 6♦ 255.

Ah well, I learn something every day. Okay, maybe I can accept 100% of 5♥-1, especially with that bit about "3 players thought 6♦ was suggested by the UI, without being told 6♦ was bid at the table."

It's not that easy to see how many tricks hearts is going to make single dummy, even ignoring the twist that W is known to misread the clubs situation: 10 looks realistic but 9 is certainly possible. My thought was that 5♥-1 might as well be 100% because it makes no real difference in terms of MP scoring, any negative score is a resounding bottom (even 4♥= was only 26%, just as any slam was over 89%).

[mycroft]

All everything aside, I thought of something later, and tweaked my DD simulation. Now it also tells me what happens if 4NT finds a heart honour (K or Q) or not:

Tries: 1000, E shape: x5xx
Diamond slam: 513
Heart slam: 260, 5H: 244, 4H: 263
6H bid: made: 255 and down: 491
6D > 5H, no K or Q: Yes: 132, No: 48, Same: 74
NT slam: 384

Tries: 1000, E shape: x6xx
Diamond slam: 555
Heart slam: 582, 5H: 265, 4H: 119
6H bid: made: 564 and down: 297
6D > 5H, no K or Q: Yes: 40, No: 81, Same: 18
NT slam: 443

So, still "offering diamonds much better if you think maybe only 5 hearts in North", but pretty much a wash against "6 hearts and I found a K or Q". 50+% slam vs near 100% certainty in 4♥, and sometimes 6♦ will be better than 6♥, and maybe 5♥ is also off; is that worth a play at MPs? (your poll says yes). Is that worth showing diamonds after RKC, or bidding 6♦ directly (or after RKC shows no heart honour)? Don't know.

I also note that there is significant variability in my 1000 try runs (especially when I drop down to "only 13% of hands with 6 hearts have no heart honour"). Might be interesting to set my computer on "heater" mode and run 10k a few times.