[pran]

mjj29, on 2011-January-05, 06:42, said:

Actually, a 2C response to 1NT is neither alertable nor annoucable if it is natural and to play. It's just that such a vanishingly small set of people play it like that in tournaments that it's much more likely the alert/announcement was forgotten and you should protect yourself rather than assuming they actually play it as a weak takeout in clubs.

It strikes me that in this situation a proper question could be something like: "Should this call have been alerted?"

I would rule such a question not as asking for an explanation of opponents' call (which can create UI), but (Law 9A3) an attempt to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity.

[bluejak]

Trinidad, on 2011-January-04, 11:05, said:

That is absurd. I have argued the effect of the regulation all along. Weren't we discussing an actual case where the effect of the regulation had a clear impact? In my very first post on this subject used the phrase " 'Self protecting' leads to...", just to argue the effect of the regulation.

The whole disussion was about the effect of he regulation on an actual case. I am not interested in the regulators' motives for writing the regulation, for the simple fact that I am 100% sure that their intentions were good. (I presume that the purpose was to prevent experienced players from exploiting small inaccuracies in aunt Millie's explanations where they should know better. That would be a noble intent.)

Ok, fine. But I still do not see how

Trinidad, on 2011-January-01, 12:44, said:

You get in a self protecting position because and only because regulators put you there in an effort to protect the guilty.

"in an effort to protect the guilty" can be read in any other way than that is the regulators' intent.

[WellSpyder]

I for one really don't care whether the way Trinidad expressed his concerns appears somewhat unfortunately to impugn the motives of lawmakers or not. What matters is that he has raised entirely reasonable concerns about the way that a presumption of "self-protection" can put a non-offending player in an extremely difficult position entirely as a result of an opponent's fault rather than his own. Frances and alphatango have taken this concern seriously and tried to be helpful by making very informative postings on the subject, and I think we owe them our gratitude for that. Bluejak just seems to me to have avoided addressing the substantive issue, unlike his often so-informative posts.

[bluejak]

I think I am permitted when a post has an unfortunate element to address that unfortunate element. There is no rule that I have to address every element of every post. In fact I think that by being too general in replies you often lose the point of replies which is why I often make a reply to one part of a post only, or alternatively separate the parts. I thought this was a very serious accusation, important enough to consider that part of his reply only.

If others want to address other parts of his post, why not? That does not mean that I should.

[FrancesHinden]

alphatango, on 2011-January-04, 22:21, said:

I came up with the following: 2005 (2), 2006 (6, 12), 2007 (19, 24), 2008 (2, 22, 27). Of these, only 2007 #19 came anywhere near the situation I was thinking about (needing to ask about an unalerted call). In that situation, a player holding 92-void-KT987-AKJT93 heard the auction:

P  1D 1S 2H (NFB)
P  3C P  3D
X  P  P  P

and claimed damage from a failure to alert the X as penalties (would run to 4C). The player did not ask at his turn to call, did ask at the end of the auction, and heard (quoting from the writeup): "'Good question, we are not a regular partnership, I would double for penalties in that situation but I know my partner plays more takeout doubles than I do' (paraphrase)."

I note that the director ruled against the player based on a failure to ask ("details of ruling"), although he did note the regulation relating to "general bridge inferences" under his comments. It was not clear to me why he commented in the same section that the player had an opportunity to ask "without putting his side's interest at risk". (The player claimed in the appeal that he could not ask during the auction without potentially alerting up the opponents to a possible misunderstanding about the double.)

The AC upheld the ruling solely on the basis of a failure to "protect himself". I don't see why both rulings were based on a failure to ask rather than "general bridge inference", as the latter seems to be a far more solid argument to me. The commentators all seemed to focus on this as well. Frances, you were apparently on the AC -- would you be able to provide any insight?

This was a few years ago now, but I do remember the case.
The AC had the same view as the commentators in the booklet: that the janitor's cat knew the double was for penalties, nobody could conceivably play it as anything else. From the discussion at the appeal, the AC believed that North knew it was meant for penalties and was hoping for either a screw up (one opponent thinking it penalties, the other t/o) or for a double shot via a ruling - see how 3Dx plays, and if it's a disaster say later you'd have bid 4C.

The reason the AC's comments on the form don't talk about this but specifically mentioned 'protecting yourself' North's was that the argument presented most strongly at the appeal was that he couldn't afford to ask. This was nonsense, because (i) why should asking suddenly alert the opponents to anything? Either they know what the double means, or they don't - North could be asking because he's thinking of bidding more, or redoubling - it doesn't give anything away about his hand and (ii) it's not giving partner any particularly useful UI either.

Quite often what the AC chairman writes on the form is most directly connected with what was actually said at the appeal, which of course you don't usually get to see in the write-up.

[AlexJonson]

I like these threads.

West has psyched his 2C bid? South as a result misinterprets his partner's 3S?

EW can double 5H, but the other side can't pass.

Personally I don't play kickback. 'Wrong forum' for the kickback sub-thread?

[jallerton]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-January-15, 11:19, said:

Quite often what the AC chairman writes on the form is most directly connected with what was actually said at the appeal, which of course you don't usually get to see in the write-up.

In an ideal world, the key arguments of each side would be recorded in the "N/S comments" and "E/W comments" sections of the appeals form. However, in recent times, TDs have seemed reluctant to hand the appeals form to the players to let them record their comments in adevance of the appeal being heard, whilst AC chairmen rarely have the time and inclination to record the verbal arguments given during the appeal.

[jallerton]

nige1, on 2010-December-30, 13:47, said:

As BBOers, we can comment only on the basis of given facts:
AI from the auction may well cause West to suspect that opponents have misbid or misexplained.
Partner's ill-fated question converts suspicion to certainty.
It also indicates the nature of opponents' mistake.
It makes it likely that LHO intended a splinter (rather than a fit-jump or strong jump-shift, say).
This UI demonstrably suggests a non-spade lead over a spade lead.
What should an ethical West lead?

West already has "certainty" about the opponents' misunderstanding, without considering any inferences from East's question.

When considering classifying a non-offender's action as "wild", "gambling" and/or a "serious error", the TD should always ask the player to explain his reasoning. In the extemely unlikely event that West comes up with Nigel's incredible line of reasoning, I would withdraw my suggestion that West's lead was "wild" and/or "gambling".

[jallerton]

Trinidad, on 2011-January-02, 15:26, said:

I cannot come up with an example where I would not put my side's interests at risk. By definition, I will always give UI (unless we play with screens) and will always risk waking up opponents, unless I am in a position to pass out the hand to my advantage.

In other words, if you follow the regulation strictly, it clearly never applies. Nevertheless, it was written. That must mean that whoever wrote it thought that there must be situations where it applies, doesn't it? In other words, the regulators think that the non offending side should also protect himself when there is "a small risk" (let's call it "acceptable") that one puts their side's interests at risk.
Rik

I can't tell you the thought process behind this regulation, but it seems to me that it is a good way to warn players that they are not entitled to double shots when (it is deemed that) they knew the explanation received was obviously wrong. The appeal case quoted by Alphatango and Frances is a good example.

Another would be a situation where a player knows from inconsistent alerting that the opponents have clearly had a misunderstanding and the player has to decide whether or not to double the final contract in the pass out seat. Even though he knows that at least one of the calls has been mis-alerted, he passes without asking and defends the final contract undoubled. If the contract makes, he says nothing more. If instead, after the hand is played out, he discovers that double would have worked better, he asks the TD for an adjustment, citing the misinformation he already knew about.

[nige1]

jallerton, on 2011-January-15, 16:50, said:

When considering classifying a non-offender's action as "wild", "gambling" and/or a "serious error", the TD should always ask the player to explain his reasoning. In the extemely unlikely event that West comes up with Nigel's incredible line of reasoning, I would withdraw my suggestion that West's lead was "wild" and/or "gambling".

IMO...

• If the line of reasoning really is incredible, then, the director should consider discounting it as self-serving , at best.
• Suppose, however, (just for the sake of argument) that the line of reasoning is logical and irrefutable. If the director appreciates that is the case, he shouldn't penalise a West who can't articulate it.
• I agree the that the director should ask the players their views, just in case he has overlooked something, but if his investigation discovers an offence or mitigation, unmentioned by any player, IMO, he should still take it into account.

[phil_20686]

Just been reading this thread, and I actually thought the original ruling was a bit wierd. IMO, north does not have a logical alternative to 5!H. Assuming that south 4!s is cue bid showing the ace, then to make slam good you need a hand containing something like A!s AKQ!h and A!c or, A!s AKQ!h k!d and q!c. With either of these hands, (and from my thinking all the hands where north can envisage slam), south has a clear drive in his own hand. North should immeadeately sign off. I'm pretty sure that if you polled high level players assuming 3!s splinter was the actual agreement, they would think it ludicrous to encourage any more, and most would already think that the splinter was a distortion. Moreover, you would certainly bid 4!s with less than the example hands I have given, if south has A!s AKQ!h opposite a splinter he is already envisaging 5!H a!s 2!s ruffs and the splinter having AKA in the minors opposite to make up for his poor trumps.

[mycroft]

nige1, on 2011-January-15, 17:55, said:

• If the line of reasoning really is incredible, then, the director should consider discounting it as self-serving , at best.
• Suppose, however, (just for the sake of argument) that the line of reasoning is logical and irrefutable. If the director appreciates that is the case, he shouldn't penalise a West who can't articulate it.
• I agree the that the director should ask the players their views, just in case he has overlooked something, but if his investigation discovers an offence or mitigation, unmentioned by any player, IMO, he should still take it into account.

Can I please put in yet another plea that "self-serving" be used with its denotative meaning, and not the way it seems to be used at least in the ACBL casebooks?

• If the line of reasoning really is incredible, the director should consider it self-serving and incredible, and ignore it.
  
• If the line of reasoning is logical and irrefutable, the director should consider it self-serving and irrefultable, and not ignore it - but if it looks like it's only logical and irrefutable post facto, or that nobody could work that all out at the table, it's not "logical and irrefutable", see below.
• If the line of reasoning is somewhere in between (as it almost always is), the director should consider it self-serving and to whatever extent reasonable, and treat it with more suspicion than if the opponents had made that same line of reasoning - but definitely not ignore it.

Self-serving testimony should be discounted for what it is - statements made by a player to that player's benefit, which should always be taken with more suspicion than non-self-serving testimony. But level of suspicion is somewhat orthogonal to the logic of the statement.

[jallerton]

phil_20686, on 2011-January-24, 07:57, said:

Just been reading this thread, and I actually thought the original ruling was a bit wierd. IMO, north does not have a logical alternative to 5!H. Assuming that south 4!s is cue bid showing the ace, then to make slam good you need a hand containing something like A!s AKQ!h and A!c or, A!s AKQ!h k!d and q!c. With either of these hands, (and from my thinking all the hands where north can envisage slam), south has a clear drive in his own hand. North should immeadeately sign off. I'm pretty sure that if you polled high level players assuming 3!s splinter was the actual agreement, they would think it ludicrous to encourage any more, and most would already think that the splinter was a distortion. Moreover, you would certainly bid 4!s with less than the example hands I have given, if south has A!s AKQ!h opposite a splinter he is already envisaging 5!H a!s 2!s ruffs and the splinter having AKA in the minors opposite to make up for his poor trumps.

It might depend a little on the N/S agreement (if any) on the strength for this splinter and the N/S cue bidding style. South's decision to go past 4♥ without being able to cue bid a minor suggests that ♥AKQ is a distinct possibility and ♥Q is not necessary if South has 6 hearts. Although he would be wrong on this occasion, North might reasonably infer that ♣A is very likely to be onside and there is a fair chance that a diamond finesse, if required, will work too.

Now without the UI, North would be fully entitled to take the pessimistic view and reason as you do. Without the UI, North might also take the optimstic view and reason as I do.

But once North has UI, he is obliged to work out what logical alternatives are demonstrably suggested and to bid accordingly. The 5♥ bid is therefore illegal, in my opinion.

[campboy]

phil_20686, on 2011-January-24, 07:57, said:

Just been reading this thread, and I actually thought the original ruling was a bit wierd. IMO, north does not have a logical alternative to 5!H. Assuming that south 4!s is cue bid showing the ace, then to make slam good you need a hand containing something like A!s AKQ!h and A!c or, A!s AKQ!h k!d and q!c. With either of these hands, (and from my thinking all the hands where north can envisage slam), south has a clear drive in his own hand. North should immeadeately sign off. I'm pretty sure that if you polled high level players assuming 3!s splinter was the actual agreement, they would think it ludicrous to encourage any more, and most would already think that the splinter was a distortion. Moreover, you would certainly bid 4!s with less than the example hands I have given, if south has A!s AKQ!h opposite a splinter he is already envisaging 5!H a!s 2!s ruffs and the splinter having AKA in the minors opposite to make up for his poor trumps.

When considering LAs, we are supposed to be thinking about peers of the player involved. We weren't told the level of the player, so "high level" players are not necessarily the right ones to ask. The opinion of a player who wouldn't have splintered in the first place isn't relevant; since this player did consider it good enough to splinter he will continue to bid as though that were the case.

I don't claim to be high level, but I would not consider 5♥ here (unless playing Italian cues when it is obvious). Partner has made the first above-game cue-bid, so if I cue in response I do not expect to be showing any extra values; in fact I would expect 5♥ to deny the ace of diamonds. Isn't this a fairly standard interpretation?

[bluejak]

mycroft, on 2011-January-24, 14:24, said:

Can I please put in yet another plea that "self-serving" be used with its denotative meaning, and not the way it seems to be used at least in the ACBL casebooks?

• If the line of reasoning really is incredible, the director should consider it self-serving and incredible, and ignore it.
  
• If the line of reasoning is logical and irrefutable, the director should consider it self-serving and irrefultable, and not ignore it - but if it looks like it's only logical and irrefutable post facto, or that nobody could work that all out at the table, it's not "logical and irrefutable", see below.
• If the line of reasoning is somewhere in between (as it almost always is), the director should consider it self-serving and to whatever extent reasonable, and treat it with more suspicion than if the opponents had made that same line of reasoning - but definitely not ignore it.

Self-serving testimony should be discounted for what it is - statements made by a player to that player's benefit, which should always be taken with more suspicion than non-self-serving testimony. But level of suspicion is somewhat orthogonal to the logic of the statement.

Works for me. That is what I mean by self-serving testimony: self-serving is a matter of fact, and we discount it somewhat but not completely.

[nige1]

jallerton, on 2011-January-15, 16:50, said:

When considering classifying a non-offender's action as "wild", "gambling" and/or a "serious error", the TD should always ask the player to explain his reasoning. In the extremely unlikely event that West comes up with Nigel's incredible line of reasoning, I would withdraw my suggestion that West's lead was "wild" and/or "gambling".

mycroft, on 2011-January-24, 14:24, said:

Can I please put in yet another plea that "self-serving" be used with its denotative meaning, and not the way it seems to be used at least in the ACBL casebooks?

• If the line of reasoning really is incredible, the director should consider it self-serving and incredible, and ignore it.
• If the line of reasoning is logical and irrefutable, the director should consider it self-serving and irrefultable, and not ignore it - but if it looks like it's only logical and irrefutable post facto, or that nobody could work that all out at the table, it's not "logical and irrefutable", see below.
• If the line of reasoning is somewhere in between (as it almost always is), the director should consider it self-serving and to whatever extent reasonable, and treat it with more suspicion than if the opponents had made that same line of reasoning - but definitely not ignore it.

Self-serving testimony should be discounted for what it is - statements made by a player to that player's benefit, which should always be taken with more suspicion than non-self-serving testimony. But level of suspicion is somewhat orthogonal to the logic of the statement.

I agree with most of what mycroft writes but my point is that the director should not rely on a player volunteering a self-serving statement. As in this case, If a legal argument seems obvious, logical, and irrefutable, then the director should consider it, even if no player mentions it. But if, on the contrary, the argument is incredible then he should ignore it.

[dburn]

It occurs to me that the current regulations may best be summarised as: "Don't Ask. Don't Tell."

If the United States Army has abolished this precept, surely the English Bridge Union can do likewise.

[Chris L]

pran, on 2011-January-05, 07:02, said:

It strikes me that in this situation a proper question could be something like: "Should this call have been alerted?"

I would rule such a question not as asking for an explanation of opponents' call (which can create UI), but (Law 9A3) an attempt to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity.

In my experience (limited for the most part to one particular player at my club who also played the "French Defence to 1NT" before announcements were introduced, but there have been a few others) whenever anyone asks about an unannounced or unalerted 2♣ response to 1NT, they always have ♣. Most of the time they hear "Sorry, Stayman" or whatever and can double to show ♣ legally - but on the rare occasion they hear "It wasn't alerted; it shows ♣" they have probably compromised partner.

[bluejak]

dburn, on 2011-January-28, 18:47, said:

It occurs to me that the current regulations may best be summarised as: "Don't Ask. Don't Tell."

If the United States Army has abolished this precept, surely the English Bridge Union can do likewise.

Are you really suggesting that actions by the US army should be considered something to be followed by anyone anywhere in any way?

[blackshoe]

I suppose it depends on the particular action in question. Unless, of course, you hold the view that the US Army can do nothing right.