[jillybean]

(2♦*) P (2♥) P (P) P

*2♦ alerted, opps asked and told that 2♦ was flannery, 11-15 4♠/5♥
After the final pass , 2♦ bidder announces that there was MI, they are not playing flannery.

TD is called, what should happen? Can opener act on the UI and pass 2♥, assuming that they are playing weak 2's and a new suit is forcing?

[blackshoe]

What should happen? TD should investigate, gather the facts. If the facts are agreed by both contestants, he should rule iaw Law 84. If not, he should rule iaw Law 85. If it's a judgment ruling (as UI is) then he should consult with other available TDs and with the putative offender's peers (to determine LAs).

"Can opener act on the UI" assumes that in fact he did act on the UI. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. That's why the TD investigates. Ask opener why he passed 2♥.

On the question of MI, assuming you find there was MI, the defender who made the final pass may withdraw that pass and substitute another legal call (Law 21). On the question of UI, the TD should defer judgment until after the hand is played (and he has consulted).

Don't forget to advise both sides of their right to appeal (Law 83).

[jillybean]

We were given the option to withdraw the final pass, that's all. There was no investigation of the pass over 2♥.
The director said, play on and call me back if you were damaged.
I called the director back, pointed out that without the alert/information, pass of 2♥ was unusual.
Director looked at one opps CC, commented that nothing was marked and told us to play on.
Under Responses to 2x, 2 check boxes are available for 2NT force and New Suit NF. 2♥ was (ihmo) clearly forcing.

[blackshoe]

Director error. Send him back to TD school.

[barmar]

Isn't this the "illogical alternative" situation?

Since partner's 2♥ is forcing, the LAs are raising, rebidding ♦, or some other bid. You can't choose among these the one that's suggested by the UI. But pass isn't an LA in the first place, so there's nothing prohibiting you from choosing it.

Furthermore, even if pass is an LA, it doesn't seem like the UI suggests it. The UI tells you only that partner majors are equal length or that he has more hearts than spades, it doesn't suggest that 2♥ is a good contract. 3♦ is has a reasonable chance to be better. And since it's probably an impossible bid in Flannery, it would wake him up to his mistake. So bidding that seems like it would be taking advantage of the UI.

The only case where I'd consider pass to be taking advantage of UI is if opener has heart support, so he would have raised without the UI. The UI tells him that this could just make things worse.

[Siegmund]

The fact that partner wishes to subside at 2H opposite an 11-15 hand with a 5-card heart suit is some pretty darn compelling UI that he has a weaker-than-usual natural forcing 2H response to your weak two -- you'd normally play him for more than an opening bid and a long heart suit. It looks like very blatant taking advantage of UI from hearing partner's incorrect alert from where I sit.

[mjj29]

barmar, on 2011-May-02, 20:43, said:

Isn't this the "illogical alternative" situation?

Since partner's 2♥ is forcing, the LAs are raising, rebidding ♦, or some other bid. You can't choose among these the one that's suggested by the UI. But pass isn't an LA in the first place, so there's nothing prohibiting you from choosing it.

Generally we always rule that you may not select an action over LAs where that action was suggested by the UI - regardless of whether that action would be judged an LA (in effect that the action selected at the table is always an LA). I believe the ACBL have an explicit minute or regulation on the subject.

If you don't like that, then just adjust under L73. As Siegmund says - it's pretty obviously an abuse of UI if you think they play new suits as always forcing there.

[campboy]

I think it depends on opener's hand.

If opener has 3+ hearts then 3♥ is an LA (perhaps the only LA) and, based on the fact that partner was not interested in game opposite Flannery, the UI means that passing is likely to be more succuessful than 3♥. In this case I would adjust the score and consider a PP if opener was experienced.

On the other hand if opener did not have heart support he is likely to be rebidding 3♦ without UI. This is likely to wake partner up to the fact that opener actually has diamonds, and the UI tells opener that they are unlikely to have a heart fit, so pass is not suggested.

In other words I agree with barmar's conclusion, though I agree with Matt that whether the action chosen is an LA or not is irrelevant.

[bluejak]

barmar, on 2011-May-02, 20:43, said:

Isn't this the "illogical alternative" situation?

Since partner's 2♥ is forcing, the LAs are raising, rebidding ♦, or some other bid. You can't choose among these the one that's suggested by the UI. But pass isn't an LA in the first place, so there's nothing prohibiting you from choosing it.

It does not matter whether you like it or not, and whether you think it correct or not. This forum, unlike some others, is to help people give correct rulings, and if a player chooses an action that is not an LA but is suggested by the UI over an LA we adjust. This is a general international interpretation. There are about four different suggested ways - it may be more - for justifying this in Law, but the basic point is that it is considered the correct way to rule.

So a player is not permitted to choose an illogical alternative as a matter of Law and its interpretations, even if it is not that easy to demonstrate which Law.

[peachy]

barmar, on 2011-May-02, 20:43, said:

Isn't this the "illogical alternative" situation?

Since partner's 2♥ is forcing, the LAs are raising, rebidding ♦, or some other bid. You can't choose among these the one that's suggested by the UI. But pass isn't an LA in the first place, so there's nothing prohibiting you from choosing it.

Nothing prohibiting from choosing an illogical alternative, but the score is likely to be adjusted if that choice gains for the OS.

This prompts me once again to bring the 1S-...3S-6S case. Opener has a regular opener that might/might not accept the game invite. However, perhaps out of frustration, bids 6S. He has UI, and if he bids 4S/making with his borderline hand, score will be adjusted to 3S+1, if Pass is a LA. 6S is an illogical alternative, and if it miraculously makes, the score will be adjusted. That is how this case was discussed years ago. I had similar opinion to yours at the time ["an illogical alternative must be legal since law only discusses LA's"] but changed my mind, listened to more experienced and knowledgeable law experts.

[jillybean]

I'm glad an illogical action, though not a LA, can't be chosen if it will benefit the OS. It was beginning to sound as if I would need to bring a lawyer along with me to the game.

What I find most frustrating here is not the result but the perpetuating problem that both the director and the opps seem to have no understanding that they have acted on UI and that this is against the laws.

[mycroft]

"violating system after partner tells me he doesn't have the hand he's about to show" is not a violation of Law 73C? Who cares about Logical Alternatives?

Having said that, I really believe that the wording of Law 16 *needs to change* so that it's clear that if there's a less successful Alternative that is Logical, that is not demonstrably suggested by the UI, to the call you took, which was, your call is a violation that will trigger rectification. Because:

a) there's always *one*..., and
b) the visuals are important. Making the Law read the way it is to be interpreted is, if reasonably possible, a Good Thing in and of itself.

What, "Bio-Sophistry"? Never heard of it.

[FrancesHinden]

mycroft, on 2011-May-03, 13:17, said:

What, "Bio-Sophistry"? Never heard of it.

This is a Victor Mollo reference. One of his (fictional) players was the Secretary Bird, who always insisted on enforcing the letter of the law, usually to his own humerous disadvantage is some obscure manner. He was an "emeritus professor of Bio-Sophistry".

[mycroft]

Frances, I'm assuming you're explaining to everyone else. Otherwise, you might want to see my subhead :-)

But clearly, I need to raise my subtlety filter. I was trying to say with that statement "I might be being the tiniest bit anal-dash-retentive about this". I think I'm right, though, that this "loophole" needs to be officially written off in the next Lawbook.