[lamford]

barmar, on 2012-August-20, 21:25, said:

I'll bring it up again. If "the methods of the partnership" are Precision, how can there possibly be any LAs after opener opens 1♣ with a 12 count? Every bid he makes shows at least 16 HCP, because there's nothing in the system that allows taking back what the opening bid showed.

Yes, in Precision, after 1C-1D-Pass shows 0-15 and is psyche-exposing (usually a weak two in diamonds when I play it; this frees up an opening 2D to be a multi). I wonder if this means the 1D is a psyche control?!

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2012-August-19, 03:49, said:

I think it is entirely reasonable to interpret the OP as "North's mind wandered, he forgot that they were playing Precision, he opened 1♣ (because it was the opening bid in whatever system he would otherwise play) and realized his gaffe by the time partner responded 1♦."

As I wrote the OP, I should clarify my intention was that North and South were always aware they were playing Precision, and if South had picked up a 16+ hand on this occasion, he would also have opened 1C. When North alerted, South had the UI that he had misbid, but still possessed the AI he was playing Precision. Other scenarios are interesting too, including the one that South did not know he was playing Precision with this partner.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2012-August-21, 03:07, said:

He has to use the unauthorised information to decide on the LAs, as he is told to by Law 16. He uses the unauthorised information to tell himself to alert 1D, unless you are a member of the de Wael school, so why should this be any different?

I think it's well established that UI doesn't impact disclosure, even though it constrains what the player may bid. There have been many examples over the years where the player in receipt of UI that wakes him up about his system must give correct explanations but continue to bid in accordance with his original misconception.

The way to think about this is that disclosure is a replacement for the opponents having a copy of all your system notes (which are further assumed to be complete and accurate) -- your mistakes should not affect these.

[rwbarton]

lamford, on 2012-August-21, 05:15, said:

As I wrote the OP, I should clarify my intention was that North and South were always aware they were playing Precision, and if South had picked up a 16+ hand on this occasion, he would also have opened 1C. When North alerted, South had the UI that he had misbid, but still possessed the AI he was playing Precision.

Come on now, this is nonsensical. If South has AI that he was playing Precision, South also has AI that he holds J64 Q7 T87 AKQ65 and that he opened 1♣ and therefore when choosing a rebid he will notice that he has misbid his opening. So any UI that South has is already AI to South, and so South's second-round action is unconstrained.

Put another way, in this scenario North's alert of 1♣ was not unexpected by South, so there is no UI at all!

[lamford]

rwbarton, on 2012-August-21, 10:03, said:

when choosing a rebid he will notice that he has misbid his opening.

I would expect any Precision player who opened 1C on this hand to struggle with his rebid, so yes, he will notice that he has misbid from the AI as well as from the UI of partner's alert. And we do not need to decide which of the two takes priority. We are told by Law 16 to select LAs using "the methods of the partnership." So, until 2017, this is what we do, not decide the Laws are misworded as barmar wants us to do. (I prefer to believe that when a law is so obviously misguided, common sense should win out.)

[rwbarton]

"Okay", South would say, "but you cannot seriously suggest that any LAs are demonstrably suggested by the information 'I am playing Precision and 1C was alertable' relative to the logically equivalent information 'I am playing Precision' which I already had".

Finding the meaning of South's opening to be AI to South but then disallowing a call that South selects on the next round is inconceivable. How is the fact that South misbid even legally relevant?

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2012-August-21, 05:15, said:

As I wrote the OP, I should clarify my intention was that North and South were always aware they were playing Precision, and if South had picked up a 16+ hand on this occasion, he would also have opened 1C. When North alerted, South had the UI that he had misbid, but still possessed the AI he was playing Precision. Other scenarios are interesting too, including the one that South did not know he was playing Precision with this partner.

You have not explained to my satisfaction why South opened 1♣. If he psyched, end of story, he can do what he wishes. But you are saying that he knew that 1♣ was strong and artificial, but opened it with a weak NT with clubs. Either it's a psyche or he forgot the system; there is no other possibility. Anyway, let us assume that he has not psyched, because if he has this is a non-problem.

So the fact that he is playing Precision is not really AI, because you can't be woken up to any I because of partner's alert. It does not matter whether you knew before the alert came. You can work out your real methods only when the auction becomes really impossible, and we are a long way from that situation at present.

lamford, on 2012-August-21, 10:35, said:

I would expect any Precision player who opened 1C on this hand to struggle with his rebid, so yes, he will notice that he has misbid from the AI as well as from the UI of partner's alert. And we do not need to decide which of the two takes priority. We are told by Law 16 to select LAs using "the methods of the partnership." So, until 2017, this is what we do, not decide the Laws are misworded as barmar wants us to do. (I prefer to believe that when a law is so obviously misguided, common sense should win out.)

Many Laws are poorly written, and many are also misguided. Some people are encouraged by the fact that members of the Drafting Committee are soliciting suggestions this time; I feel the opposite due to the fact that they have not all been sacked. Luckily are human beings with brains, and can interpret the Laws in a sensible fashion.

In any case, you can say as many times as you like that the methods of the partnership are AI, but that will not make it true. And if it were it would fall foul of many other Laws, such as that we can't look at our own convention cards. It is very helpful to bring up these cases to show how the next version can be improved; but after you have received answers along the lines of "yes, this is what it says, but custom, practice and common sense inform us that that is what it means", why keep arguing? There is nothing more to say.

aguahombre, on 2012-August-20, 16:25, said:

I see the problem now. You don't believe that when pard alerted 1C, the fact that he is playing Precision became UI, and before that opener apparently was playing something else.

And yet this is what happened.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2012-August-16, 10:55, said:

Unless the opponents asked for an explanation. Also, it depends on the jurisdiction. in ACBL we don't alert short clubs, we announce "could be short". I think EBU is similar.

Rather than "thinking" something, it might be better to look it up, or if you are too lazy to do that at least ask someone.

[rwbarton]

I find this thread interesting because I have on several occasions nearly done the reverse of South (but caught myself before making the bid). I hope it never actually happens! Pick up a 4351 20-count, oh what a nice hand, 1♣. Now 1♥ from partner, who I know has never played a strong club system in her life. What am I supposed to do now? 1♥ has three different meanings in the three different strong club partnerships I play in and I certainly didn't believe I was playing any particular one of those systems. I just made the "good hand = 1♣" connection before I could stop myself. Should I just start pulling bids out of my bidding box at random, since apparently I don't know anything at all about my system?

[blackshoe]

Call the director and decline to make any more calls on this hand, on the grounds that you have made a complete mess of it and it is now unbiddable.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-August-21, 14:56, said:

Call the director and decline to make any more calls on this hand, on the grounds that you have made a complete mess of it and it is now unbiddable.

This would be a reasonable answer, except for the fact that you will now receive A- instead of the bottom you were almost certainly headed for.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2012-August-21, 12:10, said:

Rather than "thinking" something, it might be better to look it up, or if you are too lazy to do that at least ask someone.

I could have, but I didn't think it was that important in the context. The ACBL example was sufficient, and EBU was just an afterthought; if it was wrong, it doesn't affect the point I was making.

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2012-August-21, 05:15, said:

When North alerted, South had the UI that he had misbid, but still possessed the AI he was playing Precision.

This just doesn't make sense. When North alerted, South had the UI that North alerted. Why would South conclude from the alert that he had misbid if he was aware that he was playing Precision? If South was aware that he was playing Precision, the alert was expected and could not make South realize that he misbid.

The only way that the alert can give South the UI that he had misbid is if the alert was unexpected. That can only be the case if South was not playing Precision upto the point of the alert. (And since South is not supposed to be waken up by the alert, South is then supposed to continue not playing Precision.)

There are certainly scenarios possible where South was fully aware that he was playing Precision (maybe South miscounted, maybe he psyched). But in these scenarios the alert will not tell South that he misbid.

There are also scenarios possible where the alert told South that he misbid (maybe South was dreaming of his girl friend who just started taking bridge lessons). But in these scenarios South was not aware that he was playing Precision.

South waking up by the alert of 1♣ and South being aware that he is playing Precision are mutually exclusive.

Rik

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2012-August-21, 15:21, said:

I could have, but I didn't think it was that important in the context. The ACBL example was sufficient, and EBU was just an afterthought; if it was wrong, it doesn't affect the point I was making.

Then why mention it?

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. -- A. Lincoln

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2012-August-21, 10:35, said:

I would expect any Precision player who opened 1C on this hand to struggle with his rebid, so yes, he will notice that he has misbid from the AI as well as from the UI of partner's alert. And we do not need to decide which of the two takes priority. We are told by Law 16 to select LAs using "the methods of the partnership." So, until 2017, this is what we do, not decide the Laws are misworded as barmar wants us to do. (I prefer to believe that when a law is so obviously misguided, common sense should win out.)

The little problem is that "the methods of the partnership" are UI to South. They are not AI. So, we do not need to decide which one takes priority since there only is the UI.

What makes you think they are AI when South clearly remembered "the methods of the partnership" by the alert? All Ghestem "problems" would be solved following your reasoning, because they would not be problems any more: You have a nice club suit and overcall 3♣, partner alerts that you are showing spades and diamonds ("the method of your partnership") and now you are allowed to use this information because "the methods of the partnership" are AI? To quote Al Borland: "I don't think so, Tim.". You had a reason why you bid 3♣ (because of your nice suit and because you thought it was natural at the time you bid it), now you have to stick with it. The fact that you misbid is UI and stays UI throughout the whole deal.

The same holds true if you misbid by opening 1♣, forgetting that you were playing Precision. If the alert wakes you up, you have to stick to whatever you thought you were playing (which in this case seems to be some kind of natural system). That system is now your "method of the partnership", because without the alert you would not have known that you were playing Precision.

If you think that you were playing Precision all along, because you psyched or don't know how to count, you will not have UI since the alert was expected, and you can bid whatever you want whether it is an LA, or completely insane.

Therefore, it is important to know why South opened 1♣. In this case, it happens not to matter (unless psyches of strong openings are forbidden). After all, if South forgot that he played Precision and intended 1♣ as natural, he did everything right: He made the rebid that you would make in a natural system and there are no LA's. No infraction. And if South was aware that he was playing Precision all along, he doesn't have any UI and he can bid whatever he likes. No infraction either.

Rik

[bluejak]

aguahombre, on 2012-August-15, 19:33, said:

The 1♣ misbid was not illegal because it wasn't a deliberate (as presented) mistatement of values for the artificial bid. The 1NT rebid was a gross misstatement of values and deliberate, but not an artificial opening bid. Responder didn't field anything.

This and one or two other posts are based on the fact that artificial openers may not be psyched in some jurisdictions. While lamford has not said the jurisdiction it is clear from other things he has said that he is interested in the correct ruling in the EBU, where an opening artificial opening bid may be psyched, except in one specific instance that does not concern us here.

chasetb, on 2012-August-16, 02:13, said:

I would rule the result as stands, because if West isn't intelligent enough to make some sort of noise over 1♣ (yes, even Vul) and if East doesn't keep the auction open in the balancing seat (though it's close), they deserve that result. As is, just because 4 of a Major makes, doesn't mean they will make it (though it is more than likely, I open all balanced 11s and quite a few balanced 10s at favorable vulnerability in 1st seat 1♦ so partner has plenty of room).

Whatever the logic behind this post, the attitude to ruling is completely wrong. We do not fail to rule in favour of non-offenders because they are unintelligent nor because they deserve a bad result. That is not the approach laid down by the Laws. For some reason there is a growing feeling amongst a minority that non-offenders should be penalised and offenders allowed to gain from infractions: that is not the approach we take here nor is it the approach encouraged by the WBFLC, RAs and TOs nor competent TDs and ACs.

barmar, on 2012-August-16, 10:55, said:

Unless the opponents asked for an explanation. Also, it depends on the jurisdiction. in ACBL we don't alert short clubs, we announce "could be short". I think EBU is similar.

No, in the EBU both short and strong clubs are alerted.



It appears that lamford put forward this case to suggest that where someone has forgotten his system LAs are based on his system and not what he thinks he is playing at the moment. Not only is this fairly ridiculous but also it means that Law 16B and Law 73C are at loggerheads. I believe that such an interpretation is not to be followed.

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2012-August-21, 15:55, said:

If the alert wakes you up, you have to stick to whatever you thought you were playing (which in this case seems to be some kind of natural system). That system is now your "method of the partnership", because without the alert you would not have known that you were playing Precision.

Often players do remember what their system is before the alert, and behind screens they would be allowed to do whatever they have to to recover. So they are not lying when they say "the alert didn't wake me up", but the alert happened, and the player is stuck with the UI. There is really no other way to rule unless you want the game to be a free-for-all,

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2012-August-21, 16:15, said:

It appears that lamford put forward this case to suggest that where someone has forgotten his system LAs are based on his system and not what he thinks he is playing at the moment. Not only is this fairly ridiculous but also it means that Law 16B and Law 73C are at loggerheads. I believe that such an interpretation is not to be followed.

It appears that lamford put forward this case to suggest that the Laws should be much more tightly written, so that this interpretation is impossible.

[bluejak]

lamford, on 2012-August-17, 20:43, said:

The EBU should not overrule the Laws of Bridge (except in the cases where the RA is given such powers).

Certainly not. But everyone knows they are sometimes imprecise or in error, and except on BLML we do not advise people to rule in stupid ways just because "it follows the letter of the Law". The EBU, and no doubt every other competent RA, gives some advice on certain Laws to people in its jurisdiction.

blackshoe, on 2012-August-21, 14:56, said:

Call the director and decline to make any more calls on this hand, on the grounds that you have made a complete mess of it and it is now unbiddable.

If I am the TD that will get you thrown out of the event pretty smartish. It is cheating to avoid bottoms this way, there is no legal justification, and you are upsetting other players and spoiling the event. I shall suggest to your RA that a ban of some months would be suitable.



In the actual hand there is the problem of what happened which one or two people have noticed. If South knew he was playing Precision and miscounted his points then he has done nothing wrong so result stands. If he forgot he was playing Precision and opened a natural 1♣ then we have to decide what LAs are for the peers of South assuming a system similar to the one he thought he was playing. In fact if he normally plays where 1NT rebids show a weak no-trump he has probably got away with this since there may be no LAs. However, we might consider 2♣.

Someone suggested 2♦. Interesting. If so, does the UI - that he is playing Precision, which he temporarily forgot - suggest 1NT over 2♣ or 2♦? Yes, because they might be very poor contracts. Not 2♣, perhaps, so we should disallow 2♣ and 1NT. I expect North would pass, so if I am convinced a three-card raise is a viable action then I might adjust based on this. Now East might protect - safer than over 1NT - so I might give E/W some percentage of playing the hand.

But if the truth be known I doubt that people will bid 2♦. 1NT is not suggested over 2♣ by the UI, so no adjustment looks right.

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on 2012-August-21, 16:37, said:

It appears that lamford put forward this case to suggest that the Laws should be much more tightly written, so that this interpretation is impossible.

I am surprised that you think lamford would put it in the wrong forum then.