[WellSpyder]

 nige1, on 2016-November-15, 05:20, said:

IMO offensive values are a common cause of hesitation, so partner's hesitation usually suggests action.

In my experience many players manage to find a bid with offensive values. It is hands with values but without obvious offense that I find are a common cause of hesitation - though this is somewhat dependent on the level of the players.

Quote

Imagine a different kind of tempo-break. Suppose North passed very quickly over LHO's 2♠. IMO that might indicate a trump-stack -- and suggest a pass (or even a double if South's hand were slightly different).

I'm not sure I know what I think would be suggested, but certainly a worthwhile thought experiment.

[blackshoe]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-November-15, 09:26, said:

If the player were to have doubled, which is what we are considering here, then it would be subject to the LA rules even if it would not be considered a LA otherwise. It is well accepted that you cannot bypass your responsibilities by choosing a call that is not amongst the LAs.

It is well accepted, apparently, that the phrase "logical alternative" does not mean what it says. So be it, sez I, but I don't have to like it.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2016-November-15, 16:24, said:

It is well accepted, apparently, that the phrase "logical alternative" does not mean what it says. So be it, sez I, but I don't have to like it.

Oh, I think you know the process, Ed. And I would like to believe most people do. It is just, when trying to make a decision (as a player, a TD, or a blogger) they get tangled up with the words or put the cart before the horse.

The process is really quite simple, and the Laws are not that tough --- even though the judgements might be.

From the player's point of view:

1) Is there UI?
2) I have a call I would like to make.
---a) Is there another call which might be considered (logical alternative)?
---b) If the answer to a) is no (in my judgement), I make the call.
---c) If the answer to a) is yes, could my choice have been suggested over another by the UI?
3) I select my choice, or select another LA which I don't believe is suggested by the UI.

From the TD's perspective:

1) Was there UI?
2) Did the call made HAVE an LA?
(Note: the call selected is considered among LA's; it isn't in itself a LA, it might not have a LA and it might not be logical.)
3) If the answer to 2) is no, no adjustment.
4) If there is no damage, no adjustment (maybe PP)
5) If the answers to 2) is yes, could the call made by the player have been suggested by the UI?
6) Make the ruling.

The people who keep saying 'I ignore the UI' are not abiding the rules.

[wank]

i'd never bid here. partner will hang you too often - he can't play you for as little as this. there's a line for how low you can go and this is well over it.

pass then 2nt doesn't show a hand too weak for 2NT directly. it's normally a 2254 10 count or so.

it's a fallacy that you should never let the opponents play. sometimes it's just their hand and bidding helps them in the play to make some overs. unless you think you've got enough to actually do something productive, you should keep your gob shut. holding 3 the opps are much more likely to be closer to 25 than 20, game try or no game try.

[blackshoe]

From the player's point of view I would suggest:

• What call do I want to make?
  
• Has partner given me UI?
  
• If so, could the call I want to make possibly be seen as having been influenced by the UI?
  
• If not, make the call.
  
• If so, make a different call, reiterating this process.
  
• If I can't find a call that seems untainted by UI, make the call least likely to gain advantage.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2016-November-16, 10:08, said:

From the player's point of view I would suggest:

• What call do I want to make?
  
• Has partner given me UI?
  
• If so, could the call I want to make possibly be seen as having been influenced by the UI?
  
• If not, make the call.
  
• If so, make a different call, reiterating this process.
  
• If I can't find a call that seems untainted by UI, make the call least likely to gain advantage.

That would be fine, if you want to presuppose that there is a logical alternative to your original choice. Otherwise, I recommend that be a very early consideration, so you don't have to keep going back to square one.

[blackshoe]

That procedure is not really concerned with logical alternatives per se. Rather, it's based on

Quote

Law 73C: When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information.

* i.e., unexpected in relation to the basis of his action.

[mycroft]

I want to bid X. Is it suggested by the UI? If so, is there another reasonable (even if 'clearly' inferior) call? If not (to either question), bingo. If the TD is called, that's your argument - be prepared to back it up, and be prepared to be ruled against if your judgement is, in the TD's opinion and the poll's results, clouded.

I don't know why people gripe so much about this, it's simple, and I don't remember the last UI ruling against me. Oh yes, I do know why - many bridge players try to skirt their responsibilities because they don't want to bid themselves into a bad board. That they *know* is bad because their partner told them. And they get away with it 9 times out of 10 at least, because their opponents don't know or care either. If I'm being generous, it's because they never learned the Law (if I'm being less generous, they carefully avoided learning it).

I don't know how you get to a national final (even a national 5K final) and being shocked that the opponents would call you on blatant use of UI, and that the directors (and appeal committee) would agree with them. But it happened this year.

[nige1]

 mycroft, on 2016-November-16, 17:08, said:

Oh yes, I do know why - many bridge players try to skirt their responsibilities because they don't want to bid themselves into a bad board. That they *know* is bad because their partner told them. And they get away with it 9 times out of 10 at least, because their opponents don't know or care either. If I'm being generous, it's because they never learned the Law (if I'm being less generous, they carefully avoided learning it).

I don't know how you get to a national final (even a national 5K final) and being shocked that the opponents would call you on blatant use of UI, and that the directors (and appeal committee) would agree with them. But it happened this year

Agree with Mycroft: using UI is common, often goes unnoticed, and is rarely reported. Finally, TDs are reluctant to award victims adequate redress. Thus, under current rules, effective users of UI show a long-term profit.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2016-November-16, 16:28, said:

That procedure is not really concerned with logical alternatives per se. Rather, it's based on

So if you can't figure out a way to rule against someone based on 16B, you just revert to 73C, since the vague "must carefully avoid taking any advantage" is much easier to apply than performing the LA calculus?

We've had a number of threads where we've tried to reconcile these two laws, since they seem to describe two very different ways to determine whether a player's action after the receipt of UI was illegal. It's like when they wrote one of the laws they completely forgot that the other law already existed.

IMHO, the only good way to deal with them is that 16B is describing how one avoids taking advantage of the UI. You shouldn't consider them alternative ways to judge the situation.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2016-November-17, 10:17, said:

So if you can't figure out a way to rule against someone based on 16B, you just revert to 73C, since the vague "must carefully avoid taking any advantage" is much easier to apply than performing the LA calculus?

No, and I'm rather insulted that you would think so. I was not talking about how the director should rule, I was talking about how a player who may be in receipt of UI should proceed at the table. I thought the context was enough to make that clear but apparently it was not.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2016-November-17, 10:21, said:

No, and I'm rather insulted that you would think so. I was not talking about how the director should rule, I was talking about how a player who may be in receipt of UI should proceed at the table. I thought the context was enough to make that clear but apparently it was not.

It's probably my fault, I lost track of the context of the thread.

And in that case, I agree with you. Trying to figure out LAs in a timely manner when you're in the critical situation is just too damn hard (how are you supposed to know what other players would consider -- you're not allowed to do a poll). Just make your best attempt to avoid doing something that's obviously suggested by the UI. And be ready to accept that the TD might rule against you when he applies 16B.

[aguahombre]

My recommendation of a thought process for the player to go through before making his choice in a UI situation was not intended as a legal brief. When I use it it saves me time, doesn't require extra time.

Fairly quickly I can know if my intended call is a choice from among other calls. A poll of people who think they know our methods is not my concern at that time. If it is ruled that I had a LA, so be it.

Anyway, if my process at the table seems helpful to anyone, use it. If not, don't.

I sometimes believe my choice has a LA, and then consider the effect of the UI before choosing; sometimes I don't. So, it is not the same as ignoring the UI as some people advocate.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2016-November-17, 10:30, said:

It's probably my fault, I lost track of the context of the thread.

And in that case, I agree with you. Trying to figure out LAs in a timely manner when you're in the critical situation is just too damn hard (how are you supposed to know what other players would consider -- you're not allowed to do a poll). Just make your best attempt to avoid doing something that's obviously suggested by the UI. And be ready to accept that the TD might rule against you when he applies 16B.

Prezackly.