[Cyberyeti]

---

2♦ was 5+ card weak only multi, asked what it was immediately

2♥ was natural

3♦ was intended as a good heart raise on ♠J10x, ♥ Q10x, ♦Kxx ♣AJ97 not alerted, they'd agreed bidding opener's suit was a raise

The question is, E has UI that W has not alerted his 3♦, is removing 3N to 4♥ permitted ?

The question is actually moot as 3N scores better, and they misplayed 4♥ so we got 9/10 anyway.

General question if they make a horrible non trump related mistake in 4♥ (getting trapped in the wrong hand so they can't take a finesse), are they assumed to make the same mistake in NT if you adjust it back there ?

[sfi]

Yes, bidding 4H is permitted. As to whether they have used UI and an adjustment may be called for, it would be useful to know what their agreement about 3NT is and whether a 3D raise should have been alerted (it wouldn't be in Australia). Since 3NT scores better than 4H, there's no reason for the director to investigate further.

It's not at all clear what the "horrible non trump related mistake" they made is, and whether it would be an issue in 3NT. We'd have to see the full hand to provide an answer, but it is possible they would have done the same thing. However the lead, the timing and many other aspects of the play are likely to be different so the situation may simply not have come up in 3NT.

[Cyberyeti]

 sfi, on 2023-August-20, 04:58, said:

Yes, bidding 4H is permitted. As to whether they have used UI and an adjustment may be called for, it would be useful to know what their agreement about 3NT is and whether a 3D raise should have been alerted (it wouldn't be in Australia). Since 3NT scores better than 4H, there's no reason for the director to investigate further.

It's not at all clear what the "horrible non trump related mistake" they made is, and whether it would be an issue in 3NT. We'd have to see the full hand to provide an answer, but it is possible they would have done the same thing. However the lead, the timing and many other aspects of the play are likely to be different so the situation may simply not have come up in 3NT.

They just cashed their winners in the wrong order and ended up in the wrong hand, thus had to play Q10xx/AJ9x from the hand with the ace.

They didn't really have an agreement on the auction, depends on whether you view "my suit" as the one I hold or the one I bid.

The reason for the question in the second part is more a "What if everybody in the world makes 480 but they only made 450, if everybody in NT makes 460, do they make 430 if the same mistake is feasible ?" this sort of thing is more likely to apply to a two way finesse situation where if all else is equal, you may well have the same info/considerations as to which way you take it in both contracts.

[Gilithin]

More information is required. If 3NT is choice of game, then judgement (or polling) is required to decide if Pass is a LA. On the given hand I would suggest that it is. If 3NT is Frivolous then removing to 4♥ almost certainly does not have any alternatives. If 3NT is Serious, Pass is not a LA but making a further slam try may well be, depending on their methods.

[Cyberyeti]

 Gilithin, on 2023-August-20, 08:24, said:

More information is required. If 3NT is choice of game, then judgement (or polling) is required to decide if Pass is a LA. On the given hand I would suggest that it is. If 3NT is Frivolous then removing to 4♥ almost certainly does not have any alternatives. If 3NT is Serious, Pass is not a LA but making a further slam try may well be, depending on their methods.

Almost no Acol players play serious/frivolous (and very few in England at all). You can work on the assumption it would be natural.

[mycroft]

Well, the AI says that partner has a spade stopper, and is interested in 3NT as an alternative to 4♥.
The UI says that partner has a spade stopper, and has bid 3NT because she doesn't know about the heart fit.

I know that 3NT "choice of games" is occasionally passed, but not really very often. I think given the auction as East sees it, if there's a reason to bid 4♥, then they get to do it.

There is UI. The UI clearly suggests bidding 4♥ because partner might not in fact have a hand that would offer 3NT with a known heart fit. But unless you can get people to pass the hand in the "choice of games" auction, I don't think there's a L16 case.

Now that's a pretty flat hand with spade help - could easily be 3NT is right. But that also depends on their agreements over Multi - what's the minimum response? What's the minimum "extras" over the 3♦ "strong raise" (surely 3NT when they didn't "2NT-equivalent" over 2♦ isn't "3=5=(32) 15-17"?) At MPs, even with no ruffing values yourself, you still want extras to choose 3NT over 4M with a fit (except in the rare case where the two contracts make the same number of tricks, *and that number is 9*). So I'd want to know if they'll get in on a decent 12 or if they treat it as "sound bidding after preempts" or what.

But I love these people who think that an artificial 2♦ is a suit you can cuebid (my experience was "3♦-8 beats 5♦+1 all white. Good bid.") Almost as much as the people who think diamonds are an "agreed suit" in the 2♣-2♦; 4NT auction. Unless you specifically state it as an agreement over the Multi. Which I will admit I don't have too much experience with, on this side of the Pond.

[sanst]

 Cyberyeti, on 2023-August-20, 03:56, said:

---

3♦ was intended as a good heart raise on ♠J10x, ♥ Q10x, ♦Kxx ♣AJ97 not alerted, they'd agreed bidding opener's suit was a raise

Intent is not in the Laws, agreement is. There’s no known opener’s suit and the explanation should have been “Not discussed/no agreement, but bidding opener's suit is a raise”.
Yes, the move to 4♥ is permitted. The UI doesn’t invalidate the AI that W has five hearts at least. Passing 3NT could be seen as using the UI, although east’s hand is probably more useful in NT than in 4♥. In that case a poll could give the answer.

[mycroft]

Passing 3NT would be "using the UI" that partner doesn't think you have hearts? I don't understand.

I agree, intent isn't in the Laws. Here's what is:

• I bid 3♦ to show a good raise in partner's heart suit.
  
• I expect that to be Alerted and partner doesn't. That is Unauthorized to me "unexpected failures to Alert" (16B1).
  
• The obvious meaning of the UI is that partner thinks I have diamonds and not hearts. I must "carefully avoid" (73C) using that.
  
• Partner now bids 3NT. According to my understanding of the auction, this means "choice of games", implies a spade stopper, all the rest. I must continue to act, in the face of the UI, as if my understanding of the system is correct, *even if I realize that it isn't* whether as a result of the UI (see above) or coincidentally to it (because it will be impossible very hard to convince the director I woke up "on my own". Sure, just like everybody else did).
  
• But I know he doesn't think 4♥ is a possible contract, because I didn't raise him. How I know that is UI.

"When partner makes clear that they didn't understand your bid, show the suit again at the earliest opportunity" is such a pattern of "using UI" that it has its own nickname: "unauthorized panic". Note: it's not always an infraction - sometimes it *is* the only LA. Sometimes it doesn't draw a rectification - like here, there wasn't damage. But it is always suspicious enough to investigate.

I agree, we have to poll. But I don't understand how *passing 3NT* could be using the UI. Maybe I'm not seeing something, or maybe the information deducible from the UI is different from what I am seeing.

[blackshoe]

I'm with Mycroft on this one - with probably one exception. I do think the failure to alert 3♦ "demonstrably suggests" (as Law 16 puts it) bidding 4♥ over 3NT. So when East does bid 4♥ he has violated both Law 16B1(a) ("A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative") and 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 [see Law 16B1(a)].") Now the Introduction to the Laws (which is part of the laws) says that when a player does what he "may not" do he should get a procedural penalty "more often than not", and it also say that when a player does not do something he "must" do that is "a serious matter indeed".) I would not be surprised if East is completely ignorant of these provisions. If investigation supports that conclusion, then I would educate him and inform him that if he does it again he will get a PP -- and then I would give him one if it happens again. Mycroft will no doubt say "we just don't do that" or words to that effect. But Law 90 exists for a reason, and I consider it dereliction of duty for a director to completely ignore it. Also, repeated warnings are worse than useless -- they promote disrespect for the rules of the game.

I see passing 3NT as a logical alternative to bidding 4♥. I do not see how the UI demonstrably suggests passing.

[Cyberyeti]

 blackshoe, on 2023-August-21, 17:16, said:

I'm with Mycroft on this one - with probably one exception. I do think the failure to alert 3♦ "demonstrably suggests" (as Law 16 puts it) bidding 4♥ over 3NT. So when East does bid 4♥ he has violated both Law 16B1(a) ("A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative") and 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 [see Law 16B1(a)].") Now the Introduction to the Laws (which is part of the laws) says that when a player does what he "may not" do he should get a procedural penalty "more often than not", and it also say that when a player does not do something he "must" do that is "a serious matter indeed".) I would not be surprised if East is completely ignorant of these provisions. If investigation supports that conclusion, then I would educate him and inform him that if he does it again he will get a PP -- and then I would give him one if it happens again. Mycroft will no doubt say "we just don't do that" or words to that effect. But Law 90 exists for a reason, and I consider it dereliction of duty for a director to completely ignore it. Also, repeated warnings are worse than useless -- they promote disrespect for the rules of the game.

I see passing 3NT as a logical alternative to bidding 4♥. I do not see how the UI demonstrably suggests passing.

This was basically my view, the players are keen beginners, a PP would and should not be handed out to them.

[sanst]

E bid 3♦ to show a good hearts raise, so E was bidding for a hearts contract. Only after this call E received the UI because W didn’t alert. Whatever their agreement about 3NT in this situation is, it’s clear that they are going to bid game, either 3NT or 4♥. Before E received the UI and before W bid 3NT, in his or her view it was going to be 3♥ or 4♥, so E should stay with that and bid 4♥.

[pescetom]

 sanst, on 2023-August-22, 01:35, said:

Before E received the UI and before W bid 3NT, in his or her view it was going to be 3♥ or 4♥, so E should stay with that and bid 4♥.

That sounds more like a self-serving argument used by players who want to have their cake and eat it than an interpretation of the Laws.
East cannot wish the bid of 3NT away just because he did not expect it.
It has a systemic meaning, almost certainly choice of game for these players.
He now almost certainly has LAs of 3NT and 4♥ (poll if necessary).
4♥ looks more suggested by the UI (poll if necessary).

[mycroft]

sanst: You've never made a "choice of games" 3NT call after major suit agreement? Or had a partner who did so?

Is 3NT always conventional in this auction? If not, why is it not an offer to play? If so, why didn't East Alert it?

"I was always going to play in hearts" - no, "I have a good heart raise, pd, tell me more about your hand." "It's pretty flat, pd, and 3NT scores better at MPs. What do you think?"

But having said that, you have told me why a 4♥ call is a Logical Alternative to passing 3NT. It might even be an effective argument for East that she didn't violate L73. You have not explained how the UI (which implies partner didn't clue in to the fact you have hearts) suggests (never mind "demonstrably suggests") passing 3NT.

blackshoe: I agree with your expectations, except I would argue it differently. Despite the wording, I would feel uncomfortable issuing a PP for a violation of Law 16. We all do it occasionally, even those who try our best to follow the Law. And the way that the LA definition is structured, it would require mind-reading to be able to follow it 100%, which the Lawmakers and Directors try to avoid requiring (except when Mentok, Mind Taker is at the table).

I am quite happy to penalize people for (blatant) failure to follow L73C, however. Which is why the newer player gets an explanation, and why the "just ignore the UI" people get (re-)introduced to the Law Book wording. To me, if you try, you might have failed, you might get ruled against, but you are ethically in the clear (and the ruling might just come with an education on how the way you tried wasn't effective or incorrect). If you fail to try, or if what you try to do is "see if you can squeak what you know to be the right call with the UI under the wire", I'm Much Less Happy. Which is why I am happy for the death of the EBU's "70% action" rule - it was a good rule, frankly, probably a better line than what we have now; but it encouraged "so, is using the UI a 75% action or only 65%?" thinking.

I have also been known to explain my rulings with a different emphasis or tone depending on how close to "surely, you knew..." I think we are, even if it's not PP-worthy. Sometimes, "come on, I don't believe what you're saying, you can't seriously expect me to, even you don't believe what you're saying", transmitted even if not actually spoke, is sufficient penalty. As is "you know Directors have a memory, right? And that you're making your case harder next time you try to argue no use of UI?" Again, never actually *said*...

I assume, of course, that in blackshoe's game, every revoke, even the L64B/C ones like on trick 12 or because a card was still in the box or...comes with a PP. After all, not just "may not" (which is "almost must not"), doesn't reach "must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements" levels.

I think if we routinely penalized dummy's "may not" actions (over and above "you drew attention? Okay, let's fix this. Sorry declarer, your partner has voided your right to the proper rectification"), that's closer. And frankly, I'd rather start there than "every Law 16 case".

Similarly, I've never seen, nor desired to see, a PP for violations of the "may not" or "must" provisions of Law 50. These things happen, you forget you have it,... In fact, one of the main "things I teach" to newer/club directors is "you stick around until the PC is gone, and here's why", and a large part of that is ensuring that L50 violations don't happen.

Why do we not do this? Well, partly because the rectification in L64A frequently *is* a penalty still, yeah. But mostly because we realize that try though we might, we all make mistakes occasionally, and wording in the preface aside, unwillful violations shouldn't really get routinely penalized.

Does that mean we should soften the language in the Laws to match? Yeah, probably. I hear the LC is taking suggestions (although official time is over).

[Gilithin]

 sanst, on 2023-August-22, 01:35, said:

E bid 3♦ to show a good hearts raise, so E was bidding for a hearts contract. Only after this call E received the UI because W didn’t alert. Whatever their agreement about 3NT in this situation is, it’s clear that they are going to bid game, either 3NT or 4♥. Before E received the UI and before W bid 3NT, in his or her view it was going to be 3♥ or 4♥, so E should stay with that and bid 4♥.

A quick response to this argument. If you do not think Pass is a LA for this hand, can you construct some examples of hands where you would pass? If you never pass 3NT here then describing it as choice of game is misinformation!

[blackshoe]

I would not pick and choose on which laws to enforce procedural penalties. If violation of a law rates a PP, it doesn't matter to me which law it is.

[sanst]

I’ve no idea what E thought about west’s failure to alert. My assumption is, that E thought that 3♦ did show hearts support and after 3NT something like “Partner thinks that I have diamonds, no hearts support and has no better call available than 3NT.” Maybe also thought that NT is the best contract with this hand and therefore, anxious not to make use of the UI, bid 4♥.
It’s beyond me how bidding 4♥ could be suggested by the UI. There’s a known hearts fit and to make things worse for EW, 3NT is the better contract.
Of course I know that 3NT can be and more often than not is “choice of games” in this situation, but I certainly don’t know whether E thought so. If (s)he did, why bid 4♥ with this hand? Without UI it’s an obvious pass on 3NT to me.
Did E at any moment pointed out that W should have alerted the 3♦?

[mycroft]

• So, do you penalize (PP) people for revoking, violating the "must" criterion of 44C?
  
• Do you penalize a defender who leads when their partner has a MPC in violation of L50D2? Even if declarer also doesn't know about their rights? And you only find out about it later during discussions? If so, do you penalize the entire table for ignoring the "should" in L9B2 that made it possible for this to happen (I will assume you stick around until the MPC has been dealt with, to ensure this doesn't happen, but this time you weren't called)?
  
• How about violations of 66C (which happen All The Time, and it is a valid concern, the why of which I usually explain to the people when I get there, if we have time. But never has it been anything but "checking to confirm there had been a revoke")? If yes, I laud you, and I am sure the level of "follow the Laws" education in your area is much better than anywhere I've directed, because they are universally shocked - the entire table - when I explain that they can't do that (or, if they haven't, that I can, but *I won't*, do that, at least until the end of the hand).

We do agree - I will penalize anything that should be penalized. We disagree on the practical, mostly because in practise, what the lawmakers say they want and what they actually do want are different (and yes, should be looked at); and while we both are concerned about people playing correctly, and people playing, we do have different opinions on what is needed to get the first while keeping the second as much as we can. So we have different opinions on "what should be penalized". I have mentioned many times that I am probably too far on the other side.

Do I wish we lived in your world, at least closer than we do? 100% yes. I love playing in games where everyone knows the Laws and respects and follows them. I also love playing in Mitchell movements, and with people who could play in the MP-limited games, but choose to spend some time in the Open.

But my statement above I think is the big one for me: provided you did your best to follow L73, I will not penalize you if it turns out you violated L16. Partly because of mind-reading (and I've been shocked at what "the peers" said, more than once), and partly because we all blank occasionally - and if you're willing to acknowledge your blank out and accept the ruling from the TD, that seems sufficient for discouraging the behaviour in the future (and educating about said blank for next time). I am pretty certain I haven't penalized anyone for violating L73 while still skating past L16 (i.e. bid the only LA not because it was the only LA, but hoping to get away with what the UI suggested), but when I have heard people's thinking about it, the explanation of the ruling has been pretty blunt, and some law reading takes place. I'm pretty certain I *have* penalized people for L73 violations that didn't get L12 adjustment (used UI, if not deliberately, then only because mind-reading, but it led to a better score for the NOS). I've definitely used my mentor's "you know, this is a zero-win call. If it's wrong, you get to keep your bad score, but if it works, we adjust. So follow the Law next time, and hope the cards are wrong."(*)

(*)Which is another reason I fight so hard when I see "there's no safe call", the equivalent to "if it hesitates, shoot it". If anything is going to be adjusted if it's right, then there's no incentive to try. And frankly, if "violation of L16" is going to lead to PP, might as well take your PP and hope the adjustment isn't too bad, as doing the right thing might just score worse and *still* get the PP.

[barmar]

This shouldn't be that hard.

Imagine that W alerted 3♦ and then bid 3NT. Even if E was always planning on bidding hearts, would they consider passing? If so, it's presumed to be a LA.

Assuming they would consider it, does the non-alert make pulling 3NT to 4♥ more attractive? This seems likely, since you have the UI that partner misunderstood your bid when they bid 3NT.

Polling is best, but since E has scattered high cards and no ruffing values, the answer to the first question seems like it should be yes.

So if the opponents are damaged by the 4♥ bid, we should adjust to the likely result if 3NT had been passed.

[Gilithin]

 sanst, on 2023-August-23, 03:16, said:

It’s beyond me how bidding 4♥ could be suggested by the UI. There’s a known hearts fit and to make things worse for EW, 3NT is the better contract.

Let's go through a thought experiment then. If partner has understood 3♦ to be a heart raise, they are certain to have a hand where there is a genuine choice between 3NT and 4♥. For the sake of argument, let's say 40% of the time we should be in 3NT and 60% of the time in 4♥. Now what about when partner thinks there is not a heart fit?. Well now partner's range is increased and there will be many of the hands in which 4♥ was clearly the right game also bidding 3NT. Opposite a real raise, we might have something like a 20% chance of 3NT being right and 80% chance of 4♥. If you cannot follow this kind of logic then you are not qualified to be a TD. Just consider for a moment the range of hands where Overcaller would have rebid 4♥ opposite a raise and 3NT opposite a natural diamond call. As soon as see that this set is not empty and there are no major hand types suggestion the reverse, you know there is the potential for a misuse of UI. The fact that no damage has occurred does not absolve players of their obligations; it just means that there is no adjustment to the score.

[sanst]

Just a simple question: why is 3♦ alertable? AFAWK W could easily have and probably thought it was natural. That E improvised a raise is not known to W.