[hotShot]

I think that the problem -as stated- is irrelevant.

Any hesitation prior to that pass is suggesting to bid on. So if pass from partners hand would have been an LA, than he would have to take it.

Trying to get extra information out of that fact is nitpicking beyond the bridge laws. Every time an UI situation occurs this problem exists, so it should have been expressed in the laws how to deal with it. It should be part of the std treatment.

[mink]

LH2650, on Mar 4 2007, 11:02 PM, said:

...

My lawful and ethical partner must do exactly what he would have done without my hesitation. Anything else would be illegal. Therefore, I have no UI from his action after my hesitation.

This is not true. My partner, the 2♦ bidder, has a UI by my hesitation and is now required to avoid any call that is suggested by the UI, unless there are no logical alternatives.

But the question of this thread is if I in turn have an UI, generated by my own hesitation plus my knowledge that partner is an ethical player and therefore he must have a sound 2♦ bid. In my fist post in this thread I already argued why I think I have no UI. Unfortunately nobody cared to discuss why my arguments miss the point, though the majority here thinks that there is an UI.

Maybe it helps to add another argument: Suppose I really have an UI. Now I am required to avoid any call suggested by the UI. Maybe I would have liked to bid 3♦, but because of the UI I rather pass. But this results in assuming my partner might have made an unethical bid. Do you really think, the laws require me to assume partner did something unethical? This is really ridiculous.

We all know that it is impossible to avoid generating an UI for partner, especially by thinking. We know that partner's choices are restricted after an UI. This is a fact that is established by the laws. It does not matter if I suspect partner to sometimes deviate from the lawful path - even with such a partner I would assume his 2♦ bid is lawful. So the fact that I know my partner is indeed ethical does not have the slightest influence on my decision after the 3♣.

Karl

[cherdano]

LH2650, on Mar 4 2007, 04:02 PM, said:

The premise in the original problem statement is flawed.

From The Bridge World Editorial of November, 2004:

"Any law or implementation that encourages taking notice of UI from partner is irredeemably horrible."

The Editorial goes on to detail the correct interpretation of this area of law, and addresses a common but incorrect interpretation suggested in the original post.

My lawful and ethical partner must do exactly what he would have done without my hesitation.  Anything else would be illegal.  Therefore, I have no UI from his action after my hesitation.

That's clearly a minority opinion by Jeff Rubens (or the editors of bridge world), and probably just an example of the fact that The Bridge World has lost its importance with respect to laws.

I also fail to see how Rubens can reconcile his opinion with

the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information

(Law 16A)

Unless of course Rubens is talking about how the law should be, not how it currently is.

Arend

[Sancho]

Could those who argue that one is not under UI restrictions here please tell me what that means if I have reason to assume that partner does not bend over backwards to avoid use of the UI I gave him by huddling over 2♣ (not necessarily because he is a known cheat; he might be a beginner who knows nothing about L16)?

Do I actually *have* to bid 3D if it is a logical alternative?

[awm]

I think that there is a difference between:

(1) What should I, as an ethical player, do after partner gives me UI?

(2) Under what conditions should the director adjust/not adjust the result of the board?

My responsibility as a player is to ignore all unauthorized information and bid as if it never happened. It is not my job to try to "guess" what other players would have done in the same situation, try to guess what might or might not be a logical alternative, or otherwise take actions I would not normally take in order to "avoid taking advantage of the UI."

On the other hand, my acting ethically does not mean the director won't adjust the board. She has only my word to go on that I didn't take advantage of the UI, and as others have commented it can be hard to avoid taking advantage of UI even if you know you're supposed to ignore it. There's no way the director can figure out "what call I would've made if there was no UI" so the laws instead require her to judge based on "what calls would most people have made" and adjust if it seems that a substantial fraction of the players would not have selected the call I selected, and that my call seems favored by the UI.

Just because the director adjusts a board where there was UI, doesn't mean the person with the UI acted unethically!

[Sancho]

awm, on Mar 7 2007, 12:22 PM, said:

I think that there is a difference between:

(1) What should I, as an ethical player, do after partner gives me UI?

(2) Under what conditions should the director adjust/not adjust the result of the board?

My responsibility as a player is to ignore all unauthorized information and bid as if it never happened.

Nope. As others have pointed out, it is generally accepted, and quite obvious from the wording of L16, that it is a player's duty to actively avoid choosing a suggested action if there are non-suggested, and less successful, logical alternatives after receiving UI.

Simply doing what you would have done in the absence of UI is not enough.

[awm]

Here's the initial wording of Law 16:

Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law.

Note that this in fact implies that choosing not to make a bid that one would normally make because of extraneous information may be an infraction of law -- there is no caveat that such a choice is required if the extraneous information implies it would be less successful than the normal choice in spite of what many people have suggested in this thread.

The passage most people are quoting reads:

...the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

The key terms here are "demonstrably have been suggested." This indicates that if it can be clearly shown that a player made a call because of the extraneous information there is a violation of law.

I think the intent of these passages is pretty clear, that players should base their calls only on authorized information, and that if it becomes clear that a call was based on unauthorized information it should be rolled back.

The issue is that it's very hard to tell whether a call was demonstrably suggested over another by the extraneous information or what a player based his call or play on. The director needs an unbiased way to determine this information without reading the mind of the player in question.

[blackshoe]

You are, I think, overlooking

LAW 73C said:

When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side.

which clearly demonstrates the correctness of the assertion

Quote

Simply doing what you would have done in the absence of UI is not enough.

One does not have to show that a player made a call because of UI. One merely has to show that the call he made was suggested by the UI, and that the player had a less successful LA. Perhaps he didn't consider the issue (lack of awareness of the law, which is, however, not an excuse ), or perhaps his logic was faulty. No matter; we are concerned with what he did, not why he did it. (To concern ourselves with the latter question is to concern ourselves with whether he is a cheat, which is something that requires a lot more evidence than Law 16A2 requires).

Such judgment rulings may be difficult for a TD. OTOH, that's why we get the big bucks.