[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2013-April-19, 09:18, said:

Apparently I do not understand what you're getting at, because your polling procedure seems inconsistent with what you said (or implied) previously. It seemed to me you want South to bid as if he has the weak two suiter, even though he doesn't. This is inconsistent with my understanding of how players should act at the table, ie they should attempt to discern what calls are LAs, and which among them are suggested by UI, and then not choose any of those calls.

I want South to not select from LAs one that is demonstrably suggested by the UI. And the LAs are defined using the methods of the partnership. I think that following this exactly must comply with 73C, or the person has to sit there and be timed out.

[lamford]

 billw55, on 2013-April-19, 09:15, said:

Fixed to show the proper poll question.

That is nonsense. When polling you poll without the UI.

[billw55]

 lamford, on 2013-April-19, 09:26, said:

That is nonsense. When polling you poll without the UI.

er, what? Are we having totally different conversations here? At this point in the auction, the actual agreement about 2NT *is* the UI to south.

[lamford]

 billw55, on 2013-April-19, 09:29, said:

er, what? Are we having totally different conversations here? At this point in the auction, the actual agreement about 2NT *is* the UI to south.

Right. So we poll people with the actual methods and the auction to date. As Law 16B suggests. We remove all UI when we poll.

[PhilKing]

 lamford, on 2013-April-19, 09:25, said:

I want South to not select from LAs one that is demonstrably suggested by the UI. And the LAs are defined using the methods of the partnership. I think that following this exactly must comply with 73C, or the person has to sit there and be timed out.

Making a call (3♥) that is the only possibly bid out of a grand total of zero alternatives can hardly be considered "taking any advantage from that unauthorized information."

[lamford]

 PhilKing, on 2013-April-19, 09:31, said:

Making a call (3♥ that is the only possibly bid out of a grand total of zero alternatives can hardly be considered "taking any advantage from that unauthorized information."

Without UI, LAs are 3H, 3NT and Pass. They were chosen or given serious consideration by those polled, including opinions on here. I don't think 3H is an LA using the methods of the partnership, but let us say that some eccentric chooses it. It is clearly likely to lead to a better result than both 3NT and Pass, and therefore is demonstrably suggested. Therefore selecting it is a breach of 16B.

And I would rule 6♦ makes, as the play in that would be similar to 6NT, but I think that is much too generous to NS.

[billw55]

 lamford, on 2013-April-19, 09:30, said:

Right. So we poll people with the actual methods and the auction to date. As Law 16B suggests. We remove all UI when we poll.

I am totally failing to understand you. In this case, the actual method is UI, and therefore should be removed from the poll, per your own argument.

[RMB1]

 lamford, on 2013-April-19, 09:21, said:

I think it has not been unnoticed, as I have raised it ad nauseam at every opportunity!

Did you point it out to WBFLC in response to Grattan's "open invitation"?

(FWIW, I did.)

[lamford]

 RMB1, on 2013-April-19, 09:37, said:

Did you point it out to WBFLC in response to Grattan's "open invitation"

(FWIW, I did.)

Yes, I suggested an amendment to change "methods of the partnership" to "perceived methods of the partnership".

[lamford]

 billw55, on 2013-April-19, 09:33, said:

I am totally failing to understand you. In this case, the actual method is UI, and therefore should be removed from the poll, per your own argument.

No, the poll must always be conducted using the actual methods of the partnership, whether they are UI or not, because 16B says that LAs are decided using the methods of the partnership, and 16B only applies when there is UI.

[billw55]

 lamford, on 2013-April-19, 09:40, said:

No, the poll must always be conducted using the actual methods of the partnership, whether they are UI or not, because 16B says that LAs are decided using the methods of the partnership.

OK, I think I see what you are saying now. There is a wording in the laws which, if followed literally, would lead to conclusions that are very intuitively wrong in cases such as this.

[lamford]

 billw55, on 2013-April-19, 09:44, said:

OK, I think I see what you are saying now. There is a wording in the laws which, if followed literally, would lead to conclusions that are very intuitively wrong in cases such as this.

Yes, I think that LAs should be selected using the "perceived" methods. In that case, 3H would be the only choice. The problem with that is that one has to rely on the player in many cases to say what he thought the methods were. Using the actual methods is often easier to establish from CCs or system notes. So, while I prefer to change the Law, the current one does work, if it is applied correctly.

[barmar]

Lamford, this case is a prime example of why you'll never convince anyone that Law 16 should be applied as you want. Yes, it would be better if the law were reworded as you suggest. But custom and practice is that it's already applied this way, because the literal interpretation is obviously unreasonable because it allows (maybe even requires) players to take blatant advantage of the UI.

I suggest you stop tilting at this windmill, it's a waste of everyone's time. If you want to post in Changing Laws, that would be appropriate -- the Laws should obviously say what we mean, and be consistent with what we actually do.

[gnasher]

 lamford, on 2013-April-19, 08:47, said:

Or are all rulings now based on what people think 16B should say?

Yes, all UI rulings are based on what 16B should say, and they always have been. The actual wording is no more than an amusing example of poor drafting. There is absolutely no possibility that the WBFLC meant it to be interpreted as written.

I expect that the reason that they haven't issued a correction is that they saw no immediate need to do so. It's already being applied as they intended, everywhere in the world, except possibly at one bridge club in North London. Even there I expect that it depends on who is directing.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2013-April-19, 09:51, said:

I suggest you stop tilting at this windmill, it's a waste of everyone's time. If you want to post in Changing Laws, that would be appropriate -- the Laws should obviously say what we mean, and be consistent with what we actually do.

I think both RMB1 and I have suggested a change to Grattan, so I don't think it is worth posting the issue again.

[billw55]

 lamford, on 2013-April-19, 09:47, said:

Yes, I think that LAs should be selected using the "perceived" methods.

OK, we agree then. Phew, you had me going there for a while

[PhilKing]

For what it's worth, North should bid 3NT over 3♥.

There is a 0.00% chance that partner has a weak hand with a void heart, UI or not.

[mycroft]

Add me to the 6♦ LA'ers.

Add me to the "we know what the Law means, to the point where what the Law says makes no sense to me, because that's what it means".

[nige1]

If law-makers intended something different from what they wrote then, when they learnt of Lamford's misgivings, they should have published an immediate correction. Since they did not, directors should implement the law as written. Otherwise, how can a director deal with:

• players, in receipt of UI, who slavishly follow the law as written.
  
• players who deliberately flout other laws and regulations explaining "no sane person could have intended what the laws seems to say".

[campboy]

 gnasher, on 2013-April-19, 09:52, said:

Yes, all UI rulings are based on what 16B should say, and they always have been. The actual wording is no more than an amusing example of poor drafting. There is absolutely no possibility that the WBFLC meant it to be interpreted as written.

I find it very easy to interpret the current law 16B as already saying what it should mean. It talks about "the class of player involved", so I interpret that to be a subset of the class of players who have forgotten their methods. For players in that class, of course, nothing other than 3♥ is an LA.

Of course I would still welcome a change to make it clearer.