[blml] Marvin French - part two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Marvin French:

[see the "part one" thread for earlier debate]

>It need not be a specific action that is suggested. If
>a player thinks a very long time before passing over a
>5C opening bid, the UI demonstrably suggests action by
>partner, even though it is unknown whether the thinker
>was considering a double or a bid. If passing is not
>illogical, thinker's partner must pass. He might claim
>that he would have acted if partner had passed in
>tempo. We should not doubt him, but merely say that
>his intention is irrelevant. Contrary to popular
>belief, the law does not say a player must ignore the
>UI and take his normal action. While a slow pass or
>slow double may suggest an action, a slow bid seldom
>does. A forcing pass, however slow, does not suggest
>action, it commands it.

Richard Hills:

I agree with all of the above paragraph _except_ for
the final sentence.  In the archived thread "100% of
Nothing" (January 2005) it was pointed out that:

(a) sometimes it is a logical alternative to violate a
partnership agreement that a pass is 100% forcing if
abiding by your agreement causes you to choose between
-790 or -800, and

(b) sometimes a sloooow forcing pass gives you
unauthorised information by reminding you of your
methods, since after an in tempo forcing pass you
would misinterpret your methods and incorrectly think
that the pass was non-forcing.

Note that the footnote to Law 40E2 prohibits aids to
memory.

The blml archives are at:

http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/

Marvin French:

>Law 16A1 When Such Information is Given
>
>"When a player considers that an opponent has made
>such information available and that damage could
>well result, he may, unless the regulations of the
>sponsoring organization prohibit, immediately
>announce that he reserves the right to summon the
>Director later (the opponents should summon the
>Director immediately if they dispute the fact that
>unauthorized information might have been conveyed)."
>
>Discussion: L16A1's parenthesized sentence assumes
>that "reserving the rights", implying potentially
>damaging UI, has been invoked by a player. If the
>opponents do not agree, they (not "the player")
>should call the TD. Failure to do so evidently
>implies agreement, meaning that the UI is tacitly
>acknowledged and may not be successfully denied
>later. The ACBL exercised the option of prohibiting
>the reservation of rights, which in effect cancels
>L16A1 entirely and adds a new law. Its "ELECTION"
>states:
>
>"At ACBL sanctioned events, competitors will not be
>allowed to announce that they reserve the right to
>call the Director later. They should summon the
>Director immediately when they believe there may
>have been extraneous information available to the
>opponents resulting in calls or bids which could
>result in damage to their side."
>
>This confusing language seems self-contradictory.
>The first sentence says the TD must be called
>immediately, as does the first part of the second
>sentence. However, the second part of that
>sentence, "...resulting in calls or bids...",
>implies that the TD call should come when a
>suspicious action has taken place. Moreover, the
>writer did not seem to know that bids are calls, or
>that Law 16A1 applies to plays as well as calls. It
>is likely that the writer intended "could result in
>calls or bids", but that would be in violation of
>the next law, which is not an option. Anyway, no
>"reservation of rights". But what then? See
>Procedures for Dealing with UI (below) for an
>answer.

Richard Hills:

Okay, the ACBL Election was sloppily drafted.  So
what?  Even though I am a non-ACBL pedant, the
intent of the election seems clear.  The ACBL
sensibly did not want to waste the Director's time
by having the Director summoned after every
hesitation.  Rather, players "should" summon the
Director when a hesitation is followed by a
doubtful call by the hesitator's partner.  My only
pedantic quibble is the use of the word "should"
when Law 16A1 uses the word "may".  This is
important, since The Scope and Interpretation of
the Laws specifically defines "should" and "may".

On the other hand, perhaps the ACBL Election is
even more sloppily drafted, and is not only a
Law 16A1 Election, but also an interpretation of
Law 16A2.  The word "should" appears in Law 16A2,
but with the footnoted caveat, "When play ends; or,
as to dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed."

Marvin French:

>L16A2 When Illegal Alternative is Chosen
>
>When a player has substantial reason to believe*
>that an opponent who had a logical alternative
>has chosen an action that could have been
>suggested by such information, he should summon
>the Director forthwith. The Director shall require
>the auction and play to continue, standing ready
>to assign an adjusted score if he discovers that
>an infraction of law has resulted in damage.
>
>*When play ends; or, as to dummy’s hand, when
>dummy is exposed.
>
>Discussion: The heading isn't quite right, it
>should be "...May Have Been Chosen", but headings
>are not part of the laws so that is not important.
>Since the TD may not be called until dummy's hand
>or completed play shows evidence of a possible
>irregularity, the auction cannot continue--it is
>over. It seems likely that the footnote was added
>late and no one noticed that it affected the law
>itself.

Richard Hills:

But if the Director is summoned prematurely before
the end of the auction, "require the auction to
continue" is useful guidance for that Director who
has arrived too early.

Marvin French:

>We can skip the remainder of Law 16, which deals
>with UI from sources other than partner.
>
>Law 73 mostly reinforces the provisions of Law 16,
>but there are two parts that are especially
>pertinent to this discussion.
>
>Law 73D1 Inadvertent Variations [in tempo or
>manner]
>
>"It is desirable, though not always required, for
>players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying
>manner. However, players should be particularly
>careful in positions in which variations may work
>to the benefit of their side. Otherwise,
>inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which
>a call or play is made does not in itself
>constitute a violation of propriety, but
>inferences from such variation my appropriately be
>drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk."
>
>Law 73D2 Intentional Variations [in tempo or
>manner]
>
>"A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent
>by means of remark or gesture, through the haste
>or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating
>before playing a singleton), or by the manner in
>which the call or play is made."
>
>Law 73F2 Player Injured by Illegal Deception
>
>If the Director determines that an innocent
>player has drawn a false inference from a remark,
>manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has
>no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and
>who could have known, at the time of the action,
>that the action could work to his benefit, the
>Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law
>12C).
>
>Discussion: Note that it is only inadvertent
>variations from which an opponent's inference is
>at the opponent's own risk. When illegal
>(deliberate) deception is involved,

Richard Hills:

Incorrect.  Marv has overlooked the subtlety of
the words "However" and "Otherwise" in Law 73D1.

There is a more obvious clue in Law 73F2 which
carefully uses the phrase "no demonstrable bridge
reason" rather than using the words "inadvertent"
and/or "deliberate".

Marvin French:

>an opponent who is deceived thereby is entitled to
>a possible score adjustment. This is an area that
>calls for judgment on the TDs part. Was the action
>inadvertent or deliberate?

Richard Hills:

No, the question is, "Could the player have known,
at the time of the action, that the action could
work to their benefit?"

Marvin French:

>Take the case of hesitating before playing a
>singleton. This should rarely, if ever, be ruled
>inadvertent (arthritic hands?). The same is true
>of hesitating with small cards as if considering
>covering an honor. There is no bridge reason for
>such actions, which are unlikely to be
>inadvertent. Players who employ the same slow
>tempo in every situation (as L73D1) recommends)
>should be sure opponents know that before these
>situations arise.

Richard Hills:

I take with a grain of salt an assertion by a
player, "My tempo is always slow."  As Marv
correctly notes, it is only _same_ slow tempo
which is consistent with the Law 73D1 adjectives
"steady" and "unvaring".

Marvin French:

>Procedures for Dealing with UI
>
>Some UI is "appropriate", because it is legally
>created. That includes replies to opponents'
>questions and Alert explanations. It also
>includes Alerts and Announcements themselves,
>which tell partner "I haven't forgotten". Taking
>a long time to think is appropriate UI unless it
>is done deliberately to aid partner
>communication. Most other UI is "inappropriate",
>because creating it is illegal.
>
>Some breaks in tempo (BITs) are irregularities
>in themselves, making them inappropriate, as
>when there is an immediate and obvious
>likelihood of affecting partner's actions,

Richard Hills:

Incorrect as a general rule.  Provided that there
is a demonstrable bridge reason for the break in
tempo, creation of UI via that BIT is legal, as
specifically stated in Law 73D1.

What is illegal is partner choosing to violate
Law 73C and Law 16 by a _subsequent_ use of that
UI.  If pard eschews any demonstrably suggested
logical alternative, then the opponents are not
damaged.

>or when it violates a regulation. A player leads
>the king from AK-sixth against a suit slam, Qxxx
>in dummy, and third seat hesitates markedly
>before playing (thereby denying a singleton). The
>irregularity is obvious, and the TD should be
>called.

Richard Hills:

The TD need not be called if the opening leader
now selects the only legal logical alternative of
continuing with the ace.

[to be continued in part three]


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch, DIAC
02 6225 6285

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited.
DIMA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988.
The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department’s
website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm