[c_corgi]

lamford, on 2013-April-22, 05:55, said:

...
c) As the rustic said to the motorist, "I would not start from here", but we have to bid something...

This is the point. If the pollee wouldn't have considered bidding in the same way if playing the methods of the partnership, he is not a valid peer and there is no point trying to construct LAs based on his decision. Since there are presumably going to be no peers available who would have opened 2NT showing 5-5 in the minors then the whole of L16B1b cannot be applicable. Fortunately there is L73 to fall back on.

[lamford]

c_corgi, on 2013-April-22, 06:30, said:

This is the point. If the pollee wouldn't have considered bidding in the same way if playing the methods of the partnership, he is not a valid peer and there is no point trying to construct LAs based on his decision. Since there are presumably going to be no peers available who would have opened 2NT showing 5-5 in the minors then the whole of L16B1b cannot be applicable. Fortunately there is L73 to fall back on.

I do not agree. We all make misbids, and all that is required is to find players of the same ability who play that 2NT is 5-5 in the minors. In practice this would take too long, and we tell them "You are playing 2NT showing 5-5 in the minors, 6-10, and you open 2NT on the South hand. Partner bids 3D, better diamonds than clubs. What do you do now? What do you seriously consider?"

The practical problem of finding peers playing the same methods is usually solved by asking the pollees to imagine they are playing those methods, or at least we check that they understand what subsequent auctions would mean.

[billw55]

Eh ok lamford we get it. The literal word of the law says to use the actual methods.

When the literal wording leads to an action or ruling that is obviously nonsense, we know not to use it that way. Well, most of us do.

[lamford]

billw55, on 2013-April-22, 06:51, said:

When the literal wording leads to an action or ruling that is obviously nonsense, we know not to use it that way.

Weak arguments are reinforced by using "obviously". In our example, and I think more often than not, a literal interpretation of 16B gets to a fairer ruling. South should have known that by bidding 3H he would likely end in 6NT, which might or might not have any play. He should have known that bidding 3NT or Pass could well result in a disaster. The literal meaning of 16B always works.

[billw55]

As I said, most of us do

[Zelandakh]

Ignoring lamford's favourite side show and getting back to the OP question, I can see several LAs for South over 4♦ that would most likely not result in 6NT. 4♠ and 6♦ have already been mentioned. Another one is probably 5NT. I suspect that the more circuitous routes end up in 6♦.

[aguahombre]

Zelandakh, on 2013-April-22, 07:52, said:

Ignoring lamford's favourite side show and getting back to the OP question, I can see several LAs for South over 4♦ that would most likely not result in 6NT. 4♠ and 6♦ have already been mentioned. Another one is probably 5NT. I suspect that the more circuitous routes end up in 6♦.

Yes, that point was made. But, I don't believe it is universal or even practical for a heart transfer followed by a minor suit bid to guarantee five of the minor; and consequently I don't believe South should be compelled to make a bid confirming diamonds as trump without holding 4 himself.

[PhilKing]

South is obliged to follow law 73. Completing a transfer is not taking advantage of anything - South is merely ignoring the information he now has.

You just can't then do him under 16B1 by giving a load of his peers a scenario that is in no way relevant.

[Zelandakh]

aguahombre, on 2013-April-22, 08:05, said:

Yes, that point was made. But, I don't believe it is universal or even practical for a heart transfer followed by a minor suit bid to guarantee five of the minor; and consequently I don't believe South should be compelled to make a bid confirming diamonds as trump without holding 4 himself.

This is why I was putting forward 5NT as another alternative, assuming this would ba PaS and not GSF (in the mistakenly believed methods of the partnership).

[nige1]

aguahombre, on 2013-April-21, 18:20, said:

Nige1, you are overthinking what is being said in that handbook. They are debunking the idea that hesitation=pass, not addressing the choice from among L.A.'s. And generally means generally.

Unschooled in double-think, I read the handbook to mean what it says. I suspect that the authors may even have expressed their true intent. "Make the bid you would have made without the UI" is the gist of the advice of some good players, on US sites like "Bridge-winners".

[blackshoe]

That handbook is full of errors. Furthermore, it is my understanding that it is not "official" in the sense of stating how law is to be interpreted in the ACBL. So you follow it at your peril.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2013-April-22, 08:05, said:

Yes, that point was made. But, I don't believe it is universal or even practical for a heart transfer followed by a minor suit bid to guarantee five of the minor; and consequently I don't believe South should be compelled to make a bid confirming diamonds as trump without holding 4 himself.

If South, in his own world, normally only completes the transfer with 3, as I play with some partners, and bids 3NT without 3, he can, under your thinking, bid 3NT. And what a transfer followed by a minor suit bid means is irrelevant for deciding on LAs. All that is relevant is what 4D means after 3H. We are told that - no interest. What it would mean after 2NT is relevant for selecting between LAs only.

I repeat. Is there anyone on here who thinks you use the UI to decide on LAs?

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-22, 08:31, said:

That handbook is full of errors. Furthermore, it is my understanding that it is not "official" in the sense of stating how law is to be interpreted in the ACBL. So you follow it at your peril.

IMO, it is equally fraught to follow the unofficial advice from this forum to ignore the Law. Just because some break the law and encourage others to do so, does not absolve you of moral responsibility

[blackshoe]

It has often been said that Law 16 is for directors, and Law 73C is for players. In this paradigm, ignoring 16B, or even not knowing what it says, is no crime. But the law does not literally say that players can ignore 16B, so I suppose that means that all players have to be taught that law and all its ramifications. Good luck with that.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-April-22, 05:55, said:

The only difference between my approach and campboy (and I think gnasher's) approach is that they use the UI to decide on the LAs.

I've rather lost the thread of your argument, but if the "they" in the above sentence refers to me, then you are mistaken. I use the AI to determine what the LAs are. The methods of the partnership are not AI to a player who has forgotten the methods of the partnership.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-April-22, 09:15, said:

I've rather lost the thread of your argument, but if the "they" in the above sentence refers to me, then you are mistaken. I use the AI to determine what the LAs are. The methods of the partnership are not AI to a player who has forgotten the methods of the partnership.

16B(b) does not require the methods of the partnership to be AI. It defines an LA. Then you must not select between them one demonstrably suggested by the UI. The problem with this discussion is that you just fall back on saying "it does not mean that", so we are not achieving anything discussing what it says.

I have posted the issue on BLML and will see if I get any meaningful reply. Several of the WBFLC contribute.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-22, 08:42, said:

It has often been said that Law 16 is for directors, and Law 73C is for players. In this paradigm, ignoring 16B, or even not knowing what it says, is no crime. But the law does not literally say that players can ignore 16B, so I suppose that means that all players have to be taught that law and all its ramifications. Good luck with that.

Directors should be taught the law too because it's worse when directors break the law. Cascade tried to bring schismatic directors back into the body of the kirk by drawing their attention to law 81

TFLB L81B2 said:

The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2013-April-22, 06:53, said:

Weak arguments are reinforced by using "obviously".

An argument based on common sense is not inherently weak. Obviously.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-April-22, 09:33, said:

16B(b) does not require the methods of the partnership to be AI. It defines an LA. Then you must not select between them one demonstrably suggested by the UI. The problem with this discussion is that you just fall back on saying "it does not mean that", so we are not achieving anything discussing what it says.

So 96 posts later we know what we already knew, which is:
- You think that LAs are determined by considering the methods of the partnership, even when the knowledge of these is authorised.
- Almost everybody else thinks that LAs are determined by considering only the authorised information.

Anyway, maybe your post on BLML will give us some idea of the legislators' intent.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2013-April-22, 10:28, said:

An argument based on common sense is not inherently weak. Obviously.

Depends on whose common sense is being applied.