Why is the 5S bid illegal?
Here is a thought, you actually bid Stop 3C showing Spades and Diamonds. Partner alerts and advises correctly of this, then jumps to 5C, what would this mean?
To my mind it would be agreeing S or D as trumps and showing control of C (1st or 2nd round as per agreement) as a cue bid.
So in this instance 5S would not be barred, as partner has agreed to either spades or diamonds.
So, you could then say that 5S was legal from the overcallers side, as his partners bid of 5C was a cue bid (what else could it mean?)
I still cannot find an actual law that disbars the bidding of 5S
But which suit do you think 5 !c agrees? Without an agreed suit, how can it be a cue-bid?
The overcaller had AKJ93 void; AKxxx 876, so bidding 5 !s looks to me to be suggested over pass by the lack of an alert.
I should have said in my previous post that 5 !s is illegal, but is not adjusted for because it didn't damage the non-offenders (if they have to go on to a worse contract). There doesn't seem to be any way of editing posts.
@Martin said:
Under what law is 5S illegal? I have searched through as best I can but cannot find a reference.
We are assuming that the UI from the failure to alert demonstrably suggests bidding 5 !s when passing 5 !c is a logical alternative - then Law 16B (and 73C) forbids the 5!s call.
Both players have UI, the 5 !c bidder from the Stop card, and the 3 !c bidder from the lack of a (to him) expected alert. Surely (if we believe the necessary conditions as to suggested action and logical alternatives are present) we just disallow whatever leads to a worse score for the offenders. I guess that's pretty much what VixTD is saying.
@Abbeybear said:
Both players have UI, the 5 !c bidder from the Stop card, and the 3 !c bidder from the lack of a (to him) expected alert. Surely (if we believe the necessary conditions as to suggested action and logical alternatives are present) we just disallow whatever leads to a worse score for the offenders. I guess that's pretty much what VixTD is saying.
Well obviously VixTD and I have different opinions as to what 12C1c means
(c) An assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of
potential results, but only outcomes that could have been achieved in a legal manner
may be included.
My interpretation is that if 5 !s is disallowed due to the UI then the final contract must be 5 !c. The only reason 6 !c could be considered is if the player who overcalled 3 !c has a hand with extra values such that a raise of 5 !c (assuming it is natural with a very good club suit) to 6 !c is a logical alternative. We can't have a scenario of weighting results based on 5 !s may or may not be allowed. It is either 100% OK or 100% wrong.
I wasn't particularly thinking about weighted scores. Just that (assuming that you decide that both the 5 !s bid and the pass of 5 !s are infractions), then you adjust to 5 !c +1 if you think it clear that 12 tricks will be made in a club contract; and to 6 !c -1 if you think it clear that the limit is 11 tricks.
If there is doubt as to the number of tricks (assuming the choice lies only between 11 and 12), then I don't know (although see below) the answer to the question whether it is legal to include any element of 6 !c in a weighted score, but in this case it wouldn't matter as including an element of 6 !c would lead to 6 !c making some of the time, which wouldn't (on this hand) be an adjustment favourable to the NOS, so in practice you would weight the score between 5 !c = and 5 !c +1.
I appreciate that you could construct a hand where the issue of the interpretation of L12C1c was crucial. In that case it seems hard to argue with weejonnie's logic.
One minor point not mentioned is that the 3C bidder, if still intent on playing in S or D, might have bid 5D but that's less likely to 'wake up' partner. Anyway, as per the advice from VixTD the director confirmed his decision of 6C going off. This went to a club appeals panel who reinstated 5S making on the basis that 3C was a "misbid" and therefore there wasn't a problem (which must include no UI).
How on earth can there be no UI? The 3 !c bidder thought that 3 !c showed !s + !d , and therefore expected an alert. When there was no alert there was UI.
Bidding 5 !s (or 5 !d for that matter) is what bluejak refers to as "unauthorised panic" and is (and rightly) completely routinely ruled against, assuming damage.
It may be that the player is inexperienced, but the combination of the unwarranted Stop card and the choice of 5 !s over 5 !d , if correctly analysed as "more likely to wake partner up" is far closer to a PP on top of an adjustment than to "result stands". The hand has excellent support for partner's supposed independent !c suit, and is obliged to interpret 5 !c as "so you have !s + !d : I want to play in 5 !c " . No problem, forsooth!
The Club Appeals Panel should also have taken advice from an EBU TD.
Vix's logic in his posts on 16 January was, in my view, completely correct and the original director should be applauded for consulting as he did before making such a judgement ruling. While we look at the first infraction first, we find that because of the second infraction, the first infraction has caused no damage.
Whilst I am obviously being outvoted here, VixTD says that he thinks 5 !s is illegal and then he recommends that the contract be adjusted to 6 !c on the argument that 6 !c gives the NOS a better score than 5 !c and "the 5 !s bid did not cause them any damage and so was legal"
Whether a bid is illegal does not depend on the results of said bid. You are far too experienced a director not to know the pertinent laws, but nowhere can I find a qualification in the 'may not choose...' that says 'unless the opponents receive a worse score by doing so' or WTTE. The amendment to law 12C1c in the 2017 laws specifically only allows results that could be legally obtained to be included in any weighting. If the 5 !s call was held to be legal then obviously the result would be EITHER 5 !s OR 6 !c. Equally it is true that if the NOS aren't damaged by the breach of the laws then there is no score adjustment - but that does not stop the TD from issuing the OS with a procedural penalty - indeed the new laws virtually tell us to do so.
So are you both saying that once an infraction has occurred then the worst possible contract must be chosen (even though it can only be reached by illegal methods)? Or that if only one contract can be reached after the last infraction and it is worse than the table result then it must be selected, even though it will be reached illegally?
.
Regarding Law 12C1c ("An assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of
potential results, but only outcomes that could have been achieved in a legal manner may be included."), the part after the comma was added last year and addresses the situation where one of the weightings included the ruled-against action by the offender in a situation where there was one call based on UI. While it should be fairly obvious that we shouldn't do that, and the White Book has made that clear for some time (See WB 8.16.3), it has been seen as welcome that the WBF has at last made it clear in the Laws.
However, I would argue that it applies when weighting different potential results when you have decided to adjust a particular call, and that it doesn't apply here.
The best evidence to support my opinion is from White Book Para 8.10.2:
"8.10.2 Damage in various ways
Suppose as in the last section there is apparently damage from both misinformation and
unauthorised information, and the TD decides to adjust. Under which do they adjust? If the
non-offending side would do better under one adjustment than the other, the TD should pick
that one, i.e. the one that gives the non-offenders the better score.
Similarly, suppose there is a fielded misbid, which would give the non-offenders AVE+ (for an
illegal agreement), and damage from unauthorised information. The TD should calculate what
adjustment they would give from the unauthorised information, and then see whether that is
better. If so, the TD adjusts that way; if not, they give them AVE+ for the illegal agreement ."
In the second example at least, the irregularities have occurred at different times in the auction, and the advice is to apply the adjustment from either irregularity that gives the better outcome for the NOS (non-offending side).
The preceding section (8.10.1) is also of interest in that it appears that we had here a player asking for a ruling because he wasn't happy, which, if so, is fair enough and the TD looks at what irregularities may have occurred. But a more experienced player may realise that he can get the most juice out of the OP situation by telling the TD that he has been damaged by the pass of the 5S bid and ask the TD to look at that.
I always took 8.10.2 to mean that the director looks at the damage caused by the UI and the damage caused by the MI and then applies the greater, not that you look at the scenario as to which possible penalty under MI or which possible penalty under UI should be applied.
The EBU white book is a great resource for directors but in most circumstances it does not lay down the law, only interprets it and IMHO the interpretation of the interpretation is incorrect.
Weejonnie, I can't fault your literal application of law 12C1(c), but I just think the Laws Committee have cocked up the wording again, they are not trying to change the long-established principle that use of UI is only corrected when it causes damage. If this had been the intention of this new law it would have caused more discussion than "comparable calls".
I am afraid some of the arguments in the last few posts have confused me so let me state the position, and my apologies if someone has already said it.
Rebidding 5S over 5C was illegal under the UI laws (unauthorised panic) so either:
No adjustment
or
An adjustment that includes no weighting of results achieved via a 5S rebid
If we look at the actions available to partner over 5 !s, some people think pass is allowed, but I don't; I think they have to bid on to at least 6 !c because if pass is an alternative to bidding (at least) 6 !c it is suggested by the UI from the use of the STOP card.
Not everyone agrees with this, it's a matter of judgement, but I'm arguing that if you do agree with it:
As the bid of 5 !s took the offenders from a failing 5 !c to a worse score in a failing 6 !c (quite possibly doubled), the 5 !s bid, although illegal, did not damage the offending side, so it is permitted as a means to get to 6 !c X.
I'm sure the wording of the new law was not intended to be interpreted in the way you and weejonnie do, or we would have heard a lot about it, but I can quite see how it could mislead.
As the bid of 5 !s took the offenders from a failing 5 !c to a worse score in a failing 6 !c (quite possibly doubled), the 5 !s bid, although illegal, did not damage the offending side, so it is permitted as a means to get to 6 !c X.
Even more so if 5 !c is making and 6 !c isn't, which I believe may have been the position.
@VixTD said:
Weejonnie, I can't fault your literal application of law 12C1(c), but I just think the Laws Committee have cocked up the wording again, they are not trying to change the long-established principle that use of UI is only corrected when it causes damage. If this had been the intention of this new law it would have caused more discussion than "comparable calls".
It would be interesting to know what Gordon thinks, but he has not contributed to this thread.
I think this is still the case in the new laws. Any adjustment for use of UI is an adjustment under Law 12C1 and is subject to the earlier parts of Law 12: in particular, Law 12B1(a) requires damage.
There is obviously no need to adjust the score if there is no damage and hence no object of law 12 to apply - but directors should note the clear addition to law 73 C2.
A penalty may be assessed against a player who violates C1, but if the opponents have been damaged, see also Law 16B3.
I don't think that there is any doubt in that the opponents were damaged - as the score for 5 !s is worse (for them) than 5 !c making (or 6 !c || higher contracts going down, possibly doubled). The discussion is: what is the damage? The laws now clearly states that only legal auctions can be considered. As we all know (I hope) 'Reveley Rulings' were 'banned' by the EBU many years ago and this practice has now been specifically codified into the 2017 laws.
If we could get the opponents to 6 !c by a legal auction then I would be all for applying it, however no one has suggested any way other than by the 5 !c bidder assuming 5 !s was both forcing and legal (which obviously cannot be done unless there was additional UI (e.g. a facial grimace when the 'explanation/ failure to alert') was given that indicated that the 5 !c bidder should take the 5 !s call as 'to play'. We can't even assume that the 5 !s call was a cue bid looking for a grand slam (as obviously it forces 6 !c) since no doubt it is not a partnership agreement - all we could do would be to rule on what would happen if the call was 'undiscussed'.
I gave overcaller's hand a while back: AKJ93 void AKxxx 876.
I wasn't ever given the defenders' hands (Graham may be able to supply them), but I believe 5 !s was made and 6 !c adjudged by the director to go down four doubled, which I find a little surprising, but I wasn't consulted on that aspect of the ruling. I did recommend that he consider a weighted score of a number of possible outcomes.
It would have been much better if the new law had been worded "... but outcomes that are favourable to the offending side that could only be achieved in an illegal manner should not be included".
6C should, in my view, be 1 off IF declarer selected the best line but easy to make fewer tricks. 5S would be less easy had the defence known about the 5-5 but both spades and diamonds break favourably.
It would have been much better if the new law had been worded "... but outcomes that are favourable to the offending side that could only be achieved in an illegal manner should not be included".
I don't think that's correct. We can leave the pair with the table result if they got a bad result from it, since it didn't cause damage, but if we are adjusting we don't include any part of the outcome of using the illegal call in that adjustment.
I would think that raising 5C to 6C is a normal action if not using UI. The hand could hardly do less.
I originally thought the overcaller might actually have got away with passing 5 !c, although I agree raising to six looks normal. So you could still stick him with 6 !c , but what if the only route to 6 !c were via 5 !s? Under the old law your adjustment would be to cancel the pass of 5 !s, substitute 6 !c and possibly a double, and work out some possible scores. Under the new laws you have to cancel both the pass and the 5 !s bid, even though the latter was actually chosen and didn't cause damage, and adjust to some outcomes in 5 !c, as David and weejonnie are suggesting. That doesn't seem right.
@VixTD said:
I originally thought the overcaller might actually have got away with passing 5 !c, although I agree raising to six looks normal. So you could still stick him with 6 !c , but what if the only route to 6 !c were via 5 !s? Under the old law your adjustment would be to cancel the pass of 5 !s, substitute 6 !c and possibly a double, and work out some possible scores. Under the new laws you have to cancel both the pass and the 5 !s bid, even though the latter was actually chosen and didn't cause damage, and adjust to some outcomes in 5 !c, as David and weejonnie are suggesting. That doesn't seem right.
The fact that we cancel the 5 !s call does not mean that we can't adjudicate the hand to be in 6 !c. Gordon thinks that raising 5!c to 6!c is a logical alternative (as well as passing), so we can certainly now include some of 6 !c and 6 !c x in our final adjudication. Once we rule out 5 !s then we have two remaining choices (pass and 6!c). Since pass is demonstrably suggested by the UI, we then rule on a 6 !c/ 6 !cx basis.
(This is not a change of position per se - it is based on receipt of opinion (call it a poll) from another source)
Comments
Why is the 5S bid illegal?
Here is a thought, you actually bid Stop 3C showing Spades and Diamonds. Partner alerts and advises correctly of this, then jumps to 5C, what would this mean?
To my mind it would be agreeing S or D as trumps and showing control of C (1st or 2nd round as per agreement) as a cue bid.
So in this instance 5S would not be barred, as partner has agreed to either spades or diamonds.
So, you could then say that 5S was legal from the overcallers side, as his partners bid of 5C was a cue bid (what else could it mean?)
I still cannot find an actual law that disbars the bidding of 5S
But which suit do you think 5 !c agrees? Without an agreed suit, how can it be a cue-bid?
The overcaller had AKJ93 void; AKxxx 876, so bidding 5 !s looks to me to be suggested over pass by the lack of an alert.
I should have said in my previous post that 5 !s is illegal, but is not adjusted for because it didn't damage the non-offenders (if they have to go on to a worse contract). There doesn't seem to be any way of editing posts.
We are assuming that the UI from the failure to alert demonstrably suggests bidding 5 !s when passing 5 !c is a logical alternative - then Law 16B (and 73C) forbids the 5!s call.
Bascially, they get the worst of 5C, 5S and 6C
Both players have UI, the 5 !c bidder from the Stop card, and the 3 !c bidder from the lack of a (to him) expected alert. Surely (if we believe the necessary conditions as to suggested action and logical alternatives are present) we just disallow whatever leads to a worse score for the offenders. I guess that's pretty much what VixTD is saying.
Well obviously VixTD and I have different opinions as to what 12C1c means
(c) An assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of
potential results, but only outcomes that could have been achieved in a legal manner
may be included.
My interpretation is that if 5 !s is disallowed due to the UI then the final contract must be 5 !c. The only reason 6 !c could be considered is if the player who overcalled 3 !c has a hand with extra values such that a raise of 5 !c (assuming it is natural with a very good club suit) to 6 !c is a logical alternative. We can't have a scenario of weighting results based on 5 !s may or may not be allowed. It is either 100% OK or 100% wrong.
I wasn't particularly thinking about weighted scores. Just that (assuming that you decide that both the 5 !s bid and the pass of 5 !s are infractions), then you adjust to 5 !c +1 if you think it clear that 12 tricks will be made in a club contract; and to 6 !c -1 if you think it clear that the limit is 11 tricks.
If there is doubt as to the number of tricks (assuming the choice lies only between 11 and 12), then I don't know (although see below) the answer to the question whether it is legal to include any element of 6 !c in a weighted score, but in this case it wouldn't matter as including an element of 6 !c would lead to 6 !c making some of the time, which wouldn't (on this hand) be an adjustment favourable to the NOS, so in practice you would weight the score between 5 !c = and 5 !c +1.
I appreciate that you could construct a hand where the issue of the interpretation of L12C1c was crucial. In that case it seems hard to argue with weejonnie's logic.
Anyway, as per the advice from VixTD the director confirmed his decision of 6C going off.
This went to a club appeals panel who reinstated 5S making on the basis that 3C was a "misbid" and therefore there wasn't a problem (which must include no UI).
How on earth can there be no UI? The 3 !c bidder thought that 3 !c showed !s + !d , and therefore expected an alert. When there was no alert there was UI.
Bidding 5 !s (or 5 !d for that matter) is what bluejak refers to as "unauthorised panic" and is (and rightly) completely routinely ruled against, assuming damage.
It may be that the player is inexperienced, but the combination of the unwarranted Stop card and the choice of 5 !s over 5 !d , if correctly analysed as "more likely to wake partner up" is far closer to a PP on top of an adjustment than to "result stands". The hand has excellent support for partner's supposed independent !c suit, and is obliged to interpret 5 !c as "so you have !s + !d : I want to play in 5 !c " . No problem, forsooth!
The Club Appeals Panel should also have taken advice from an EBU TD.
Vix's logic in his posts on 16 January was, in my view, completely correct and the original director should be applauded for consulting as he did before making such a judgement ruling. While we look at the first infraction first, we find that because of the second infraction, the first infraction has caused no damage.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Hi Barrie,
Whilst I am obviously being outvoted here, VixTD says that he thinks 5 !s is illegal and then he recommends that the contract be adjusted to 6 !c on the argument that 6 !c gives the NOS a better score than 5 !c and "the 5 !s bid did not cause them any damage and so was legal"
Whether a bid is illegal does not depend on the results of said bid. You are far too experienced a director not to know the pertinent laws, but nowhere can I find a qualification in the 'may not choose...' that says 'unless the opponents receive a worse score by doing so' or WTTE. The amendment to law 12C1c in the 2017 laws specifically only allows results that could be legally obtained to be included in any weighting. If the 5 !s call was held to be legal then obviously the result would be EITHER 5 !s OR 6 !c. Equally it is true that if the NOS aren't damaged by the breach of the laws then there is no score adjustment - but that does not stop the TD from issuing the OS with a procedural penalty - indeed the new laws virtually tell us to do so.
So are you both saying that once an infraction has occurred then the worst possible contract must be chosen (even though it can only be reached by illegal methods)? Or that if only one contract can be reached after the last infraction and it is worse than the table result then it must be selected, even though it will be reached illegally?
.
Regarding Law 12C1c ("An assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of
potential results, but only outcomes that could have been achieved in a legal manner may be included."), the part after the comma was added last year and addresses the situation where one of the weightings included the ruled-against action by the offender in a situation where there was one call based on UI. While it should be fairly obvious that we shouldn't do that, and the White Book has made that clear for some time (See WB 8.16.3), it has been seen as welcome that the WBF has at last made it clear in the Laws.
However, I would argue that it applies when weighting different potential results when you have decided to adjust a particular call, and that it doesn't apply here.
The best evidence to support my opinion is from White Book Para 8.10.2:
"8.10.2 Damage in various ways
Suppose as in the last section there is apparently damage from both misinformation and
unauthorised information, and the TD decides to adjust. Under which do they adjust? If the
non-offending side would do better under one adjustment than the other, the TD should pick
that one, i.e. the one that gives the non-offenders the better score.
Similarly, suppose there is a fielded misbid, which would give the non-offenders AVE+ (for an
illegal agreement), and damage from unauthorised information. The TD should calculate what
adjustment they would give from the unauthorised information, and then see whether that is
better. If so, the TD adjusts that way; if not, they give them AVE+ for the illegal agreement ."
In the second example at least, the irregularities have occurred at different times in the auction, and the advice is to apply the adjustment from either irregularity that gives the better outcome for the NOS (non-offending side).
The preceding section (8.10.1) is also of interest in that it appears that we had here a player asking for a ruling because he wasn't happy, which, if so, is fair enough and the TD looks at what irregularities may have occurred. But a more experienced player may realise that he can get the most juice out of the OP situation by telling the TD that he has been damaged by the pass of the 5S bid and ask the TD to look at that.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
I always took 8.10.2 to mean that the director looks at the damage caused by the UI and the damage caused by the MI and then applies the greater, not that you look at the scenario as to which possible penalty under MI or which possible penalty under UI should be applied.
The EBU white book is a great resource for directors but in most circumstances it does not lay down the law, only interprets it and IMHO the interpretation of the interpretation is incorrect.
Weejonnie, I can't fault your literal application of law 12C1(c), but I just think the Laws Committee have cocked up the wording again, they are not trying to change the long-established principle that use of UI is only corrected when it causes damage. If this had been the intention of this new law it would have caused more discussion than "comparable calls".
I am afraid some of the arguments in the last few posts have confused me so let me state the position, and my apologies if someone has already said it.
Rebidding 5S over 5C was illegal under the UI laws (unauthorised panic) so either:
No adjustment
or
An adjustment that includes no weighting of results achieved via a 5S rebid
whichever is more beneficial to the NOS.
If we look at the actions available to partner over 5 !s, some people think pass is allowed, but I don't; I think they have to bid on to at least 6 !c because if pass is an alternative to bidding (at least) 6 !c it is suggested by the UI from the use of the STOP card.
Not everyone agrees with this, it's a matter of judgement, but I'm arguing that if you do agree with it:
As the bid of 5 !s took the offenders from a failing 5 !c to a worse score in a failing 6 !c (quite possibly doubled), the 5 !s bid, although illegal, did not damage the offending side, so it is permitted as a means to get to 6 !c X.
I'm sure the wording of the new law was not intended to be interpreted in the way you and weejonnie do, or we would have heard a lot about it, but I can quite see how it could mislead.
Even more so if 5 !c is making and 6 !c isn't, which I believe may have been the position.
It would be interesting to know what Gordon thinks, but he has not contributed to this thread.
I think this is still the case in the new laws. Any adjustment for use of UI is an adjustment under Law 12C1 and is subject to the earlier parts of Law 12: in particular, Law 12B1(a) requires damage.
I thought you, Vix, Robin and David S were all doing such a good job of it that I didn't need to!
Of course both players have UI, and of course we don't adjust if the NOS are not damaged.
Did we ever see the other hand of the partnership?
There is obviously no need to adjust the score if there is no damage and hence no object of law 12 to apply - but directors should note the clear addition to law 73 C2.
I don't think that there is any doubt in that the opponents were damaged - as the score for 5 !s is worse (for them) than 5 !c making (or 6 !c || higher contracts going down, possibly doubled). The discussion is: what is the damage? The laws now clearly states that only legal auctions can be considered. As we all know (I hope) 'Reveley Rulings' were 'banned' by the EBU many years ago and this practice has now been specifically codified into the 2017 laws.
If we could get the opponents to 6 !c by a legal auction then I would be all for applying it, however no one has suggested any way other than by the 5 !c bidder assuming 5 !s was both forcing and legal (which obviously cannot be done unless there was additional UI (e.g. a facial grimace when the 'explanation/ failure to alert') was given that indicated that the 5 !c bidder should take the 5 !s call as 'to play'. We can't even assume that the 5 !s call was a cue bid looking for a grand slam (as obviously it forces 6 !c) since no doubt it is not a partnership agreement - all we could do would be to rule on what would happen if the call was 'undiscussed'.
I gave overcaller's hand a while back: AKJ93 void AKxxx 876.
I wasn't ever given the defenders' hands (Graham may be able to supply them), but I believe 5 !s was made and 6 !c adjudged by the director to go down four doubled, which I find a little surprising, but I wasn't consulted on that aspect of the ruling. I did recommend that he consider a weighted score of a number of possible outcomes.
It would have been much better if the new law had been worded "... but outcomes that are favourable to the offending side that could only be achieved in an illegal manner should not be included".
It seems odd if the 5-2 fit makes three tricks more than the 5-3 fit!
5S would be less easy had the defence known about the 5-5 but both spades and diamonds break favourably.
I don't think that's correct. We can leave the pair with the table result if they got a bad result from it, since it didn't cause damage, but if we are adjusting we don't include any part of the outcome of using the illegal call in that adjustment.
I would think that raising 5C to 6C is a normal action if not using UI. The hand could hardly do less.
I originally thought the overcaller might actually have got away with passing 5 !c, although I agree raising to six looks normal. So you could still stick him with 6 !c , but what if the only route to 6 !c were via 5 !s? Under the old law your adjustment would be to cancel the pass of 5 !s, substitute 6 !c and possibly a double, and work out some possible scores. Under the new laws you have to cancel both the pass and the 5 !s bid, even though the latter was actually chosen and didn't cause damage, and adjust to some outcomes in 5 !c, as David and weejonnie are suggesting. That doesn't seem right.
The fact that we cancel the 5 !s call does not mean that we can't adjudicate the hand to be in 6 !c. Gordon thinks that raising 5!c to 6!c is a logical alternative (as well as passing), so we can certainly now include some of 6 !c and 6 !c x in our final adjudication. Once we rule out 5 !s then we have two remaining choices (pass and 6!c). Since pass is demonstrably suggested by the UI, we then rule on a 6 !c/ 6 !cx basis.
(This is not a change of position per se - it is based on receipt of opinion (call it a poll) from another source)