[lamford]

 Trinidad, on 2011-November-06, 04:42, said:

To be fair, I think this particular case was actually a case of Law 73B1. I think that the doubler and his partner have an implicit agreement what asking and doubling means and what not asking and doubling means. (I know that is pretty bad.)

I think we all agree that any implicit agreement to ask a question or not ask a question is illegal. I would have ruled just as your TD in this case.

Aquahombre asks for a better example to discuss UI from lack of a question. Perhaps 1NT-(2♦!)-3NT would be one. The responder has "conveyed information" that he does not care what 2♦ shows; he still wants to play in 3NT. A different hand might have asked, found that 2D was multi-landy, and now been able to show 4 hearts or 4 spades with a stop in the other major.

Is the information that the 3NT bidder either knows what 2♦ is and still wants to bid 3NT or does not care what 2♦ is and still wants to bid 3NT authorised? It derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source, one could argue, if the failure to ask a question (other than as an implicit agreement) is authorised.

[ggwhiz]

 mrdct, on 2011-November-02, 22:38, said:

I have a bit of a problem with the ethics of North bidding 2♠ without enquiring about what the redouble means

Really? I was taught not to ask unless you needed to know to avoid mis-leading the opponents or giving UI to partner. The first double was takeout and North took it out without giving any clues as to a problem (or not) by asking about an UNALERTED call.

As for South, I would inform them that they are out of the running for Miss/Mr Congeniality and hope they can find the sense of sportmanship that they have misplaced.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2011-November-05, 19:26, said:

There was only one possible reason for the dog not barking. There are several possible reasons, as someone point out upthread, for a player not asking a question. IMO, most if not all of them convey no useful information.

In general I agree with this. But in some cases, I think the non-ask is much more likely to be due to a particular reason, which partner could infer. In these unusual cases, there can be UI issues.

[gnasher]

 lamford, on 2011-November-05, 19:06, said:

I adopted the ejusdem generis principle, expounded in another thread by my learned friend Professor Schiff, in deciding that "failure to ask a question" was not of the same type as the examples given. It is notable that "a question not asked" is not in 16B but is in 73B1. And the former includes "a question" and "a reply to a question" in a carefully drawn-up list of the most important examples of UI.

I wrote, "I see that it says "for example", but failure to ask a question is different to the examples given. It goes to the trouble to say "failure to alert". It could have easily said "failure to ask a question" if it had intended that."

I was going to accuse you of not having read my post properly, especially as you told us earlier that your English is well above average, as I clearly did not "disregard" the words in 16B1. I must conclude that you must have misread it therefore. Very strange.

In 73B1 it indicates that players may not communicate by means of a question not asked. I take this to mean that it would be illegal to have any agreement that a bid has a different meaning with or without a question.

OK, you didn't disregard the words "for example"; apparently you just don't understand them. The phrase "for example" indicates that what follows is one or more examples of what preceded. It doesn't imply that the list that follows is comprehensive or all-encompassing. That is, it illustrates, but does not define.

Your interpretation is, in any case, unworkable. Suppose that the rules were written in some language other than English, where "for example" means what you apparently think it means. I could sit at the table with a mirror strapped to my forehead, aligned so that my partner could see my cards but my opponents couldn't. That's quite unlike any of the examples in 16B1, so by your argument my partner's knowledge of my cards wouldn't be UI.

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2011-November-07, 04:03, said:

I could sit at the table with a mirror strapped to my forehead, aligned so that my partner could see my cards but my opponents couldn't.

I would not rule under 16B in such a situation; to do so is ridiculous. I would rule under Law 24 and if the player argued that it was not "because of a player's error", I would rule under 12A1 that all such cards were penalty cards. In addition I would kick the player out of the event under 91A. By the way, 12A1 is another example of a bug in the laws which should read "because of a player's error or deliberately"

The examples in 16B include failure to alert, an unexpected alert, a question and reply to a question. Yet there is no "failure to ask a question" or "unexpected failure to ask a question", which might complete the set of potential UI transmitted by following the game's procedures relating to bids. Why is that? Is it just by the choice of the WBFLC who were only giving a few examples? No, the lack of a question is deemed not to convey information, just as the lack of a BIT does not. The lack of an alert is different. That is the same as an alert, effectively a positive action which conveys information. I believe that the examples chosen, while only examples, allow the TD to apply the ejusdem generis principle, just as the traffic warden would decide that, "for example car, motor cycle, scooter, van, lorry" does not include bus, ambulance or fire engine.

It is you who does not understand "for example", not me. But then, in another thread, you were in a small minority in not understanding "choose" in the context in which it was being used.

[mycroft]

Examples of "questions not asked" passing meaningful UI have come by just recently:

First, WeaSeL vs preempts or (Alerted, not announced) 1NT.
Second: (copied from my post of a few weeks ago)

Quote

Yes, the fact that you didn't ask is UI. I'm used to this defence, playing transfer overcalls of NT:
1NT-2D!-3NT - shows (or denies) a diamond stopper
1NT-2D! "what is that?" "Hearts"-pause 3NT - shows (or denies) a heart stopper.

This defence works well against strong clubs, too:
1C!-2C is the majors
1C!-"what is it?" "strong" - 2C is clubs.
Of course, with this one, 1C!-"what is it?" "strong" - pass is *also* clubs, but not good enough to play unless partner has support.

Third (from bluejak's response in the same thread):

Quote

Last weekend we were playing a 2♣ opening as either a weak two in diamonds, or a very strong hand.

(2♣!) 2♦ = diamonds
(2♣!) ask then 2♦ = takeout of diamonds

[barmar]

"questions asked or not asked" could have two possible interpretations:

1) Whether or not you asked questions.

2) Given that you asked, the choice of questions asked versus not asked.

Is there concensus about which (or both) of these are intended?

[blackshoe]

Good question!

[bluejak]

One of the problems with unauthorised information is that it is a buzz word, meaning to the uninitiated cheating, just the same as hesitating.

In practice, your partner will do things that pass information to you. Some of the information is irrelevant to the bridge, eg if he drinks you can deduce he was thirsty, some provide very little information, eg if you have a long and complex auction and he considers before a call it merely means he is thinking in a position where you would expect him to think, some provide irrelevant information, eg if he thinks for ages before bidding 3NT after your 1NT he clearly has alternatives but since you are passing 100% of the time it is irrelevant, some provides information that suggests no choice to you [same example], some suggests something but then you get AI that suggests the same thing, eg a long pause suggests doubt, but when he then makes a forcing pass, that shows doubt as well, and, of course, some UI suggests a call or play.

Now, for some reason, probably psychological, here, on RGB, on BLML when I used to read it, in emails sent to me and in face to face discussion, a lot of people argue there was no UI when they mean there was no UI that suggested a call or play. This confuses readers etc a lot of the time.

If partner asks what 2♦ means he probably wants to know: that he wants to know is UI. If partner does not ask what 2♦ means he probably does not want to know: that he does not want to know is UI. So failure to ask a question is always UI to partner.

I know, I know, you immediately say things like "But it may not matter whether he wants to know" or "But it may not be clear why he does not want to know" or "Such information may not suggest anything" and so on. Sure: feel free to argue that the UI passed does not suggest a call or play, and in many cases you will be right. But do not argue there was no UI because there was.

A very large number of posts, more so elsewhere, seem to treat UI as an absurd complication invented by lawmakers to make life difficult for players. Remember that this is not true. This is a game where, while technique, memory, psychological ploys and other things matter, the highest importance lies in the legal communication between partners. It is vital to making this game fair that illegal communication between partners be controlled, including the majority of illegal communication which is the unintended illegal communication - and that is controlled by the UI Laws.

[barmar]

 bluejak, on 2011-November-08, 10:12, said:

I know, I know, you immediately say things like "But it may not matter whether he wants to know" or "But it may not be clear why he does not want to know" or "Such information may not suggest anything" and so on. Sure: feel free to argue that the UI passed does not suggest a call or play, and in many cases you will be right. But do not argue there was no UI because there was.

A difference that makes no difference is no difference. UI that doesn't suggest anything might as well not exist, and it's hardly worth discussing (unless you need to discuss WHETHER it suggests something).

[bluejak]

Exactly. Discussing whether it exists when it clearly does makes the important discussion - whether it suggests a call or play over another - get forgotten.

[Trinidad]

 lamford, on 2011-November-07, 05:05, said:

The examples in 16B include failure to alert, an unexpected alert, a question and reply to a question. Yet there is no "failure to ask a question" or "unexpected failure to ask a question", which might complete the set of potential UI transmitted by following the game's procedures relating to bids. Why is that?

It is because it is not necessary to define here what constitutes UI; it is only necessary to illustrate.

The definition of UI is given in Law 16A: It defines what is authorized (16A1 and 16A2); everything else is unauthorized (16A3).

Quote

1. A player may use information in the auction or play if:
   a. it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source; or
   b. it is authorized information from a withdrawn action (see D); or
   c. it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following); or
   d. it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information.

2. Players may also take account of their estimate of their own score, of the traits of their opponents, and any requirement of the tournament regulations.

3. No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous).

Rik