[nige1]

Trinidad, on 2013-January-01, 18:28, said:

You can prefer what you prefer, but meanwhile the law is pretty clear: you do not need to disclose general bridge knowledge, only knowledge about partnership agreements, in the broadest sense of the word (explicit, implicit, ranges, style, the meaning of alternative calls, etc.).

It doesn't make sense to me either to disclose to the opponents what I can infer through my general bridge knowledge what my partner might not be able to infer (because he lacks that general bridge knowledge).

So both partner and opponents may well be ignorant of what Trinidad terms "general" bridge knowledge?

[nige1]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-December-31, 16:20, said:

Is it AI to the EW players that neither N or S ever asked about the meaning of the (alerted) 2D bid?
Should that affect the ruling about opening leader's LAs?

Vampyr, on 2013-January-01, 21:21, said:

Please, Frances, say that this is tongue-in-cheek and that you never in a million years would think this is AI?

• If you become declarer then, before the opening lead, it should be OK for you to offer to elucidate unexplained alerted bids. Hence, at a superficial level, the lack of a question is AI to you.
• At a deeper level, it is unclear whether you are allowed to draw inferences from the lack of questions, about opponent's actions or holdings, FWIW, my instinct is "No"
• At a practical level, however, few seem able to interpret UI law and fewer are capable of the mental gymnastics it seems to entail.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-December-31, 16:20, said:

Is it AI to the EW players that neither N or S ever asked about the meaning of the (alerted) 2D bid?
Should that affect the ruling about opening leader's LAs?

That is an interesting question. 16B1 lists "a question" and "reply to a question", but does not list the "lack of a question", but prefaces the list with "as for example by", and this makes the list non-exclusive. There was a discussion on another thread as to whether "as for" has the same effect, but we do not need to revisit that!

I would say therefore that the presence or absence of a question by either side is UI. In this case, it was a late board of a teams match, and the methods after 1NTx were on the EW card, so it is quite possible North and South knew what 2D meant. We were only told that 2D was not asked about at South's next turn. South clearly knew that it showed diamonds, as this was her reason for not correcting the explanation of the "obvious" cue bid of the opponent's suit. Whether or not North knew, her answer "yes" to "was everything natural?" would be MI, and South's lack of correction would still be an infraction.

I agree with jallerton that we should have asked the opening leader why she did not lead a diamond anyway, and that the adjustment should be based on the difference in percentage of a diamond lead caused by the MI. My view is that a diamond should be more likely if 3D is natural, as it would only need to be a three-card suit, and you are leading through strength. If 3D asks for a diamond stop, then North has the diamonds and a diamond may be too slow although it would still be my choice.

I think that there was an implicit agreement that 3D was artificial and should therefore have been alerted, but we accepted the TD's finding of fact on that. I think it is therefore right to consider what would have happened if 3D had been alerted and doubled. Looking at it again now, I think we gave too high a percentage of 4H making, and that 15% of that and 25% of 4H-1 would have been closer to the mark. But I also think that 50% of a diamond lead was a bit high, and that might have been 30% for example (it is only the extra chance of a diamond lead for which we adjust). Overall I think we got quite close, and I would not have appealed the original decision if I had been EW. The TD did a pretty good job.

[ArtK78]

IMO, any assertion that the failure to ask a question is UI is going too far. The only reasonable argument that a player took advantage of his or her partner's failure to ask a question is if that partner has a habit of asking questions in similar situations except when holding a particular type of hand or holding in the suit. And that is, IMO, going too far.

Seriously, there has to be a line drawn somewhere.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-01, 23:15, said:

In fact, when a question is asked, it seems to me that the principle of full disclosure requires me to mention that my 1M opening is on 5+ cards, whether I'm playing Precision, SA, 2/1, Romex, Romex Forcing Club, KS, RS, or any other 5 card major system, because the length of the suit is a matter of partnership agreement.

So when you're asked to explain an auction that starts with some natural bids, do you regularly describe the lengths shown by those bids?

[ArtK78]

barmar, on 2013-January-02, 14:24, said:

So when you're asked to explain an auction that starts with some natural bids, do you regularly describe the lengths shown by those bids?

When I play a light opening system online with my regular partner, our 1 of a suit openings are 10+ HCP but otherwise standard. I alert these calls, and my explanations are "3+cards 10+HCP" for the minor suit openings and "5+cards 10+HCP" for the major suit openings.

So, I don't see any problem with describing the suit length along with the other aspects of the bids.

And no, I don't assign an upper limit to these calls, even though they are limited by the failure to open 2♣. In an online environment, especially a speedball environment, there is just not enough time to describe everything in the alert box provided. I don't think anyone has ever had a problem with my failure to provide an upper limit.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-January-02, 14:24, said:

So when you're asked to explain an auction that starts with some natural bids, do you regularly describe the lengths shown by those bids?

It's never come up.

[pran]

lamford, on 2013-January-02, 11:11, said:

That is an interesting question. 16B1 lists "a question" and "reply to a question", but does not list the "lack of a question", but prefaces the list with "as for example by", and this makes the list non-exclusive. There was a discussion on another thread as to whether "as for" has the same effect, but we do not need to revisit that!

I would say therefore that the presence or absence of a question by either side is UI.
[...]

Law 73B1 said:

Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them.

(My enhancement)

So I agree to some extent: The presence or absence of a question by own side is UI
(Law 16B1 applies solely to information from partner, not to information from opponents or other sources)

[blackshoe]

It seems to me that information arising from questions or lack of questions by the opponents is authorized under Law 16A1{c}.

[jallerton]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-December-31, 16:20, said:

Is it AI to the EW players that neither N or S ever asked about the meaning of the (alerted) 2D bid?

Yes, this is AI to East and West, but not to North/South

Law 20F gives each player the right, without placing any obligation, to ask questions about the opponents' partnership understandings at his or her turn to call.

Law 16A1 says that "A player may use information in the auction or play if:
.......
[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);......"

The "B1 following" (Law16B1) relates to "Extraneous Information from Partner"

A question asked in accordance Law 20F arises from the legal procedures authorised in Law, so that is authorised information unless the question (or failure to do so) is by partner.

This is just as well, really. Laws 16B & 73C tell me what to fo it I have UI from partner. Law 16C tells me what to so if I have UI from an outside source. But there is no Law that tells me how I shouls handle UI received from an opponent's actions.

Quote

Should that affect the ruling about opening leader's LAs?

Yes, it might do, but East might reason that North/South might have a fair idea what 2♦ means anyway. On the other hand, if East inferred that South did not realise 2♦ to show diamonds, then East would presumably be more likely to assume that South had diamonds for her 3♦ bid, in the event that it had been correctly described as "no agreement". In that case, we might conclude little or no damage from South's failure to correct "yes, all natural" to "no agreement".

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2013-January-02, 02:50, said:

Trinidad, on 2013-January-01, 20:46, said:

Sven, how do you disclose to the opponents the general bridge knowledge that is the result of the individual experience of your partner?

When I explain my partner's auction I disclose what I know (that I think is pertinent) without bothering about how I know it.

It is not how you know. It is whether you know it. You cannot possibly know the individual experience of your partner. As soon as you would know it, it is not individual anymore. Then it is partnership experience and that you do need to disclose.

Rik

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2013-January-02, 17:15, said:

<snip> if East inferred that South did not realise 2♦ to show diamonds, then East would presumably be more likely to assume that South had diamonds for her 3♦ bid, in the event that it had been correctly described as "no agreement". In that case, we might conclude little or no damage from South's failure to correct "yes, all natural" to "no agreement".

Although it might not have made much difference to our ruling, we should still have established why East rejected a diamond lead. If she said "because South showed diamonds", but she would have led differently if "North had shown diamonds", then, however illogically, she might have been damaged! The same might apply if she had concluded that the lack of a question meant that one or other of the opponents might not have known what 2D meant, but she draws any conclusion about the lack of a question at her own risk, so that I don't think it matters if it is AI or not.

On Pran's point, 73B1 covers communication by partners and the fact that says "questions asked of opponents" is not that relevant. Your argument that the absence of a question arises from the legal procedures in the Laws is more convincing, although I am not sure that the absence of something can "arise" from something else. Perhaps an example is, from a dictionary of idioms, "This whole problem arose from your stubbornness" where quite possibly the stubborn person did nothing.

[iviehoff]

jallerton, on 2013-January-02, 17:15, said:

A question asked in accordance Law 20F arises from the legal procedures authorised in Law, so that is authorised information unless the question (or failure to do so) is by partner.

This is just as well, really. Laws 16B & 73C tell me what to fo it I have UI from partner. Law 16C tells me what to so if I have UI from an outside source. But there is no Law that tells me how I shouls handle UI received from an opponent's actions.

Quite so. Given that the possession of UI requires one to behave in a manner that is, on balance, to one's disadvantage, it is quite wrong that opponents should be able to take unilateral actions that give UI to non-offending players. So this is not UI to NS. It is nevertheless extraneous information: players have a responsibility to behave in a way that the extraneous information they give out to their opponents is not likely to mislead them (73D2, 73F).

[Vampyr]

Those who think that an opponent's question or lack thereof is AI, do you also think that you are allowed to vary your methods based on it?

This AI thing seems to oblige the opponents to engage in a complicated strategy of when to ask questions -- not based on whether they need to know the answer to the question, but based on what inferences they want the opponents to draw. This is not a game I wish to play.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-03, 08:47, said:

Those who think that an opponent's question or lack thereof is AI, do you also think that you are allowed to vary your methods based on it?

From Law 40B3:

Quote

The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership
to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question
asked, a response to a question, or any irregularity.

This implies that such variation is normally allowed, but the RA can override this. ACBL has elected to do so, for instance. I believe the rationale for this is that opponents should not be scared to ask a question because the opponents can take advantage of it in their methods.

But even if you can't vary your methods, you can still use the opponent's question as part of your judgement. For instance, if you have a king or queen, and you think the question suggests LHO has a good holding in that suit, you may downgrade your hand. But, as stated in 73D1, you draw this inference at your own risk.

[bluejak]

I think anything that is general bridge knowledge [GBK] must be obviously generally known in your locality. In another thread I tried to describe the meaning of the term "Second and fourth" in England. In England it is GBK that a player who is asked about their leads will lead high from a doubleton outside trumps if he says he plays "Second and fourth", but it is not GBK what that means he leads in trumps, nor what it would mean in Australia or Poland.

It has to be completely obvious to be GBK. The meaning of a cue-bid when the opponents bid a suit, or two suits, is not universal enough to be considered GBK. But in most sequences it is GBK that such a bid is not an attempt to play there.

I don't believe that GBK exists in a partnership. Either it is generally known, and thus there is an expectation that opponents will know it, or it is not GBK.

As to thinking about whether something is GBK or not, that's easy: if you have to think about it, then it isn't GBK.

[barmar]

Last night, an opponent asked our defensive methods, and I said "upside-down everything". I quickly added "not leads, of course", but declarer interrupted me, saying she knew what I meant (upside-down count, attitude, and discards).

[mycroft]

When I played "upside-down everything", that's *not* what we meant. We meant "U/D attitude, count, and suit preference". So...

(granted, when we explained, we used the phrase "Upside-down everything, including suit preference". Wasn't fair otherwise.)

[Trinidad]

nige1, on 2013-January-02, 02:51, said:

So both partner and opponents may well be ignorant of what Trinidad terms "general" bridge knowledge?

Exactly.

However, the term "General bridge knowledge" cannot be found in the law book. The law that deals with what we call GBK is law 40F6a. It speaks of "matters generally known to bridge players" and it deals with "inferences from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players". It specifically says that this last category (inferences from the individual player's knowledge...) does not need to be disclosed.

Here is law 40F6a (emphasis mine):

Quote

When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to opponent’s enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

In simple terms, this law says: Explain what you know about your partnership. Do not explain what you know as an individual player. So we are indeed talking about knowledge to which both partner and opponents may be ignorant.

Law 40 also refers to law 20 (emphasis mine):

Quote

[An opponent] is entitled to know about [lots of things] where these are matters of partnership understanding.

Same thing.

In this case the partnership (presumably) had agreed to play penalty doubles after a double of 1NT in an otherwise natural system. The opponents are entitled to that knowledge. South had the knowledge and experience that enabled him to draw the inference that 3♦ could not exist as a natural bid. It seems that his partner didn't have that knowledge and experience. Then there is no partnership understanding.

Note how that is different from a partner who forgets a convention. In that case there is a partnership understanding.

Rik

[pran]

lamford, on 2013-January-03, 07:19, said:

[...]
On Pran's point, 73B1 covers communication by partners and the fact that says "questions asked of opponents" is not that relevant. Your argument that the absence of a question arises from the legal procedures in the Laws is more convincing, although I am not sure that the absence of something can "arise" from something else. Perhaps an example is, from a dictionary of idioms, "This whole problem arose from your stubbornness" where quite possibly the stubborn person did nothing.

73B1 effectively says that information arising from the fact that a player asked or did not ask a question is unauthorized to that player's partner.

However, any information arising from explanations given by an opponent is of course authorized, also when such explanations are answers to questions asked by own side.