[blackshoe]

ypiper, on 2013-May-03, 03:47, said:

if UI occurs, when should it be drawn attention to? Immediately or by the end of auction?
It may create disputes over a long sequences of auction.

Quote

Law 16B2: When a player considers that an opponent has made such (unauthorized - ER) information available and that damage could well result, he may announce, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that the Director be called), 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.

This law is somewhat controversial, in that some people consider the stated procedure to be rude. Those people (and they are many) would prefer that you say something like "do you agree that your partner's <action or mannerism or comment or whatever> may have conveyed unauthorized information?" I don't have a problem with that, and in fact it is what I do.

There is a problem with either procedure though — players asked the question, or whose opponent has reserved their right, do not call the director themselves. This is usually through ignorance of the law, I think. IAC, if they don't agree they have UI, and don't call the TD, you should call him. The TD will establish the presence of UI and remind the player in receipt of it of his obligation not to take advantage of it (Law 73C), in other words not to "choose from amongst logical alternatives…" (Law 16B1).

AFAIK, no RA currently prohibits the reserving of rights under this law.

If, after all this, later in the hand you believe UI was used, then you call the director at the end of play (Law 16B3).

[pran]

barmar, on 2013-May-03, 10:39, said:

The definition of "extraneous information" includes an unexpected alert or non-alert. Announcing your actual NT range is not unexpected, and isn't considered UI. The actual methods of the partnership don't become UI just because you overhear partner describing them to the opponents (unless you had misbid, and this would be correcting your misunderstanding).

At least in Norway an announcement of (for instance) 1NT opening bid HCP range shall be made by the opener's partner.

The fact that partner legally announces some call is of course AI to the opener, but the actual contents of the announcement is equally of course extraneous and therefore UI. If it matches the opener's own understanding this doesn't matter, but if not then the opener has the UI that there is a discrepancy in the understandings within the partnership.

(The example list of extraneous information in Law 16B1{a} is preceded by the words "as for example by", making it clear that the list is not exhaustive.)

[blackshoe]

The point is that you cannot rule that a player has UI if the source of that UI is an expected alert or announcement. Now if the announcement were "15-17" and the player who opened 1NT has 13, that's evidence that the announcement might be UI. But I'm not going to have that evidence during a live auction.

At the table, I would say something like "if you did not expect the announcement your partner made, either because you expected an alert, or no announcement or alert, or a different announcement, then the information conveyed by partner's announcement is unauthorized to you. You must make every effort to avoid taking advantage of it. In particular, if you are later found to have chosen from among logical alternatives one which demonstrably could have been suggested by UI, and if your opponents are damaged thereby, I will adjust the score." Quite a mouthful, and all four players will no doubt be fidgeting in their chairs, but I don't see a way to shorten it without making it an incorrect ruling.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-03, 14:46, said:

The point is that you cannot rule that a player has UI if the source of that UI is an expected alert or announcement. Now if the announcement were "15-17" and the player who opened 1NT has 13, that's evidence that the announcement might be UI. But I'm not going to have that evidence during a live auction.

At the table, I would say something like "if you did not expect the announcement your partner made, either because you expected an alert, or no announcement or alert, or a different announcement, then the information conveyed by partner's announcement is unauthorized to you. You must make every effort to avoid taking advantage of it. In particular, if you are later found to have chosen from among logical alternatives one which demonstrably could have been suggested by UI, and if your opponents are damaged thereby, I will adjust the score." Quite a mouthful, and all four players will no doubt be fidgeting in their chairs, but I don't see a way to shorten it without making it an incorrect ruling.

Excuse me, but isn't that exactly what I expressed?

[blackshoe]

No. You said the content of the announcement (or whatever) is UI, willy-nilly. That's not what the law says.

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2013-May-03, 10:39, said:

The definition of "extraneous information" includes an unexpected alert or non-alert. Announcing your actual NT range is not unexpected, and isn't considered UI.

I'm not sure why you seem to believe that an announcement constitutes an alert. In my world it's an explanation.

Anyway, if you don't like that example, imagine that you play in a jurisdiction where notrump ranges are not announced, but an opponent asks the range and partner tells them. Or it could be a limited suit opening, with partner telling the opponents the range in reply to a questron. Law 16 doesn't use the word "unexpected" in connection with the reply to a question.

Quote

The actual methods of the partnership don't become UI just because you overhear partner describing them to the opponents (unless you had misbid, and this would be correcting your misunderstanding).

The methods aren't UI, but partner's explanation of the methods are, if you interpret the Laws as written. The answer, of course, is not to interpret the Laws as written.

[blackshoe]

"Words mean what I want them to mean, neither more nor less." -- Humpty Dumpty

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-03, 16:46, said:

No. You said the content of the announcement (or whatever) is UI, willy-nilly. That's not what the law says.

In my language an announcement is an action that contains (i.e. conveys) some information.

The announcement (i.e. the fact that it was made) is AI, the information it contains (i.e. conveys) is UI to the player whose call was announced.

(Alternatively we must agree that the entire announcement, both the fact that it was made and the information it conveys is UI.)

[PeterAlan]

pran, on 2013-May-04, 01:27, said:

In my language an announcement is an action that contains (i.e. conveys) some information.

The announcement (i.e. the fact that it was made) is AI, the information it contains (i.e. conveys) is UI to the player whose call was announced.

(Alternatively we must agree that the entire announcement, both the fact that it was made and the information it conveys is UI.)

If we're going to draw such fine distinctions, then perhaps it's more helpful to do so in a different place and (perhaps) thus reconcile your point of view with blackshoe's. Let's suppose that your 1NT range is 12-14, announcements are in effect, but partner announces your 1NT opening as 15-17. I suggest:

• the fact that the announcement was made is AI to you
  
• the fact that partner has told opponents your 1NT range is 15-17 is AI to you (though this may have limited relevance)
  
• the fact that partner believes your 1NT range is 15-17 is UI to you (and this is highly pertinent)
  
• the fact that your 1NT range is 12-14 remains AI to you

It seems that the main issue would arise where (for example) your opponents' defence to your 1NT would depend on the range.

[pran]

PeterAlan, on 2013-May-04, 04:01, said:

If we're going to draw such fine distinctions, then perhaps it's more helpful to do so in a different place and (perhaps) thus reconcile your point of view with blackshoe's. Let's suppose that your 1NT range is 12-14, announcements are in effect, but partner announces your 1NT opening as 15-17. I suggest:

• the fact that the announcement was made is AI to you
  
• the fact that partner has told opponents your 1NT range is 15-17 is AI to you (though this may have limited relevance)
  
• the fact that partner believes your 1NT range is 15-17 is UI to you (and this is highly pertinent)
  
• the fact that your 1NT range is 12-14 remains AI to you

It seems that the main issue would arise where (for example) your opponents' defence to your 1NT would depend on the range.

Re the second item in your list: I don't think you are allowed to select some action that could have been suggested from your knowledge of what partner has told opponents when you have other logical alternative action(s) available?

[campboy]

Let's suppose for a moment that an expected alert was AI. If partner doesn't alert we don't have the AI that he alerted. We know what AI we have, and we know that we would have this piece of AI if he alerted, and this knowledge is also AI since it arises from our knowledge of the laws (16A1c). So we could conclude, purely from AI, that partner didn't alert. Contradiction, since this fact is UI (16B1a). So our original premise was false.

How do we square the fact that an expected alert is UI with 16B1a, which specifically says "unexpected alert"? Simple. The list in 16B1a is of situations where "a player makes available to his partner extraneous information which may suggest a call or play". Expected alerts are not mentioned, not because they are not extraneous (they are), but because they do not suggest a call or play.

[blackshoe]

The law is concerned with "extraneous information which may suggest a call or play". If something does not suggest a call or play, then the law does not care what it is.

Put it another way: if something partner does or says conveys "extraneous information which may suggest a call or play", you may not use that information. Expected alerts do not convey such information. Therefore you may use it; it is authorized.

How can we know whether an alert was expected by the partner of the alerting player? We can't, with 100% certainty. We can examine the evidence (the system cards, any notes, the partner's hand, verbal statements, experience of others, whatever else can be found) and decide on the basis of the preponderance thereof whether it is likely the alert was expected. We rule on that basis.

On announcements: once upon a time there were neither announcements nor alerts. Then TPTB decided that a method was needed by which players could inform their opponents that their bidding (or play) was unusual so the opponents should probably ask questions (the procedures in Law 20 being already in existence afaik). Thus the alert was born. This worked, but there were cases that needed a better procedure, so alert regulations were modified to include announcements. Therefore announcements are a kind of alert. This position is bolstered, at least in the ACBL, by the wording of the alert regulation which, while it does not specifically state that "an announcement is a kind of alert", does imply it in several places.

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-04, 07:42, said:

Put it another way: if something partner does or says conveys "extraneous information which may suggest a call or play", you may not use that information. Expected alerts do not convey such information. Therefore you may use it; it is authorized.

Use what? The information that the alert doesn't convey?

[blackshoe]

Yes. Or no.

The information does not suggest a call or play, therefore the laws don't care what you do with it.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-04, 07:42, said:

The law is concerned with "extraneous information which may suggest a call or play". If something does not suggest a call or play, then the law does not care what it is.

Put it another way: if something partner does or says conveys "extraneous information which may suggest a call or play", you may not use that information. Expected alerts do not convey such information. Therefore you may use it; it is authorized.

I think pran's point is that it suggests that you bid according to your system -- the UI is that partner has not forgotten your system, and his calls are in accordance with it.

Which is why it's a ridiculous interpretation of the UI laws. You're generally assumed to remember your methods and bid according to them, and players are required to alert, announce, and answer questions. The game would be unplayable if we had to avoid assuming partner remembers the system every time we hear him do one of these things that confirms that he does. It's a reductio ad absurdum proof that this interpretation is could not have ever been intended.

[aguahombre]

But, slightly off topic, Barry---The main reason Puppet Stayman is not alerted (only the responses to it) in our domain is that it can only reassure the Puppet bidder that opener knows what we are playing. So, it is not far fetched to suggest that confirming our agreement is considered UI.

[pran]

barmar, on 2013-May-04, 15:49, said:

I think pran's point is that it suggests that you bid according to your system -- the UI is that partner has not forgotten your system, and his calls are in accordance with it.

Which is why it's a ridiculous interpretation of the UI laws. You're generally assumed to remember your methods and bid according to them, and players are required to alert, announce, and answer questions. The game would be unplayable if we had to avoid assuming partner remembers the system every time we hear him do one of these things that confirms that he does. It's a reductio ad absurdum proof that this interpretation is could not have ever been intended.

The knowledge (from expected alerts, announcements and explanations) that partner has not forgotten your system is indeed UI to you, but this UI has no effect because what it suggests is that you continue to call according to your system. And when your system allows you a choice between several logical alternatives this UI never suggests one such alternative over another. Consequently this UI does not even prohibit you from making a psychic call if this psyche had been legal without the UI.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2013-May-04, 16:19, said:

But, slightly off topic, Barry---The main reason Puppet Stayman is not alerted (only the responses to it) in our domain is that it can only reassure the Puppet bidder that opener knows what we are playing. So, it is not far fetched to suggest that confirming our agreement is considered UI.

I don't think they were worried about when it confirms that partner knows what we're playing, so much as when it reminds partner who might have forgotten (or the lack of alert lets you know that partner may have forgotten). And since the alert doesn't provide much useful information to the opponents, this possibility wasn't worth it.

[ArtK78]

A couple of funny things happened while I was playing in our District GNOT this weekend. Early in the qualifying rounds, partner (in a semi-regular partnership) bid RKCB and I responded 5♣, implying one or four key cards (1430). He interpreted it correctly and bid slam. Perfectly normal, until the post mortem, when we reviewed our card and determined that we had agreed to play 0314, not 1430. Of course, there were no alerts, and we each came to our own incorrect memory of our agreement independently.

Later, on the last board of the qualifying rounds, I opened 1♠ and he responded 3♣, which I alerted as a Bergen mixed raise. I bid 4♠. All perfectly normal, except that we don't play Bergen. Both of us failed to remember this. We were playing on a 5-man team and switching partnerships. In both of our other partnerships, we played Bergen. No doubt this contributed to the confusion. [Interestingly enough, this board produced a swing in our favor. I had opened 1♠ on a 5-1-6-1 hand, and we got to 4♠ very easily, which was cold. The opponent holding my hand at the other table opened 1♦, and a competitive auction ensued, and the final contract was 3♠.]

My point is that not all situations in which a pair has a "happy accident" regarding conventions are a result of UI, or have any ethical implications at all. Clearly, in our two cases, there was no way that anyone could make a case that there was a problem. Other situations may be more cloudy, but one should not assume improper actions.

[ggwhiz]

ArtK78, on 2013-May-06, 06:51, said:

A couple of funny things happened

100%. My fave was winning a 2 session imp pairs with a (very good) pickup pard who questioned my carding on the 3rd last hand. I played standard and he played udca all day. I'm certain a dozen of our opps could have questioned where that switch came from on defence.