[aguahombre]

73B1:

"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."

Information from the TD call, whether considered "authorized" or not, derived from illegal communication.

[blackshoe]

 campboy, on 2015-March-17, 06:24, said:

If it transpires that he only asks when the answer changes what call he would make, I think there is significant UI and the 5♣ call is illegal.

While both of those conclusions may be true, the latter does not, IMO, necessarily follow from the former. Also, if we're supposed to rule based on the existence of UI here, why are players advised to ask only when it makes a difference to what they will do?

[blackshoe]

 blackshoe, on 2015-March-16, 20:54, said:

If it's UI, it's UI even if the director can't prove it. However, if he can't demonstrate how whatever action he wants to rule against demonstrably could have suggested by the UI (which, IMO, requires him to also show what the UI is) then it doesn't matter, because he can only adjust the score if he can demonstrate that.

 gnasher, on 2015-March-17, 02:59, said:

I think, or at least hope, that you mean it doesn't matter to the director. It does matter to the other 98% of the people for whom the rules were written.

But anyway, I still don't agree with you. The director can usually find out if there was UI by asking questions like "When your partner thinks there's been a failure to alert, does he always call the director? "At what point does he usually call him?" "Have there been any other failures to alert during this session?" "Did anyone call the director on those occasions?"

My point is that you can't rule on the basis of UI if you can't demonstrate how the UI may have led to the alleged infraction. As for the third degree, do you routinely ask such questions in these cases? Does anyone?

[campboy]

 Trinidad, on 2015-March-17, 09:34, said:

These two meanings are similar in the strength of the inference. The second meaning is the expected meaning, the first meaning is (very) unexpected, and, hence, alertable according to any sensible alert regulation.

In order to determine what is or isn't alertable you have to actually look at the alert regulation. And the regulation is very clear that, for calls above 3NT, being unexpected is not sufficient (or, for that matter, necessary). This pass is alertable if and only if it is a "lead-directing pass".

Now it seems to me that whether or not you think these passes are lead-directing or not, surely either they both are or they both are not. The only difference between your two meanings is that one is more expected than the other, and this is irrelevant.

[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2015-March-17, 10:07, said:

While both of those conclusions may be true, the latter does not, IMO, necessarily follow from the former. Also, if we're supposed to rule based on the existence of UI here, why are players advised to ask only when it makes a difference to what they will do?

Indeed, they are discouraged from asking unnecessarily by the EBU. From the Blue Book:

2E1 A player has the right to ask questions at his turn to call or play, but exercising this right may have consequences. If a player shows unusual interest in one or more calls of the auction, then this may give rise to unauthorised information. His partner must avoid taking advantage. It may be in a player’s interests to defer questions until either he is about to make the opening lead or his partner’s lead is face-down on the table.

I think that this advice is wrong, and showing unusual lack of interest in one or more calls of the auction gives just as much UI, but this goes undetected. The only sensible approach is to always ask, or always not to ask. Given that the latter is not practical, in that there will be times when one needs to know, one should always ask if one wishes to avoid giving UI.

[lamford]

 aguahombre, on 2015-March-17, 10:03, said:

73B1:

"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."

Information from the TD call, whether considered "authorized" or not, derived from illegal communication.

There is a WBFLC minute that a more precise Law takes priority over the general one where they potentially clash. 16A1c makes it clear that the TD call is authorized information and that it can be used. 73B1 is a general law that one should not communicate with partner in any manner (other than by calls and plays). The former takes priority, so that the TD call is AI and can be used. The TD ruling that 4C should have been alerted is AI as well, as is the statement by East to the TD that there was a failure to alert.

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2015-March-17, 10:12, said:

My point is that you can't rule on the basis of UI if you can't demonstrate how the UI may have led to the alleged infraction.

Yes, I understand your point. I just don't understand why this leads you to the conclusion that the UI doesn't matter, when plainly it does in fact matter to every player who receives such UI.

Quote

As for the third degree, do you routinely ask such questions in these cases? Does anyone?

I haven't directed any bridge game since about 1986, so the problem has never come up for me. But if I were a director, and a player asked for a ruling on the basis that an opponent's director call had conveyed UI, then yes of course I would try to determine whether the player's assertion was correct.

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2015-March-17, 10:07, said:

Also, if we're supposed to rule based on the existence of UI here, why are players advised to ask only when it makes a difference to what they will do?

Because the people giving the advice haven't given it enough thought.

[blackshoe]

 gnasher, on 2015-March-17, 14:13, said:

Yes, I understand your point. I just don't understand why this leads you to the conclusion that the UI doesn't matter, when plainly it does in fact matter to every player who receives such UI.

It doesn't matter to the ruling. As for players, I suppose it might matter to them that they may have received UI, if they even recognize the possibility. But I've never seen it come up, and as a player it wouldn't ever have occurred to me until this thread.

 gnasher, on 2015-March-17, 14:13, said:

I haven't directed any bridge game since about 1986, so the problem has never come up for me. But if I were a director, and a player asked for a ruling on the basis that an opponent's director call had conveyed UI, then yes of course I would try to determine whether the player's assertion was correct.

As I said, I've never seen it come up.

[aguahombre]

 lamford, on 2015-March-17, 10:27, said:

There is a WBFLC minute that a more precise Law takes priority over the general one where they potentially clash. 16A1c makes it clear that the TD call is authorized information and that it can be used. 73B1 is a general law that one should not communicate with partner in any manner (other than by calls and plays). The former takes priority, so that the TD call is AI and can be used. The TD ruling that 4C should have been alerted is AI as well, as is the statement by East to the TD that there was a failure to alert.

You are referring correctly to the more precise laws about UI and AI. But they refer to using the information obtained.

What I am talking about is the illegal communication itself. East used the Director call to communicate with his Partner...message sent and received. This is a violation of 73B1 and subject to disciplinary action.

East could have been calling the TD for no other reason than to communicate with Partner.

[blackshoe]

 aguahombre, on 2015-March-17, 17:39, said:

East could have been calling the TD for no other reason than to communicate with Partner.

On what do you base this assertion?

[Bbradley62]

What was the ruling made at the table? Or is this scenario a concoction?

[pran]

 aguahombre, on 2015-March-17, 17:39, said:

You are referring correctly to the more precise laws about UI and AI. But they refer to using the information obtained.

?????

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2015-March-17, 10:21, said:

Indeed, they are discouraged from asking unnecessarily by the EBU. From the Blue Book:

2E1 A player has the right to ask questions at his turn to call or play, but exercising this right may have consequences. If a player shows unusual interest in one or more calls of the auction, then this may give rise to unauthorised information. His partner must avoid taking advantage. It may be in a player’s interests to defer questions until either he is about to make the opening lead or his partner’s lead is face-down on the table.

I think that this advice is wrong, and showing unusual lack of interest in one or more calls of the auction gives just as much UI, but this goes undetected.

If the recommendation is not to ask in general, and players mostly follow this advice, the lack of interest is hardly "unusual". There's little UI from acting normally.

However, if your partner asks 90% of the time, and doesn't ask in some particular situation, that would be unusual and probably transmits significant UI.

[aguahombre]

 pran, on 2015-March-17, 23:49, said:

?????

What you didn't quote explained what you quoted.

East/West knows it is not a natural bid, but this pair also knows it is a Splinter. A double of the Splinter would mean lead something else, but a pass of the splinter does not necessarily mean East has Club length and strength.

East found a way to communicate to his partner that his pass shows club length, and West received the communication.

In the case of the German seniors, even though people got wrapped up in looking for examples of hands where the illegally communicated information affected board results, the Disciplinary action taken was for the illegal communication itself.

In this case, we can show how specific rules (or WBF minutes) treat information received via a Director call as authorized --- and therefore no adjustment for West's use of that information would hold up. But, the deliberate communication to partner is still subject to disciplinary action, IMO.

[Trinidad]

 campboy, on 2015-March-17, 10:14, said:

In order to determine what is or isn't alertable you have to actually look at the alert regulation. And the regulation is very clear that, for calls above 3NT, being unexpected is not sufficient (or, for that matter, necessary). This pass is alertable if and only if it is a "lead-directing pass".

Now it seems to me that whether or not you think these passes are lead-directing or not, surely either they both are or they both are not. The only difference between your two meanings is that one is more expected than the other, and this is irrelevant.

It is only irrelevant if the alert regulation deems it irrelevant. I wrote that any sensible alert regulation starts with the rule that unexpected meanings of calls need to be alerted. It is not my fault that lamford carefully choses one of the few venues for his hypothetical problem that doesn't fulfill this condition.

For me the governing principle is that bridge is a game of full disclosure. You happily volunteer the meaning of your calls through alerts, explanations, CCs, etc.. That attitude "to happily volunteer" should be the top priority of the regulators. Everything else is just a mechanism to achieve full disclosure. Prioritizing the mechanism and forgetting the underlying principle of Full Disclosure is taking your eyes of the ball.

Rik

[pran]

 aguahombre, on 2015-March-18, 00:37, said:

What you didn't quote explained what you quoted.

East/West knows it is not a natural bid, but this pair also knows it is a Splinter. A double of the Splinter would mean lead something else, but a pass of the splinter does not necessarily mean East has Club length and strength.

East found a way to communicate to his partner that his pass shows club length, and West received the communication.

In the case of the German seniors, even though people got wrapped up in looking for examples of hands where the illegally communicated information affected board results, the Disciplinary action taken was for the illegal communication itself.

In this case, we can show how specific rules (or WBF minutes) treat information received via a Director call as authorized --- and therefore no adjustment for West's use of that information would hold up. But, the deliberate communication to partner is still subject to disciplinary action, IMO.

Frankly you have lost me long ago.

But the matter of a more presice Law overriding a more general Law applies when there is an apparent conflict between two laws related to the same irregularity.

That is not the case in your comment if I have understood anything at all? Illegal communication is one irregularity, using UI is another.

[campboy]

 Trinidad, on 2015-March-18, 03:54, said:

It is only irrelevant if the alert regulation deems it irrelevant. I wrote that any sensible alert regulation starts with the rule that unexpected meanings of calls need to be alerted. It is not my fault that lamford carefully choses one of the few venues for his hypothetical problem that doesn't fulfill this condition.

For me the governing principle is that bridge is a game of full disclosure. You happily volunteer the meaning of your calls through alerts, explanations, CCs, etc.. That attitude "to happily volunteer" should be the top priority of the regulators. Everything else is just a mechanism to achieve full disclosure. Prioritizing the mechanism and forgetting the underlying principle of Full Disclosure is taking your eyes of the ball.

Not sure I know of a venue that does fulfil that condition. Most regulations specify some calls which are not alertable regardless of how unexpected the meaning is, usually doubles or bids above 3NT after the first round of bidding.

Most regulations also require alerts in some cases for meanings which are expected, and I did acknowledge the possibility that both of the passes you mentioned, rather than neither, are alertable.

Also, you should not "volunteer" alerts. You should follow the alert regulations in force. Alerting a call which you are not supposed to alert is an irregularity. And the only time at which is appropriate to volunteer an explanation is at the end of the auction, when your side is declaring. Otherwise, you should wait until asked. You can volunteer as much information as you want on the CC, of course (and when I played a similar method it was prominently on the front of mine).

[gordontd]

 campboy, on 2015-March-18, 05:13, said:

I did acknowledge the possibility that both of the passes you mentioned, rather than neither, are alertable.

I play (1S) - P - (4C-splinter) - X as asking for a heart lead and I alert both the double and pass in that situation. I'd be unhappy if I thought that this should not be alerted, but I also think that if both meanings should be alerted a failure to alert the vastly more common meaning would be almost impossible to cause damage.

[pran]

 campboy, on 2015-March-18, 05:13, said:

[...]
Alerting a call which you are not supposed to alert is an irregularity.
[...]

It might be considered an irregularity in Norway, but I have never heard of reactions other than a friendly remark that such alerts are not required.

In fact I believe the general attitude here is that "if you are in doubt then alert".