[barmar]

VixTD, on 2015-April-23, 10:49, said:

Not exactly. Law 73F says:

Are you saying that "would deceive you" is sufficiently different from "could work to his benefit" that my paraphrase was incorrect? Should I have said "could" instead of "would"?

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2015-April-23, 00:46, said:

Say now that South would have had 7 HCPs instead of 3. Would we all have agreed that the question didn't give (significant) UI? Or woould some of us have said that the question indicated that South wanted to bid something?

I don't think a person has to "always ask" or "never ask" to avoid conveying UI when he asks. Another possibility is "always asks when he needs to know, but sometimes asks even when he doesn't". There's still some UI when you don't ask, but when you ask it's not possible to tell whether it's because you need to know or because it's one of the "sometimes" that you ask when you don't.

The hand in this thread suggests that this is a "sometimes asks" player, which means that his questions wouldn't suggest something to a regular partner who has picked up on this tendency.

But if he had the 7-HCP hand, we wouldn't be able to conclude anything about his tendencies from this particular occurrence. If the players claim that he frequently asks with no need, the TD could believe them. But this is a self-serving statement, so it will often be taken with a grain of salt, and the hand would not serve to bolster the claim. In that case, we will usually follow general guidelines, which are that questions imply a need to know, which suggests that he has a hand that could take different actions based on the answer. Flat near-Yarbs don't usually fall into that category.

[gwnn]

VixTD, on 2015-April-23, 07:32, said:

When asked by the TD why he had asked about the 2NT bid, South said he wanted to know if it was forcing or not. If it wasn't forcing, he was going to double to show his high card. (We didn't ever manage to work out which card he was talking about.)

A poll of players had them all bidding 4♠ (if they hadn't already done so a round earlier), so no score change.

Part 2: East isn't finished. He now claims that the question asked by South put him off bidding 5♣ over 4♠, so he wants an adjusted score on that basis (he suggests a split score, allowing NS to keep theirs for 4♠).

Any takers?

Can we throw him in the ocean with cement shoes?

[weejonnie]

VixTD, on 2015-April-23, 10:49, said:

Not exactly. Law 73F says:

I never like the 'could have' - it is extremely wide ranging.

[barmar]

weejonnie, on 2015-April-23, 11:49, said:

I never like the 'could have' - it is extremely wide ranging.

I know what you mean. But I understand why it's written like that -- they're trying to avoid requiring mind reading or having to get the perpetrator to admit that he did something intentionally. So rather than having to determine whether someone DID know that their action would benefit them, we try for a more objective "could have known".

[StevenG]

weejonnie, on 2015-April-23, 11:49, said:

I never like the 'could have' - it is extremely wide ranging.

Presumably it's a method that ensures that the TD can adjust against strangers, while not adjusting against his friends.

[pran]

barmar, on 2015-April-23, 10:10, said:

The Laws specifically say that you take inferences from the opponents actions at your own risk. So unless you can show that they could have known that their choice of whether to ask or not would deceive you, there's no redress.

Exactly.
My statement would be that he deliberately chose to ask or not ask, anticipating that his choice would likely deceive me.

(I hope nobody doubts that I would never question a player asking questions like "Please explain your auction so far" or "What is the understanding of the call you just alerted"?)

[nige1]

The two Scottish cases similar to the OP.

Case 1. Trials.
South opened 2♠ alerted. West doubled. North raised to 4♠. East asked about the opening bid.
South passed. West doubled, passed out.
4♠X was two down. Declarer called the director.
The doubler held a flat 16 count. The questioner held a flat 5-count (not that it matters).
The director adjusted to 4♠ undoubled -2.

Case 2. National event.
South opened 1♠. West overcalled 2♥. North bid 2N, alerted. East raised to 3♥
South jumped to 4♠. West asked about 2N "4+card raise to 3+♠". North Passed. East bid 5♥, doubled and passed out.
5♥X was a good save against 4♠. Declarer called the director.
The 5♥ bidder had a pudding. The questioner held a shapely hand.
The director ruled that the result stood.

The point is that some Scottish directors are prepared to rule that a seemingly innocent question can give UI to partner but judgement varies according to director and circumstances.

[steve2005]

VixTD, on 2015-April-23, 10:49, said:

Not exactly. Law 73F says: of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action

isn't asking about alert itself by definition a demonstrable bridge reason.

[Lanor Fow]

But asking about a bid is not a violation of properties, so 73F doesn't apply here

[VixTD]

barmar, on 2015-April-23, 11:09, said:

Are you saying that "would deceive you" is sufficiently different from "could work to his benefit" that my paraphrase was incorrect? Should I have said "could" instead of "would"?

No, but I was concentrating on whether South had a demonstrable bridge reason for asking the question. I agree that we'd have to establish that he could have known that asking could work to his benefit as well.

Lanor Fow, on 2015-April-24, 00:24, said:

But asking about a bid is not a violation of properties, so 73F doesn't apply here

Communicating with partner by "questions asked or not asked of the opponents" is a breach of law 73B1.

[pran]

steve2005, on 2015-April-23, 15:49, said:

isn't asking about alert itself by definition a demonstrable bridge reason.

Absolutely.

An alert is really a suggestion to opponents that (unless they are absolutely sure about how to understand the alerted call) they should ask (properly).

[pran]

VixTD, on 2015-April-24, 06:16, said:

Communicating with partner by "questions asked or not asked of the opponents" is a breach of law 73B1.

"Communicating with partner by questions asked or not asked of the opponents" in this context is that you pass information to your partner (including how to understand your calls) that depends on whether or not you ask (and if so how you ask).

[blackshoe]

VixTD, on 2015-April-24, 06:16, said:

Communicating with partner by "questions asked or not asked of the opponents" is a breach of law 73B1.

Quote

From my Oxford American Dictionary:
Communicate: v. 1. share or exchange information, news, or ideas, 2. impart or pass on (information, news, or ideas)

Quote

From my Oxford American Thesaurus:
Communicate: convey, tell, impart, relay, transmit, pass on, announce, report, recount, relate, present; divulge, disclose, mention; spread, disseminate, promulgate, broadcast

Quote

Law 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.

Communication is a two way street. Absent screens, players cannot help but hear questions, answers to questions, alerts, and explanations, and cannot help but see gestures and mannerisms. Unless we have evidence of collusion, when we would rule a violation of 73B2 ("The gravest possible offense is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws") I think we have to interpret this law as placing an onus on the recipient of such communication not to use it. IOW the offense is not "communicating with partner" in the sense of transmitting information — a player is allowed, indeed is sometimes required, to do that — it is "using information communicated by partner". If not, the game becomes unplayable.

[barmar]

pran, on 2015-April-24, 06:53, said:

An alert is really a suggestion to opponents that (unless they are absolutely sure about how to understand the alerted call) they should ask (properly).

Is it a suggestion that they should ask immediately? Unless the answer affects their bidding, they could just as well wait until the end of the auction.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-24, 07:13, said:

IOW the offense is not "communicating with partner" in the sense of transmitting information — a player is allowed, indeed is sometimes required, to do that — it is "using information communicated by partner". If not, the game becomes unplayable.

But players are also supposed to avoid transmitting UI when possible.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-24, 07:13, said:

I think we have to interpret this law as placing an onus on the recipient of such communication not to use it. IOW the offense is not "communicating with partner" in the sense of transmitting information — a player is allowed, indeed is sometimes required, to do that — it is "using information communicated by partner". If not, the game becomes unplayable.

I think some clarification of this interpretation might be necessary. In trying to do so, I hope I won't open up too many cans of worms resulting in murky rather than clear.

1)Authorized information, whether derived from "send/receive" communication at the table or externally, can sometimes be used illegally. (I know partner is ethical, and break tempo so he will choose an action only if there is no L.A.)

2)Unauthorized information can be used in a legal manner. (We look for L.A.'s after partner's BIT when we might not have otherwise.)

3)Communication (sending and receiving) is indeed inevitable. However, "illegal communication" as used in the laws seems to apply only to deliberate pre-arranged methods; in those cases it is immaterial whether the information received has been used or not. The severity is the same.

Situation 2) above seems to argue against your contention that the onus on the receiver is to not use the information. Sometimes, we must use it.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2015-April-24, 09:58, said:

Situation 2) above seems to argue against your contention that the onus on the receiver is to not use the information. Sometimes, we must use it.

What "use" means in the context of the laws is to choose the action suggested by the UI from among LAs. Paradoxically, that means you can't just ignore the UI -- you have to take note of it to understand what you're no longer allowed to do. Which is why "I was always going to..." is not necessarily a valid excuse.

As I've mentioned in the past, this also raises the possibility of bluff/double-bluff. If partner wants you to take action A, he could transmit UI that suggests B. Knowing that you're very ethical, you'll avoid doing B, so he's accomplished his goal. I think it would be incredibly difficult for a TD to determine that this is what was going on and rule against him.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2015-April-24, 09:42, said:

But players are also supposed to avoid transmitting UI when possible.

The closest I can find to this assertion in law is 73D1's "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner." That law goes on to say that "unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction." So while I agree with the sentiment, I think we have to be careful when applying it. Try not to give away anything by mannerism or reaction, sure. Don't make extraneous remarks. Maintain tempo. And so on. But when the laws and regulations require you to do something that may or will transmit UI, there is no avoiding it. Don't even try.

aguahombre, on 2015-April-24, 09:58, said:

I think some clarification of this interpretation might be necessary. In trying to do so, I hope I won't open up too many cans of worms resulting in murky rather than clear.

1)Authorized information, whether derived from "send/receive" communication at the table or externally, can sometimes be used illegally. (I know partner is ethical, and break tempo so he will choose an action only if there is no L.A.)

2)Unauthorized information can be used in a legal manner. (We look for L.A.'s after partner's BIT when we might not have otherwise.)

3)Communication (sending and receiving) is indeed inevitable. However, "illegal communication" as used in the laws seems to apply only to deliberate pre-arranged methods; in those cases it is immaterial whether the information received has been used or not. The severity is the same.

Situation 2) above seems to argue against your contention that the onus on the receiver is to not use the information. Sometimes, we must use it.

1. That seems an unlikely scenario to me. It would IMO require the offender to have enough knowledge of the laws and ethics of the game to know that he is violating them, and then to do so anyway. While there is always the possibility that a given player is a cheat, I choose to believe that the vast majority of players are not.

2. Of course.

3. If the information communicated is not authorized for use, then the offense is "use of unauthorized information", not "illegal communication". The communication is, nonetheless, illegal. Perhaps that's a minor detail.

In saying "use information" I meant using it to inform the recipient's decision(s) in the bidding and play — IOW what calls and plays to make. That use of UI is always illegal. Using it to conform with the laws and regulations governing the game is not. I'd thought that was fairly obvious, but apparently not.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-24, 10:22, said:

The closest I can find to this assertion in law is 73D1's "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner." That law goes on to say that "unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction." So while I agree with the sentiment, I think we have to be careful when applying it. Try not to give away anything by mannerism or reaction, sure. Don't make extraneous remarks. Maintain tempo. And so on. But when the laws and regulations require you to do something that may or will transmit UI, there is no avoiding it. Don't even try.

Yes, that's what I was thinking of. Of course, if the laws require you to do something, you must. That's why you have to alert and explain your agreements, even though partner will hear you.

But if the regulations merely allow you to do something, you don't necessarily have to do it. For instance, when an opponent alerts, you're allowed to ask for an explanation, but you can also defer until the end of the auction. The latter generally transmits less UI, which is why a number of regulators recommend that you avoid asking questions if it isn't immediately necessary.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, any choice of whether to ask or not transmits some UI, so you can't avoid it completely unless you go the "always ask" route, which is not considered desirable. The best you can do is try to minimize it.