what did you say?

[blackshoe]

I’m not sure it would work in a club game and could end up with more chaos and the td called anyway, suggesting something could be wrong upsets most players, they think its an accusation of cheating. I’d rather call the TD than say this.

When a player considers that an opponent has made such 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.

 

In previous discussions of this law, the consensus seemed to be that rather than saying "I reserve my right to call the TD later" one should ask the opponents if they agree that unauthorized information may have been made available. The reasoning, iirc, was that the latter was felt to be less confrontational than the former.

 

Players need to learn not to get upset at the invocation of this law. They will not learn that if no one ever invokes it.

[blackshoe]

Please don't put words into my mouth. I don't want anything of the sort.

 

If the questioner displays surprise or disapproval at his partner's explanation, that conveys UI, and it is appropriate to call the director, or to reserve the right to call him later.

 

If the questioner merely

doesn’t hear and says ‘what did you say?’

they have behaved entirely properly. To call the director under those circumstances is, whatever David Stevenson may say, distasteful.

You correctly stated in one post that UI has been made available to the player who asked "what did you say?" Then in your very next post, you asked "what UI?" when Jilly suggested showing incredulity conveyed UI, implying there wasn't any. I read that as wanting it both ways. Apparently I was wrong. Forgive me for that. I certainly did not intend to put words in your mouth.

 

Let me be more specific. West calls, East alerts. North asks. East explains. The alert and explanation are UI to West. If he didn't hear the explanation clearly, I have no problem (and neither did David) with him asking, and someone telling him, what it was, and no one calling the TD. However, the tone of the question, or other mannerism of West, may also convey UI to East. That situation is, IMO, more serious than the other, and I would think invoking Law 16B2 is appropriate in that case.

 

I do think it's a bit bloody minded to invoke Law 16B2 at every possible opportunity, though I've seen players do it. at least until they got tired of it.

[Cascade]

If they disagree, they]/b] are supposed to call the TD. If they don't, I suppose I'll have to call him.

I disagree.

 

If the opponents do not call the director then they are implicitly agreeing. That is their problem not yours.

I considered that. I agree. The problem is that I'm pretty sure there are at least some, and possibly quite a few, TDs who would not.

At the very least the opponents' inaction when confronted with the suggestion of conveying UI is evidence that at the time they did not dispute the suggestion.

 

"When a player considers that an opponent has made such 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)."

 

There is nothing in here that suggests that I should summon the director if the opponents dispute the transmission of UI.

 

Note the use of the word "should" which has the defined meaning:

 

"“should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized)"

 

Therefore it seems reasonable to conclude if they do not summon the director as they "should" do then they jeopardize their rights. In particular they jeopardize their rights to dispute the UI.

[NickRW]

1N (P) P 2♦*  alert

P   (2♥) ?

 

My partner opens 1nt - pass - pass

LHO bids 2♦, RHO alerts. Partner passes, RHO bids 2♥

I ask RHO what 2♦ was, he tells me ‘majors’

 

LHO doesn’t hear and says ‘what did you say?’

 

What should happen here?

This is how it continued

 

RHO told LHO 'majors'.

 

I had little values but length in ♠'s and ♣'s so bid 3♣, this is where we played.

 

By the end of the hand I realized 2♦ 'majors' was an incorrect explanation and called the director. He looked at my hand and told me I should know 2♦'s can't be majors and could have called earlier, result stands.

 

I don't think this is a good ruling at all and wondered if, despite the social repulsion of doing so, I should have called the director back at the start.

 

If I had been certain 'what did you say' was an exclamation rather than a question would it be acceptable to call the director?

IMO the ruling may or may not be a good one (don't know without more information), but the reason given for it seems wrong - just because you have, say, 5 spades, does not mean that the overcall could not legitimately have meant majors.

 

In what way were you claiming damage from the MI - that you would have bid 2♠ instead?

 

Nick

[aguahombre]

by length in spades, I assume you mean 4.

[gnasher]

You correctly stated in one post that UI has been made available to the player who asked "what did you say?"

No I didn't. I said

If LHO's explanation was incorrect, it makes UI "available" to RHO. That UI is "available" regardless of whether RHO heard it. This UI constrains RHO's actions, even if he didn't receive it. If you are in a position where UI may have been made available to you, but you don't know whether it was or not, it seems to me that you're obliged to find out.

My point was that you have a general responsibility to listen to your partner's explanations, in order to determine whether UI was made available to you, in order to enable you to comply with Law 16B1. I didn't say, or intend to say, that UI had been made available on this particular deal. Sorry if that was unclear.

Let me be more specific. West calls, East alerts. North asks. East explains. The alert and explanation are UI to West. If he didn't hear the explanation clearly, I have no problem (and neither did David) with him asking, and someone telling him, what it was, and no one calling the TD.

Not having a problem with it doesn't go far enough. West should ask for the explanation to be repeated, for the reason I gave above.

 

However, the tone of the question, or other mannerism of West, may also convey UI to East.

Yes, obviously.

Edited August 30, 2009 by gnasher

[gnasher]

Let's not get into calling each other stupid. I don't want to have to start deleting posts again.

So "stupid" is unacceptable, but "ignorant" is OK?

 

To be clear, I don't believe that David is stupid, and I don't suppose that he thinks me ignorant either. The purpose of my post was to suggest that such epithets are best avoided on a forum such as this.

[aguahombre]

I don't think a player's "right" to hear his partner's explanation of a call really exists. If it did, something different would have been done when screens are in use.

[bluejak]

Certainly: that is UI.

 

But not giving you redress because you did not call the TD earlier is against the Laws of bridge.

[barmar]

I don't think a player's "right" to hear his partner's explanation of a call really exists. If it did, something different would have been done when screens are in use.

Indeed, regulations regarding alerting are generally different when screens are in use, and there are sometimes thorny issues when mistaken explanations are made. Not only does partner not get a chance to correct the misexplanation, because he doesn't know that it happened, but there's also the problem that the MI only goes to one of the opponents. There was a very controversial appeal a few years ago that decided a national or international event due to one of these.

[kevperk]

I don't think that West should ask for what was said to be repeated, and don't think that the laws support him being answered. He can find out at the appropriate time(after the auction if declaring side, or after play if defending side). Once the opponents have been given the answer, repeating it only passes UI.

 

Kevin

[bluejak]

Passing UI is no infraction, of course.

 

I do not see the problem with asking for something to be repeated. After all, it was available for him to hear: he is not asking for something that was kept from him by choice or Law.

 

As for the Law supporting him being answered, they do not support him not being answered either. It seems petty to me for an opponent not to answer him.

[VixTD]

I've been directing at national events in England for some time, and when I read the original post I thought it was quite a good problem, because the answer was not immediately obvious to me, so I find the comments that calling the TD might be offensive, distasteful, "beyond the limit" and such like very surprising.

 

If my partner explains one of my calls and I don't hear the answer, what right have I to ask for it to be repeated? Alerts, announcements and explanations are for the benefit of opponents only. Of course, I may wish to know what has been said so that I can take steps to comply with the requirements of law 16 regarding unauthorized information, but if I really have no clue as to what was said, there is no danger of my using UI. Then again, under "normal" circumstances (no screens, and not online bridge) I would have heard the explanation, so perhaps "normal" circumstances should be restored by repeating the explanation. On the other hand, if it is repeated by one of my opponents, might it not be argued that this is no longer unauthorized information because I didn't have the explanation before, and it has now been supplied by one of my opponents rather than by my partner?

 

I don't agree with all of the points I have made in the paragraph above, but they are all questions which may be worrying the players, and what do we want players to do when faced with a legal or ethical problem? Call the director, of course, and let them deal with it.

 

If I had been called to the table I would probably ask for the explanation to be repeated, partly to restore "normal" circumstances, and partly because there may well be some doubt as to whether partner had really not received any clue as to what the explanation was or might have been. I would then make sure the players were aware of their obligations under law 16, and let them carry on.

 

But I would not consider it at all strange that I had been called.

[Vampyr]

Of course, I may wish to know what has been said so that I can take steps to comply with the requirements of law 16 regarding unauthorized information, but if I really have no clue as to what was said, there is no danger of my using UI.

Perhaps there is no danger of your "using" UI, but people who take action suggested by UI rarely do it on purpose; that is cheating.

 

If UI has become available it does not matter whether you have actually received it. Your obligations under L16 are the same whether you have heard partner's explanation or not.

[VixTD]

Perhaps there is no danger of your "using" UI, but people who take action suggested by UI rarely do it on purpose; that is cheating.

When I said "using UI" I did not mean necessarily deliberately using UI.

 

If UI has become available it does not matter whether you have actually received it. Your obligations under L16 are the same whether you have heard partner's explanation or not.

 

I don't really understand what you mean by this. If UI was available and there was any chance that I might have received any of it (even just a clue from e.g. the length of the answer) I would expect the benefit of the doubt to be given against me. But if I definitely couldn't have received it (e.g. I was called to the phone as an opponent asked, and the explanation given when I was out of the room) then the UI wasn't really made available, and I wonder how I could be expected to follow L16.

[duschek]

As for the question whether it should be considered slightly offensive to summon the TD, consider this. If you say "I am sorry, I am unsure about the correct procedure in this situation", should you continue:

 

1) "... so let's ask the TD to make sure that we do not make a mistake", or

2) "... so I'll leave it to you opponents to decide the rules".

 

Somehow, I much prefer the first approach. When somebody learns that the opponents are offended because they think they have the right to define the rules ahead of the TD, that somebody should ask the TD to discuss the matter with the players :lol:

 

As to whether LHO is entitled to know what his partner said: Regardless whether he heard it or not, for UI purposes we will assume any statement from RHO as being heard by LHO. If he is to avoid choosing a logical alternative suggested by UI, obviously he has to know for sure what that UI consists of. So he has to be told now, before his next turn to call.

[barmar]

Perhaps there is no danger of your "using" UI, but people who take action suggested by UI rarely do it on purpose; that is cheating.

When I said "using UI" I did not mean necessarily deliberately using UI.

 

If UI has become available it does not matter whether you have actually received it. Your obligations under L16 are the same whether you have heard partner's explanation or not.

 

I don't really understand what you mean by this. If UI was available and there was any chance that I might have received any of it (even just a clue from e.g. the length of the answer) I would expect the benefit of the doubt to be given against me. But if I definitely couldn't have received it (e.g. I was called to the phone as an opponent asked, and the explanation given when I was out of the room) then the UI wasn't really made available, and I wonder how I could be expected to follow L16.

There's a difference between "couldn't receive the UI" and "didn't receive the UI". If you couldn't receive the UI (e.g. screens are in use, or the director asked you to step away from the table while your partner gave an explanation) then you aren't under any obligation to avoid using the UI (in fact, it could be argued that there wasn't any UI to begin with).

 

But if you could have received UI, but somehow didn't (e.g. you were distracted when the UI was transmitted), you're still obligated not to use it. But as you indicated, it's hard to bend over backwards not to use the UI if you don't realize that the UI exists.

 

So if the director sends you away from the table, you obviously shouldn't ask for a repetition of what was said while you were away. But if an explanation was given normally while you're at the table, and you missed some or all of it, it's reasonable to ask them to repeat it; it was given in a way that you were expected to hear it, so it's only fair that you should hear it all clearly so that you can meet whatever your ethical obligations are (avoid using the UI, correct the explanation at later if necessary, etc.).

[richlp]

But if you could have received UI, but somehow didn't (e.g. you were distracted when the UI was transmitted), you're still obligated not to use it.  But as you indicated, it's hard to bend over backwards not to use the UI if you don't realize that the UI exists.

I'm extremely confused by this statement.

 

Are you talking about a situation where I don't know if the information I've received is UI or AI?

 

If not, regardless of whether or not I could have received UI, if I didn't receive UI, how could I possibly know not to use it?

[blackshoe]

When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information.

(The emphasis is mine).

 

A player who has not heard what his partner said may still have UI "available to him" if he was in a position where he could have heard it.

 

The laws do not expect TDs to determine whether the player did hear what his partner said, only that he could have.

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the director when play ends. The director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12c) if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender.

 

If the TD determines that a player could have received UI, and that he took an action that demonstrably could have been suggested over an LA by that UI, then assuming there was damage to the NOS, he will, as law 16B3 requires him to do, adjust the score. This is so even if the player concerned adamantly maintains that he didn't receive a thing.

[bluejak]

So, if you are in receipt of UI but you do not know what it is, you need to find out so as to follow Law 73C. If partner answers a question and you do not hear his answer properly, it is very difficult to follow your ethical obligations.

 

For this and other reasons I still believe that if a player does not hear his partner's answer to a question that he should be told what it was if he asks. I have no problem with an opponent calling the TD instead of telling him because the TD is there to sort matters out, but I believe the TD should instruct that the answer be repeated.

[blackshoe]

I don't usually post "me too"s, but, well, me too. B)

[barmar]

I'll "me, three", just to confirm that that's how I would have answered richlp.

[lamford]

But not giving you redress because you did not call the TD earlier is against the Laws of bridge.

I don't think that is quite right. For example:

 

LAW 11: FORFEITURE OF THE RIGHT TO RECTIFICATION

A. Action by Non-Offending Side

The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director.

 

Law 16B3 indicates, in the footnote, that it is not an infraction to call the TD earlier or later than the end of play, which I presume overrides the above

 

I agree it all depends on the tone of the question. But if the player thought the tone conveyed UI, and that damage "could well result", then he should indeed call the TD under 16B2; this gives the opportunity for the opponents to dispute the claim that the question was asked in a leading manner.

[bluejak]

It does not matter: rulings like this are given any time during the Correction Period. If there is a dispute over facts then the TD will generally rule against the person who called him, ie the norm is to assume no irregularity if not called earlier. But rulings are not not given because of a late call.

 

What you say does not really disagree with me - except that you say it does. Not giving a ruling because of the late call is illegal, as I said: the ruling going against the pair because it is late is normal and not what I said.