Is the auction AI?

[bluejak]

South bids 1♠. North announces "twelve to fourteen"!

 

South realises something is wrong, looks down, and finds he has bid 1NT by accident.

 

Whether through lack of understanding of Law 25A, slow reactions, or anything else, the bidding proceeds with no comments. Partner bids 2♦. South announces "hearts" and completes the transfer.

 

It is suggested afterwards that the knowledge that you have bid 1NT [and therefore 2♦ is a transfer] is unauthorised because it came from partner's announcement.

 

Well?

[mgoetze]

This is supposed to be a simple ruling? OK...uhm... Law 20B?

[campboy]

Since we would allow South to use this information to change his call under 25A if he had attempted to do so, it seems inconsistent to say that he is not allowed to use the information to deduce that 2♦ is a transfer.

[blackshoe]

Law 20F and the alert regulation require opener to announce that 2♦ is a transfer in this auction. Failure to do so is to misinform opponents. I am surprised that any reasonable player would think that one law would require a player to violate another. Well, maybe not "surprised" - players do strange things quite often. ;)

[campboy]

Is anyone saying that? Of course South should announce "hearts"; the question is whether he is allowed to choose his bid on the basis that 2♦ showed hearts.

 

The Orange Book says:

It is proper to use any unauthorised information which has been made available by partner to help a player to decide to alert and explain the partnership agreement as accurately as he can, but of course unauthorised information must not be used to help in the bidding and play.

[Pict]

'De minimis'. Once I look at my bid cards, the reason I looked should be disregarded. I have a very natural AI that outweighs the UI, and I live with my error in the remaining auction.

[bluejak]

I am not aware of any Law that involves AI "outweighing" UI.

[jdonn]

Agree with campboy, interesting question though.

 

I am not aware of any  Law that involves AI "outweighing" UI.

Perhaps not in those exact words, but there should be such a law. (Oops wrong forum)

[blackshoe]

The closest the law comes is that AI may be such that there is no LA to a chosen call. Note that the law does not say, a priori, that anyone can say to a player "you have UI, therefore you may not make the following calls: <list of calls>". What we can say is "you have UI, you must make every effort not to take advantage of it" or "you have UI, you may not choose from amongst logical alternatives one suggested over another by the UI". Then you must let him make whatever call he likes. Only after the hand is over will you consider whether to adjust the score.

[Pict]

I am not aware of any Law that involves AI "outweighing" UI.

I understand that.

 

However, we know that UI exists to some tiny or small extent in many circumstances.

 

From a common sense view point, the presence of my bid on the table seems so ovewhelming as to allow me to use that information.

[bluejak]

The trouble is that you did not have that information until it was given you by your partner.

 

So, "from a commonsense point of view" the information as to what call you made came from UI, and not from AI.

[Pict]

The trouble is that you did not have that information until it was given you by your partner.

 

So, "from a commonsense point of view" the information as to what call you made came from UI, and not from AI.

I was thinking in a more everyday sense, where I will inevitably look frequently at the bids on the table. However this is, perhaps, not the point of the post - so I will desist, though there is a slight risk here of being blown on to BLML territory of reasoning so (over?)refined as to be impractical at the table.

[mamos]

The first two replies are correct in my opinion. This is not a simple ruling And it seems to unveil an inconsistency or contradiction.

 

There is no doubt that in England,we rule and teach that Law 25A corrections are allowed if a player becomes aware of his unintended call by any means, eg partner's alerts, announcements, opponents' questions or comments ("That's not a Stop Bid). I actually taught a course for trainee directors here in Brighton this week in which this exact example, opening 1NT when 1♠ was intended and hearing partner say "12-14" was used to show a legitimate 25A change.

 

However there are certainly clear examples where we would treat this announcement as UI - if I opened 1NT with the misapprehension that our agreement was 15-17, to hear partner say "12-14" we would expect Law 16 to apply. If something feels like UI, quacks like UI, is it a duck?

 

So it seems that there are different ways of looking at this and currently our Law Book and regulations simply don't tell us the answer. We could decide that the announcement "12-14" should not be allowed to draw a player's attention to his unintended bid under 25A. I'd be interested to know if our practice is followed in WBF, EBL and other NBOs (especially ACBL).

 

Secondly we could decide that there is a contradiction here, but that Law 25 is different because of the "unintended" nature of the error and so allow the change of call under that Law, but afterwards treat the UI in the normal way (so for example here the player who opened 1NT would have to continue as if they had opened 1S and partner's response showed Diamonds and not Hearts

 

 

If you were playing with screens, you might or might not become aware of your unintended bid, but at the table once partner has drawn your attention to your misbid, perhaps we should rule that you must not use this UI in the auction

 

Mike Amos (in haste) apologies for any errors

[pran]

The first two replies are correct in my opinion. This is not a simple ruling And it seems to unveil an inconsistency or contradiction.

 

There is no doubt that in England,we rule and teach that Law 25A corrections are allowed if a player becomes aware of his unintended call by any means, eg partner's alerts, announcements, opponents' questions or comments ("That's not a Stop Bid). I actually taught a course for trainee directors here in Brighton this week in which this exact example, opening 1NT when 1♠ was intended and hearing partner say "12-14" was used to show a legitimate 25A change.

 

However there are certainly clear examples where we would treat this announcement as UI - if I opened 1NT with the misapprehension that our agreement was 15-17, to hear partner say "12-14" we would expect Law 16 to apply. If something feels like UI, quacks like UI, is it a duck?

 

So it seems that there are different ways of looking at this and currently our Law Book and regulations simply don't tell us the answer. We could decide that the announcement "12-14" should not be allowed to draw a player's attention to his unintended bid under 25A. I'd be interested to know if our practice is followed in WBF, EBL and other NBOs (especially ACBL).

 

Secondly we could decide that there is a contradiction here, but that Law 25 is different because of the "unintended" nature of the error and so allow the change of call under that Law, but afterwards treat the UI in the normal way (so for example here the player who opened 1NT would have to continue as if they had opened 1S and partner's response showed Diamonds and not Hearts

 

 

If you were playing with screens, you might or might not become aware of your unintended bid, but at the table once partner has drawn your attention to your misbid, perhaps we should rule that you must not use this UI in the auction

 

Mike Amos (in haste) apologies for any errors

There is a clear difference between becoming aware of an unintended misbid through otherwise UI from his partner and to become aware of a forgotten agreement in the same way.

 

The first is an obvious candicate for a Law 25A correction, the second is equally obvious not.

 

So if the cicumstances all point towards an unintended misbid (1NT) where 1♠ was intended and the "offender" reacts within the specifications given in Law 25A I see no reason why he should be denied a law 25A correction of his misbid.

 

The player that opens 1NT (15-17) and hears an announcement from partner "12-14" has to live with it and is required to continue his auction as if the agreement is indeed 15-17.

[gordontd]

So if the cicumstances all point towards an unintended misbid (1NT) where 1♠ was intended and the "offender" reacts within the specifications given in Law 25A I see no reason why he should be denied a law 25A correction of his misbid.

I don't think anyone is suggesting here that he should be denied a law 25A correction of his misbid. What is being questioned is whether, if he doesn't avail himself of L25A, he can use in the later auction the information that he has misbid - information that came to him as a result of his partner's announcement.

[pran]

So if the cicumstances all point towards an unintended misbid (1NT) where 1♠ was intended and the "offender" reacts within the specifications given in Law 25A I see no reason why he should be denied a law 25A correction of his misbid.

I don't think anyone is suggesting here that he should be denied a law 25A correction of his misbid. What is being questioned is whether, if he doesn't avail himself of L25A, he can use in the later auction the information that he has misbid - information that came to him as a result of his partner's announcement.

I have a feeling that this particular question is equivalent to a question if a player making a psyche may later in the auction use the information that he actually made a psyche?

 

Why a player that becomes aware of his misbid while it is still correctable under Law 25A should choose not to correct this misbid is beyond me, but I assume that whenever the laws offer a player an option both the offer itself and the actual option chosen is AI to all players.

 

Clearly a player that because of UI from his partner becomes aware that he had forgotten a particular agreement may not use this information during the continued auction.

 

I really do not see how this principle can be extended to the situation where a player becomes aware of an unintended misbid (e.g. pulling the wrong bid card from the box) from partner's reaction? What logical alternative actions can demonstrably be suggested over other logical alternatives during the continued auction from this information? "He ought to be more careful pulling the correct bid cards in the future so in order to comply with law 16B1a he must continue pulling the wrong cards"?

[gordontd]

I have a feeling that this particular question is equivalent to a question if a player making a psyche may later in the auction use the information that he actually made a psyche?

The difference is that a psyche is deliberate.

Why a player that becomes aware of his misbid while it is still correctable under Law 25A should choose not to correct this misbid is beyond me, but I assume that whenever the laws offer a player an option both the offer itself and the actual option chosen is AI to all players.

 

Two possible reasons:

He didn't know that it was correctable, or

He thought he was not within time to correct

 

The laws may offer the choice to the player, but if attention is not drawn to the misbid at the table (as it wasn't in the original post), none of the other players would know that the player has chosen not to ask to make a correction.

 

What logical alternative actions can demonstrably be suggested over other logical alternatives during the continued auction from this information?

The question is whether the player should continue to bid as though he had made the bid he intended. Certainly in our given case that would preclude him from rebidding hearts unless he had four of them.

[pran]

I have a feeling that this particular question is equivalent to a question if a player making a psyche may later in the auction use the information that he actually made a psyche?

The difference is that a psyche is deliberate.

Why a player that becomes aware of his misbid while it is still correctable under Law 25A should choose not to correct this misbid is beyond me, but I assume that whenever the laws offer a player an option both the offer itself and the actual option chosen is AI to all players.

 

Two possible reasons:

He didn't know that it was correctable, or

He thought he was not within time to correct

 

The laws may offer the choice to the player, but if attention is not drawn to the misbid at the table (as it wasn't in the original post), none of the other players would know that the player has chosen not to ask to make a correction.

 

What logical alternative actions can demonstrably be suggested over other logical alternatives during the continued auction from this information?

The question is whether the player should continue to bid as though he had made the bid he intended. Certainly in our given case that would preclude him from rebidding hearts unless he had four of them.

How can you tell the difference between a (deliberate) psyche and a misbid when the offender makes no attempt to obtain a Law25A correction and thereby apparently pretends that his misbid was deliberate?

 

There is one fundamental rule in bridge that every player should know: In case of an irregularity you should call the Director and let him sort out the difficulties.

 

South might be ignorant of Law 25A but he has little or no excuse for not knowing the above rule.

 

As a director in the OP case I would delay my ruling until I know if EW has any case for claiming damage. Then if I find that they have I shall most probably adjust the result on the board as I find equitable.

[gordontd]

As a director in the OP case I would delay my ruling until I know if EW has any case for claiming damage. Then if I find that they have I shall most probably adjust the result on the board as I find equitable.

So you are of the opinion that the player may not be woken up by the announcement to having misbid?

[nige1]

When play was ended, the opening bidder said "I meant to open 1♠ - I thought I had opened 1♠ ". As an opponent, since attention had been drawn to a (putative) infraction, I called the director (although it would not affect our score and I intended to ask the director to waive any penalty). After hearing the facts, the director ruled that there were no grounds for considering an adjustment and asked about what I was complaning. I asked the director whether the "12-14" announcement is authorised information to opener. If not, is opener obliged to bid as if 2♦ is natural (athough, of course, I accept that he must announce it as "hearts"). The director said No. I asked the director to consult with colleagues. When that request was refused, I asked to appeal the ruling (just to clarify the matter). This request was also denied because "It is a matter of Law". But I still wonder if that is right.

[mjj29]

So, looking at the laws concerned, L16A1 lists a number of legal sources of information, including "the legal calls and plays of the current board", which the 1NT definitely is, with the proviso that it be unaffected by other unauthorised information. L16A3 then goes on to say that other information is extraneous. L16B1(a) says "after a player makes available to his parner extraneous information..." (emphasis mine), which suggests that partner making the legal auction available to you by way of a question doesn't cause a problem for you using that information.

 

Certainly I think this is the most sane route to take - he's already misbid, do you want to punish him more? (yes, this may end up as a fortunate disaster, but those happen all the time with misbids where they aren't woken up and we don't penalise those).

[gordontd]

When play was ended, the opening bidder said "I meant to open 1♠ - I thought I had opened 1♠ ". As an opponent, since attention had been drawn to a (putative) infraction, I called the director (although it would not affect our score and I intended to ask the director to waive any penalty). After hearing the facts, the director ruled that there were no grounds for considering an adjustment and asked about what I was complaning. I asked the director whether the "12-14" announcement was authorised information to opener. If not, was Opener obliged to bid as if 2♦ was natural (athough, of course, I accept that he must announce it as "hearts"). The director said No. I asked the director to consult with colleagues. When that request was refused, I asked to appeal the ruling (just to clarify the matter). This request was also denied because "It is a matter of Law". But I still wonder if that is right.

What you don't say is that you then brought it to my attention (although someone else had already asked me) and my colleagues and I discussed it at some length. It was that discussion that led to the original post of this thread.

[gordontd]

So, looking at the laws concerned, L16A1 lists a number of legal sources of information, including "the legal calls and plays of the current board", which the 1NT definitely is, with the proviso that it be unaffected by other unauthorised information.

But the knowledge of the auction has been affected by other unauthorised information, namely the announcement.

L16A1 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)

L16B1. (a) 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.

[nige1]

What you don't say is that you then brought it to my attention (although someone else had already asked me) and my colleagues and I discussed it at some length. It was that discussion that led to the original post of this thread.

Sorry, Gordon. I should have said that when the tournament was finished, I asked Gordon for his opinion which resulted in the original post. (I explained that I did not want an adjustment, just an interpretation). I mistakenly thought that had been covered in later posts.

 

The atmosphere of Brighton is always friendly and relaxed. Directors are helpful, diligent, efficient and polite. I have no complaints about the behaviour of directors.

 

It is the laws of Bridge that are at fault. For example, the laws are unnecessarily complex, subjective, and incomplete. They bamboozle directors and players alike. If I have time I may give some more examples.

[bluejak]

How can you tell the difference between a (deliberate) psyche and a misbid when the offender makes no attempt to obtain a Law25A correction and thereby apparently pretends that his misbid was deliberate?

Ask him? We are discussing what the Law is here. If you think there is a difficulty in collecting facts it is not necessarily apparent, but more importantly it does not seem relevant. You do not say "I have decided not to rule in this case because it was too difficult to determine the facts".

 

Of course his failure to ask for a correction does not in any way "pretend" he means something nor that he will lie to you. He may have thought he was out of time for a change, he may have been out of time for a change, he may not understand Law 25A. To assume he is going to be dishonest without finding out the facts at all seems pretty unfair.

 

There is one fundamental rule in bridge that every player should know: In case of an irregularity you should call the Director and let him sort out the difficulties.

Whoopee. There is one fundamental rule in bridge that every TD should know: in case of an irregularity players often try to sort it out themselves and mess it up for you. But it neither alters what the Law actually is nor reduces your responsibility to sort out players' messes.

 

South might be ignorant of Law 25A but he has little or no excuse for not knowing the above rule.

He does not need an 'excuse': it is a fact that players regularly do not call the TD when they should for any number of reasons, and assuming it is one specific reason without enquiring does not seem a reasonable way to progress.

 

As a director in the OP case I would delay my ruling until I know if EW has any case for claiming damage. Then if I find that they have I shall most probably adjust the result on the board as I find equitable.

Damage? You won't even tell us what the Law is in your view! :lol:

 

I asked the director to consult with colleagues. When that request was refused, I asked to appeal the ruling (just to clarify the matter). This request was also denied because "It is a matter of Law". But I still wonder if that is right.

Whatever the TD may have said, it was discussed with colleagues at the time - at least one, any way. But of course you should have been allowed to appeal, and I have reminded the TD of this.