Is the auction AI?

[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.

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

L16A1A 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 extraneousinformation 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.

My (somewhat tenuous) point was that it's not _extraneous_ information, therefore isn't covered by L16C, therefore doesn't constrain your actions

[gordontd]

My (somewhat tenuous) point was that it's not _extraneous_ information, therefore isn't covered by L16C, therefore doesn't constrain your actions

The information in question derives from the legal calls of the current board, but it's not unaffected by unauthorised information from another source, and so it is extraneous by my reading of the Laws.

[bluejak]

My (somewhat tenuous) point was that it's not _extraneous_ information, therefore isn't covered by L16C, therefore doesn't constrain your actions

Are you suggesting an Announcement is authorised information to you? Because it contains information, so it must be authorised or unauthorised - and I think you will be pushed to demonstrate it is authorised.

 

You are falling into the old trap of assuming that where there is AI it 'cancels' or 'subverts' or something UI. But the Law gives you instruction what to do when you have UI from partner but it does not mention UI in that Law so applies whether there is AI or not.

[nige1]

The consensus here (and among other legal experts whom I consulted) is that information from partner's announcement is authorised and you may use it for any purpose. Hence GordonTD, BlueJak, and a few others are outnumbered. Remarkably and unusually, however, to me the relevant rules seem fairly simple and clear, and the majority appears to be out of step.

[blackshoe]

It has always seemed to me that an announcement is a kind of alert, so it boggles my mind that "legal experts" would opine that announcements are always AI. Do they say the same of alerts, Nigel?

[nige1]

It has always seemed to me that an announcement is a kind of alert, so it boggles my mind that "legal experts" would opine that announcements are always AI. Do they say the same of alerts, Nigel?

I believe they're legal experts but it is possible that I overstate their views in the general case; anyway, in this case, they think the opener can use the information from the announcement to alert him to the fact that he opened 1N rather than 1♠; and to conduct the rest of the auction from that revised viewpoint. Nevertheless, the prevalence of widespread (but I believe) erroneous interpretations help players like me to understand why we get such peculiar rulings.

[PeterAlan]

Surely ALL announcements must be authorised information to partner as well as opponents: for example, partner has to be able to correct them (at the appropriate time) if they are erroneous. Let's not start suggesting that they're authorised for some purposes but not others.

 

At risk of provoking wrath, it seems to me we're in danger of getting into angel-pinhead interface issues in this thread. Even normal, real-world law brings a certain amount of common sense to bear ...

 

PeterAlan

[bluejak]

It is not a question of angels and pins: it is a question of the absolute basics of UI. Of course you can use UI for some purposes and not others.

 

When you make a bid, your partner explains it, and you know from the explanation you have got it wrong, it is well known among "Laws experts", almost everyone else who has read RGB, BLML or IBLF regularly, not to mention readers of all English national bridge magazines, that you are required to bid as though partner has not woken you up, but you should alert and explain following your actual agreements. Thus it is well known that you use UI for one thing and not another.

 

If you care to look at the Laws, you will discover it is illegal to give MI, and it is illegal to use UI in your choice of calls or plays. Nowhere in the Law book does it make it legal to give MI by not using UI nor is it illegal to use UI for the purpose of informing opponents correctly.

 

This is of considerable importance and people must understand this distinction. Please do not make the mistake of thinking there is anything trivial in this.

[PeterAlan]

Point taken, David - it was a quick reaction to the thread.

 

PeterAlan

[dburn]

I am not sure I fully understand the problem here. Whether or not the announcement constitutes UI to the opener that he has misbid, it certainly constitutes UI to the opener that his partner has hearts and not diamonds. Thus, if he has for example:

 

♠AQJxx ♥xx ♦Kxxx ♣Kx

 

he is in duty bound to "raise" diamonds, not to rebid 2♥.

[Pict]

But if partner fails to announce (as some of mine do) and RHO says 'how strong is the 1NT' - as they invariably do, now I am in the clear?

[bluejak]

Very sneaky.

 

Not if I am directing!

 

If your partner commits an infraction I do not expect you to gain from it. So, while it may not be a UI case per se, I shall adjust somehow: I am not going to let you be in a better position by not following the Laws & Regulations.

 

Of course, if I held the 1♠/1NT hand now I would be in no doubt as to the ethical approach, and as dburn says I would raise or whatever is suitable.

[gordontd]

But if partner fails to announce (as some of mine do) and RHO says 'how strong is the 1NT' - as they invariably do, now I am in the clear?

L16B1. (a) includes "a reply to a question" in its list of sources of extraneous information partner might make available.

[Pict]

But if partner fails to announce (as some of mine do) and RHO says 'how strong is the 1NT' - as they invariably do, now I am in the clear?

L16B1. (a) includes "a reply to a question" in its list of sources of extraneous information partner might make available.

Interesting, but I am sure that I will have looked at my bidding cards before partner replies to opponents question, Gordon.

 

I remain convinced that this a 'change the Laws' topic.

 

I personally would not try to change my bid as a result of my failure to look at the cards from the bidding box. Pran may think me an idiot. Bluejak may think me a target.

 

I'm not breaking any rules, and I feel comfortable with my ethics.

 

And I know that I look at the bidding on the table many times in the auction.

 

For the logicians, are the statements:

 

'I may know I bid 1NT because partner says it is true.'

 

'I do know I bid 1NT because I looked at the table and my bid was there.'

 

of equal evidential validity?

[dburn]

Suppose that you really do open 1♠ and partner announces "12-14" before responding 2♦. What are your legal responsibilities in this case?

[Pict]

dburn, I hate this one minute it's ethics, next minute screw the oppos, next minute just call the TD, next minute he's laughing at you over coffee.

 

I'll take your bait, partner has transgressed and I call the TD. I have an inkling of difficulties ahead, but let's start there.

[blackshoe]

An erroneous alert, or failure to alert, is MI to opponents. Same is true of announcements. So (Law 75B), you must do nothing to indicate there is a problem, and (Law 75A) the knowledge that partner thinks something else is going on that your actual bid is UI to you, so you must carefully avoid taking advantage of it. In this case, you must treat partner's 2♦ as meaning whatever it would mean over your actual 1♠ bid. You should not alert it or announce "transfer" if that would be based on what partner presumably thinks it means. You should alert or announce if the meaning over your 1♠ requires it.

[pran]

Pran may think me an idiot.

What makes you write that?

 

I never do (unless extremely far more convincing evidence to such fact exists, and that is certainly not the case here).

[dburn]

dburn, I hate this one minute it's ethics, next minute screw the oppos, next minute just call the TD, next minute he's laughing at you over coffee.

 

I'll take your bait, partner has transgressed and I call the TD.  I have an inkling of difficulties ahead, but let's start there.

Call the TD? Better not do that - he will read you the Riot Act, the relevant chapter of which is in this case:

 

5. [a] A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. ‘Mistaken explanation’ here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require.

 

The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is:

 

(i) for a defender, at the end of the play.

(ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction.

Of course, as blackshoe correctly observes, I must continue to act as though partner had responded 2♦ to 1♠ and not to 1NT; at my first legal opportunity (see above) I will correct his explanation, but not before.

 

The point is this: you are not allowed to use information from your partner's alerts, explanations, failures to alert, misexplanations, or the like in any way. If you misbid (by which I mean "accidentally make a bid that does not accord with partnership agreement, because you have forgotten the agreement") you may not be woken up to the fact that you have done so by your partner's extraneous actions. Similarly, if you mispull a card from the bidding box you may not be woken up to the fact that you have done so by your partner's extraneous actions.

[Pict]

dburn, I believe I understand but without yet agreeing.

 

Let's say:

 

 

I wake up ,you say it's 8:00. I look at my clock and it is 8:00.

 

Later GortonTD says 'how did you know it was 8:00'.

 

There is a difference between knowing something solely because of extraneous information (partner says 'I have the King..' versus knowing something in addition to having extraneous information.

[Pict]

Pran may think me an idiot.

What makes you write that?

 

I never do (unless extremely far more convincing evidence to such fact exists, and that is certainly not the case here).

I was referring to your surprise that anyone would fail to take advantage of L25 to change their bid.

 

Apologies, it was an unnecessary side reference.

[pran]

dburn, I believe I understand but without yet agreeing.

 

Let's say: 

 

 

I wake up ,you say it's 8:00.  I look at my clock and it is 8:00.

 

Later GortonTD says 'how did you know it was 8:00'.

 

There is a difference between knowing something solely because of extraneous information (partner says 'I have the King..'  versus knowing something in addition to having extraneous information.

In bridge law terms: If you certainly know something from UI and possibly know the same thing from AI then you may not use the possible AI as an excuse for selecting an action that could have been suggested by the UI.

 

You are certainly awoken by UI, you might not necessarily have remembered without the UI.

 

Simple as that.

[jallerton]

Of course, partner's announcement is UI. The more tricky question is deciding whether any logical alternatives exist to ones based on noticing your misbid yourself anyway. Let me recount an example from personal experience when I was feeling a bit sleepy a few months ago.

 

My partner and I were playing a variable 1NT opening. We were NV and the first call I saw in the auction was a 1NT opening by my partner. As we play a mini 1st NV, I announced this as "10-13". RHO doubled, I passed, LHO bid 2♥. But as LHO put down her 2♥ card I could not help but notice that she had put it on top of a green Pass card. Then I worked out what had happened: LHO was in fact the dealer and had passed originally. As we play a different NT range in 2nd position I now had to call the TD to correct my misexplanation.

 

The relevance of my example to the present case is that I believe that Opener who thought he had bid 1♠ would always have noticed the 1NT bidding card in front of him at the time when he came to make his next call.

[dburn]

dburn, I believe I understand but without yet agreeing.

 

Let's say:

 

 

I wake up ,you say it's 8:00. I look at my clock and it is 8:00.

 

Later GortonTD says 'how did you know it was 8:00'.

 

There is a difference between knowing something solely because of extraneous information (partner says 'I have the King..' versus knowing something in addition to having extraneous information.

Vanishingly unlikely. I am never awake at eight o'clock.

 

But your confusion is a completely natural one, shared by (in my estimation) a very large majority of the bridge-playing public. The simplest way to express the current legal position may be this:

 

You open 1NT with a twelve count, thinking due to a temporary aberration that you are playing 10-12 (you are an adventurous soul with a propensity to forget the vulnerability, usually but not always a recipe for disaster).

 

As soon as your bidding card hits the table, and before anything else happens at all, you realise that you have erred - you are actually playing 15-17 at these colours.

 

Your partner announces "15-17" and raises to 2NT. Despite the fact that you know already, without the extraneous information, that you have in effect opened 1NT with a sub-sub-minimum, you are in duty bound to act as though you knew this solely because of the extraneous information, and to raise to 3NT with the maximum that you momentarily thought you had when you opened the bidding.

 

Otherwise, Directors and Appeals Committees would have to accept as a defence to the charge of using UI the plea "I wasn't using UI - I knew what I'd done as soon as I did it". I hope you can see that the game would become pretty much unplayable if that were ever acceptable, even though in a significant number of cases it may actually have been true.

 

This position seems unnaturally harsh when compared to the position in which you would find yourself if screens were in use. Then, you would be at liberty to pass 2NT because you would know that this was the right thing to do - you would have no extraneous information on which to base your decision.

 

But the unpalatable (and to some illogical) truth of the matter is this: if you have extraneous information that "could demonstrably suggest" a course of action to you, then you will be deemed to have acted as if it were solely the extraneous information that actually did suggest the course of action to you, and not any (authorized) information already in your possession before the extraneous information was provided. The fact that you looked at your clock will not matter to gordontd: as soon as I told you the time, you were no longer at liberty to act as if you knew the time from some other source.

 

I should add as a parenthesis that I should be very hurt indeed if when I told you the time, you looked at your clock anyway. Is this any basis on which to conduct a relationship that involves us waking up together in the morning?

 

So much for the general case. In the specific case under discussion, I am not entirely clear in my own mind as to whether partner's announcement of "12-14" after my opening bid of 1♠ may trigger a chain of events that permits me to change my call under the present Law 25A. At present I am inclined to the view that it does not, but I could very well be wrong.

[blackshoe]

I'm not sure, Pict, but I think you're running into the problem that AI does not "trump" UI — one must still follow the legal constraints when one has UI — unless there is no LA to the chosen action. Many players seem to think otherwise, but they're wrong.

 

Edit: I see I've cross posted with David - and he's provided a good example of the point.