Useless UI

[gnasher]

This might sound hypothetical, but it's actually from a real ruling. I'm afraid I don't have the hands.

 

It goes:

 

  1♠ pass 2♠ dbl

  3♠* 4♦ pass pass

 

* 3♠ is alerted and explained as not constructive. Assume that this is correct procedure.

 

Opener intended 3♠ as not constructive, and the partnership has an unambiguous agreement that it's not constructive. Opener now wants to bid 4♠, partly in the hope of making it. Pass is also a logical alternative.

 

As I understand it:

- The alert and explanation provide UI

- The UI tells opener that responder can still have a hand that would have accepted an invitation.

- Therefore the UI, taken in isolation, suggests bidding over passing.

 

However, common sense might suggest that opener can do as he pleases, because the UI added nothing to what he already knew. Do the Laws say that too?

 

I'm mainly interested in what the rules require opener to do here - I realise that it's hard to comment on the actual ruling without seeing opener's hand.

[paulg]

Is there an additional 'not' in one of the sentences? I don't see any UI here - correctly alerted as non-constructive, intended as non-constructive, agreement is non-constructive.

[Pict]

If it really is clearly written that 3S is as explained, I can't understand why you are barred from bidding as you please. Whether your next bid (pass or whatever) is a good or bad bid is not a matter for the governance of the game.

 

Partner's remembering your system cannot represent UI in any normal world.

[jdonn]

This might sound hypothetical, but it's actually from a real ruling.

This topic indeed comes up from time to time. It was the theme of the biggest dispute I've ever had at the table. It's also the theme of a case from an ACBL casebook (I'd rather go into that one so I don't tell 2 longer stories), I'm not going to bother locating it but it was something like the following:

 

1♦ 1♠ 3♦ 4♠

Pass Pass 5♦

 

Responder was a beginner. 3♦ was alerted and explained as "weak". It was a hand that was very sound for a preemptive raise but the beginner meant as "weak" all along (something like a 1255 9 count) because it had fewer than 10 points. He then bid 5♦ because he thought it might make. There was no evidence at all of a misexplanation or any other agreement exisiting other than the hand itself being so strong.

 

I can't even remember which was the appealing side, but the committee ruled in favor of the beginner, claiming essentially that they can't simply punish him for what they consider bad bridge. The expert commentators were sharply divided (I recall particularly strong criticism of the decision from Ron Gerard and Jeff Goldsmith).

 

Ultimately I think there is simply no good solution for a situation like this (except for using computers!) Did responder forget his agreement and then take advantage of the explanation to act unethically, or did he do nothing wrong at all and simply play less than expert bridge? It's impossible to know, so no matter how you rule you will sometimes either punish an innocent player or let a cheater get away with it.

[jdonn]

Having begun my long reply when there were no other replies yet and then gone back and read the replies that preceded mine, I am dumbfounded. If you feel opener is free to do as he pleases then ok, but the explanation is quite obviously UI to opener. How can you say it's not?

[Pict]

Having begun my long reply when there were no other replies yet and then gone back and read the replies that preceded mine, I am dumbfounded. If you feel opener is free to do as he pleases then ok, but the explanation is quite obviously UI to opener. How can you say it's not?

I may be misreading this post, but if my partner explains my bids according to our agreements, I feel no constraint at all about my next bid.

[gnasher]

Is there an additional 'not' in one of the sentences?

No, I have the intended number of "not"s.

 

I don't see any UI here - correctly alerted as non-constructive, intended as non-constructive, agreement is non-constructive.

If it really is clearly written that 3S is as explained, I can't understand why you are barred from bidding as you please

That's what common sense would suggest. Do the rules say that too?

 

Regarding Josh's example, that involved a player underbidding and then trying to catch up. In the auction I gave, it's quite possible for opener to have a normal 3♠ bid and still want to bid 4♠, because their hand has improved offensively and/or deterioriated defensively.

[jdonn]

Having begun my long reply when there were no other replies yet and then gone back and read the replies that preceded mine, I am dumbfounded. If you feel opener is free to do as he pleases then ok, but the explanation is quite obviously UI to opener. How can you say it's not?

I may be misreading this post, but if my partner explains my bids according to our agreements, I feel no constraint at all about my next bid.

That doesn't make it not UI.

[Pict]

Having begun my long reply when there were no other replies yet and then gone back and read the replies that preceded mine, I am dumbfounded. If you feel opener is free to do as he pleases then ok, but the explanation is quite obviously UI to opener. How can you say it's not?

I may be misreading this post, but if my partner explains my bids according to our agreements, I feel no constraint at all about my next bid.

That doesn't make it not UI.

Have you become an avatar for Bluejak?

[jdonn]

Regarding Josh's example, that involved a player underbidding and then trying to catch up. In the auction I gave, it's quite possible for opener to have a normal 3♠ bid and still want to bid 4♠, because their hand has improved offensively and/or deterioriated defensively.

In my example the player followed her agreement, her opponents simply didn't believe her hand fit it. In your example the opponents could just as easily believe opener was worth an invitation and thus that opener is cheating. It's the exact same situation.

[jdonn]

Having begun my long reply when there were no other replies yet and then gone back and read the replies that preceded mine, I am dumbfounded. If you feel opener is free to do as he pleases then ok, but the explanation is quite obviously UI to opener. How can you say it's not?

I may be misreading this post, but if my partner explains my bids according to our agreements, I feel no constraint at all about my next bid.

That doesn't make it not UI.

Have you become an avatar for Bluejak?

I'm not sure I understand. Is he well known for telling wrong people that they are wrong, and then when they answer a different question than was asked of them clarifying that they are still wrong?

[gnasher]

Regarding Josh's example, that involved a player underbidding and then trying to catch up.  In the auction I gave, it's quite possible for opener to have a normal 3♠ bid and still want to bid 4♠, because their hand has improved offensively and/or deterioriated defensively.

In my example the player followed her agreement, her opponents simply didn't believe her hand fit it. In your example the opponents could just as easily believe opener was worth an invitation and thus that opener is cheating. It's the exact same situation.

Yes, I meant only that opener doesn't have to be a beginner or to have done something odd for this problem to arise - he can have a 3♠ bid that the whole world would make, and still want to bid 4♠ on the next round.

 

Also, I don't really see what the opponents have to do with it - a bid is legal or it isn't, regardless of what the opponents think.

[Pict]

Well, let's consider.

 

It's say the EBU, I open 1 NT, partner announces 12-14.

 

We do indeed play 12-14.

 

The OP says bidder intended as announced.

 

There cannot be any UI in this scenario.

 

The fact that explanations are extraneous does not and cannot create UI.

[campboy]

I consider that the laws permit opener to bid as he pleases: while the explanation is UI it does not (and could not, from opener's point of view) suggest any course of action over another because he knew it all along. However, the laws also seem to permit the TD to adjust the score if he considers it plausible that opener had forgotten what 3♠ meant, since then (from the TD's point of view) bidding on, while not definitely suggested, certainly could have been*.

 

* I don't like the current wording of 16B1a either, so don't blame me...

[jdonn]

Also, I don't really see what the opponents have to do with it - a bid is legal or it isn't, regardless of what the opponents think.

Just that the director might agree with them. There is simply no proof whether the player is being honest or dishonest is all that I'm saying.

 

Well, let's consider.

 

It's say the EBU, I open 1 NT, partner announces 12-14.

 

We do indeed play 12-14.

 

The OP says bidder intended as announced.

 

There cannot be any UI in this scenario.

 

The fact that explanations are extraneous does not and cannot create UI.

Hilighted portion = Still wrong!

[gwnn]

This thread is still in Chinese to me and Google Translate doesn't seem to help me.

[aguahombre]

There is simply no proof whether the player is being honest or dishonest is all that I'm saying.

This would be why the player might be ruled against. But the "proof" the OP gives is that opener intended 3S exactly as it is marked on their card, and exactly as it was explained. We are supposed to assume OP is giving us the facts with which to respond.

 

If that is true, then posters say Opener can bid 4S if he jolly well feels like it when it comes back around. JDonn's argument is that the TD or an AC might not believe the facts as OP gave them.

 

Two separate subjects: what is legal to do, given the facts ---and whether someone might believe the facts are different.

[TylerE]

This thread baffles me. What exactly is the "offending" side supposed to do, refuse to explain when asked about an alert?

[richlp]

Having begun my long reply when there were no other replies yet and then gone back and read the replies that preceded mine, I am dumbfounded. If you feel opener is free to do as he pleases then ok, but the explanation is quite obviously UI to opener. How can you say it's not?

I simply don't understand.

 

Partner alerts my bid and mis-explains it. It is clearly UI to me that we are not on the same page.

 

Partner alerts my bid. I intend it to mean X, partner explains it as X, and our agreement is X. This is also UI?

 

If incorrect explanations are UI and correct explanations are UI, then any explanation of an alerted call is UI.

 

Taken to an illogical extreme, I open 1NT and partner correctly announces our point range. It this UI as well?

 

Getting back to the original post, if it is UI, then does it constrain opener's actions in any way?

[Zelandakh]

This is silliness. Let me phrase the OP another way...

 

It goes:

 

  1♠ pass 2♠ dbl

  3♠* 4♦ pass pass

 

* 3♠ is alerted and explained as not constructive. Assume that this is correct procedure.

 

Opener intended 3♠ as not constructive, and the partnership has an unambiguous agreement that it's not constructive. Opener now wants to pass. 4♠ also a logical alternative.

 

As I understand it:

- The alert and explanation provide UI

- The UI tells opener that responder can still have a hand that would not have accepted an invitation.

- Therefore the UI, taken in isolation, suggests passing over bidding.

 

 

Opener has UI that Responder remembered their agreement. This UI does not appear to suggest passing or bidding to be the right action. If anything it might suggest that partner has minimum spade length and/or good defence which would favour passing! I would be extremely upset if I was penalised for passing here however. There is no justification in any ruling against bidding 4S if the facts are exactly as presented here imho.

[aguahombre]

No. The thread is saying:

 

1) Partner's alert and explanation are proper.

2)But you and your partner are expected to know your agreements.

3)Even though the alert and explanation are in accord with your agreements, that conversation is UI to you. It isn't for your benefit.

4)If you use that information as a basis for further action, that is a no no

5)If you don't use it, all is well (unless the TD thinks you did use it).

6)The director might decide you did use it, if your hand is close to a real invite and you later bid again (He might determine you misbid per your style and were alerted by the explanation).

7)Nevertheless, you couldn't close your ears, because if his explanation was not in accord with your agreements, you might have to disclose, later.

 

Have I covered it?

[dburn]

No.  The thread is saying:

 

1) Partner's alert and explanation are proper.

2)But you and your partner are expected to know your agreements.

3)Even though the alert and explanation are in accord with your agreements, that conversation is UI to you. It isn't for your benefit.

4)If you use that information as a basis for further action, that is a no no

5)If you don't use it, all is well (unless the TD thinks you did use it).

6)The director might decide you did use it, if your hand is close to a real invite and you later bid again (He might determine you misbid per your style and were alerted by the explanation).

7)Nevertheless, you couldn't close your ears, because if his explanation was not in accord with your agreements, you might have to disclose, later.

 

Have I covered it?

More or less. The sticking point is this splendid part of Law 16B:

 

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by [...] an unexpected alert or failure to alert (i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action) [...]

Since nobody at all has any idea what this means, the question of whether "expected alerts" are AI is unresolved (just because unexpected alerts are UI, expected alerts are not necessarily AI - the principle of exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis is unknown to the WBFLC).

 

But the truth is that anything partner does apart from making a legal call or play is UI to you - including, pace richlp, alerting when he is supposed to alert and telling the opponents what you are actually playing.

 

For all that, if someone in the given position bid 4♠ on the given auction, it would be difficult to show that he had infringed any Law. Maybe he had three little diamonds - a holding which is not yet illegal, though I suppose some authorities might try to ban it on humanitarian grounds.

[mjj29]

Well, let's consider.

 

It's say the EBU, I open 1 NT, partner announces 12-14.

 

We do indeed play 12-14.

 

The OP says bidder intended as announced.

 

There cannot be any UI in this scenario.

 

The fact that explanations are extraneous does not and cannot create UI.

Hilighted portion = Still wrong!

L16B1(a) says "... an unexpected alert" (emphasis mine) - ergo, if it's expected, it's not UI? Or, perhaps, it's UI, but not UI to which L16B applies, so does not constrain your actions.

 

Edit: I see dburn has also made this point

[iviehoff]

It's say the EBU, I open 1 NT, partner announces 12-14.

We do indeed play 12-14.

The OP says bidder intended as announced.

There cannot be any UI in this scenario.

The fact that explanations are extraneous does not and cannot create UI.

Knowledge of the explanation is clearly unauthorised, and I presume no one is denying that. In saying "There cannot be any UI" it seems to there is are two possible things you are saying

 

(1) It doesn't actually provide any useful information, ie the information content of what is unauthorised is nil, in the same way that "My sister is coming around on Thursday" is plainly UI, but the information content, in relation to the game of bridge, is usually nil.

or

(2) That such information of that nature in this situation could not be said to demonstrably suggest any bid over any LA.

 

I think "partner has not forgotten our agreements and thinks the bid means the same as me" is material information, so there is UI, and I think it is hard to deny that.

 

So I think you'd be on stronger ground if what you were saying were (2), ie, there is in fact UI, but UI that partner thinks the bid is the same as I think it is, provided that is in fact our agreement, is not in general UI that could demonstrably suggest anything in preference to LAs.

 

It seems to me that if you and your partner bid in accordance with your agreements, and explanations are correct, and then someone comes along and says you are restricted by the UI of the explanations, then the procedure for explaining bids is fundamentally flawed and needs changing.

[gwnn]

How is this different from:

 

I open 1NT, 12-14, I have 13 points.

 

My partner alerts, LHO asks, partner tells him that it's 12-14. Partner bids 2NT, natural and invitational.

 

Now I know that partner does not have 8-9 balanced and he has 10-11 balanced, so if I have a close decision, I'm not allowed to accept it because my Bizarro World UI suggests accepting!

 

edit: I see that there have been a number of posts regarding NT ranges but perhaps not about this exact situation.