Useless UI

[jallerton]

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.

There are two Laws to consider:

 

Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner

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.

 

In the example you cite, where the UI does not tell partner anything he does not already know from AI, then there cannot possibly be any actions which are "taking any advantage"of the UI. Hence Opener is not constrained by Law 73C.

 

1. (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.

 

Note the list commencing with a "remark" is preceded by "for example" so just because "expected alert" is not in the list that does not imply that expected alerts are not UI. In fact Law 16A confirms that alerts are not authorised information.

 

However, in this case, where Opener was already sure of the meaning of 3♠, the extraneous information did not suggest any action at all. Hence no logical alternative "could demonstrably have been suggested over another" and Opener is free to bid whatever he wishes.

 

Change the facts and make Opener only (say) 75% sure how 3♠ is going to be interpreted. Now it is theoretically possible that Opener could be contrained by the UI which now provides reassurance that 3♠ has been interpreted as Opener had hoped.

[jdonn]

This forum is designed for practical solutions to practical problems.  Now, I do not mind people discussing impractical problems, and I may make the odd comment, but I am not going to make much effort over them.  One of the three reasons I left BLML was that they were not involved in running a game of bridge.

 

Now, there is a slight point of interest.  Fine, but not enough that I am going to worry about it.

With all due respect I don't think this is a slight problem, I have come across this theme a number of times. I don't have time to write about it now but it led to a huge problem for me at the table once. I'll probably get to it later. Then there is the appeal I referred to, gnasher's problem that occured...

 

Btw I don't think a 12-14 notrump is a very good comparison. That bid has a clear objective measure. This issue is much more troublesome in cases involving bids that are 'competitive' or 'weak' or 'shows doubt' or that kind of thing where reasonable people may disagree that the hand is anything like what is being described. In the original problem if opener bid 4♠ the director would only be called if the opponents thought 3♠ might have been intended as invitational, and thus that opener may have taken advantage of the explanation. That kind of thing definitely happens so it's a common problem that sorely lacks a clear solution.

[gnasher]

This forum is designed for practical solutions to practical problems.  Now, I do not mind people discussing impractical problems, and I may make the odd comment, but I am not going to make much effort over them.  One of the three reasons I left BLML was that they were not involved in running a game of bridge.

 

Now, there is a slight point of interest.  Fine, but not enough that I am going to worry about it.

 

I am not trying to be argumentative: I am just not very interested.  If my partner tells me that my 1NT is 12 to 14 when it is 12 to 14, I am not going to worry about the effects of UI - and I pride myself on playing a highly ethical game.

 

Why a slight problem?  Because I do not expect to give more than one ruling every ten years based on this.  So it is a slight problem to my mind.

According to the pinned thread entitled "Welcome! - Forum rules - Abbreviations", this forum is, amongst other things, the "general one for the Laws". Since I had (and still have) a question about the meaning and correct interpretation of one of the Laws, this seemed a sensible place to post it. If you aren't sufficiently interested in the question to answer it, that's OK. There's no need to post a response explaining exactly how uninterested you are.

 

I am also slightly surprised at the suggestion that anyone might be entitled to "mind" what other people choose to discuss.

[Pict]

Btw I don't think a 12-14 notrump is a very good comparison. That bid has a clear objective measure. This issue is much more troublesome in cases involving bids that are 'competitive' or 'weak' or 'shows doubt' or that kind of thing where reasonable people may disagree that the hand is anything like what is being described. In the original problem if opener bid 4♠ the director would only be called if the opponents thought 3♠ might have been intended as invitational, and thus that opener may have taken advantage of the explanation. That kind of thing definitely happens so it's a common problem that sorely lacks a clear solution.

I don't disagree, but 12-14 NT was not a comparison, but a simple and unambiguous case testing the same principle. That way we avoid a pointless discussion about whether we 'believe' Gnasher and his partner really had an agreement and he really remembered it.

 

Certainly there are practical difficulties in real life as you indicate, but I still think that it is worth being clear that the possibility of UI from partner telling you what you know and have agreed is not one of those practical difficulties.

[iviehoff]

Some care is needed with your examples.

1. I can easily create a 'back story' about my sister and her view that my bidding needs to be much bolder.

2. As I've indicated above (and you doubtless know better than me), the definition of UI contains the fact that a bid is suggested.

I took care to include the word "usually" in my sister example, for just the kind of reason you give.

 

There is no explicit definition of unauthorised information in the laws, rather the law says that certain things are unauthorised information. Law 16B is headed "Authorized and Unauthorized Information", but doesn't actually explicitly define unauthorised information. Law 73C comes closer to a definition of unauthorised information, but actually only says that certain things are unauthorised, and does not purport to be a complete list. 73C makes clear that all explanations are unauthorised. 73C only refers to unexpected alerts. 16A says that certain things are authorised.

 

The "may suggest a bid or play" wording occurs only in 16B where it says what is extraneous information. In gives an non-exahaustive list of things that may be extraneous information, including unexpected alerts. But it is clear that an expected alert can also be extraneous, precisely because it does suggest something, ie, that nothing is wrong. There is also the case that Bluejak gives, where I have misbid an alertable bid - in this case the alert is expected in one sense and unexpected in another. 73C makes clear that an explanation is always unauthorised.

[helene_t]

Have you become an avatar for Bluejak?

BlueJak found a white cat! Oh my!

http://s3.amazonaws.com/picable/2009/07/15/1168869_fat-cat_620.jpg

BlueJak was weeding out in his law jungle when a white cat came along. The white cat is fat and lazy and desperately needs someone to oversee its diet and exercise program.

BlueJak via FarmVille

[shyams]

IMHO, while jallerton's detailed response addresses most points, I worry about Directors uniformly applying this principle:

()... in this case, where Opener was already sure of the meaning of 3♠, the extraneous information did not suggest any action at all.  Hence no logical alternative "could demonstrably have been suggested over another" and Opener is free to bid whatever he wishes.

The constraint is that Law 21B.1b requires the TD to "to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary"

 

I'd suspect most convention cards won't have such an agreement noted / recorded. Therefore, the OS(!!) has to produce system notes to convince everyone that there is no UI. IMHO the OS will often be unable to produce such notes (even in serious tournaments). And any verbal explanations / confirmations by the OS can easily be discounted as "self-serving".

 

Btw I don't think a 12-14 notrump is a very good comparison. That bid has a clear objective measure. This issue is much more troublesome in cases involving bids that are 'competitive' or 'weak' or 'shows doubt' or that kind of thing where reasonable people may disagree that the hand is anything like what is being described. In the original problem if opener bid 4♠ the director would only be called if the opponents thought 3♠ might have been intended as invitational, and thus that opener may have taken advantage of the explanation. That kind of thing definitely happens so it's a common problem that sorely lacks a clear solution.

I totally agree with jdonn. The problem is common enough, and it lacks a clear solution.

[gnasher]

However, in this case, where Opener was already sure of the meaning of 3♠, the extraneous information did not suggest any action at all. Hence no logical alternative "could demonstrably have been suggested over another" and Opener is free to bid whatever he wishes.

I still don't get this bit. The extraneous information, taken in isolation, does suggest a particular action - it suggests bidding 4♠.

 

Are you saying that "extraneous information that may suggest a call or play" actually means "extraneous information that may suggest a call or play other than what was already suggested by the available AI"?

 

Change the facts and make Opener only (say) 75% sure how 3♠ is going to be interpreted.  Now it is theoretically possible that Opener could be contrained by the UI which now provides reassurance that 3♠ has been interpreted as Opener had hoped.

So we weigh the AI against the UI, and if the AI is sufficiently strong we can ignore the UI?

[campboy]

Why does it matter what the UI suggests when "taken in isolation"? Those words do not appear in law 16. The question is: what does the UI (demonstrably) suggest in a context where we already know the AI? If it adds no new information, then how can it suggest anything?

[mycroft]

There are two (practical) cases here. Again, the theory is the theory, but this is in practise.

• No, if the AI is sufficient, you can't just ignore the UI. But UI, by itself, isn't a problem. If there is no reasonable alternative to the call or play you decide to make, *using only, but not ignoring, the AI*, then there's no restriction. You're still under UI restrictions, but they in no way limit your action. Almost all situations (literally, I've run into one that I can remember in 10 or so years that even required thinking about) fall into this category.
   
  
• There is a problem with Mistaken Explanation vs Mistaken Bid vs forgets vs deliberate use of the Alert system to make 2-way calls. There's nothing short of a patented mind-reading machine that will solve this problem - the "I was always going to" problem or the "of course I remembered, I just evaluated my hand wrong" problem.
   
  If you have a borderline game try and choose to make the weaker "strictly competitive" call, and then choose (for whatever reason) to push on to game, the TDs are going to look with a (mildly) jaundiced eye. You could have forgotten that you play this way. You could have re-evaluated your hand given the further auction and it re-evaluates to "game should make or be a good sac." You could have re-evaluated your hand and said "that was dumb, I should have made a game try, thanks opps for giving me the opportunity to bid again." You may invite heavy (compared to your environment), secure in the knowledge that you might get another chance after "strictly competitive". You might be walking the dog. There could be many other reasons - but the actively unethical player who forgets will use the information from partner (which is unauthorized) to wake up from his forget, and bid - and justify - just the same as you. Who do we rule against - given that we likely can't tell the difference?
   
  Yes, there are people who believe that they are entitled to hear their partner's explanations and bid accordingly. I have had the auction 1D-1NT-p-2H (not announced); p-p-X-2S (partner didn't Announce my transfer, so my 5 spades will play better than her non-existent 6 hearts opposite my 3). That's not even subtle, and it got ruled back. But those same people will happily listen to partner's non-Alert in 1C!-1NT!; 2C-2H(4 spades, not Alerted); 2NT-3S; 4S to get to their 4-4 spade fit - and of course, won't explain that their bid showed spades and hope to get away with it. They'll listen to partner's Alert and explanation of a call, use it to wake up to their system, and "recover" accordingly. And for every person that I've just described, there are 4 or 5 (or 40!) who do it without knowing they are doing it.
   
  Yes, that means that sometimes you are going to be caught up in the net. But please believe that it is a rare occurrence. It's even rarer if you are not playing weird systems (oops).
  

In other words, I know it happens occasionally, and I have sympathy (especially to jdonn) when it does; but the impact of doing it the other way would happen much more often (even though, still very rare) and be worse.

[Pict]

And if I have experienced an adverse judgement, or inticipate such, and put the details of my agreement on my 'card'.

 

Yet you TDs may still rule against me - is that not so?

[jallerton]

However, in this case, where Opener was already sure of the meaning of 3♠, the extraneous information did not suggest any action at all.  Hence no logical alternative "could demonstrably have been suggested over another" and Opener is free to bid whatever he wishes.

I still don't get this bit. The extraneous information, taken in isolation, does suggest a particular action - it suggests bidding 4♠.

 

Are you saying that "extraneous information that may suggest a call or play" actually means "extraneous information that may suggest a call or play other than what was already suggested by the available AI"?

There are perhaps two ways of interpreting Law16B1(a).

 

1. In what I believe to be the practical interpretation we compare:

 

[a] information available to the player from all authorised sources; with

 

the information available from the combination of all authorised sources and the particular piece of unathorised information.

 

In your example, [a] and are exactly the same, hence my conclusion that the UI does not suggest anything at all.

 

2. Under the alternative interpretation, it is suggested that we ignore the authorised information completely. In that case we would have to compare:

 

[c] the particular piece of unauthorised information; with

 

[d] no information at all.

 

Considered in complete isolation (i.e. without reference to any authorised information), partner's alert and explanation are actually close to meaningless in terms of what they suggest we might do.

 

Perhaps a different example might reinforce the point. The most common type of UI is a hesitation. So under interpretation 1, we compare:

 

[a] my hand, both sides' system and the auction to date; with

 

my hand, both sides' system, the auction to date and the fact that partner hesitated.

 

and I do not choose any logical alternatives suggested by

 

Under interpretation 2, we compare:

 

[c] the fact that partner hesitated; with

[d] no information at all.

 

But for [c] and [d] we are not considering any authorised information such as the auction or our hand! Partner hesitated but about what we do not know, and hence no action from us could demonstrably be suggested now.

 

Of course, it would be absurd if interpretation 2 prevailed as TDs would very rarely adjust the score under Law16 (though perhaps they might still be able to use 73C). Moreover, Laws 16B2 and 16B3 would be redundant.

 

Hence I believe that Interpretaion 1 is the only sensible practical interpretation.

[jdonn]

Hence I believe that Interpretaion 1 is the only sensible practical interpretation.

I don't believe either interpretation makes sense. Why are you "comparing" anything to anything else? You simply look at what the UI suggests. That it may or may not be suggested by something else is in no way covered in the laws. The authorized information is indeed taken into account in determining logical alternatives so it's not ignorred, but that is different.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of that state of affairs, but that is what the laws (don't) say.

[bluejak]

There's no need to post a response explaining exactly how uninterested you are.

You asked: I answered. That seems basic politeness.

 

I am also slightly surprised at the suggestion that anyone might be entitled to "mind" what other people choose to discuss.

These are moderated forums. While we allow quite a breadth of discussion, we do not allow totally off-topic discussion nor should we.

[dburn]

A thought experiment.

 

You open a strong club, partner responds 1♠ showing 5+ spades and 8+ hcp.

 

Your hand is such that you wish to discover whether or not partner has a diamond control, and if so of what nature - perhaps you have

 

♠AKQ32 ♥A ♦AQJ1098 ♣A

 

The following cunning plan occurs to you: you will bid 2♠ to ask about trumps, then you will bid 3♦ to ask about diamonds, then if partner shows second-round control, you will bid 4♦ to ask whether that is the king or a singleton. After all, that is what C C Wei invented the system for all those years ago, and after all it's matchpoints - it would be nice to be the only pair in the room in 7NT facing ♦K, would it not?

 

Well, you bid 2♠. Partner alerts, explains on request that this asks about spades, and bids 3♣ showing five spades to one top honour - ace, king or queen.

 

Now, you know that he hasn't got five spades to one top honour. But you also know that he knows your bid was an asking bid, which significantly increases the chance that he will know that your next bid is also an asking bid. Maybe he will cock up the responses to that also, but you might as well proceed with your plan - after all, maybe he won't. Perhaps he thought the jack of spades was a top honour.

 

You bid three diamonds, he alerts and explains that this asks about diamonds, he bids 3NT (second round control), you bid four diamonds (a repeat ask, but he does not alert because this is above 3NT), he bids four spades (♦K). You bid 7NT, and you get your top.

 

The opponents, educated citizens, complain. "If", they tell the TD, "there was a screen, or if as he properly should have done the opening bidder had taken no notice at all of his partner's alerts and explanations, the opening bidder might not have concluded that his 3♦ bid would be - nay, had been - correctly interpreted on the next round. He might have concluded instead, given the response to 2♠, that his partner had forgotten altogether about asking bids, and he might have settled for some other way of bidding his hand that might not have resulted in a final contract of 7NT."

 

You are the TD, and you rule that...?

 

These are actually very deep waters, and they are important. As Jan's resident expert on the Laws correctly says, a confirmation that partner knows the system - whether in whole or in part - really is UI, and really can demonstrably suggest a course of action that might not have been taken in the absence of that UI.

 

Moreover, the question of whether or not you can do something demonstrably suggested by UI when the logical alternatives are counter-indicated by AI is one that has never been satisfactorily resolved. It should be.

[jdonn]

No need for a made up example, this is what happened to me against good players (though you may not believe it after the story).

 

My partner opened 1♥, RHO overcalled 1NT. I bid 3♥ and LHO bid 3NT. This was passed back to me and I doubled, passed to RHO who redoubled. This was alerted and explained as 'showing doubt'. LHO ran to 4♦ and RHO raised to 5♦.

 

Partner led something and RHO put down AQx Kx KJT9x AJT. That seemed strange to me. An 18 count with a 5 card suit and ripe with spot cards showing doubt? It sure seemed to me that he had meant the redouble for blood. Then the problem was, if I was right, the explanation gave him UI that his hand was considerably better than his partner would expect. In fact any doubt-showing redouble hand would have nearly an automatic pass of 4♦ on this auction I would think. Pass is more than a logical alternative if you have what partner expects you to have.

 

So I called the director and explained this all to him. The moment I got it out of my mouth the opponents became livid. Their agreement was doubt-showing redoubles, they both knew it, and my accusation was unfounded. They said they always redouble with a minimum or a single stopper (I find it hard to believe they redouble on upwards of 80% of hands on this auction personally).

 

It turned out they went down 1 in a cold contract (on the chosen lead) when 3NT would have made 4 easily on a heart lead (my typical double). Declarer had I believe xx x AQxxxxx xxx and on the ace of hearts lead settled on a losing spade finesse rather than winning either club finesse. So the director was not called upon to make a ruling. But what if he had to? You could believe my judgment was off at the ripe old age of 20 or so, but how is the director to decide? Must he believe them simply because they say so and are mad? What if he thinks there is no way this hand could have intended its redouble as doubt-showing?

 

Frankly the situation is nothing more than either a guess, or an arbitrary rule that will often screw one side or the other. Short of using screens or computers I see no way around it.

[Pict]

A thought experiment.

This illustrates very well the difficulty with the way in which explanations are described as UI.

 

Because what if partner indeed did not alert and did bid 3 clubs.

 

You would have ethically to continue with your plan, and ask him about diamonds, as you intended, and believe his answers - because, yes, whether partner does or doesn't alert is indeed not authorised information.

 

Precisely the same holds good when he does alert and bids 3♣.

 

Where I would part company is at the point where I can be accused of treating partner as someone who knows our system, or is honest, or does not psych - and being influenced in my selection of bids as a result.

 

At that point I would say we have made the game impossible to play because common sense and normal ethics would be contradicted by an interpretation of scope of UI.

 

Of course this is quite different from whether opponents may not believe me, or the TD may not believe me. That is a completely different problem and a different kind of unsatisfactory situation where technology may be the only absolute answer.

[jallerton]

Hence I believe that Interpretaion 1 is the only sensible practical interpretation.

I don't believe either interpretation makes sense. Why are you "comparing" anything to anything else? You simply look at what the UI suggests.

Quite simply because comparing the information you know with and without the UI will tell you whether or not the UI would make a particular call or play seem more attractive, i.e. whether it "could demonstrably be suggested".

[lamford]

In fact any doubt-showing redouble hand would have nearly an automatic pass of 4♦ on this auction I would think. Pass is more than a logical alternative if you have what partner expects you to have.

Again I am coming to this thead late; the example you cite is a good one, and I would completely agree if partner had pulled 3NT to 4C, but here you have undisclosed five-card support, and I think it is normal to raise to 5D.

 

The other issue is that the opponents might just use redouble to show a single stop, and be misexplaining it as a "doubt-showing" redouble.