Useless UI

[karlson]

To see if I understand gnasher's point, I'm going to modify gwnn's example a tiny bit.

 

A pair plays different NT ranges (12-14 or 15-17) depending on seat and vulnerability. In this position they play 15-17, but opener decides to open a very good 14 count 1N. Partner explains as 15-17 and bids 2n. Bidding 3n may well be a logical alternative, especially if our good 14 had a 6-card minor or something. Since the UI from the explanation suggests not accepting the invitation (even though so does the AI), the laws actually support ruling against a player who passes in this spot.

 

I agree that this doesn't really seem reasonable and at some point we have to give the side with UI some benefit of the doubt.

[gnasher]

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?

I can't speak for anybody else, but that isn't what I was asking or saying. My question was

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?

[gnasher]

Regarding the use of "unexpected" in Law 16, I think that David Burn snipped the most relevant part:

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

It seems to me that this says:

- An unexpected alert conveys UI

- An expected alert does not

- An answer to a question conveys UI, regardless of whether the answer was expected.

Thus in my example partner's explanation does convey UI, even though the answer was exactly what opener expected to hear.

 

It also seems to me that even though this UI merely reinforces existing AI, it constrains the recipient in exactly the same way as any other UI would do.

 

So, please can somebody explain what's wrong with this interpretation?

 

Answers on the lines of "If X is true, the law is an ass. Therefore X is untrue." will receive no marks.

[Pict]

[

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) [...]

'Extraneous information that may suggest a call'

 

If I have 12-14, open 12-14 and hear partner announce 12-14, in what construction of the Law is a call suggested to me?

[Free]

Ofcourse there is UI, come on!

 

Just put screens and see if opener thinks the same. He would've bid 3♠ constructively, his partner passed, so 4♠ has very little chance of success. The only reason to bid 4♠ would be to go -1 and score better than 4♦= imo.

 

Now however, opener bid 3♠ as being constructive, and his partner alerted him to the fact that his bid was NOT constructive at all. Opener has more information, because he knows his partner will pass 4♦ most of the time. So there could still be a chance that 4♠ makes since the invitation wasn't even considered. Combined with the chances I explained before, bidding 4♠ looks way more appealing imo.

 

I would not accept the 4♠ call, especially not if the reason is that 4♠ might make!

 

Since we're comparing with similar situations, let me give one as well. Suppose you play 14-16NT and you forget it, you think you're playing 10-13 and open 1NT on 13HCP. Partner alerts, explains correctly as 14-16, and bids 2NT invitational. Now you know he has 9-10HCP, so you'll pass because you only have 13. However, if you wouldn't get partner's alert and correct explanation you'd bid 3NT because you're maximum (same with screens). So yes, there is an influence by getting the correct explanation from partner, so it must be considered UI!

 

I don't understand why a correct explanation of a correct call (with correct intentions) can ever convey UI. It only says partner knows what you have and he's doing what he thinks is best, which is what you expect from your partner all the time anyway...

[paulg]

Regarding the use of "unexpected" in Law 16, I think that David Burn snipped the most relevant part:

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

It seems to me that this says:

- An unexpected alert conveys UI

- An expected alert does not

- An answer to a question conveys UI, regardless of whether the answer was expected.

Thus in my example partner's explanation does convey UI, even though the answer was exactly what opener expected to hear.

 

It also seems to me that even though this UI merely reinforces existing AI, it constrains the recipient in exactly the same way as any other UI would do.

 

So, please can somebody explain what's wrong with this interpretation?

I think your interpretation is fine. Seems pointless, but not wrong (no doubt it is not pointless, but that does not stop it seeming so).

 

As Pict says, how does the fact that partner has told our opponents of our correct agreement, which I apparently did know, suggest anything?

 

Or was I really unsure and the phrase 'self-serving' has appeared on the appeal ruling?

[bluejak]

I don't understand why a correct explanation of a correct call (with correct intentions) can ever convey UI.  It only says partner knows what you have and he's doing what he thinks is best, which is what you expect from your partner all the time anyway...

I think we do have to differentiate between the people who think UI is useful or non-existent, and the actual meaning of UI.

 

If your partner indicates something to you other than by a call or play, it is information, and it is unauthorised. It is often useless. But what does that mean?

 

First, two examples, both from above.

• You open a 12 to 14 NT. Partner says "12 to 14". That is information: it is not from a call or play: it is therefore unauthorised. It is not really useful, but ....
  
• My sister is coming round sometime. That is information: it is not from a call or play: it is therefore unauthorised. It is certainly not useful to this hand.
  

Some people are saying that these are not UI, but that is wrong: they pass information, and they are unauthorised. But are they useful? In the sister case it is clearly not worth worrying about. It is UI but cannot suggest anything.

 

In the other case there is some slight interest. Knowing your partner has interpreted your call correctly could be of some interest. I do think there is the possibility of a slight problem, though not one I am going to lose any sleep over. For those who do not think there is a problem, consider the following:

 

Your partner opens 1NT, you bid 2♥ signoff, not transfer. Partner bids 2♠. What do you do now?

 

Consider the following possibilities:

• Partner announced "transfer"
  
• Partner neither announced nor alerted, meaning a weak signoff in England
  

We often get the former case. Responder rebids his hearts in a firm voice and opener passes, and opponents/TDs/readers of IBLF get hot under the collar.

 

Now consider the latter case. Is there a problem with passing [or raising] 2♠? Suppose I tell you that the same player bid 3♥ with the same hand on the same sequence [but 2♥ was announced as a transfer] in the previous session with a different partner?

[hotShot]

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

 

If I open 1♠ and make the remark: "I open 1♠",

there is no extraneous information, so this Law would not apply.

 

If an opponent asks about the agreed meaning of a bid, and there is an agreement and it is properly disclosed, there is no extraneous information.

 

Unless there is reason to believe that the agreement was forgotten, there is no case.

[gnasher]

I think your interpretation is fine. Seems pointless, but not wrong (no doubt it is not pointless, but that does not stop it seeming so).

 

As Pict says, how does the fact that partner has told our opponents of our correct agreement, which I apparently did know, suggest anything?

You have UI and AI that partner has interpreted your bid the way that you intended it.

 

The UI and the AI both suggest 4♠ over pass.

 

When you have UI, you may not choose from logical alternatives an action that was suggested by the UI. That applies regardless of whether you have AI that suggests the same action.

 

4♠ and pass are both logical alternatives.

 

Therefore you may not bid 4♠.

 

 

The conclusion is absurd, obviously. But is there anything wrong with my route to this conclusion?

[gnasher]

I think we do have to differentiate between the people who think UI is useful or non-existent, and the actual meaning of UI.

 

If your partner indicates something to you other than by a call or play, it is information, and it is unauthorised. It is often useless.  But what does that mean?

 

First, two examples, both from above.

• 
   
   
  
• You open a 12 to 14 NT.  Partner says "12 to 14".  That is information: it is not from a call or play: it is therefore unauthorised.  It is not really useful, but ....
   
   
  
• My sister is coming round sometime. That is information: it is not from a call or play: it is therefore unauthorised.  It is certainly not useful to this hand.
   
   
  

Some people are saying that these are not UI, but that is wrong: they pass information, and they are unauthorised.  But are they useful? In the sister case it is clearly not worth worrying about.  It is UI but cannot suggest anything.

 

In the other case there is some slight interest.  Knowing your partner has interpreted your call correctly could be of some interest.  I do think there is the possibility of a slight problem, though not one I am going to lose any sleep over.

As I understand it, you're saying that if you receive UI which adds little or nothing to what you already knew, the UI doesn't constrain you. Is that correct?

 

If so, which Law says that?

Edited September 7, 2010 by gnasher

[ahydra]

And there were people in my thread saying the UI laws are just fine as they are... :/ :unsure:

 

Something ought to be done about this, before screens need to be introduced at all tournaments or partners are sent away from the table every time an explanation of an alerted call is required. However the fix may be as easy as clarifying in the law book the "exception proves the rule" issue with regards to unexpected/expected alerts or explanations.

 

Of course, that's still going to leave the dodgy cases where people make an upgrade/downgrade/misjudgement so their hand no longer fits the explanation and then it's pot luck whether you get a bunch of TDs who agree or a bunch of TDs who disagree with your judgement, but unfortunately there'll always be an element of that in bridge so we can't do much for it, particularly with the rather bad wording of the UI laws.

 

ahydra

[Free]

Law 16A1D is pretty clear:

 

LAW 16 AUTHORIZED AND UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION

A. Players’ Use of Information

1. A player may use information in the auction or play if:

(d) it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information.

 

Seems like a correct explanation of a correct call is information the player possessed before he took his hand from the board, so he can use it...

[RMB1]

Gnasher, let me be the one to answer the original question "no".

 

If opener can have a hand that would make a marginal invitation with 3♠ if 3♠ were invitational, would bid 3♠ preemptively if 3♠ is not invitational, and would compete to 4♠ (if partner hasn't doubled, say).

 

Then, with such a hand, opener would bid 3♠ (and then 4♠) but we would not know if he knew 3♠ was not invitational and so he appears to have used UI from the explanation of 3♠.

 

In this case, it is possible that there would be a ruling against opener. When opener had known their agreements all along (for instance, when he bid 3♠) such a ruling is (to say the least) unfortunate.

[ahydra]

Then, with such a hand, opener would bid 3♠ (and then 4♠) but we would not know if he knew 3♠ was not invitational and so he appears to have used UI from the explanation of 3♠.

 

In this case, it is possible that there would be a ruling against opener. When opener had known their agreements all along (for instance, when he bid 3♠) such a ruling is (to say the least) unfortunate.

Indeed. Although one would hope we presume a partnership is aware of their system (particularly if they can offer up a system file with at least some details of this kind of auction), as discussed in my thread on UI such presumptions may open the door to cheaters.

 

Free's argument is somewhat dodgy IMO, but it does support what surely is the sensible view to take in these cases - if there's no actual evidence a partnership has forgotten its understandings, then they can be said to have known the meaning of the bid before the auction began and so the information is useable. (We still haven't fixed the fact that the explanation is UI though -.-)

 

ahydra

[Free]

Free's argument is somewhat dodgy IMO, but it does support what surely is the sensible view to take in these cases - if there's no actual evidence a partnership has forgotten its understandings, then they can be said to have known the meaning of the bid before the auction began and so the information is useable. (We still haven't fixed the fact that the explanation is UI though -.-)

 

ahydra

Then read further :unsure: Law 16B1:

B. Extraneous Information from Partner

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.

( b ) A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

 

This is pretty clear imo.

[Phil]

The next time someone says, "when in doubt, alert", I will direct them to this thread <_<

[bluejak]

I think we do have to differentiate between the people who think UI is useful or non-existent, and the actual meaning of UI.

 

If your partner indicates something to you other than by a call or play, it is information, and it is unauthorised. It is often useless.  But what does that mean?

 

First, two examples, both from above.

• 
   
   
   
  
• You open a 12 to 14 NT.  Partner says "12 to 14".  That is information: it is not from a call or play: it is therefore unauthorised.  It is not really useful, but ....
   
   
   
  
• My sister is coming round sometime. That is information: it is not from a call or play: it is therefore unauthorised.  It is certainly not useful to this hand.
   
   
   
  

Some people are saying that these are not UI, but that is wrong: they pass information, and they are unauthorised.  But are they useful? In the sister case it is clearly not worth worrying about.  It is UI but cannot suggest anything.

 

In the other case there is some slight interest.  Knowing your partner has interpreted your call correctly could be of some interest.  I do think there is the possibility of a slight problem, though not one I am going to lose any sleep over.

As I understand it, you're saying that if you receive UI which adds little or nothing to what you already knew, the UI doesn't constrain you. Is that correct?

 

If so, which Law says that?

No, I said nothing like that at all. I am saying I shall lose no sleep over it, and not worry at all, which is completely different.

[shyams]

The bridge laws equivalent of a zugzwang in chess?

[Pict]

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.

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.

 

This certainly may suggest bids to me when I'm playing before I next encounter her. I would rather say that the news that she is coming round is not information of any kind in the context of a bridge competition - whatever the back story.

 

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.

 

Once I've verified that partner's explanation matches my intention (and so far as I can said to know) our system the possibility of UI has already been eliminated because no bid can be suggested: if it could then gynn's conundru on marginal raises of NT would take effect. Until I heard his explanation of course UI could have been created.

 

It is my opinion that the Laws as written are adequate. The gloss usually put on them - in terms of 'information that is not AI is UI' - is mostly an adequate simplification, but is not actually accurate or correct. Gnasher's example demonstrates this.

 

You might compare the situation with a scientific proposition that is useful, and accurate to a certain level, but can be falsified.

[gnasher]

No, I said nothing like that at all.  I am saying I shall lose no sleep over it, and not worry at all, which is completely different.

OK, I'm sorry I misunderstood you.

 

Going back to this:

 

In the other case there is some slight interest.  Knowing your partner has interpreted your call correctly could be of some interest.  I do think there is the possibility of a slight problem

 

What causes the problem to be "slight" rather than not? And when and how does such a slight problem constrain your actions?

 

I'm not being argumentative. I'm genuinely having difficulty with understanding the consequences of UI when you also have AI that points in the same direction as the UI.

[JanM]

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

This post expressed my state of mind perfectly :rolleyes:. So I did what I usually do when something about Laws confuses me and consulted my expert. He said "of course the alert and explanation are UI, the question is whether they suggest one action over another." He then waffled a little, by saying that this particular UI might be less bad than other UI, so if the AI suggested something I wouldn't have to reject that because the UI also suggested it. I said that was still Chinese. So he gave me an example.

 

Suppose partner opens 1NT, the next hand doubles and you bid 2♥, which is a transfer. Partner alerts, explains that it's a transfer and then passes. You are now in a "better" situation than if this had happened behind screens, since you don't have to worry that partner forgot, and you aren't entitled to take advantage of that information. "Wait a moment" said I, are you seriously saying that if partner DOESN'T alert my 2♥ bid I have to bid as if he had alerted and knew what we were playing (if he passes I can't base subsequent decisions on the possibility that he forgot), but if he DOES alert, I now have to base subsequent decisions on the possibility that he forgot? That's not fair! So he tried a further example :), which he says was discussed by one of the Laws Committees "a long time ago," he couldn't remember when but Edgar was involved in the discussion.

 

The auction went P-P-1S-DBL-2C alerted and explained (correctly) as Drury - P-P. Now the responder knew that his partner had psyched 1♠ with a bunch of clubs. He didn't have to factor in any possibility that opener had forgotten they play Drury here. He had a club fit and later psyched (sorry, don't know exactly what or in what auction). The UI from the correct explanation made the psyche significantly less risky, since he didn't have to worry that partner had forgotten their agreement.

 

I still don't much like this, but at least I can see the reason that a correct alert and explanation is UI and might under some circumstances (not I think those of the OP) limit the partner's actions.

[helene_t]

I suppose this is just semantics but to me the word "information" means something not known already. If I already know that p recalls our agreement then it is not information (and therefor not unauthorized information) that p confirms that he recalls the agreement.

 

Some may use the word "information" differently but anyway, I suppose the question is whether we can really assume that players would (absent any extraneous confirmation) be confident that p recalls their agreements.

 

It may be naive to say "yes, we can assume so", but generally I prefer to avoid accusing players of being unethical and prefer to avoid adjusting boards as long as a reasonable case can be made.

 

Now if this pair didn't really have any agreements about the 3♠ bid and both partners were just guessing how p would take it (and happened to guess the same) then it would be different, but as the problem was stated in the OP I would allow opener to bid w/e he wants.

[pran]

I suppose this is just semantics but to me the word "information" means something not known already. If I already know that p recalls our agreement then it is not information (and therefor not unauthorized information) that p confirms that he recalls the agreement.

 

Some may use the word "information" differently but anyway, I suppose the question is whether we can really assume that players would (absent any extraneous confirmation) be confident that p recalls their agreements.

 

It may be naive to say "yes, we can assume so", but generally I prefer to avoid accusing players of being unethical and prefer to avoid adjusting boards as long as a reasonable case can be made.

 

Now if this pair didn't really have any agreements about the 3♠ bid and both partners were just guessing how p would take it (and happened to guess the same) then it would be different, but as the problem was stated in the OP I would allow opener to bid w/e he wants.

"Information" is "something" that reduces the amount of alternatives. (Agreed: "Something not known already", but a more formal way of defining "information".)

 

If your agreement is that an 1NT opening bid shows 15-17 and your partner tells your opponents that your 1NT opening bid shows 15-17, then the "information" you have from this explanation is a removal of the alternative that your partner has forgotten your agreements.

 

And this "information" (that partner remembers your agreement) is in fact unauthorized to you (although rather as a technicality).

[mycroft]

Of course there is UI. To prosecute a UI case, however:

 

- There has to be information given to partner that is unauthorized

- There has to be a alternative that is logical in the context of the AI

- That is worse than the alternative the player wants to take, given the UI

- That they take.

 

Yes, there's an issue if you decide to open a crappy 15-count a 12-14NT and partner signs off (say 1NT-2D transfer; 2H-p-(2S)). Yes, there's an issue if you have a borderline invite in this case - especially if you invite heavy. That's a function of the fact that *to rule on a case*, we can't get inside your mind, and to minimize people deliberately cheating, we have to rule with a jaundiced eye. But no matter what you play, there will be places where this applies.

 

For the OP, if they think that this hand is the kind of hand that wants to stop in 3S if they can, but thinks that 4S is going to score better than 4D a majority of the time (given the chance of it being doubled), then go ahead and make the call. This doubly applies if the hand improves offensively (or devalues defensively) knowing the opponents' diamond fit. If the hand is a "well, thinking about it again, this really should have made a game try last round", then there's a possibility that the TDs will believe that you really did forget when you bid 3S, and you might get ruled against if 4S, indeed, makes.

 

Yes, it is Useless UI. But I know that I always feel more comfortable in my crazy Precision system when I hear the Alerts - even if they're not asked. I can't and don't use that, but I do feel better. I know that there are pairs out there who rely on the Alerts (and the explanations, when they either choose to over-Announce or get friendly opponents who ask all the time) to stay on the same track. I also know pairs who look up when they signal to make sure partner saw it, that play WeaSeL against preempts (although they would swear that they don't *do* it, it just works out that way), and all kinds of other "useless UI". Not so useless, no?

[bluejak]

No, I said nothing like that at all.  I am saying I shall lose no sleep over it, and not worry at all, which is completely different.

OK, I'm sorry I misunderstood you.

 

Going back to this:

 

In the other case there is some slight interest.  Knowing your partner has interpreted your call correctly could be of some interest.  I do think there is the possibility of a slight problem

 

What causes the problem to be "slight" rather than not? And when and how does such a slight problem constrain your actions?

 

I'm not being argumentative. I'm genuinely having difficulty with understanding the consequences of UI when you also have AI that points in the same direction as the UI.

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.