Easy peasy - UI

[mfa1010]

I'm not sure they are, since my previous post assumed that a "request", however framed, for the missing announcement was capable of transmitting UI to partner and that UI suggests bidding (or doubling) rather than passing. South will know whether his partner is a fully paid-up member of the "Always Ask" club. If he is, then he would be foolish to make the worst 2♥ bid ever seen. And a procedural penalty on EW is certainly warranted whether or not UI has been transmitted.

Just to explain my views:

 

1) It seemed you were suggesting that whether or not to adjust depended on the "grossness" of the 2♥-bid. The problem of this thread is to judge if UI was transmitted or not and we can't use an ugly bid in itself to establish that it was. An evaluation of the actual bid must be kept for the LA-departement.

 

2) A procedural penalty is warranted as such, but it shouldn't be used to 'deprive EW of the benefit of an adjustment'. Also it seems exorbitant to penalize if EW have not previously been warned about their announcements.

[bluejak]

The question of whether to adjust is a separate matter. Suppose that I determine that North's question does suggest a good hand. Then there is UI, so the 2♥ bid is illegal. However, it became illegal mainly as a result of East's failure to obey the rules. East certainly could have known that this might happen, so I adjust it back to 2♥ under Law 23.

 

Is that ruling legal?

It is very clever, and I like it.

[paulg]

The question of whether to adjust is a separate matter. Suppose that I determine that North's question does suggest a good hand. Then there is UI, so the 2♥ bid is illegal. However, it became illegal mainly as a result of East's failure to obey the rules. East certainly could have known that this might happen, so I adjust it back to 2♥ under Law 23.

 

Is that ruling legal?

It is very clever, and I like it.

If East has deliberately decided not to announce the notrump range, then you should punish him for this directly.

 

If he has forgotten, then he is unaware of his irregularity and therefore could not know that it could damage the opposition at any point in the future.

[campboy]

Law 23 does not require that the irregularity be deliberate, and there is plenty of case law to support that. He could have known; if he was not aware that he was committing an irregularity then of course he did not know, but he could have done. I am, however, concerned that the proposed law-23 solution involves adjusting the score twice, to get back to where you started, which is of dubious legality.

 

Anyway, I think it simpler to rule on the basis that drawing attention to an irregularity by an opponent does not pass any information other than that you have noticed the irregularity. I do not see anything unusual in the manner by which attention was drawn.

[gnasher]

drawing attention to an irregularity by an opponent does not pass any information other than that you have noticed the irregularity.

Which law says that?

[mycroft]

I would like to have, on the record, on both sides of the Pond, a regulation that explicitly allows the "French defence" - I call it "WeaSeL vs NT" if NT opener's partner fails to follow her responsibility. Okay, not "You can ask to show strength", but "If opponents fail to Announce or Alert their NT opener, asking the range is deemed not to pass any UI" - there. We're not *telling* them to play that convention.

 

There are too many people in the ACBL who, almost 20 years on, are still griping about "why do we have to Announce 15-17?" and they Just Don't Want To Hear my explanation (what about variable NT? what about 15-17 vs 15-18 vs 16-18?). After people have played that game against them once or twice, and had the TD read the regulation to them, and having the final answer of their complaints be "I'm not convinced that they were trying anything, but even if they were, you caused this problem. If you had followed the regulations, they wouldn't have been able to make the interest-ask." - well, *that* might convince them. Finally.

 

I'm not going to get it, but I'd like it.

[dburn]

It is very clever, and I like it.

Oh, I don't mind it either. But that is why I suggested that the hands matter, and the vulnerability matters, and the form of scoring matters. If you are going to take the view that North would look at East only when North had a good hand, you need as a minimum the supporting evidence that North had a good hand in the actual case as posted. If you are going to take the view that South used whatever UI may have existed, you need as a minimum the supporting evidence that South would sometimes pass "the worst 2♥ overcall ever" - but at love all, for example, some very good matchpoint players would never pass the opponents out in 1NT if they had a five-card suit that their methods allowed then to show.

 

If the question is no more than "does ostentatiously waiting for an announcement necessarily convey UI", I would answer with bluejak "No". But if it came to my attention that the next time North heard an unannounced 1NT to his right, he passed with [a] no histrionics and a balanced four count, I might change my mind.

[campboy]

Which law says that?

No law says that. I meant that it is simpler because it is obviously legal to rule score stands if you judge that information probably wasn't passed, as I do, whereas it is less clear whether it is legal to do so if you judge that information probably was passed.

[Chris L]

We seem to have reached a consensus that a look, question etc is capable of transmitting UI depending on the circumstances, which (in the absence from the Laws of anything along the lines of Mycroft's proposal) would seem to be right in principle: after all there is no difference in substance between the situation posited by Bluejak in the OP and a situation where the range is announced but North didn't hear it (possibly because he wasn't paying attention) or (as might have happened at a table I was kibitzing in the Tolle qualifier) it was announced in a language with which North was unfamiliar.

 

I also like Gnasher's suggested solution.

[phil_20686]

I was under the impression that it was illegal to bid before the announcement was made - is that wrong? It is clear that if you bid without waiting for the announcement that would clearly constitute UI ie: My overall is sensible regardless of the strength of the NT.

 

Moreover in practical terms it seems like you might create a position where you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. At a club or congress level it is pretty normal for players to forget to announce, or not realise they are on lead, and it would be ridiculous to create a position where no one at the table will prompt them after a minute or so.

 

What are we proposing as the proper response when you have waited an appropriate amount of time (ten seconds or so) and lho has made no indication that he will remember to announce. What course of action provides no UI to partner?

[blackshoe]

If a player fails to announce when he is supposed to announce, that is his problem, not yours. If you need to know the range of a 1NT opening, ask. If you don't need to know, make your call in tempo. If something you do or do not do may suggest a call to partner, that's his problem, not yours. Yes, you would like not give him a problem, but sometimes you have no choice — unless you want to quit playing bridge.

 

Frankly, I think there's an awful lot of concern — probably too much — in England over the possible passing of extraneous information. It happens; live with it.

[nige1]

I was under the impression that it was illegal to bid before the announcement was made - is that wrong? It is clear that if you bid without waiting for the announcement that would clearly constitute UI ie: My overall is sensible regardless of the strength of the NT.

 

Moreover in practical terms it seems like you might create a position where you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. At a club or congress level it is pretty normal for players to forget to announce, or not realise they are on lead, and it would be ridiculous to create a position where no one at the table will prompt them after a minute or so.

 

What are we proposing as the proper response when you have waited an appropriate amount of time (ten seconds or so) and lho has made no indication that he will remember to announce. What course of action provides no UI to partner?

Good point, Phil :)

[phil_20686]

If a player fails to announce when he is supposed to announce, that is his problem, not yours. If you need to know the range of a 1NT opening, ask. If you don't need to know, make your call in tempo. If something you do or do not do may suggest a call to partner, that's his problem, not yours. Yes, you would like not give him a problem, but sometimes you have no choice — unless you want to quit playing bridge.

 

Frankly, I think there's an awful lot of concern — probably too much — in England over the possible passing of extraneous information. It happens; live with it.

 

This is a completely untenable situation. Say I play a penalty dble of a weak nt, but 5m4M over a strong nt, then if they dont announce and dont ask partner knows that I have neither of these hands. Say I play constructive overcalls over a weak nt but weak aggressive overcalls over a strong nt, without the announce partner is in possession of a lot of UI, as there are a wide variety of hands that I cannot have, at least half of which are UI. In the UK it is normal that 50% of the field plays 12-14, 1/3 15-17 and the rest 14-16, and the occasional mini no trump. Many people play widely differing styles and methods depending on the strength of the NT overcall. If partner knows you would take no action over an 8-10 nt or a 11-14 nt, or a 15-17 nt, you may have a *lot* of UI here, depending on your methods.

[phil_20686]

Here is a ruling I heard about that seems somewhat similar, although I only heard about it 3 rd hand and am not completely sure of all the details. Essentially, after several rounds of bidding showing invitational values responder jumped to game, as is common in uncontested auctions they failed to use the stop card, but the opponent (not on lead) paused for several seconds over this, before passing. I.e., a definite BIT, but less time than the ten seconds one should use after the stop card is used. On lead with KQx in one side suit (Clubs), and Jxxxxx in another, he leads the lowest, this gets ruffed and a club is returned. Declarer drifts one off.

 

After the hand declarer asks "in these auctions, when the opposition fail to use the stop card, is it your partners habit to always wait, or does he sometimes pass in tempo" leader shrugs replying "you know how it goes", or words to that effect. Then he asks, if he doubles game unexpectedly what does that mean, lead "unusual lead" is the answer. The director is called.

 

It seems clear that UI has been created by NS's fail to follow proper procedure, is it right to Penalise EW? Other tables led a club or a diamond, about 50-50. How would you rule? At the table the director allowed the result to stand.

This seems analogous to the problem at hand.

[blackshoe]

This is a completely untenable situation. Say I play a penalty dble of a weak nt, but 5m4M over a strong nt, then if they dont announce and dont ask partner knows that I have neither of these hands. Say I play constructive overcalls over a weak nt but weak aggressive overcalls over a strong nt, without the announce partner is in possession of a lot of UI, as there are a wide variety of hands that I cannot have, at least half of which are UI. In the UK it is normal that 50% of the field plays 12-14, 1/3 15-17 and the rest 14-16, and the occasional mini no trump. Many people play widely differing styles and methods depending on the strength of the NT overcall. If partner knows you would take no action over an 8-10 nt or a 11-14 nt, or a 15-17 nt, you may have a *lot* of UI here, depending on your methods.

 

You have a regulation that requires announcements. If players fail to make those announcements, they are the ones who should pay the piper, not the opponents. Is that not happening in England?

[nige1]

Here is a ruling I heard about that seems somewhat similar, although I only heard about it 3 rd hand and am not completely sure of all the details. Essentially, after several rounds of bidding showing invitational values responder jumped to game, as is common in uncontested auctions they failed to use the stop card, but the opponent (not on lead) paused for several seconds over this, before passing. I.e., a definite BIT, but less time than the ten seconds one should use after the stop card is used. On lead with KQx in one side suit (Clubs), and Jxxxxx in another, he leads the lowest, this gets ruffed and a club is returned. Declarer drifts one off.

After the hand declarer asks "in these auctions, when the opposition fail to use the stop card, is it your partners habit to always wait, or does he sometimes pass in tempo" leader shrugs replying "you know how it goes", or words to that effect. Then he asks, if he doubles game unexpectedly what does that mean, lead "unusual lead" is the answer. The director is called.

It seems clear that UI has been created by NS's fail to follow proper procedure, is it right to Penalise EW? Other tables led a club or a diamond, about 50-50. How would you rule? At the table the director allowed the result to stand.

This seems analogous to the problem at hand.

The situations seem analogous. IMO the ruling is corrrect. When we play under EBU regulations...

• An opponent sometimes fails to announce. We draw attention to this in one way or another (question, stare, picking up system-card) -- to prompt the announcement, Technically, I suppose we should call the director, instead, but we don't bother.
• An opponent sometimes fails to display a stop-card or takes it away too soon. When my RHO does this, my partner usually faces his own stop-card for an appropriate time to avoid receiving unnecessary UI from me. Again, we should probably call the director but we don't.

If an opponent claimed this transmitted UI, we hope that the director would give a Gnasher-type ruling.

[gnasher]

You have a regulation that requires announcements. If players fail to make those announcements, they are the ones who should pay the piper, not the opponents. Is that not happening in England?

 

We also have Laws that constrain a player's actions when he's in receipt of extraneous information, and apparently a range of views about how a director should treat the information recevied in this situation. And we're playing a game which is more enjoyable when there are no concerns about UI and no requests for rulings.

 

If an opponent fails to folow proper procedure by announcing his notrump range, two solutions have been suggested:

(1) "If you need to know the range of a 1NT opening, ask. If you don't need to know, make your call in tempo". Hope that your partner doesn't consider himself constrained by the information transmitted. If it becomes necessary, argue that this information is not UI because it's the opponent's fault, or argue for a favourable ruling under Law 23.

(2) Always prompt the opponents to anounce their range. Then make your call.

 

Which of these seems better to you?

[pran]

We also have Laws that constrain a player's actions when he's in receipt of extraneous information, and apparently a range of views about how a director should treat the information recevied in this situation. And we're playing a game which is more enjoyable when there are no concerns about UI and no requests for rulings.

 

If an opponent fails to follow proper procedure by announcing his notrump range, two solutions have been suggested:

(1) "If you need to know the range of a 1NT opening, ask. If you don't need to know, make your call in tempo". Hope that your partner doesn't consider himself constrained by the information transmitted. If it becomes necessary, argue that this information is not UI because it's the opponent's fault, or argue for a favourable ruling under Law 23.

(2) Always prompt the opponents to anounce their range. Then make your call.

 

Which of these seems better to you?

 

There is no doubt that respectively asking and not asking both creates extraneous information unless the player always acts in exactly the same way.

However, I would hardly ever consider the extraneous information created from (1) to restrain the partner of the player asking or not asking in selecting his calls, simply because of the fact that the situation is mainly caused by opponents failing to observe correct procedures.

 

(2) would seem the logic answer to this question, but I am not happy about anybody asking for an announcment at each and every of the (say) five 1NT opening bids by the same side against the same opponents.

[mgoetze]

Say I play a penalty dble of a weak nt, but 5m4M over a strong nt, then if they dont announce and dont ask partner knows that I have neither of these hands.

 

Unless, unbeknownst to partner, you happen to know the opponents and which NT range they play.

[mfa1010]

drawing attention to an irregularity by an opponent does not pass any information other than that you have noticed the irregularity.

Which law says that?

 

But what do the EBU regulations say will happen if a player fails to announce as he should? Do they really say nothing?

 

The question of whether UI was transmitted is impossible to answer, because we don't have sufficient information. If North would always look at East in this situation, there is no UI. If North would only look at East when holding a good hand, there is UI. East's failure to follow the rules doesn't change the meaning of Law 16.

 

 

The question of whether to adjust is a separate matter. Suppose that I determine that North's question does suggest a good hand. Then there is UI, so the 2♥ bid is illegal. However, it became illegal mainly as a result of East's failure to obey the rules. East certainly could have known that this might happen, so I adjust it back to 2♥ under Law 23.

 

Is that ruling legal?

 

Not sure. I don't agree that east "certainly could have known that this might happen" as the basis for using law 23. Could east "certainly have known" that NS were about to break the laws?

Anyway this is a not so desirable solution. Adjusting twice in order to get back at the starting point is very doubtful.

I prefer:

 

I do not believe there was any UI but posted it to see if anyone thought differently.

Anyway, I think it simpler to rule on the basis that drawing attention to an irregularity by an opponent does not pass any information other than that you have noticed the irregularity. I do not see anything unusual in the manner by which attention was drawn.

 

Having different yardsticks about what constitutes UI in different situations is not so unusual:

 

1) If a player makes a skip bid but forgets the stop-card and next hand bids in normal tempo, then the TD should lean towards jugding no UI. Atleast under Danish regulations, but I assume that this is an international rule.

 

2) If a player behind screens takes more time than usual in 'highly unusual situations generated by unfamiliar conventions or treatments', then the TD is supposed to be 'sympathetic' to the player who was to contend with such a situation. Which I suppose translates to judging no UI if it is at all reasonable to do.

WBF code of practice, p.9

http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/files/WBFInformation/CodeofPractice/WBFCodeofPractice.pdf

 

There are probably more examples.

 

For me it sounds right to judge no UI if in doubt in the thread situation. It is very likely that the breach of correct procedure by itself initiated the questioning. Also I don't give so much weight to the players' asking habbits as others seem to do. It is not necessary to have very strict habbits in order to avoid giving away information in practice.

[RMB1]

But what do the EBU regulations say will happen if a player fails to announce as he should? Do they really say nothing?

Nothing specific. Failure to announce is treated the same as failure to alert and misexplanation:

• it may create misinformation and an assigned adjusted score;
  
• it can be subject to a procedural penalty/fine.
  

[jallerton]

The Orange Book makaes it clear that all 1NT openings (and also all 2 of a suit openings) must be either alerted or announced. To fail to alert or announce such a call before the next player has called is an infraction (misinformation). Law 9A3 says:

However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player's committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43).

 

When "North looked interrogatively at East", he was attempting to prevent an irregularity. It seems unlikely that this attempt to prevent an irregularity provided any information to South about the contents of North's hand.

[mfa1010]

Failure to announce is treated the same as failure to alert and misexplanation:

• it may create misinformation and an assigned adjusted score;
  
• it can be subject to a procedural penalty/fine.
  

Failure to alert is equivalent to making a positive statement to the opponents that the bid is not artificial (etc.). Such a statement could be misinformation.

 

But failure to announce seems to be the opposite: the complete absence of a statement that the rules require us to make. It may be a breach of law, but I don't see how it can be misinformation to say nothing. I suppose it's not like the opponents can freely assume some range absent an announcement and then get compensated if it turns out that they assumed wrongly.

[campboy]

Well, law 20F5a specifically says that failure to announce counts as "mistaken explanation". Of course, since there is no actual content to the mistaken explanation it will not (so far as I can see) disadvantage opponents, so there should be no reason to adjust the score.

[mfa1010]

Well, law 20F5a specifically says that failure to announce counts as "mistaken explanation". Of course, since there is no actual content to the mistaken explanation it will not (so far as I can see) disadvantage opponents, so there should be no reason to adjust the score.

Ok, thanks. I wonder if anyone could explain to me if it has any real consequence that it "counts as mistaken explanation" or if it is all just hot air.