UI Ruling

[AlexJonson]

Specifically to Alex, if I was told that North "knew" it was weak, but it's obvious to stretch the range, then I'd ask first "what hands bid 1H, then?" and it goes into "you made your decision last time" territory (this isn't an 8-count after all; it's an absolute max pass); and, of course "it's not obvious to everybody; if it's your agreement you have to explain it. 'Weak' just doesn't cut it."

 

Now, if the auction had gone: p-p-1D-p;2H-2S-p-p; now I'd be much more likely to listen to "I decided to throw a spanner in and WJS, but the point was to hit them in game, and defending 2S is silly."

 

But Partner Gets Another Chance; bidding now, even with a "spanner throw", is masterminding (assuming no UI). Masterminding when you know you've masterminded before is incredibly insulting to partner; masterminding when you have UI becomes legally difficult; masterminding when you *know* you're going to get information that will be considered unauthorized, and that if you intend to continue to bid all 52 cards that the TD is likely to rule against you, is just stupid.

 

I also bring up the repeated discussions on "self-serving testimony", and the "could have known" theory (which is explicit in some laws, and implicit in general) - "I decided to stretch the range, because partner's a passed hand" definitely falls into both cases (treated with less (but not no) weight because it's self-serving, and "someone trying to break the rules would do exactly the same thing, therefore we can't allow you, who *I am sure is doing things completely innocently*, to do the same thing" (please note - that construction usually works very well; those who did do whatever, completely innocently, believe me; those who might, in their secret heart of hearts, be trying one on, believe me as well - and they hear the sarcasm).

 

Mycroft

 

Bear in mind I respect your views.

 

Also bear in mind that I'm a player/student and not an expert, so UI?, CPU?, MI? combinations thereof, you or bluejak or blackshoe are better placed to decide.

 

I find that people explain bids according to their system in the context of their hand. So, if they have a normal opener 3rd in hand, they don't even notice that they are 3rd in hand. So they inadvertently explain badly, perhaps.

 

Then partner (possibly) wakens them up...

 

I have no real idea what a TD or Appeal would make of this case - even if it were presented to them. But it is an interesting area, and I was surprised to be vilified by PaulG for commenting, because it sparked my interest.

 

I am not completely convinced that posts are reacted to by value rather than by author reputation here - perhaps inevitable but regrettable.

[655321]

I am not completely convinced that posts are reacted to by value rather than by author reputation here - perhaps inevitable but regrettable.

 

Do you find that people respond differently to your posts under the name AlexJonson from the way they responded to your posts under the name Pict?

[gordontd]

I am not completely convinced that posts are reacted to by value rather than by author reputation here - perhaps inevitable but regrettable.

Where do you think author reputation comes from?

[aguahombre]

I am not completely convinced that posts are reacted to by value rather than by author reputation here - perhaps inevitable but regrettable.

 

I think posts are "reacted to" much more for their content than because of the renown of the author --in the past few months--than ever before. I further observe that people who do react to posts they disagree with, are doing so in a more objective, mature way than before.

 

Except for me, of course. I still attempt dumb jokes, which are not taken as humor, from time to time.

[mycroft]

Hello Alex:

 

Written communication - especially on the Intertubes - is known to be difficult to interpret "tone" from.

 

If you are noticing any "look idiot" or other personal tone in my messages, I am sorry - I do not intend that. I'm trying to give the same sort of impersonal education I would give in person, or on the phone. I frequently fail, and I'm sorry for, and working on, that, but I try.

 

When you ask "why" questions, or "I'm confused" questions, I try to give reasoning; sometimes by asking the kinds of questions that people who haven't thought about it don't think of, seeing only the "obvious" way. When I mention that "there are people who are unethical, and because the C word is lawsuit-worthy, we can't say 'we think you cheated, so', but we still want to not let those people who 'might, just, sometimes, possibly, bend the law a little bit' get away with it, so we've structured the laws so that people who, in all innocence, do what cheaters would do, and explain it (again, correctly, and in all innocence) the way cheaters would if they were trying one on, get caught in the crossfire. And we apologize to them" - that's exactly what I mean; I'm not trying to imply anything about you.

 

Unfortunately, the reasoning that you gave, which I explained above boiled down to "South made a suspicious (to me) call; he had to have used UI to make it, and my evidence is that he made it, and it's suspicious", leads to another rabbit-hole, which has been labelled "Rule of Coincidence" or "if it <blanks- usually hesitates>, shoot it", depending on which branch you go down. We've spent years trying to turn those into "evidence, not proof", and it's important to not follow it again. You don't have that history; it might sound a bit brusque.

 

Oh, and there's no need to trust my bridge judgement; after all, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, administrate."

[barmar]

It's much too easy to deduce

 

Player has UI

Player does something questionable

Questionable action works to his benefit

 

Therefore: questionable action must have been influenced by UI, and we should rectify

 

But that's not how the UI law is written. You can't reason backward from the result to the cause, you have to work forward. Determine what LAs the player had, and whether the UI demonstrably suggests the one chosen over the others.

[AlexJonson]

Do you find that people respond differently to your posts under the name AlexJonson from the way they responded to your posts under the name Pict?

 

Your first time post under this name in this forum? Any posts here or elsewhere under alternatives?

[AlexJonson]

Where do you think author reputation comes from?

 

Valid question Gordon.

[AlexJonson]

It's much too easy to deduce

 

Player has UI

Player does something questionable

Questionable action works to his benefit

 

Therefore: questionable action must have been influenced by UI, and we should rectify

 

But that's not how the UI law is written. You can't reason backward from the result to the cause, you have to work forward. Determine what LAs the player had, and whether the UI demonstrably suggests the one chosen over the others.

 

You are correct (in my opinion- not necessarily all posters).

 

But I can call the TD or even appeal if I believe I have a reason to do it. This auction from Aguahombre is so suspicious, I think even nnn.. would call the TD if he bothered to read the problem.

[aguahombre]

I posted the questions. It was not my auction.

[AlexJonson]

I posted the questions. It was not my auction.

 

I didn't think it was your own auction, just the auction you posted.

 

But, give it one more post and you can almost certainly start and finish this thread.

[nige1]

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1dp2hpp2s3hp4hppp]133|100| 2♥ was explained by South as weak, sometime before the 2♠ balance. North actually had an 11-count with 6 hearts (somehow deemed inappropriate to open one or two the first time).

Director asks for advice, and the person says that 3♥ is AI to South that North has a hand invitational to game, but that the 3♥ call is based on UI and should not have occurred ---since the authorized information is that South was rejecting a game invite and might not even have heart support. I thought this was correct advice. Was it?[/hv]

IMO, Probably. It is UI to North that South explained "2♥ is weak". If that is the actual partnership-agreement, then the explanation would inform North of his misbid. If 4♥ is a make, the director might conduct a peer-poll (or rely on his own judgement). A poll would probably establish that the UI demonstrably suggests that North rebid 3♥ rather than choose the less successful LA of pass.

[dburn]

Of course South has UI - he always does in this kind of position. Specifically, South has the UI that North has a good hand for 3♥ - with a bad one, North (who has the UI that South thinks 2♥ is weak) would not bid 3♥ because to do so would be a breach of Laws 16 and 73.

[aguahombre]

Of course South has UI - he always does in this kind of position. Specifically, South has the UI that North has a good hand for 3♥ - with a bad one, North (who has the UI that South thinks 2♥ is weak) would not bid 3♥ because to do so would be a breach of Laws 16 and 73.

 

I don't understand that. If North has the weak one, and South has explained it as weak --then there has been no MI, no UI, and no reason for this post to begin with.

 

North could bid again with a slightly more offensive weak one (at his own peril) if he felt like it. (Mycroft, way back at the beginning.)

 

I don't think a correct explanation of your actual agreements is UI. It is just "I"...information that the opponents now know your agreements.

[dburn]

Of course South has UI - he always does in this kind of position. Specifically, South has the UI that North has a good hand for 3♥ - with a bad one, North (who has the UI that South thinks 2♥ is weak) would not bid 3♥ because to do so would be a breach of Laws 16 and 73.

 

 

I don't understand that. If North has the weak one, and South has explained it as weak --then there has been no MI, no UI, and no reason for this post to begin with.

 

North could bid again with a slightly more offensive weak one (at his own peril) if he felt like it. (Mycroft, way back at the beginning.)

 

I don't think a correct explanation of your actual agreements is UI. It is just "I"...information that the opponents now know your agreements.

North, who has the UI that South thinks North is weak, might bid 3♥ with an "ordinary" invitation in order to correct South's mistaken impression. This would be illegal, a kind of "unauthorised panic" - partner thinks I have a bad hand, so I had better bid again to let him know I have a good one.

 

But if North is acting legally, North can bid 3♥ now only if he has an exceptionally good hand for his original invitational 2♥, in view of the fact that South rejected his first invitation. South, who can work this out as well as you or I can, now has the UI that North has such a hand (or is cheating, but one does not presume that any more than one presumes partner is psyching).

[blackshoe]

Let's just shoot any player who provides UI, in any form, to his partner. Then pretty soon we won't have this problem.

[dburn]

I have long argued that the penalty for a revoke should be death, for then the game would soon be played only by people who can follow suit, and the absurd revoke laws would be eliminated not by statute but by natural selection.

 

Still, it should be restated that the transmission of UI is not necessarily an infraction, nor is the receipt of it; the only infraction is to base an action directly on UI received.

 

It should, for completeness, also be stated that South's action in bidding 4♥ was very probably illegal - but the full hand is not shown, so I cannot make any definite pronouncement. What is clear, though, is that rhetorical pronouncements to the effect that "South doesn't have any UI" are... well, they are seriously in error even though they may not have been made by wild gamblers. At the very least, though, the people who made them owe AlexJonson an apology.

[campboy]

South, who can work this out as well as you or I can, now has the UI that North has such a hand (or is cheating, but one does not presume that any more than one presumes partner is psyching).

South has that information, but why is it unauthorised?

[dburn]

South has that information, but why is it unauthorised?

Because South has informed the entire table (including North) that North has a bad hand. North, who did not intend to show a bad hand but an invitational hand, may now not bid again unless he has a seriously good invitational hand (just as I may not without at least a very good 16 count bid 3NT after 1NT announced as weak - pass - 2NT invitational - pass, for we play a strong no trump at this vulnerability but partner forgot).

 

So, in the actual case, North may not bid 3♥ without a seriously good invitational hand (which was what he had - he had passed as dealer an eleven count with six hearts, forsooth). But South, who is in duty bound to consider that North might have a "mycroft" (a bad hand on which no one would actually bid, but with which at least one of South's peers is supposed to consider that North might bid), can't raise unless he would raise all "mycrofts" to game.

 

The actual South hand might have been such, but it has not been posted, so I cannot comment. I say only that I cannot conceive of a hand that would raise a "mycroft" (just competing, partner) that did not raise at its previous turn. Blackshoe and others owe AlexJonson an apology; the latter has a case even though he didn't know what it was, while the former have consistently talked nonsense even though they should not have done.

 

What is important is this:

 

if you make UI available to partner (as by hesitating, misexplaining one of his calls, or the like) then partner is constrained to take no action that is less pure than the driven snow; but

 

the conclusion that partner's action is squeaky clean is not authorised information to you. In fact, you are (probably, but Law 73 is not a model of clarity) obliged to treat it as tainted, with the constraints that go thereby.

 

As blackshoe (almost) wisely remarks, and as an eminent Director in years gone by really did remark, "play fast, don't cheat, and keep your kids out of the ballroom".

[aguahombre]

Not being the intellectual that Mr. Burn is, I don't understand throwing around of the term "cheating", nor the concept that if North has what South says he has, and chooses to make another call --he is doing something wrong.

 

It would seem to this simple soul that any hand which is actually invitational would have to pass with the UI that his (North's) bid was misconstrued....but any hand within the explanation can bid again. But, like I said....I am not clever enough to understand, and the comments by David seem to me like Orwellian double-think.

[campboy]

the conclusion that partner's action is squeaky clean is not authorised information to you. In fact, you are (probably, but Law 73 is not a model of clarity) obliged to treat it as tainted, with the constraints that go thereby.

You don't answer my question, which was "why not?" Are the laws themselves, and their consequences, now to be treated as UI?

 

I don't see anything in law 73 which is relevant here. In particular law 73C, which begins "When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his partner", is not relevant, since South doesn't. The information you describe, even if unauthorised which I dispute, did not come from partner.

[dburn]

We will try a simpler example.

 

A competitive auction concludes: slow (non-forcing) pass by you; pass; double (penalty) by partner; all pass.

 

You know that your partner is an ethical player aware of his responsibilities under Laws 16 and 73. You know therefore that he would not double unless he had no logical alternative to that call.

 

But you may not therefore base the defence on the fact that partner has a rock-solid double, because that information is not authorised - you would not have it had you passed in tempo. Confronted by a choice between playing partner for a solid double and a marginal one, you have UI, and you in turn have responsibilities under Laws 16 and 73.

 

This isn't doublethink - this is obvious.

[blackshoe]

It may be obvious, and it may be a workable approach at the highest levels, but if you expect the average club player to even begin to be able to think this way, you're dreaming.

[peachy]

It may be obvious, and it may be a workable approach at the highest levels, but if you expect the average club player to even begin to be able to think this way, you're dreaming.

 

Both you and dburn are right!

But what to do when the average club player does not see his obligation to not base his action on UI - I say, educate, and then make the appropriate ruling. IMO, it serves no purpose to let it slide if TD is called to the table and there are laws that prescribe a ruling. But that happens at clubs anyway when both sides engage in the same UI tactics in ignorance of the laws (or even just choosing to ignore them although aware) and TD is not called...

[campboy]

We will try a simpler example.

 

A competitive auction concludes: slow (non-forcing) pass by you; pass; double (penalty) by partner; all pass.

 

You know that your partner is an ethical player aware of his responsibilities under Laws 16 and 73. You know therefore that he would not double unless he had no logical alternative to that call.

 

But you may not therefore base the defence on the fact that partner has a rock-solid double, because that information is not authorised - you would not have it had you passed in tempo. Confronted by a choice between playing partner for a solid double and a marginal one, you have UI, and you in turn have responsibilities under Laws 16 and 73.

 

This isn't doublethink - this is obvious.

The simplicity, or otherwise, of the example isn't the point. You keep telling us what the information is (and I have not disputed it) but keep failing to give any legal reason why it is unauthorised. If knowledge of the laws is authorised then it follows that knowledge of what they require of partner is also authorised. And even if it were unauthorised, since it does not come from partner, 16B and 73C would not be relevant.