UI Ruling

[aguahombre]

Yeh, Camp. I think he is saying that knowledge of the rules is authorized. but knowledge that partner will follow the rules is not ---hence you are screwed no matter what you do.

 

And it is very true that the average club player would not grasp this concept. Nor am I sure we want them to.

[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.

 

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.

Oh, Law 73C isn't particularly relevant. But this is:

 

Law 73A1 Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of calls and plays.

Law 73A2 Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste.

Law 73B1 Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made...

 

Nor is Law 16B particularly relevant. But this is:

 

Law 16A Players’ Use of Information

 

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

 

(a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board ... and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source [emphasis mine]

Now, in both the actual case and the example I have given, a player knows that his partner has no logical alternative to the action he has chosen. The player would not know this had he not misexplained his partner's call (in the actual case) or broken tempo (in my example). He cannot make use of this information, because it has occurred as a result of illegal communication and not solely as a result of legal calls and plays.

 

To be frank, I am somewhat baffled by campboy's position. Does he contend that as a result of illegal communication between partners, a player is allowed to possess and to use information that he would not otherwise possess and could not otherwise use? If not, what does he contend?

 

This assertion:

 

If knowledge of the laws is authorised then it follows that knowledge of what they require of partner is also authorised.

is simply false; a player is not allowed to know anything about his partner's hand other than what the player can deduce from the legal calls and plays of the current board. He is certainly not allowed to know something that he can only deduce because of his own infraction (misinformation) or his own failure to follow correct procedure (passing slowly).

[blackshoe]

That somebody "can" deduce something does not mean that he did deduce it. Granted, that doesn't matter ("could have been suggested" in Law 16B3), but let's keep all the ducks aligned.

[campboy]

Are you deliberately trying to mislead with your quote of 16A1? The very next word in the law is "or"; a player may also use information "arising from the legal procedures authorised in these laws or regulations" (subject to law 16B1), among other things. Note that this phrase appears explicitly in the context of information which is not specified by the laws to be authorised (or not to be).

 

As to law 73, of course deliberately hesitating in order to constrain partner's action is illegal. However, I do not believe that unintentionally constraining partner's action is illegal, whether by hesitating or asking a question (which is mentioned later in 73B1). One could interpret law 73 that way of course, but I believe "communication" in this context refers to a deliberate act intended to pass information. Certainly I do not see how acting on information which has been passed can count as "communication"; if anything it is the passing of information, and hence the hesitation, whose legality might be questioned under this law.

[campboy]

a player is not allowed to know anything about his partner's hand other than what the player can deduce from the legal calls and plays of the current board.

I believe there are situations where this is not the case. For example, 27B1a gives an example of where 16D does not apply to a withdrawn (illegal) call, and thus conventional wisdom is that said call is authorised. Your response may be that law 27B1a is ridiculous, and I would agree with that, but it does demonstrate that the above is not some universal principle from which we may deduce that information is UI.

[dburn]

Are you deliberately trying to mislead with your quote of 16A1?

No.

 

The very next word in the law is "or"; a player may also use information "arising from the legal procedures authorised in these laws or regulations" (subject to law 16B1), among other things. Note that this phrase appears explicitly in the context of information which is not specified by the laws to be authorised (or not to be).

Do you contend that a misexplanation is a legal procedure? It is becoming increasingly difficult for me to understand what you do contend, but it appears in simple terms to be this:

 

a player does something illegal (no doubt unintentionally); and

thereby acquires information that he would not have acquired had he not broken the Law; but

the player may base further action on that information, because it is authorised (or "not unauthorised").

 

If that is the case... well, the term "doublethink" has been used earlier, and seems appropriate.

 

As to law 73, of course deliberately hesitating in order to constrain partner's action is illegal. However, I do not believe that unintentionally constraining partner's action is illegal, whether by hesitating or asking a question (which is mentioned later in 73B1).

No more do I. But this does not mean that partner's action is the only action that is constrained.

 

One could interpret law 73 that way of course, but I believe "communication" in this context refers to a deliberate act intended to pass information. Certainly I do not see how acting on information which has been passed can count as "communication"; if anything it is the passing of information, and hence the hesitation, whose legality might be questioned under this law.

I believe that "communication" in this context refers to the transmission of information, whether intended or not. A player may bid, say, "four diamonds" to communicate the fact that in his judgement and according to his methods, four diamonds best describes his hand; such communication is of course legal. But the way in which he bids four diamonds will on occasion communicate his degree of certainty that four diamonds actually accords with his methods, or actually best describes his hand; such communication is of course illegal. Acting on information illegally communicated is also, of course, illegal.

 

Suppose partner doubles loudly (or, with bidding boxes, quickly and emphatically). Now you know what you are not entitled to know: he is sure he can beat the contract. You may not use this information. If partner doubles when to do so could have been suggested by some information you have illegally given him, he conveys illegally the information that he really has this double - he is in effect doubling loudly. You may not use this information either.

 

Of course, it may not matter very much - the guy has to do something, and if he really does have his double he is entitled to make it. But you are not entitled to use the information that he really has this double, since you came by it entirely as a result of your own side's infraction. Most of the time that won't matter either, but when it does, your actions are constrained.

[campboy]

Do you contend that a misexplanation is a legal procedure?

No, I contend that what happens after a misexplanation is legal procedure, in particular the restrictions on partner's actions arise from legal procedure (ie the laws) and thus are authorised.

It is becoming increasingly difficult for me to understand what you do contend, but it appears in simple terms to be this:

 

a player does something illegal (no doubt unintentionally); and

thereby acquires information that he would not have acquired had he not broken the Law; but

the player may base further action on that information, because it is authorised (or "not unauthorised").

 

If that is the case... well, the term "doublethink" has been used earlier, and seems appropriate.

In the case of your hesitation example, I do not even agree that he has done something illegal. While I accept that a reading of law 73A and B which takes "communication" to be "anything which gives information, intentional or not" is reasonable (in isolation at least), and would imply that any break in tempo is illegal, I do not think it is the only reasonable interpretation of that word. Moreover I do not think the conclusion (any BIT is illegal) is one with which many people would agree, and I do not think it is consistent with 73D, which talks about unintentional variations of tempo or manner not necessarily being infractions, thus I prefer my interpretation.

 

Now certainly in the original case, by misexplaining, the player has broken the law. And I must admit that I had temporarily forgotten the cases were different! Even in the original case, though, I am not convinced that we can legally rule that the player has UI -- and the fact that we want to rule this way because we think the consequences might otherwise be unjust does not necessarily mean that the laws permit us to do so.

[bluejak]

There have been discussions in the past about the secondary effects of UI, namely that a player assumes that when he gives UI to his partner, his partner's actions will be legal and therefore not borderline in certain directions. However, others with whom I have discussed this and myself have tended to come to two conclusions:

 

• Theoretically, this should be illegal, and
  
• this is not illegal since the Laws nowhere make it illegal.
  

There also was a feeling that perhaps this was correct practically because it would be too complicated to police adequately.

 

However, I am interested in Burn's interpretation of Law 16A1A:

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

(a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source

I fancy he is right and that this makes such "reverse UI" illegal. Theoretically correct, certainly, maybe difficult to rule, but that is not really the point: we decide how to rule correctly here, and this is the Law that makes it illegal. I do not think Laws 16B, 16C or 73C apply, since the UI is from the player who is using it, so any ruling under Law 16A1A will need to be adjusted via Law 12A1.

 

Why has it taken so long to decide this? Simple, because it is a change in the Law. If you compare the 1997 Laws, Law 16 [first sentence] has no mention of "unaffected by unauthorized information from another source" so in my view use of reverse UI is illegal, but only since the 2007 Laws applied.

[aguahombre]

I don't know how we got to misinformation, from my original post. Opener's explanation was in accord with their agreement to play weak J.S. responses, as written on their card. Sorry if I failed to mention this. I did not see that any poster asked that question, either.

 

Somehow, responder decided it didn't apply when he was a passed hand. 2H was a misbid, brought to his attention by the correct explanation.

 

Certainly we should all agree that if opener had misexplained 2H, or explained his "guess" with no actual agreement, then he would be toast if he used his own misinformation in combination with another bid by partner to act further.

[dburn]

For clarity: I do not believe that it is always an infraction of Law to vary one's tempo; the Law speaks of "undue hesitation", whereas time taken to consider a difficult problem may be regarded as "due hesitation". But a player who transmits information by the manner in which he acts, over and above the information transmitted by the action itself, may nonetheless be a guilty party in the matter of illegal communication.

 

As I have said, in the normal run of events when a player P takes an action X, his partner knows only that X is the action that in P's mind best describes P's hand. Of course, depending on who P is and the circumstances surrounding X, his partner may know a great deal more, but no such information is authorised. That is, after all, the objective of Laws 16, 73, and one or two others.

 

There is a difference, and it may be a considerable difference in some cases, between "this call is partner's best attempt to describe his hand" and "this call is partner's best attempt to comply with Laws 16 and 73". The former information is authorised, because the Laws say so. The latter isn't, because the Laws say so: the information does not arise from legal procedures (it arises from legal processes, or from legal proceedings, but these are not the same thing at all as legal procedures); and of course it is affected by unauthorised information from another source.

[jallerton]

Nor is Law 16B particularly relevant. But this is:

 

Law 16A

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

(a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source.......

 

Now, in both the actual case and the example I have given, a player knows that his partner has no logical alternative to the action he has chosen. The player would not know this had he not misexplained his partner's call (in the actual case) or broken tempo (in my example). He cannot make use of this information, because it has occurred as a result of illegal communication and not solely as a result of legal calls and plays.

 

This is not so obvious to me in your hesitation example. It depends what the phrase "another source" in Law 16A is referring to. It could reasonably be interpreted that the first source is the player himself and so "another source" is any source other than the player himself.

[bluejak]

Why should another source be specifically what you say? I do not see any reason to interpret it that way.

[dburn]

This is not so obvious to me in your hesitation example. It depends what the phrase "another source" in Law 16A is referring to. It could reasonably be interpreted that the first source is the player himself and so "another source" is any source other than the player himself.

In the sentence:

 

"A player may use information in the auction or play if it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source."

 

the only source actually mentioned is "the legal calls and plays of the current board", so "an[y ]other source" is "any source other than the legal calls and plays of the current board".

 

Of the aggregation of data that comprises "the auction together with all the original inflections", some items may be used by the side that contributed them while others may not. An example of the items that may not be used is: "call X was made in a manner that expressed uncertainty". Consequently, another kind of item that may not be used is: "call Y was made in response to call X despite the uncertainty with which call X was made", because that uncertainty may not be taken into account by either member of the contributing side (though of course it may by their opponents).

 

In the call "four slow diamonds", the words "four" and "diamonds" are legal while the word "slow" is not. "Slow" may not therefore be considered information from an authorised source, even by the player who made the call in the first place.

[AlexJonson]

While this has been so far a very interesting topic, it is certainly the case that it has 'drifted' a long way froom the origninal post.

[dburn]

While this has been so far a very interesting topic, it is certainly the case that it has 'drifted' a long way froom the origninal post.

Not very far at all, really. But perhaps it is time to address the additional data provided by aguahombre with respect to the original post. If agauahombre feels that this data was available or at any rate deducible from the original post, he may be right - but it does not matter very much.

 

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1dp2hpp2s3hp4hppp]133|100[/hv]

 

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.

If 2♥ was systemically weak but North had forgotten and thought it was invitational, then North was still (in effect) allowed to bid 3♥ if and only if he had a hand with which he would have bid an invitational 3♥ over 1♦ supposing that his methods permitted such a call. Perhaps he was asked what 3♥ over 1♦ would have meant, perhaps not; the information has considerable relevance, but is not supplied.

 

Well, North had an eleven count with six hearts - in other words, he really did have (or at least, may really have had) a hand worth an invitational 3♥ over 1♦. Maybe North didn't think of bidding that; maybe he did but decided that South might treat it as some sort of splinter or fit jump, and maybe he was right to be concerned.

 

In either case, North's 2♥-then 3♥ sequence was fine; it was the best he could do in the circumstances short of bidding a rather unilateral 4♥ (or a self-torturing 1♥ in the hope that it would not go "all pass"). I don't know what the North hand was, so I don't know whether I would do what the actual Director (or advisor) did, which was to cancel North's bid of 3♥. That could have been the right decision, but there is no certainty about it (and given aguahombre's description of the actual North hand, I would think it probable that the decision was in fact wrong).

 

What is certain is this: when South heard 3♥, it was not AI to him that North actually had a hand worth an invitational 3♥ over 1♦. South drew that inference (or "could have drawn that inference" - blackshoe is quite right that we should keep all our ducks in line) only because South knew that North knew that South had interpreted 2♥ as weak when North had not so intended it.

 

But South's knowledge of what North knew that South thought is not authorised (as I have tried to show). It did not derive solely from legal calls; rather, it derived from South's explanation of 2♥. Even though that explanation was systemically correct, it was not AI to North (aguahombre is quite right about that); and nor was the fact that North had heard it AI to South.

 

In short: even if North's bid of 3♥ was legal, South's bid of 4♥ was almost certainly illegal given his pass to 2♥.

[AlexJonson]

Thanks dburn. I think this brings things back to the OP.

 

For that matter, if you look back, it is more or less what I said. It is quite possible though not certain that North has no LA to bidding 3H (I partly borrowed that from hotshot). That's why I was interested in South's logic for coming back to life. Of course, it's also possible you might conclude that North and South both bid correctly, but South's explanation was incomplete and led to the 2S bid. Finally it's possible you might conclude N/S did everything correctly.

[Vampyr]

Coming late to this thread, I must say that I am very impressed by Mr Burn's explanation of "reverse UI". It seems to me a very important concept, and clearly correct, but little known. I think that the idea of "reverse UI" should be widely disseminated to players and included in TD training courses.

[nige1]

Coming late to this thread, I must say that I am very impressed by Mr Burn's explanation of "reverse UI". It seems to me a very important concept, and clearly correct, but little known. I think that the idea of "reverse UI" should be widely disseminated to players and included in TD training courses.

I agree that reverse UI can exist but I can't see how it's relevant to this thread. The 2♥ response was explained as "weak". The 2♥ bidder had a six-card suit and eleven points. The 2♥ bidder was a passed hand so this was a misexplanation: in a passed-hand context this was not a weak-jump (minimum or maximum): It was strong. Furthermore, IMO, his partner's explanation that he had made a weak bid was unauthorised information to the 2♥ bidder.