change of strategy?

[gwnn]

LHO is dealer. Scoring irrelevant.

 

2♥-p-4♥**-4♠

p*-p-5♥**-

 

* noticeably slow

** very quick

 

Your partner calls the Director to tell him about the slow pass and the quick 5♥. He nods and goes away.

 

Legal question: Are you allowed to take this fact (that your partner called the director) into account in deciding between pass, double and 5♠?

 

Bridge question (in case the answer of the former question is yes): do you, as a bridge player, do this?

[Phil]

1. I believe the act of calling the director doesn't create UI, although the questions that are posed could. If partner simply said, "the pass over 4♠ was slow", then I cannot see how calling the director has created any issues for our side. I am hard pressed to think of any comment my partner may make to a director that would create a problem. I suppose something gratuitous or leading like, "it seems odd a weak two bidder is even thinking over 4♠ here, don't you think"?

 

A greater potential for UI seems to be created if partner starts asking a lot of unnecessary questions of the opponents like,

 

"what kinds of hands could the 4♥ bidder have",

 

"are there stronger ways to bid 4♥",

 

"what kind of suit quality does your partnership require for a weak 2" etc.,

 

I would think feel as if I am sliding into hole and I have to start looking at whether or not the questions asked start suggesting a particular action.

 

 

2. If there is no dilemma, there is no dilemma. I would take whatever action my hand called for. I can easily come up with a hand where 5♠ is marginal and one where 5♠ is clear, but I felt pressured to only bid 4♠ the time before. The scoring might be relevant, by the way.

[mrdct]

I believe the act of calling the director doesn't create UI

I disagree. Every single thing a player does outside of his legal bids, calls and plays is extraneous information which is unauthorised to his partner. Plenty can be read into partner's decision to call this director and those things are clearly UI.

[Bbradley62]

Partner is simply protecting our side against the possibility that RHO used UI when he bid 5♥. What information do we think that conveys about his hand?

[nige1]

I disagree. Every single thing a player does outside of his legal bids, calls and plays is extraneous information which is unauthorised to his partner. Plenty can be read into partner's decision to call this director and those things are clearly UI.

On the whole, I agree with MrDict although I suspect that the law-makers may have concocted a few daft exceptions. For example

• Making and correcting an insufficient bid
• Alerting partner's bid, waking him up to a mechanical error.

What about drawing attention to a BIT? Superficially, this doesn't seem to suggest one logical alternative over another. However, the loony SEWOG law creates another unnecessary anomaly. By drawing attention to the BIT, you alert partner to the danger of choosing an alternative that the director/committee, in their superior wisdom, may deem to be a serious error . Such an action risks forfeiting the possibility of redress if it turns out to be unsuccessful (even if normally it would be partner's automatic choice).

[gwnn]

I'm asking because I saw a guy with a very clear 5♠ bid* pass 5♥ after his partner called the director. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, and I honestly have no idea how I could exploit this UI even if I wanted to, but I think it's at least a little interesting.

 

*Of course, what looks like a clear 5♠ bid to me may be a clear pass for others. This is a subjective assessment.

[cherdano]

I think there are two separate questions here:

 

1. We have UI that partner called director. Could this demonstrably suggest some logical alternatives over others? I assume this is equivalent to asking: "Can we deduce anything about partner's hand from his director call?" (I certainly can't, but maybe I am just dumb.)

 

2. How does the fact that the opponent's 5♥ bid might get rolled back affect our strategy?

[campboy]

The fact that partner called the director is UI. The fact that the director may be able to adjust the score is AI, since it derives from the laws. If you had not noticed the hesitation yourself then I don't think you are allowed to use the fact that there was one, since partner pointed it out. If you had noticed it, though, you already knew that an adjusted score was a possibility and so I don't think the TD call suggests anything else.

[BunnyGo]

As a separate (but related) issue. When should his partner have called the director? Is there an ideal time in the auction to do this?

[jeffford76]

I think there are two separate questions here:

2. How does the fact that the opponent's 5♥ bid might get rolled back affect our strategy?

 

If you're sure 5H will get rolled back, then there's no great benefit in bidding 5S unless to not do it would be considered wild or gambling. Assuming you have some defense your best strategy is probably to double since you'll get the score for 5HX if it's better than the result in 4S and the result of 4S if it's not.

[Phil]

I disagree. Every single thing a player does outside of his legal bids, calls and plays is extraneous information which is unauthorised to his partner. Plenty can be read into partner's decision to call this director and those things are clearly UI.

 

Can you cite a decision or law that supports this? I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but it seems pretty harsh to choose between not enforcing your rights, and creating a headache for your partner by the act of calling the director.

 

In the end, I think I look at this like Cherdano does; maybe there is UI in a director call, but what does it suggest, if anything?

[MickyB]

By drawing attention to the BIT, you alert partner to the danger of choosing an alternative that the director/committee, in their superior wisdom, may deem to be a serious error.

 

If it doesn't occur to him that there may be a ruling on the hand, partner is unlikely to make a SEWOG bid anyway. My calling the TD would be *more* likely to influence partner's bid were it not for the law you mention.

[MickyB]

What does the UI suggest? Not a lot. Perhaps that partner thinks that oppo may have done the right thing by bidding 5H over 4S. Alternatively, he wishes to make a penalty double, and wants to draw our attention to the fact that bidding on is anti-percentage, as we are likely to get the score for 4S anyway.

 

I guess if someone did this with a hand that was happy to be defending 5H instead of playing 4S then I would be suspicious that this was a means of waking partner up, however if this is the recommended time to call the TD then you can't assume that was why it was done.

 

As has been said before, the hesitation and impending ruling should dissuade this hand from bidding 5S, so the standards for a "clear 5S bid" have changed somewhat.

[nige1]

If it doesn't occur to him that there may be a ruling on the hand, partner is unlikely to make a SEWOG bid anyway. My calling the TD would be *more* likely to influence partner's bid were it not for the law you mention.

I agree that calling partner's attention to opponent's BIT may influence him either way but it is likely to put partner off a speculative double or an aggressive slam and it tends to deter partner from mere competition.

[mrdct]

Can you cite a decision or law that supports this?

Laws 16A3 and 16B1(a).

[cherdano]

If you're sure 5H will get rolled back, then there's no great benefit in bidding 5S unless to not do it would be considered wild or gambling. Assuming you have some defense your best strategy is probably to double since you'll get the score for 5HX if it's better than the result in 4S and the result of 4S if it's not.

But I can't be sure that 5H will get rolled back, as responder might have a clear-cut 5H bid.

 

How about the following reason to bid 5S: if RHO has a clear-cut 5H bid that survives a committee, then we won't be beating this, especially given opener's hesitation. So I should bid 5S. Conversely, if we are beating this, then probably RHO's 5H wasn't clear and the auction will get rolled back to 4S anyway.

This probably sounds more mischievous than how I think of it - I would just be bidding under the assumption that RHO was following the rules and not choosing a logical alternative that might been suggested by his partner's hesitation.

[Phil]

Laws 16A3 and 16B1(a).

 

Strange, the word "director" or "director call" does not appear in either of these laws.

 

Maybe you had something else in mind?

[mrdct]

Strange, the word "director" or "director call" does not appear in either of these laws.

 

Maybe you had something else in mind?

Try reading Law 16 in its entirety which basically says that you can base your actions on legal calls and plays (together with a view other esoteric things like illegal calls which have been accepted) and all other information is "extraneous" and a player may not base a call or play on such extraneous information. Law 16B1(a) gives a few examples of extraneous information, "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". By any reasonable interpretation of this, a decision by partner to draw attention to a BIT and/or call the director about it, falls within the meaning of "extraneous information". The recipient of the UI is now able to differentiate between the hand-types where partner would be inclined to take issue with the BIT and the hand-types where he would not. Of course, if partner is in the habit of routinely calling the director 100% of the time whenever he spots a BIT there would be no UI and in this case I've got no idea whether or not the guy who called the director is the SB type.

[blackshoe]

Calling the director is a legal procedure authorized in the laws (see Law 9). Per Law 16A1{c}, information arising from such procedures is authorized.

[mgoetze]

Calling the director is a legal procedure authorized in the laws (see Law 9). Per Law 16A1{c}, information arising from such procedures is authorized.

 

Can I play a relay system where a director call shows an 8+ card suit?

[blackshoe]

What do you think?

[mrdct]

Calling the director is a legal procedure authorized in the laws (see Law 9). Per Law 16A1{c}, information arising from such procedures is authorized.

You conveniently omitted the qualifier "but see B1 following" which clearly brings a director call and the related questions and comments by partner into the "extraneous information" camp.

[blackshoe]

You conveniently omitted the qualifier "but see B1 following" which clearly brings a director call and the related questions and comments by partner into the "extraneous information" camp.

 

"Conveniently", is it? You should go into politics, or "journalism". You're really good at sly innuendos.

 

I do not agree that the reference to B1 "Clearly brings a director call… into the 'extraneous information' camp". As for "related questions and comments", we weren't talking about that, but only the call itself. At least, that's all I was talking about.

[Phil]

You conveniently omitted the qualifier "but see B1 following" which clearly brings a director call and the related questions and comments by partner into the "extraneous information" camp.

 

Emphasis mine

 

LAW 9

Procedure Following An Irregularity

 

A. drawing Attention to an irregularity

 

1. unless prohibited by law, any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call.

 

2. unless prohibited by law, declarer or either defender may draw attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period. For incorrectly pointed card see Law 65B3.

 

3. When an irregularity has occurred, dummy may not draw attention to it during the play period but may do so after play of the hand is concluded. Any player, however, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43).

 

4. there is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one’s own side (but see Law 20F5 for correction of partner’s apparently mistaken explanation).

 

B. After Attention is drawn to an irregularity

 

1. (a) the director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity.

 

(b) Any player, including dummy, may summon the director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity.

 

( c ) Summoning the director does not cause a player to forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be entitled.

 

(d) the fact that a player draws attention to an irregularity committed by his side does not

affect the rights of the opponents.

 

2. no player shall take any action until the director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

 

c. Premature correction of an irregularity

 

Any premature correction of an irregularity by the offender may subject him to a further rectification (see the lead restrictions in Law 26).

 

and...

 

16.

 

A. 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 (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source;

 

or

(b) it is authorized information from a withdrawn action (see d below); or

 

© it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these Laws and in

regulations (but see B1 below); or

 

(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.

 

2. Players may also take account of their estimate of their own score, of the traits of their opponents and any requirement of the tournament regulations.

 

3. no player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous).

 

4. if there is a violation of this law causing damage, the director adjusts the score in accordance with Law 12c.

 

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.

 

The 16B(1) reference in 16A (1©) discusses procedures specified in the laws such as alerts as well as 16B(1) itself. It says nothing about a director call.

 

As far as "questions and remarks" are concerned, I said upthread that a question to a director could create a problem. A simple director call does not.

[nige1]

IMO UI may arise from drawing attention to an alleged irregularity

For example, by naming a card allegedly played by declarer from his hand -- especially if declarer disputes the accusation.

 

Similarly, here, the problem is that partner may not have noticed the alleged BIT, to which you draw attention. Should partner allow that new information to affect his choice of action?