barmar Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 "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.So there's no UI from calling the director, but as soon as he answers the director's "What can I do for you?" question, there's UI. Seems like splitting hairs. However, I'm of the opinion that even though there's UI, it doesn't suggest anything specific. There could be a number of reasons why he felt the need for protection in this auction, so you're not much constrained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 We seem to have defined the problem as "UI exists, therefore everyone is constrained in their actions." If that is truly the law, then IMO the only way to save the game is to isolate each player from the other three, so that the only thing they see is the actually calls and plays made (and the artificially imposed tempo will have to be long enough to ensure no "hesitation" problems). I doubt there are many who would like to play bridge that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 However, I'm of the opinion that even though there's UI, it doesn't suggest anything specific. There could be a number of reasons why he felt the need for protection in this auction, so you're not much constrained. There you go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrdct Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 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.The examples given in 16B1 are just that, examples. If you rewind to the first bit of 16B1a "...a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play" this is obviously very broad and surely includes anything that partner does other than legal bids, calls and plays. Refering back to 16A1c, the qualifier to the "arising from legal procedure" exemption is quite obviously there to make it clear that UI can still be transmitted by doing something compliant under the laws and regulations. If the circumstances are such that based on partnership experience the player in question only calls the TD for BIT situations where damage or potential damage is perceived, his partner can eliminate the hands on which partner wouldn't bother calling the TD which is clearly UI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 We seem to have defined the problem as "UI exists, therefore everyone is constrained in their actions." If that is truly the law, then IMO the only way to save the game is to isolate each player from the other three, so that the only thing they see is the actually calls and plays made (and the artificially imposed tempo will have to be long enough to ensure no "hesitation" problems). I doubt there are many who would like to play bridge that way.There is another considerably better solution: not to worry about the vast majority of UI which is effectively irrelevant. In my view, that is what we do, ie act sensibly within the Laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 Yes, that's a better solution. Am I not permitted a little hyperbole to show how ridiculous the position of some is? B-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 Sure! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 There is another considerably better solution: not to worry about the vast majority of UI which is effectively irrelevant. In my view, that is what we do, ie act sensibly within the Laws. It is true that the use of UI from from BITs, alerts, and explanations causes damage. But the use of UI from other sources causes just as much damage. I agree with mrdct that directors should acknowledge the existence of the latter and deal with it as best they can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 Okay, Nigel. What is the UI from the director call in this case, and how did it cause damage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted June 11, 2011 Report Share Posted June 11, 2011 Okay, Nigel. What is the UI from the director call in this case, and how did it cause damage? Perhaps there was no BIT. If there was a BIT, perhaps partner was unaware of it. But Calling partner's attention to opponent's BIT may put partner off a speculative double or an aggressive slam and it tends to deter partner from mere competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted June 11, 2011 Report Share Posted June 11, 2011 Speculation. You cannot make a ruling based on speculation. Where's your evidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted June 11, 2011 Report Share Posted June 11, 2011 If a director call falls in a forest, can anyone hear it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.