Cascade Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 Observed today a player ashamedly coaching her partner in the postmortum: "you should have bid game because you know my hand will be strong after your hesitation" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexJonson Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 Observed today a player ashamedly coaching her partner in the postmortum: "you should have bid game because you know my hand will be strong after your hesitation" I guess you are referring to the primitive 1-(H)2-3-? or something similar. But then 1-2-3-? is not necessarily detectably or even really any different. Perhaps second hand UI is a temporary fantasy we should abandon, before we spoil the game a bit more. (Unnecessary quotation mark removed) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 lol nice one Wayne :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted July 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 I guess you are referring to the primitive 1-(H)2-3-? or something similar. But then 1-2-3-? is not necessarily detectably or even really any different. Perhaps second hand UI is a temporary fantasy we should abandon, before we spoil the game a bit more. (Unnecessary quotation mark removed) No the auction was: 2♠ (Dbl) 3♠ (Pass*)Pass (4♦) ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 Observed today a player unashamedly coaching her partner in the postmortem: "you should have bid game because you know my hand will be strong after your hesitation" DBurn drew attention to similar examples. IMO she was inciting her partner to break the UI law. If you overhear such an exhortation, are you duty-bound to report it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
semeai Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 Here's an example of this related by Gavin Wolpert on bridgewinners.com: http://www.bridgewinners.com/index.php/gavin-wolpert/457-unauthorized-information-level-2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrdct Posted July 18, 2011 Report Share Posted July 18, 2011 What's going over there Wayne? I read a Facebook post from someone at your National Congress that "in New Zealand, that your partner asked a question is Authorised Information". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted July 18, 2011 Report Share Posted July 18, 2011 I don't find the comment surprising - if I hadn't read it on these forums, it wouldn't have occurred to me that this might not be permitted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted July 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2011 What's going over there Wayne? I read a Facebook post from someone at your National Congress that "in New Zealand, that your partner asked a question is Authorised Information". Who knows? I talked with Keiran about the other situation. Apparently the auction was 1♥ Pass 3♥ Pass*; Pass 3♠ ... and this was allowed after the unmistakable hesitation over 3♥ by partner. I don't have the hand but it sounded unreasonable to me. Keiran said he might write up some more details - hopefully he will. My situation didn't involve a TD call so there was no ruling. A disappointing aspect of this incident that I did not mention earlier is that the players involved were experienced and have represented New Zealand in international competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iviehoff Posted July 18, 2011 Report Share Posted July 18, 2011 Here's an example of this related by Gavin Wolpert on bridgewinners.com: http://www.bridgewinners.com/index.php/gavin-wolpert/457-unauthorized-information-level-2A very clear argument was made by one of the commenters there. To paraphrase: 16A1a says a player can use information if"it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board ... and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source" A call that your partner makes under the restrictions of UI is a legal call that is affected by UI from another source. So that seems to say pretty clearly that "second order UI" is UI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
semeai Posted July 18, 2011 Report Share Posted July 18, 2011 A very clear argument was made by one of the commenters there. To paraphrase: 16A1a says a player can use information if"it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board ... and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source" A call that your partner makes under the restrictions of UI is a legal call that is affected by UI from another source. So that seems to say pretty clearly that "second order UI" is UI. (I have no credentials to be discussing laws, but...) It may be best for "second order UI" to be disallowed, but this reasoning seems merely to be wishful thinking. The "unauthorized information" in 16A1a must refer to information that is unauthorized to you, otherwise there would be an issue with using information deriving from calls/plays/etc but which is affected by information that is unauthorized to an opponent, which is surely not the case. The distaste here seems to come from the fact that one could conceivably use this to one's advantage, and even plan a hesitation for this purpose (probably doing this is cheating somehow, though I don't know the relevant law). What I gather from reading some of these laws threads, though, is that things are not illegal merely because they could be misused by unsavory types. Maybe I've gotten the wrong impression, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexJonson Posted July 18, 2011 Report Share Posted July 18, 2011 The problem in this discussion is the notion that partner's honesty is UI to you. If we go there, then IMO we go where no reasonable Bridge player will follow. This is what the 'second order' UI is about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted July 18, 2011 Report Share Posted July 18, 2011 I think the problem with trying to prohibit use of second order UI is that it can result in situations where anything you do can be ruled improper, like the paradox of someone saying, "I'm lying." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 What now of third, fourth and fifth order UI? "Partner knows that I know that he knows that I know that he has UI, so..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
semeai Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 What now of third, fourth and fifth order UI? "Partner knows that I know that he knows that I know that he has UI, so..." So if it's a clear-cut bid, but just barely, I might worry that partner will raise me and decide to pass after all? :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 In the other thread there was a clear consensus that "second order" or "reverse" UI is still UI, and a player must make every effort etc. Why must the question be dredged up again? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
semeai Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 In the other thread there was a clear consensus that "second order" or "reverse" UI is still UI, and a player must make every effort etc. Why must the question be dredged up again? Sorry, which other thread is this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 Sorry, which other thread is this? This one: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/44695-ui-ruling/ 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 DBurn drew attention to similar examples. IMO she was inciting her partner to break the UI law.If it is the same DBurn, judging by his beard I don't think he is female; and I know he was not inciting his partner to break UI laws; in fact he bends over backwards to avoid doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 If it is the same DBurn, judging by his beard I don't think he is female; and I know he was not inciting his partner to break UI laws; in fact he bends over backwards to avoid doing so. The antecedent of "she" was "player", not "DBurn". Please read more carefully. And I agree with nige1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexJonson Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 In the other thread there was a clear consensus that "second order" or "reverse" UI is still UI, and a player must make every effort etc. Why must the question be dredged up again? My recollection is that dburn pointed out a small change in the wording of the latest laws thst appeared to let 'second order UI' through: this topic had previously been discussed and was not thought to be suppported by the previous laws. There has been no follow up that has clarified the official position (as far as I know). So far it is an interesting notion that has caught your imagination and that of nige1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted July 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 My recollection is that dburn pointed out a small change in the wording of the latest laws thst appeared to let 'second order UI' through: this topic had previously been discussed and was not thought to be suppported by the previous laws. There has been no follow up that has clarified the official position (as far as I know). So far it is an interesting notion that has caught your imagination and that of nige1. In my opinion it can't possibly be the intention of the laws that an offending side gains an advantage in terms of the information available to their side based on the tempo of their bids. They are authorized to base their actions on the calls made on this board. Such information needs to be "unaffected by UI from another source". It seems reasonable to argue that one's own hesitation is another source - other than the call made by partner - that affects the information in partner's call. Partner's 4♦ call contains information from the call itself and on the assumption that partner is honest and noticed your hesitation contains additional information based on the UI from your hesitation. Imagine you played with a partner who frequently bid on shady values but was an honest player and would have sound values if there was ever UI from your side of the table. If second order UI was allowed one could manipulate this partner by appearing to have problems more often than not and then you would know that partner had full values for his bids. Can those who don't seem to accept the second order UI illegality really argue that this would be legal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 I wouldn't argue that it's legal. I would argue that it's far fetched. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexJonson Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 In my opinion it can't possibly be the intention of the laws that an offending side gains an advantage in terms of the information available to their side based on the tempo of their bids. They are authorized to base their actions on the calls made on this board. Such information needs to be "unaffected by UI from another source". It seems reasonable to argue that one's own hesitation is another source - other than the call made by partner - that affects the information in partner's call. Partner's 4♦ call contains information from the call itself and on the assumption that partner is honest and noticed your hesitation contains additional information based on the UI from your hesitation. Imagine you played with a partner who frequently bid on shady values but was an honest player and would have sound values if there was ever UI from your side of the table. If second order UI was allowed one could manipulate this partner by appearing to have problems more often than not and then you would know that partner had full values for his bids. Can those who don't seem to accept the second order UI illegality really argue that this would be legal? Where I part company with you is in believing that someone could manipulate an honest partner in the way you describe. Apart from the oddity of this crook playing with an honest partner, the crook could rarely know whether partner would be faced with the common bid or pass choice in face of UI, so the honest player passes and is not manipulated and the crooked strategy fails. In other words, the whole thing is not worth the candle. And do you relish establishing whether a player is honest, as a basis for an adjustment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjj29 Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 In my opinion it can't possibly be the intention of the laws that an offending side gains an advantage in terms of the information available to their side based on the tempo of their bids. They are authorized to base their actions on the calls made on this board. Such information needs to be "unaffected by UI from another source". It seems reasonable to argue that one's own hesitation is another source - other than the call made by partner - that affects the information in partner's call. Partner's 4♦ call contains information from the call itself and on the assumption that partner is honest and noticed your hesitation contains additional information based on the UI from your hesitation.You don't think it's "information ... arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations" then? (L16A1©) Matt 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.