Is there any UI

[karen4]

Playing a county level league match in the UK with IMP scoring converted to VPs.

 

Starting with South (me) the bidding went Pass Pass, 2♦ opening by North. I was trying to announce this as weak but West was chattering away (as she had been for most of the match. Yes, I know we should have asked her to stop earlier, but we hadn't and we were where we were). Eventually East asked what it was in a voice loud enough to make her be quiet and I told him it was weak. I bid 3♦ and West now bid 3♥ with Kxxx/A9xxx/x/Kxx. We had no hand records so I don't have the pip cards.

 

I have some questions related to this situation:

 

1. Given the 2♦ should be announced, does the question convey any unauthorised information?

2. If the answer to this is generally "No", had West's bid had been completely off the graph, would there be internal evidence that it conveyed unauthorised information.

3. How normal do you think the 3♥ bid is (for a player of her standard, which is weak)

4. Would you adjust?

[paulg]

Playing a county level league match in the UK with IMP scoring converted to VPs.

 

Starting with South (me) the bidding went Pass Pass, 2♦ opening by North. I was trying to announce this as weak but West was chattering away (as she had been for most of the match. Yes, I know we should have asked her to stop earlier, but we hadn't and we were where we were). Eventually East asked what it was in a voice loud enough to make her be quiet and I told him it was weak. I bid 3♦ and West now bid 3♥ with Kxxx/A9xxx/x/Kxx. We had no hand records so I don't have the pip cards.

 

I have a couple of questions related to this situation:

 

1. Given the 2♦ should be announced, does the question convey any unauthorised information?

I believe all 2♦ openers must be either alerted or announced. If you do neither then it seems reasonable for someone to draw attention to your infraction. I don't think there is any UI making the remaining questions redundant.

[pran]

Playing a county level league match in the UK with IMP scoring converted to VPs.

 

Starting with South (me) the bidding went Pass Pass, 2♦ opening by North. I was trying to announce this as weak but West was chattering away (as she had been for most of the match. Yes, I know we should have asked her to stop earlier, but we hadn't and we were where we were). Eventually East asked what it was in a voice loud enough to make her be quiet and I told him it was weak. I bid 3♦ and West now bid 3♥ with Kxxx/A9xxx/x/Kxx. We had no hand records so I don't have the pip cards.

 

I have some questions related to this situation:

 

1. Given the 2♦ should be announced, does the question convey any unauthorised information?

2. If the answer to this is generally "No", had West's bid had been completely off the graph, is there internal evidence that it conveyed unauthorised information.

3. How normal do you think the 3♥ bid is (for a player of her standard, which is weak)

4. Would you adjust?

My advice to you is to announce or alert the 2♦ opening bid according to relevant regulations just as you would have done with quiet and listening opponents. (I would not even have bothered requesting West to be quiet in order to hear your announcement.) The fact that they would not hear your announcement or notice your alert because of West's chatter is not your problem.

 

Given that you have passed as dealer and North opened in third hand with a weak hand bid I don't consider West's bid of 3♥ directly outrageous, but personally I would have had greater tolerance for a (takeout) double.

 

I don't see any immediate reason for suspicion of UI.

[mrdct]

1. Depends how it was asked - I think you need to have been there.

2. The question kind of answers itself as I presume "off the graph" means "could only have been made with UI".

3. "Weak" is a very broad description, but I have certainly come across many "weak" players who would routinely pass with such a hand (which is why raising a weak two with rubbish is such an effective strategy).

4. Probably not, but I can't really comment without seeing the full hnad.

[karen4]

1. Depends how it was asked - I think you need to have been there.

 

It was not asked in such a way that it showed interest particularly. He said later that the sole purpose of asking was to try to stop his partner from talking, which was consistent with the way he asked. His exact words were 'it was intended as a polite way of saying 'shup up partner''.

 

However, he did turn up with a flat 14 points with 3 low diamonds, and from previous admittedly not extensive experience of playing against his partner I would not usually expect her to bid with the hand she had.

[mrdct]

It was not asked in such a way that it showed interest particularly. He said later that the sole purpose of asking was to try to stop his partner from talking, which was consistent with the way he asked. His exact words were 'it was intended as a polite way of saying 'shup up partner''.

If that is the way the TD determines the facts then the potential UI doesn't suggest anything and West can do whatever she likes.

[blackshoe]

It sounds to me like there was no failure to announce or alert, as OP said he "attempted to announce" the bid as weak (which is, I believe, the EBU requirement) but could not be clearly heard above West's chatter.

 

I would be asking West why she bid 3♥

[karen4]

It sounds to me like there was no failure to announce or alert, as OP said he "attempted to announce" the bid as weak (which is, I believe, the EBU requirement) but could not be clearly heard above West's chatter.

 

That is correct.

 

We did not call the TD. It was a privately played match and there was not TD available, so we agreed the facts and reserved our rights. The contract went 1 off on a ruff, so there was no damage.

 

I just wanted to see peoples' views on whether this situation, where someone doesn't hear the announcement of an announcable bid or the partner forgets to announce, can convey unauthorised information. My view is that it most definitely can, but not everone agrees. If I am in this situation where I don't hear an announcement or someone forgets to make one, I don't feel an urgency to ask. I wait until the end of the auction and can't see any reason for not doing so.

[mycroft]

I have a personal preference when it comes to unAnnounced 1NT openings (which are the only ones in my jurisdiction that will *require* an Announcement or Alert, no matter what they are) - if I'm not told, I ask. I always ask. I freely admit I do it partly as a passive-aggressive move, but I also do it so that

 

a) I never get caught out if they *are* in fact playing something non-15-17, especially if I play different defences, and

b) I don't play WeaSeL, even by accident.

 

I'd actually like a rule that says I *can* play WeaSeL against players who "don't feel it's necessary" to Announce "what everybody plays"; but, you know, passive-aggressive. I *play* to the Laws, no matter what I'd *like* them to be.

 

I usually throw out the Alert card, ostentatiously. If there's still conversation like this West, it gets even more florid and ostenatatious - if necessary, crossing the East-West eye-line (in the ACBL, Alerts and Announcements are *supposed to* be verbal and carded. I don't *always* do that, but I do better than most - and in a case where I'm concerned the Announcement might be missed, I'm scrupulous. Were that not to be the case in the EBU, I'd probably still Announce verbally and physically - arm outstretched to partner's call, for instance. Through E-W line of sight? if necessary).

 

Having said that, I as TD would have little sympathy for someone who didn't "hear an alert" when the Alerter would have had to have a bullhorn. As far as East, I don't see any issue with her action; I also don't see any issue with West's call, but I would have to learn their style (mine is sound overcalls of preempts, so we have to get in in fourth with shape. Theirs may well be different).

[mycroft]

specifically, in a case (not yours) where someone *fails to Announce* what *has to be Announced/Alerted, 100% of the meanings*, asking certainly does pass UI (if, you know, they don't always do it), but that the non-Announcers didn't take my hints of "you caused this problem" and forced me to rule, and there *was* an adjustment to be made, it would not be reciprocal. The non-Announcers would get the "worst result that was at all possible" had they Announced...

 

Didn't hear because they couldn't shut up long enough? Well, that tips the scales somewhat, doesn't it?

[AlexJonson]

It sounds to me like there was no failure to announce or alert, as OP said he "attempted to announce" the bid as weak (which is, I believe, the EBU requirement) but could not be clearly heard above West's chatter.

 

I would be asking West why she bid 3♥

 

But you are aware that the EBU requires the alerter to ensure that both opponents hear/see the alert.

 

Did RHO try to help declarer, or to help partner by asking a question to which RHO already knew the answer?

 

I suspect mostly the latter.

 

Is 'chattering' an offence - no idea.

 

It seems to me that we have a table-full of problem players and I would surely not adjust the score. I would tell the players to play on in the spirit that private matches require and call me again if necessary.

[barmar]

My assumption would be that East simply couldn't hear what the announcer said over the chatter, and it's perfectly normal for him to ask what you said. How much UI is actually passed by that?

[blackshoe]

Somewhere, in regard to a similar (or perhaps the same, I'm not sure) I said "no failure to alert, but failure to ensure both opponents were aware of it".

 

"Chattering" is most certainly an infraction, see Law 74B2.

 

Any information gleaned from East's question is certainly extraneous (Law 16A3). Whether it demonstrably could suggest any particular action (such as bidding 3♥) to West is another question.

 

I might decline to adjust the score, but I would want to investigate thoroughly before ruling.

[mjj29]

specifically, in a case (not yours) where someone *fails to Announce* what *has to be Announced/Alerted, 100% of the meanings*, asking certainly does pass UI (if, you know, they don't always do it), but that the non-Announcers didn't take my hints of "you caused this problem" and forced me to rule, and there *was* an adjustment to be made, it would not be reciprocal. The non-Announcers would get the "worst result that was at all possible" had they Announced...

 

Didn't hear because they couldn't shut up long enough? Well, that tips the scales somewhat, doesn't it?

Failing to alert or announce a call which always must have either an alert of an announcement is certainly an irregularity. All players may draw attention to that irregularity (Law 9). Law 16A1© says that information "... arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and regulations" is authorized. 16A3 makes it clear that only 'other' information is extraneous and it is extraneous information to which 16B1 refers.

 

If you are the one doing the asking you may wish to protect yourself by saying "That call requires either an alert or an announcement, you should probably do one or the other" rather than say "what does that mean", just to make it clear you're drawing attention.

[karen4]

But you are aware that the EBU requires the alerter to ensure that both opponents hear/see the alert.

 

Yes, I am aware of this. Are you suggesting that I should have shouted loud enough to be heard above her chatter? (Not a loaded question, just clarifying your comment).

 

It seems to me that we have a table-full of problem players and I would surely not adjust the score. I would tell the players to play on in the spirit that private matches require and call me again if necessary.

 

What have North / South done to be referred to as 'problem players'? Not asking West to be quiet earlier, which could have led to a bad atmosphere and an accusation of more experienced players trying to intimidate someone who was nervous? Not shouting the announcement loudly enough? Or are you suggesting in private matches we should ignore potential unauthorised information issues?

[gnasher]

I just wanted to see peoples' views on whether this situation, where someone doesn't hear the announcement of an announcable bid or the partner forgets to announce, can convey unauthorised information. My view is that it most definitely can, but not everone agrees.

It's no different from any other situation where a player asks a question. If the player would always ask in these circumstances, no meaningful UI is conveyed. If the player would always ask when they want to know and also sometimes when they don't, some UI is conveyed. If the player asks only when they want to know, a lot of UI is conveyed.

 

If I am in this situation where I don't hear an announcement or someone forgets to make one, I don't feel an urgency to ask. I wait until the end of the auction and can't see any reason for not doing so.

Well, now you have a good reason: it saves your partner from UI problems.

[Cascade]

Out of curiousity was 3♥ raised to 4♥.

 

If not then it possibly suggests that east had shown his balanced 14 with the question.

[AlexJonson]

Yes, I am aware of this. Are you suggesting that I should have shouted loud enough to be heard above her chatter? (Not a loaded question, just clarifying your comment).

 

 

 

What have North / South done to be referred to as 'problem players'? Not asking West to be quiet earlier, which could have led to a bad atmosphere and an accusation of more experienced players trying to intimidate someone who was nervous? Not shouting the announcement loudly enough? Or are you suggesting in private matches we should ignore potential unauthorised information issues?

 

You may have noticed that I was replying to Blackshoe and not to you.

 

In relation to you, I don't think you need to shout, but you may need to repeat yourself.

 

If I was in the middle of a cantankerous match in private (apologies if I misunderstood your relation) I would not expect to phone David Stevenson or someone similar in your County and have them take sides. So my point was that I'm not judging anyone, just not adjusting and definitely encouraging all of you to get on with it in a better atmosphere.

[karen4]

You may have noticed that I was replying to Blackshoe and not to you.

 

Yes, I did notice this, but you were talking about me and my partner in a public forum so I think I'm justified in asking you to explain your comments.

 

If I was in the middle of a cantankerous match in private (apologies if I misunderstood your relation) I would not expect to phone David Stevenson or someone similar in your County and have them take sides. So my point was that I'm not judging anyone, just not adjusting and definitely encouraging all of you to get on with it in a better atmosphere.

 

It was not a cantankerous match at any point, the atmosphere was good and I don't know why you assume otherwise. Reservation of rights and asking for a ruling does not usually create an atmosphere and didn't in this instance. No-one phoned anyone asking them to "take sides" as you put it, though it's not the phrase I feel is appropriate in relation to asking for a ruling, and if a director had been called I have no doubt it would have been in the same spirit as the rest of the match, which was friendly. In fact, I offered to post this on behalf of all 4 of us as we were all curious as to whether it was generally felt this situation may convey unauthorised information.

[AlexJonson]

Yes, I did notice this, but you were talking about me and my partner in a public forum so I think I'm justified in asking you to explain your comments.

 

 

 

It was not a cantankerous match at any point, the atmosphere was good and I don't know why you assume otherwise. Reservation of rights and asking for a ruling does not usually create an atmosphere and didn't in this instance. No-one phoned anyone asking them to "take sides" as you put it, though it's not the phrase I feel is appropriate in relation to asking for a ruling, and if a director had been called I have no doubt it would have been in the same spirit as the rest of the match, which was friendly. In fact, I offered to post this on behalf of all 4 of us as we were all curious as to whether it was generally felt this situation may convey unauthorised information.

 

Then of course I apologise for misunderstanding your post.

[karen4]

Out of curiousity was 3♥ raised to 4♥.

 

If not then it possibly suggests that east had shown his balanced 14 with the question.

 

Yes it was raised, and is a good game only going off on a ruff and was flat (2♦ wasn't opened in the other room). I'm not suggesting there was any 'understanding' between them or any deliberate attempt to convey or use unauthorised information. However, IF this situation gives rise to unauthorised information, I don't feel it's clear that 3♥ should be allowed.

 

As a general comment, not at all related to this match or this pair, I do feel that if there is no unauthorised information in this situation then the announcement system is open to abuse. I have occasionally come across people whose hearing seems to get worse as their hand gets better :(

[barmar]

As a general comment, not at all related to this match or this pair, I do feel that if there is no unauthorised information in this situation then the announcement system is open to abuse. I have occasionally come across people whose hearing seems to get worse as their hand gets better :(

We're probably never going to have a system that isn't open to some abuse, although the mechanisms used in online bridge and screens reduce it. If players really want to cheat, they'll find a way.

 

But most players are honest, and we live with the systems we have because the potential for abuse is rarely used intentionally.

[karen4]

But most players are honest, and we live with the systems we have because the potential for abuse is rarely used intentionally.

 

Yes, I agree