MI, but was there damage?

[CamHenry]

[hv=pc=n&s=skt9842ht6djtct98&w=s63hk973d63ca6532&n=sj5hj82daq974ckj7&e=saq7haq54dk852cq4&d=s&v=b&b=11&a=pp1nd2h(Alerted%2C%20not%20asked)ppp]399|300[/hv]

 

North forgot thesystem and thought 2♥ showed ♥ and a higher suit (i.e. both majors). In fact it was a transfer. After the auction, before the lead, N says to S (who is not yet overly familiar with the alerting, explaining & disclosure regulations):

 

"If I was incorrect to alert 2♥, you should tell the opponents now".

 

South said "No, it should be alerted" (true). At this stage, W asked "What was it?", and N explained that it showed both majors. Due to the earlier misleading statement, S didn't realise she was supposed to say "it's actually a transfer and he's got it wrong".

 

After the play (2♥-5, -500), North said "If you think you'd have got a better score with correct information, let's get the director over to have a look at it". W replied "I think we were damaged; we'd have bid game with the correct explanation".

 

How do you rule?

[WellSpyder]

W replied "I think we were damaged; we'd have bid game with the correct explanation".

 

How do you rule?

As I read the story, the MI was only given after the auction was over - the bid was correctly alerted during the auction, and the wrong explanation was only given in response to a question after the auction. So I don't see how EW could have bid any differently without the MI! There is no suggestion that it affected the defence (and 3 tricks to NS looks normal), so I rule no damage and no adjustment.

[blackshoe]

Law 21B3: When it is too late to change a call and the Director judges that the offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity, he awards an adjusted score.

Had 2♥ been announced, rather than alerted, EW might have got to their ♥ game. Therefore the irregularity of failure to announce 2♥ led to damage, and it seems to me Law 21B3 applies. So I would rule there was damage, and adjust the score to 4♥= EW for both sides.

[Zelandakh]

I do not think red suit transfers are announced after a double in EBUland Andy. Someone correct me if I am wrong...

[gordontd]

I do not think red suit transfers are announced after a double in EBUland Andy. Someone correct me if I am wrong...

You are correct about the announcement, but incorrect to call Ed Andy :)

[mr1303]

You are not wrong.

[mr1303]

Gordon beat me to it. I agree that I don't change the score if the auction has ended here. Why didn't EW ask about the meaning of 2H?

[blackshoe]

I'm not Andy. My name is Ed. B-)

 

OB 5C5: Red suit transfers, ie ♦ to ♥ and ♥ to ♠, are announced, but only in response to a natural 1NT opening where there has been no intervention, and where the transfer shows at least five cards in the major suit concerned.

Okay, you're right, and I got it wrong. It seems the damage was caused by EW's failure to ask about the alert during the auction. So I'm going to have to rule that the score stands, no damage (in the legal sense, which requires that it be caused by the OS) having occurred. Not quite WellSpyder's ruling, but close.

 

Yet again, we find the principle "ask, do not assume" when an alert occurs. :o

 

I don't particularly like this ruling, because if EW had asked, they'd have got an incorrect explanation, and then the ruling would be different. If they'd asked and got a correct explanation, presumably they'd have found their game. But I don't see a way around it.

[WellSpyder]

So I'm going to have to rule that the score stands, no damage (in the legal sense, which requires that it be caused by the OS) having occurred. Not quite WellSpyder's ruling, but close.

I don't mean to quibble (and I'm not a TD so I'm quite used to getting things slightly wrong) but I don't actually see the distinction you are drawing between your ruling and mine.

 

Yet again, we find the principle "ask, do not assume" when an alert occurs. :o

Indeed. Though I've no idea what EW might actually have assumed here without asking.

 

I don't particularly like this ruling, because if EW had asked, they'd have got an incorrect explanation, and then the ruling would be different. If they'd asked and got a correct explanation, presumably they'd have found their game. But I don't see a way around it.

I'm happier than you are to make the "correct" ruling since I'm not actually convinced they would have found their game with the correct explanation. The fact that they didn't ask about 2♥ despite the alert suggests to me that neither of them thought their hand was worth another bid regardless of what 2♥ might have meant.

[blackshoe]

I don't mean to quibble (and I'm not a TD so I'm quite used to getting things slightly wrong) but I don't actually see the distinction you are drawing between your ruling and mine.

Law 12B1: Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.

Technically, according to this law, when there was no infraction, there can have been no damage. So if EW could have reached 4♥ and did not, they may feel they were damaged, but in the legal sense they were not; any 'damage' was caused by their failure to ask about the alert, after which either they would have received correct information and presumably have reached their game or they would have received incorrect information, and that would lead to damage caused by an infraction. So I suppose technically there is no difference in our rulings. I just want to make the point to EW, for future reference, that to avoid rulings like this they need to ask what alerts mean.

 

Indeed. Though I've no idea what EW might actually have assumed here without asking.

Me either, although apparently they didn't (or West didn't, anyway) assume it meant 2♥ was a transfer. B-)

 

I'm happier than you are to make the "correct" ruling since I'm not actually convinced they would have found their game with the correct explanation. The fact that they didn't ask about 2♥ despite the alert suggests to me that neither of them thought their hand was worth another bid regardless of what 2♥ might have meant.

Good point. :D

[iviehoff]

I'm happier than you are to make the "correct" ruling since I'm not actually convinced they would have found their game with the correct explanation. The fact that they didn't ask about 2♥ despite the alert suggests to me that neither of them thought their hand was worth another bid regardless of what 2♥ might have meant.

I agree. W's pass with a useful 7 count and 4 good hearts over S's alerted 2H call looks like a mistake whatever 2H meant or was explained to mean. So I don't think he is going to call even with a more detailed explanation, and unless W calls now I can't see them reaching 4H.

[campboy]

I think it is quite reasonable for West to pass if given the correct information "transfer" (hoping to have the chance to double 2♠ for takeout next round) but do something else if given the incorrect information "majors". So even if there had been MI during the auction I don't think E/W would have had much of a case.

[iviehoff]

I think it is quite reasonable for West to pass if given the correct information "transfer" (hoping to have the chance to double 2♠ for takeout next round) but do something else if given the incorrect information "majors". So even if there had been MI during the auction I don't think E/W would have had much of a case.

I think this line of argument takes you to murky places, which is not necessary. If the partnership thinks "pass" by W is a reasonable action when W has a good hand in the situation that South has made a call not expected to be passed by North, then E might argue he would double when N passes (whether deliberately or misbidding) what is ostensibly a forcing action by South, to protect his partner who may have a good hand. Such a claim by E would be complicated by the fact that because East has UI that West didn't ask, East may therefore have failed to ask and passed himself on the assumption that his partner was passing whatever 2H meant, which would be an abuse of UI, and I think a possible explanation of why in practice E evinced no further interest. This is therefore complicated, and I would wish to avoid making my way through that quagmire unless absolutely necessary.

 

But I think there is no evidence that West has deliberately passed with a good hand because he expected another go, because I think that he would have said so in that case. I think it much more likely he passed because he failed to realise that he had a good hand, which gives a much simpler reason to deny relief.

 

Anyway, all of this is hypothethical upon there being MI, and there was none during the auction.

[blackshoe]

…East has UI that West didn't ask…

Law 16B1{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.

I know this list is not considered exhaustive, but I don't see "failure to ask a question" in there. It would have been easy enough to include it if the lawmakers intended it to be UI. Question: is it UI if there was an announcement? If there was no alert? Why, or why not?

[barmar]

Law 73B1 includes "questions asked or not asked" as prohibited communication between partners, and 16A lists the information you're allowed to use. We've always considered unasked questions to be potential UI.

 

This can sometimes lead to a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. But that's why the rule is against taking advantage of UI; it's understood that some UI transmission is unavoidable.

[blackshoe]

Law 73B1 includes "questions asked or not asked" as prohibited communication between partners,

So it does. B-)

 

and 16A lists the information you're allowed to use.

Yes, but "lists are not exhaustive" in the laws. Is 16A1 an exception? B-)

 

We've always considered unasked questions to be potential UI.

True, but there's a difference between potential UI and actual UI. Yet we seem always to treat "potential" UI as if the potential has in fact been realized, at least in posting here.

 

This can sometimes lead to a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. But that's why the rule is against taking advantage of UI; it's understood that some UI transmission is unavoidable.

Sure.

[campboy]

Yes, but "lists are not exhaustive" in the laws. Is 16A1 an exception? B-)

I don't know who you're quoting, but I don't believe that is a general principle. It is certainly true that lists which are introduced with "such as", or similar, are not intended to be exhaustive (eg 73B1). However 16A1 and 16A2 combined are intended to be exhaustive, since 16A3 says:

 

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

[blackshoe]

I wasn't quoting anything official, I was paraphrasing my understanding of a general principle.

 

Conceding that 16A1 and A2 combined are intended to be exhaustive, I think there's still a problem, but I think I'll leave that to blml. B-)

[gnasher]

True, but there's a difference between potential UI and actual UI. Yet we seem always to treat "potential" UI as if the potential has in fact been realized, at least in posting here.

Not asking a question may give UI. If you would sometimes ask a question and sometimes not, depending on the contents of your hand, it does give UI.

[mycroft]

If not asking a question (sometimes) is not UI, then WeaSeL vs (unAnnounced, in the ACBL) NT is legal. I'll get right on that; should improve my results!

 

"Why should we have to Announce 15-17? Everybody plays that!" "Well, here's a really nifty defence that you can't prove they're not deliberately using if you fail to Announce..." "Oh. Does anybody really do that?" "Not deliberately, that I know of, no; but my results playing weak NT went up 2-3% immediately when they introduced Announcements. I'm sure it wasn't just that we were suddenly better players."

[Vampyr]

If not asking a question (sometimes) is not UI, then WeaSeL vs (unAnnounced, in the ACBL) NT is legal.

 

The full French Defense is not legal, but I believe it is AI to partner that, when you had to ask, you were probably considering doing something different if you'd received a different answer.

[blackshoe]

Not asking a question may give UI. If you would sometimes ask a question and sometimes not, depending on the contents of your hand, it does give UI.

How important is the "depending on the contents of your hand" bit? should the TD always assume that's why you asked or didn't ask, in spite of anything you say?

 

If not asking a question (sometimes) is not UI, then WeaSeL vs (unAnnounced, in the ACBL) NT is legal.

Conclusion does not follow from premise.

[jallerton]

The full French Defense is not legal, but I believe it is AI to partner that, when you had to ask, you were probably considering doing something different if you'd received a different answer.

 

Really? Under which Law(s)?

[iviehoff]

The debate that has occurred since I last posted is precisely why I said it was a murky place I didn't want to go to if I could avoid it.

[gnasher]

How important is the "depending on the contents of your hand" bit?

It's vital, of course.

 

If you always ask, never ask, or ask at random, that conveys no UI. If you ask when you're thinking of bidding and randomly at other times, it conveys some UI. If you ask only when you're thinking of bidding, and always ask when you're thinking of bidding, it conveys loads of UI. If you ask only when you're thinking of bidding, but sometimes bid without asking because your action is obvious, it conveys even more UI.

 

should the TD always assume that's why you asked or didn't ask, in spite of anything you say?

No, why should he do that? The TD should listen to what you say, consider whatever other evidence there is, then use his judgement.