Two Potential Infractions

[blackshoe]

"Obvious" is a very slippery word — what's 'obvious' to me might not be 'obvious' to Sven and vice versa, and you can substitute any names you like in there. It seems to me where people are going with this is that unless you know your opponents very well, you should assume nothing about what they know. I suppose this fits well with "the principle of full disclosure", since it will cause you to mention things you might otherwise consider "matters generally known to bridge players". it's likely to annoy some players though.

[Trinidad]

I prefer Sven's interpretation i.e. you should disclose your relevant general bridge knowledge unless you're confident that opponents already share it. I fear, however, that most Bridge-players agree with Trinidad and Aquahombre.

You can prefer what you prefer, but meanwhile the law is pretty clear: you do not need to disclose general bridge knowledge, only knowledge about partnership agreements, in the broadest sense of the word (explicit, implicit, ranges, style, the meaning of alternative calls, etc.).

 

It doesn't make sense to me either to disclose to the opponents what I can infer through my general bridge knowledge what my partner might not be able to infer (because he lacks that general bridge knowledge).

 

Rik

[pran]

To me "General bridge knowledge" within a partnership constitutes part of their partnership understanding. It doesn't matter whether this knowledge is the result of common or individual experience, discussion, reading or whatever. And for the question on disclosure it is completely irrelevant whether partnership understanding is explicit or implicit.

 

The purpose of the laws on disclosure is to ensure that opponents have the same foundation for understanding the calls as the players using the calls. To me it is obviouos that what you do not need to disclose is knowledge that opponents must be expected to already possess, it does not include knowledge that in any way is "general" for the players using it but not neccessarily to opponents.

 

Failing to disclose such knowledge comes very close to using concealed partnership understanding, a matter about which the laws are very severe.

[barmar]

If my partnership had an auction that started with a Jacoby 2NT response to a major opening, and the opponents asked for an explanation of the auction, we would explain 2NT and all the followons. The meaning of the initial opening bid would fall under GBK, and few would think of explaining it or complain about the lack of explanation (practically everyone around here plays 5-card majors).

 

On the other hand, if a Precision pair had a similar auction, I would expect them to mention that the opening was limited when explaining, but they still needn't mention that it shows a 5+ suit.

 

If someone else feels like including that detail in their explanations, that's fine. I just don't think it's required.

[pran]

If my partnership had an auction that started with a Jacoby 2NT response to a major opening, and the opponents asked for an explanation of the auction, we would explain 2NT and all the followons. The meaning of the initial opening bid would fall under GBK, and few would think of explaining it or complain about the lack of explanation (practically everyone around here plays 5-card majors).

 

On the other hand, if a Precision pair had a similar auction, I would expect them to mention that the opening was limited when explaining, but they still needn't mention that it shows a 5+ suit.

 

If someone else feels like including that detail in their explanations, that's fine. I just don't think it's required.

It depends on the competence of opponents. If unsure it should be mentioned.

 

Ruling on possible misinformation will often be an after the fact assessment on whether the omitted information turned out to be important.

[Trinidad]

If my partnership had an auction that started with a Jacoby 2NT response to a major opening, and the opponents asked for an explanation of the auction, we would explain 2NT and all the followons. The meaning of the initial opening bid would fall under GBK, and few would think of explaining it or complain about the lack of explanation (practically everyone around here plays 5-card majors).

 

On the other hand, if a Precision pair had a similar auction, I would expect them to mention that the opening was limited when explaining, but they still needn't mention that it shows a 5+ suit.

 

If someone else feels like including that detail in their explanations, that's fine. I just don't think it's required.

That is a wrong example. Playing 5 card majors is a partnership agreement. It needs to be disclosed.

 

There is a simple test of what is general bridge knowledge and what are partnership agreements. Partnership agreements can only be improved when both partners play, discuss or practice together. General bridge knowledge can be improved by playing with anybody or by reading a book (except when it was written by your partner ;)).

 

An example of general bridge knowledge is how people evaluate the structure or honor location in the hand. Certainly for occasional pairs, but also for most others, this has nothing to do with specific partnership agreements. It is the hand evaluation skill or experience of the individual player and it may well be (usually is) different between the two players. The more you play in general (regardless of whom you play with), the better you get at it. Your partnership agreements can only be improved by playing (or discussing) with your partner.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

To me "General bridge knowledge" within a partnership constitutes part of their partnership understanding. It doesn't matter whether this knowledge is the result of common or individual experience, discussion, reading or whatever.

Sven, how do you disclose to the opponents the general bridge knowledge that is the result of the individual experience of your partner?

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

Is it AI to the EW players that neither N or S ever asked about the meaning of the (alerted) 2D bid?

 

 

Please, Frances, say that this is tongue-in-cheek and that you never in a million years would think this is AI?

[blackshoe]

If my partnership had an auction that started with a Jacoby 2NT response to a major opening, and the opponents asked for an explanation of the auction, we would explain 2NT and all the followons. The meaning of the initial opening bid would fall under GBK, and few would think of explaining it or complain about the lack of explanation (practically everyone around here plays 5-card majors).

 

On the other hand, if a Precision pair had a similar auction, I would expect them to mention that the opening was limited when explaining, but they still needn't mention that it shows a 5+ suit.

 

If someone else feels like including that detail in their explanations, that's fine. I just don't think it's required.

I don't think it's GBK that a Precision 1M opening is 5+ cards, because the structure of Precision is not known to all players. So I think 5+ cards is disclosable.

 

In fact, when a question is asked, it seems to me that the principle of full disclosure requires me to mention that my 1M opening is on 5+ cards, whether I'm playing Precision, SA, 2/1, Romex, Romex Forcing Club, KS, RS, or any other 5 card major system, because the length of the suit is a matter of partnership agreement.

 

You already know that in many (perhaps most modern) systems a 1M opening is on 5+ cards, so you're happy not to have that explained. Not every other player in the world will be happy with that.

[pran]

Sven, how do you disclose to the opponents the general bridge knowledge that is the result of the individual experience of your partner?

 

Rik

When I explain my partner's auction I disclose what I know (that I think is pertinent) without bothering about how I know it.

 

You should focus on what you are required to disclose, not on what you may leave out.

[nige1]

You can prefer what you prefer, but meanwhile the law is pretty clear: you do not need to disclose general bridge knowledge, only knowledge about partnership agreements, in the broadest sense of the word (explicit, implicit, ranges, style, the meaning of alternative calls, etc.).

 

It doesn't make sense to me either to disclose to the opponents what I can infer through my general bridge knowledge what my partner might not be able to infer (because he lacks that general bridge knowledge).

So both partner and opponents may well be ignorant of what Trinidad terms "general" bridge knowledge?

[nige1]

Is it AI to the EW players that neither N or S ever asked about the meaning of the (alerted) 2D bid?

Should that affect the ruling about opening leader's LAs?

Please, Frances, say that this is tongue-in-cheek and that you never in a million years would think this is AI?

• If you become declarer then, before the opening lead, it should be OK for you to offer to elucidate unexplained alerted bids. Hence, at a superficial level, the lack of a question is AI to you.
• At a deeper level, it is unclear whether you are allowed to draw inferences from the lack of questions, about opponent's actions or holdings, FWIW, my instinct is "No"
• At a practical level, however, few seem able to interpret UI law and fewer are capable of the mental gymnastics it seems to entail.

[lamford]

Is it AI to the EW players that neither N or S ever asked about the meaning of the (alerted) 2D bid?

Should that affect the ruling about opening leader's LAs?

That is an interesting question. 16B1 lists "a question" and "reply to a question", but does not list the "lack of a question", but prefaces the list with "as for example by", and this makes the list non-exclusive. There was a discussion on another thread as to whether "as for" has the same effect, but we do not need to revisit that!

 

I would say therefore that the presence or absence of a question by either side is UI. In this case, it was a late board of a teams match, and the methods after 1NTx were on the EW card, so it is quite possible North and South knew what 2D meant. We were only told that 2D was not asked about at South's next turn. South clearly knew that it showed diamonds, as this was her reason for not correcting the explanation of the "obvious" cue bid of the opponent's suit. Whether or not North knew, her answer "yes" to "was everything natural?" would be MI, and South's lack of correction would still be an infraction.

 

I agree with jallerton that we should have asked the opening leader why she did not lead a diamond anyway, and that the adjustment should be based on the difference in percentage of a diamond lead caused by the MI. My view is that a diamond should be more likely if 3D is natural, as it would only need to be a three-card suit, and you are leading through strength. If 3D asks for a diamond stop, then North has the diamonds and a diamond may be too slow although it would still be my choice.

 

I think that there was an implicit agreement that 3D was artificial and should therefore have been alerted, but we accepted the TD's finding of fact on that. I think it is therefore right to consider what would have happened if 3D had been alerted and doubled. Looking at it again now, I think we gave too high a percentage of 4H making, and that 15% of that and 25% of 4H-1 would have been closer to the mark. But I also think that 50% of a diamond lead was a bit high, and that might have been 30% for example (it is only the extra chance of a diamond lead for which we adjust). Overall I think we got quite close, and I would not have appealed the original decision if I had been EW. The TD did a pretty good job.

[ArtK78]

IMO, any assertion that the failure to ask a question is UI is going too far. The only reasonable argument that a player took advantage of his or her partner's failure to ask a question is if that partner has a habit of asking questions in similar situations except when holding a particular type of hand or holding in the suit. And that is, IMO, going too far.

 

Seriously, there has to be a line drawn somewhere.

[barmar]

In fact, when a question is asked, it seems to me that the principle of full disclosure requires me to mention that my 1M opening is on 5+ cards, whether I'm playing Precision, SA, 2/1, Romex, Romex Forcing Club, KS, RS, or any other 5 card major system, because the length of the suit is a matter of partnership agreement.

So when you're asked to explain an auction that starts with some natural bids, do you regularly describe the lengths shown by those bids?

[ArtK78]

So when you're asked to explain an auction that starts with some natural bids, do you regularly describe the lengths shown by those bids?

When I play a light opening system online with my regular partner, our 1 of a suit openings are 10+ HCP but otherwise standard. I alert these calls, and my explanations are "3+cards 10+HCP" for the minor suit openings and "5+cards 10+HCP" for the major suit openings.

 

So, I don't see any problem with describing the suit length along with the other aspects of the bids.

 

And no, I don't assign an upper limit to these calls, even though they are limited by the failure to open 2♣. In an online environment, especially a speedball environment, there is just not enough time to describe everything in the alert box provided. I don't think anyone has ever had a problem with my failure to provide an upper limit.

[blackshoe]

So when you're asked to explain an auction that starts with some natural bids, do you regularly describe the lengths shown by those bids?

It's never come up. B-)

[pran]

That is an interesting question. 16B1 lists "a question" and "reply to a question", but does not list the "lack of a question", but prefaces the list with "as for example by", and this makes the list non-exclusive. There was a discussion on another thread as to whether "as for" has the same effect, but we do not need to revisit that!

 

I would say therefore that the presence or absence of a question by either side is UI.

[...]

Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them.

(My enhancement)

 

So I agree to some extent: The presence or absence of a question by own side is UI

(Law 16B1 applies solely to information from partner, not to information from opponents or other sources)

[blackshoe]

It seems to me that information arising from questions or lack of questions by the opponents is authorized under Law 16A1{c}.

[jallerton]

Is it AI to the EW players that neither N or S ever asked about the meaning of the (alerted) 2D bid?

 

Yes, this is AI to East and West, but not to North/South

 

Law 20F gives each player the right, without placing any obligation, to ask questions about the opponents' partnership understandings at his or her turn to call.

 

Law 16A1 says that "A player may use information in the auction or play if:

.......

[c) 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 following);......"

 

The "B1 following" (Law16B1) relates to "Extraneous Information from Partner"

 

A question asked in accordance Law 20F arises from the legal procedures authorised in Law, so that is authorised information unless the question (or failure to do so) is by partner.

 

This is just as well, really. Laws 16B & 73C tell me what to fo it I have UI from partner. Law 16C tells me what to so if I have UI from an outside source. But there is no Law that tells me how I shouls handle UI received from an opponent's actions.

 

 

Should that affect the ruling about opening leader's LAs?

 

Yes, it might do, but East might reason that North/South might have a fair idea what 2♦ means anyway. On the other hand, if East inferred that South did not realise 2♦ to show diamonds, then East would presumably be more likely to assume that South had diamonds for her 3♦ bid, in the event that it had been correctly described as "no agreement". In that case, we might conclude little or no damage from South's failure to correct "yes, all natural" to "no agreement".

[Trinidad]

Sven, how do you disclose to the opponents the general bridge knowledge that is the result of the individual experience of your partner?

When I explain my partner's auction I disclose what I know (that I think is pertinent) without bothering about how I know it.

It is not how you know. It is whether you know it. You cannot possibly know the individual experience of your partner. As soon as you would know it, it is not individual anymore. Then it is partnership experience and that you do need to disclose.

 

Rik

[lamford]

<snip> if East inferred that South did not realise 2♦ to show diamonds, then East would presumably be more likely to assume that South had diamonds for her 3♦ bid, in the event that it had been correctly described as "no agreement". In that case, we might conclude little or no damage from South's failure to correct "yes, all natural" to "no agreement".

Although it might not have made much difference to our ruling, we should still have established why East rejected a diamond lead. If she said "because South showed diamonds", but she would have led differently if "North had shown diamonds", then, however illogically, she might have been damaged! The same might apply if she had concluded that the lack of a question meant that one or other of the opponents might not have known what 2D meant, but she draws any conclusion about the lack of a question at her own risk, so that I don't think it matters if it is AI or not.

 

On Pran's point, 73B1 covers communication by partners and the fact that says "questions asked of opponents" is not that relevant. Your argument that the absence of a question arises from the legal procedures in the Laws is more convincing, although I am not sure that the absence of something can "arise" from something else. Perhaps an example is, from a dictionary of idioms, "This whole problem arose from your stubbornness" where quite possibly the stubborn person did nothing.

[iviehoff]

A question asked in accordance Law 20F arises from the legal procedures authorised in Law, so that is authorised information unless the question (or failure to do so) is by partner.

 

This is just as well, really. Laws 16B & 73C tell me what to fo it I have UI from partner. Law 16C tells me what to so if I have UI from an outside source. But there is no Law that tells me how I shouls handle UI received from an opponent's actions.

Quite so. Given that the possession of UI requires one to behave in a manner that is, on balance, to one's disadvantage, it is quite wrong that opponents should be able to take unilateral actions that give UI to non-offending players. So this is not UI to NS. It is nevertheless extraneous information: players have a responsibility to behave in a way that the extraneous information they give out to their opponents is not likely to mislead them (73D2, 73F).

[Vampyr]

Those who think that an opponent's question or lack thereof is AI, do you also think that you are allowed to vary your methods based on it?

 

This AI thing seems to oblige the opponents to engage in a complicated strategy of when to ask questions -- not based on whether they need to know the answer to the question, but based on what inferences they want the opponents to draw. This is not a game I wish to play.

[barmar]

Those who think that an opponent's question or lack thereof is AI, do you also think that you are allowed to vary your methods based on it?

From Law 40B3:

The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership

to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question

asked, a response to a question, or any irregularity.

This implies that such variation is normally allowed, but the RA can override this. ACBL has elected to do so, for instance. I believe the rationale for this is that opponents should not be scared to ask a question because the opponents can take advantage of it in their methods.

 

But even if you can't vary your methods, you can still use the opponent's question as part of your judgement. For instance, if you have a king or queen, and you think the question suggests LHO has a good holding in that suit, you may downgrade your hand. But, as stated in 73D1, you draw this inference at your own risk.