Authorised or Unauthorised Information from a Directors Call

[Cascade]

Yesterday we called the director because of a failure to alert.

 

Without partner saying anything explicit it became apparent to me that he would have taken a different action if there had been an alert. I assumed this information was UI to me. However when I read the laws I am not so sure.

 

Law 16A1c"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);"

 

and from the definitions

 

"Extraneous — not part of the lawful procedures of the game."

 

It seems to me calling a director and discussing an irregularity is a legal procedure. Am I therefore entitled to deduce that partner may have made a lead directing double with correct information?

 

Also is declarer entitled to this information. For example say declarer has KJ and subsequently leads towards this holding is she allowed to use information from a director call to locate the ace?

[RMB1]

I think the lawful procedure involve calling the TD - telling him the facts - and that you might might be damaged. Saying how you might be damaged is not part of the lawful procedure and is just a gratuitous remark - unauthorized to partner and authorized to the opponents.

 

The TD should not ask (at the table, in a live hand) how you think you might be damaged. But if the TD does ask, I guess your reply becomes part of the lawful procedure and authorized to everyone.

[blackshoe]

I'm not sure you've answered the question, Robin. B-)

 

I don't see anything in Wayne's post that suggests anyone at the table say (or said) anything about how the NOS might be damaged, only that after the NOS called the TD it "became apparent" to Wayne that his partner would have taken a different action with correct information, and might have made a lead directing double. The question is whether the circumstances constrain Wayne to not make the lead a lead directing double would suggest. I do not think Wayne is constrained; my reading of the law indicates that as Wayne suggested this information is AI (to the table) per Law 16A1c. I could be wrong, of course. :ph34r:

[ArtK78]

The situation addressed above points out how important it is that the TD handle the matter in an appropriate manner. After ascertaining the facts (and, hopefully, before anyone at the table conveys any information, authorized or otherwise), the TD should consult with each of the members of the NOS away from the table to determine whether either of them would have taken any action (other than the actions that occurred) had the infraction not occurred.

 

Sometimes, it may be appropriate for the member of the NOS who requests the assistance of the TD to instruct his partner to leave the table while he consults with the TD in the presence of the opponents. It would be inappropriate for the person requesting the assistance of the TD to consult with the TD privately, as the opponents are entitled to hear what his complaint is.

 

If one handles TD calls in this manner, it is far less likely that issues of UI will arise in a director's call. Even so, the very act of calling for the assistance of a TD will convey information, but that can't be helped.

[Vampyr]

I think that it is best if the defending side wait until the hand is played before determining whether the MI damaged them.

[gnasher]

When a misexplanation comes to light, people will often call the director immediately if they think they have been damaged, but otherwise they don't bother. If that's what your partner does, the information conveyed arises from his breaches of Law 9B1(a) on other occasions, so it's UI.

 

Similarly, if partner always calls the director in this situation, but his manner varies depending on whether he feels damaged, the information conveyed by the variation is UI.

 

I think that it is best if the defending side wait until the hand is played before determining whether the MI damaged them.

Yes, as long as you know that it's too late to change your action. If you don't call the director and it turns out that you'd have been in time to change it, you won't get, or deserve, any redress.

[barmar]

The situation addressed above points out how important it is that the TD handle the matter in an appropriate manner.

The question is about inference being taken from the fact that a player called the TD in the first place. What difference does it make what the TD does once he arrives?

[blackshoe]

Law 9B1{a}: The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity.

Whatever their reasons, players frequently disobey this law. I wish they wouldn't. I wish the Drafting Subcomittee's response in 2004 or so to my pointing out that this law in 1997 said "must call the director" had not been to water it down to "should". But it is what it is.

 

Good and experienced players often know what the law is. Just as often, they think they know, but they're wrong, but never mind that for the moment. It is not up to players to "determine whether they have been damaged". That's the TD's job. Also it's the TD's job, not any player's, to instruct players to leave the table.

 

Bottom line: when attention is drawn to an irregularity, unless you are absolutely certain (good luck with that) the director will not be needed, call him. Tell him what happened. Let him deal with it. If you have a question about whether any inference you draw from something ("partner called you") is authorized, ask the director.

 

If you are the director, don't ask what inference was drawn. Tell the players any inference is AI (or UI, if we decide later in the thread it is UI). Handle the MI from lack of alert in the normal manner.

 

Yesterday, opps had an uncontested auction in which one call was not alerted (announced, actually). Just before the last bid, the opp who should have announced mumbled "I forgot to alert something". Nobody else said anything at the time (my partner* and I were both aware of the missing alert — it didn't matter to the auction or the play). After the hand, I told the opps the law. Surprise! "Oh, I didn't know that." Well, now you do. Please remember it next time, or you might hear "yeah, that's what you said the last time it happened". :o

 

* Before somebody asks "how did you know that?" I asked her — after the round was over. :)

[Vampyr]

When a misexplanation comes to light, people will often call the director immediately if they think they have been damaged, but otherwise they don't bother. If that's what your partner does, the information conveyed arises from his breaches of Law 9B1(a) on other occasions, so it's UI.

 

Right, but misinformation usually comes to light by means of a slow alert. If you have made a call before the slow alert is made but were not going to do anything different anyway, it seems kind of a waste of time to call the director, even though you should (not must).

 

Yes, as long as you know that it's too late to change your action. If you don't call the director and it turns out that you'd have been in time to change it, you won't get, or deserve, any redress.

 

In the OP, it was partner who might have taken some other action. Are players likely to know not only that, but also that partner can change his action as long as he does it before they themselves call?

 

It seems kind of odd, also, that after partner learnt of the misinformation he didn't choose to call the director in time to change his call. Why would the OP or anyone guess that maybe partner wanted to change his call anyway?

 

But anyway 21B3 says:

 

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.

 

I am not sure whether this means that the adjusted score will be awarded only if the misinformation came to light after the opportunity to change the relevant call. I don't think so, but as I said I don't know.

 

EDIT: Had this answer on my screen for a long time, since before the two posts above. I didn't realise that "must" had been changed to "should". There must have been a reason -- possibly the drafters didn't want to make offenders of NOSs who didn't know that they must call the director.

[ArtK78]

The question is about inference being taken from the fact that a player called the TD in the first place. What difference does it make what the TD does once he arrives?

That is not what is stated in the OP.

 

Without partner saying anything explicit it became apparent to me that he would have taken a different action if there had been an alert.

If the OP had stated that "due to his TD call, it was apparent to me that he would have taken a different action if there had been an alert," I would agree with you. What he actually stated was that, without stating anything in particular in his discussion with the TD, it became apparent that his partner wanted to change his call. That is why the discussion with the TD should have taken place out of earshot of the other players at the table.

[barmar]

If the OP had stated that "due to his TD call, it was apparent to me that he would have taken a different action if there had been an alert," I would agree with you. What he actually stated was that, without stating anything in particular in his discussion with the TD, it became apparent that his partner wanted to change his call. That is why the discussion with the TD should have taken place out of earshot of the other players at the table.

I guess I did read a bit more into it. It's possible that the inference came from partner expressing disappointment when the TD said it was too late for him to change his call.

 

The TD doesn't seem to have handled this correctly in general. Even though it's too late for partner to change his call, the TD should ask him (away from the table) if he would have done something differently. The TD needs to know this to determine whether to adjust the score after the hand is played. While he could wait until then to ask, it's usually better to find out early, while things are still fresh in the player's mind, and also not biased by learning about the whole hand.

[gnasher]

That is not what is stated in the OP.

 

 

If the OP had stated that "due to his TD call, it was apparent to me that he would have taken a different action if there had been an alert," I would agree with you. What he actually stated was that, without stating anything in particular in his discussion with the TD, it became apparent that his partner wanted to change his call.

 

I guess I did read a bit more into it. It's possible that the inference came from partner expressing disappointment when the TD said it was too late for him to change his call.

 

Maybe the subject of the thread gives us a clue as to how Cascade received the information?"

Edited March 2, 2013 by gnasher

[aguahombre]

Maybe the subject of the thread gives us a clue as to how Cascade received the information?"

The thread would be interesting enough, if that were the only clue. But I, too, read from the 2nd Paragraph of the OP, that something more after the TD was called caused the UI to become apparent.

 

In a perfect world, where everyone at the table knew the Laws the bidder's LHO would call the TD if the failure to alert came to light within the rollback period ---and then either change his call or not (No UI). When it is too late for that, there could be other reasons to call the TD ---for instance, the possibility the opponents had used UI from the failure to alert. In this perfect world one of the other three players would have the good grace to call the TD and eliminate the problem.

[Vampyr]

I guess I did read a bit more into it. It's possible that the inference came from partner expressing disappointment when the TD said it was too late for him to change his call.

 

If this happened, then partner was trying to cheat. He couldn't gain by cheating, because he would get redress for damage at the end of the hand. Possibly he didn't know that.

[iviehoff]

Yesterday we called the director because of a failure to alert.

This is a MI case and we can determine what is UI/AI without need to consider the presence of the director.

 

There was misinformation; it has been corrected. Surely it us AI to you that there was previously MI and now it has been corrected. You can draw what conclusions you wish.

 

As far as the ops are concerned, listening to each other's explanations, or absences of them, is UI. So the fact that TD turns up and stuff happens in relation to that is all UI, because it is related to stuff that is already UI.

[CamHenry]

If this happened, then partner was trying to cheat. He couldn't gain by cheating, because he would get redress for damage at the end of the hand. Possibly he didn't know that.

 

Seriously? You think "Oh, I wanted to change my call" is a deliberate attempt to cheat, rather than, for example, not being very good at poker?

 

You astonish me sometimes. Sure, there are cheats out there, but this does not look like one of them.

[barmar]

If this happened, then partner was trying to cheat. He couldn't gain by cheating, because he would get redress for damage at the end of the hand. Possibly he didn't know that.

The OP said that it wasn't explicit, so I was thinking of just an involuntary facial expression. How is that "trying to cheat"? The laws say you should try to avoid mannerisms, but we're not Vulcans.

[Vampyr]

Seriously? You think "Oh, I wanted to change my call" is a deliberate attempt to cheat, rather than, for example, not being very good at poker?

 

You astonish me sometimes. Sure, there are cheats out there, but this does not look like one of them.

 

It does to me, if the player has been told he could not change his call, and states that he wishes he could. What purpose could this serve than to let partner know you had a different action in mind?

 

The OP said that it wasn't explicit, so I was thinking of just an involuntary facial expression. How is that "trying to cheat"? The laws say you should try to avoid mannerisms, but we're not Vulcans.

 

Well, facial expressions are not usually involuntary, but if the person briefly showed disappointment and that is all that happened, I would consider it less serious.

[barmar]

Well, facial expressions are not usually involuntary

Not true, from what I've read. If someone smiles at you, you'll probably smile back unconsciously. If you see something disgusting, you'll probably make an involuntary facial expression. If you hear about something sad, you have to try hard to avoid expressing sorrow in your face. I could go on and on.

 

So even if you don't say anything overt, your disappointment at not being able to change your call may be apparent unless you have an excellent poker face.

 

And even though the OP wasn't clear about it, I have a feeling that the inference in that case was being taken from the fact of the director call, not anything that happened once the TD arrived. Cascade, can you fill this in?

[Vampyr]

Not true, from what I've read. If someone smiles at you, you'll probably smile back unconsciously. If you see something disgusting, you'll probably make an involuntary facial expression. If you hear about something sad, you have to try hard to avoid expressing sorrow in your face. I could go on and on.

 

None of this is what involuntary means. You could avoid making facial expressions if you wanted. You can also choose to make them at will.

[barmar]

None of this is what involuntary means. You could avoid making facial expressions if you wanted. You can also choose to make them at will.

Then you and I have different understandings of "involuntary". If you step on a tack and say "ouch", I think that's involuntary. Yes, you could avoid it if you wanted (you'd probably have to know ahead of time that you're about to step on the tack), and you can also say "ouch" when you haven't actually been hurt. But these other voluntary, related actions don't make the original one voluntary.

 

It's like breathing. You can hold your breath (for a short while), and you can also "take a breath" when the doctor tells you. But ordinary breathing is involuntary, much like automatic facial reactions.

 

There was a show on US TV a couple of years ago called "Lie to Me", about a researcher (based on an actual person) who had studied lying and other emotions, and discovered a number of subtle, involuntary clues in body language that almost always accompany them. People also recognize many of these clues subconsciously. If you have a "hunch" that someone is lying, it's likely that something like this is involved.

[Zelandakh]

If you have a "hunch" that someone is lying, it's likely that something like this is involved.

There has been quite a bit of research into this. The truth is that we are very bad at detecting whether someone is lying, very bad indeed. Regardless of whether someone is a teacher, a policeman, or a welder. There are certain groups who were found to be extremely good though, such as agents (spies). Then they researched why they were good and it turns out they were looking for what are called micro-gestures. If you have not studied micro-gestures the chance are that your "hunch" will be no better than pure chance. On the other hand, if you have then you generally do not need to hunch.

 

It makes you wonder if top bridge players have started studying these things yet to improve their table feel (perhaps Justin knows). It seems to me inconceivable that they are not used by pretty much every top poker player in the world when looking for tells.

[CamHenry]

It does to me, if the player has been told he could not change his call, and states that he wishes he could. What purpose could this serve than to let partner know you had a different action in mind?

 

You are confusing effect and purpose. Let's have another example: partner opens 1NT (15-17) and I hold a 3-3-3-4 10-count. I bid 3NT with the purpose of making somewhere between 0 and 2 overtricks. The effect is that oppo take the first five tricks in our unstopped suit.

 

Let's have another example. RHO deals and opens 2♠ Lucas, showing ♠ and a minor; I hold xxx/AKxxx/AKx/Ax. Various calls look attractive, and I take a while to decide between 3♥ and double. My purpose was to make the best call on my hand; the effect was to give partner UI that I had a non-trivial decision.

 

UI can be generated without any unethical intentions. UI can not ethically (or legally) be used to guide a decision.

[bluejak]

Whatever their reasons, players frequently disobey this law. I wish they wouldn't. I wish the Drafting Subcomittee's response in 2004 or so to my pointing out that this law in 1997 said "must call the director" had not been to water it down to "should". But it is what it is.

I am not sure they were wrong. Let us look at the effect.

 

If you "must" call the TD, then you are wrong not to call the TD. If you don't, you are likely to be penalised. Furthermore, if your failure to call the TD damages you there is no reason why you should receive redress.

 

If you "should" call the TD, then you are wrong not to call the TD. If you don't, you are not very likely to be penalised. However, if your failure to call the TD damages you there is no reason why you should receive redress.

 

See the point? "should" does not mean you don't need to to do it, just that you are less likely to be penalised - and that's the correct way.

[blackshoe]

See the point? "should" does not mean you don't need to to do it, just that you are less likely to be penalised - and that's the correct way.

Of course. I knew that going in. My point is that I'm not so sure it is the correct way. However, the WBFLC has decreed that it is, so my opinion doesn't matter. I do think if people got PPs for failing to call the director to handle a problem there'd be a lot less inter player acrimony at the table. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

 

In the ACBL, at least at club level and in my geographical area, there is a great reluctance to give PPs for any reason, whatever the law says. This is, IMO, definitely not the correct way.

 

OTOH, maybe all the "musts" in the law should be changed to "should". :blink: