quick ruling needed!

[blackshoe]

I have. Their position is you may ask questions for any non-prohibited reason (and the only prohibited reasons would be to convey various information to your partner via your questions), and if answering those questions causes UI or MI problems for the opps, tough. Their position is further that there is absolutely nothing wrong with this -- I may feel differently, but that's up to me, and there's no obligation on anyone else to agree with the way I feel about this. Why the questions were asked that led to UI or MI being introduced is irrelevant (presuming it was asked at a legal time by a legal asker), both as to any adjustments and to any procedural or ethical issues.

Law 72A says, in part, "The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these Laws." The people who are telling you "it's okay" are right about the letter of the law. I'm not so sure about the ethical standard they're setting.

 

<shrug> It's not something I've ever seen, so I'm not going to worry about it.

[pran]

I disagree. An alert is not an explanation, and only mistaken explanations require a TD call and correction.

 

Until the end of the auction period and provided that his partner has not subsequently called, a player may change a call without other rectification for his side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent (see Law 17E). Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation.

 

So yes, legally an alert (or missing alert) is an explanation.

[gnasher]

Law 72A says, in part, "The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these Laws."

The part about "ethical standards" is a nonsense. The Laws don't set out any ethical standards which are not also laws.

 

Asking a question in order to inflict UI on the opponents is one of the few things which are legal but which most players would regard as unethical (in the normal English meaning of the word). This is, of course, completely different from asking a question because you want to follow the auction, or because you want to avoid giving UI, or because you like hearing the sound of your own voice.

[blackshoe]

So yes, legally an alert (or missing alert) is an explanation.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

[mycroft]

Personally, anyone who tries this (legal) tactic for that reason (as opposed to any of the other reasons that might end up putting the opponents in a UI trap) gets the same response from me, both as a TD and a player, as any other "on the line" practise. As a TD: "it's legal, and if you choose to win that way, you're certainly allowed to" (and, of course, any technical failure to follow the Laws that might get waved away with normal players that I am called about I will nail them for); as a player, if they want to follow the Laws to the letter, well, two can play at that game. I actually like playing it that way (though without the sharp practise), and as a TD, I'm likely to be able to do it better (whether, as a TD, I can play better than said expert, I'm sure several people will chirp in on, experts and "experts" among them).

 

I have, in fact, put people in UI traps like that; but that has never been my purpose in asking. Frequently, it's one of those "we think you'll think this is a complete explanation" (arguably, with some pairs, "we hope you'll think this is a complete explanation") situations, and I'm reasonably certain there's more to it than I've been told (maybe because I play a similar system, or because the explanation as given, without other underpinnings in the system, is unplayable). Frankly, I just assume that they actually know their system when I'm asking; if I think they could be misunderstanding, I won't help them by letting them tell each other where they are (yes, yes, UI, try proving it - and there are some pairs we all know that know their system, but are so much more comfortable when partner tells them yes, they are still on the same page).

 

Having said that, I disagree with any belief that at BAM, a correction to 7♦ is reasonable. Partner took control, for whatever reason; partner put you in a "we're off one KC" slam. +1430 beats +1370; it even beats +1390. -100 beats *nothing* and at best ties 6♥-1. 4=7=1=1 with the same high cards, or the same hand without the ♠A and with the ♥J, and you've turned a win (or a push, if the opponents are as good as your partner) into a loss. Without UI, it's certainly *legal*; I just think it's bad bridge. But the coincidence of showing keycards for hearts (or submarining the ♦K), and then pulling 6♥ to 7♦, makes it very likely that he knows that partner thinks he has hearts, and that he worked it out from the Alert (never mind the fact that a NF JS would also be Alertable. Did East know that?) Whether within the Laws, I can rule that UI was transmitted, I can certainly ask questions that will give me an idea whether the Alert woke East up or not. If East is sharp enough to BS well enough that I can't distinguish it from "no UI transmitted", so be it. At least he knows that we've painted the bullseye on him. If East actually did "no UI transmitted" (whether or not I think the above case occurred instead), so be it - that's something his partner is going to have to work with.

 

Obviously, I would agree that a correction to a higher suit at the 6 level is reasonable. But not a correction to an "unmakeable" grand.

[mycroft]

I think the first question, of course, is "What was 5♦?" and then "Why did you bid it?" He can get me by saying "key card for hearts" and "I remembered immediately after bidding 3♦." and then after "What did the Alert say?" he can say "well, my IJS was passable, therefore Alertable; so I expected that" or the like. As I said, I should be able to phrase my questions well enough that East gets the unspoken "you know we'll be watching very carefully for any other "legal" calls you make, right?" But I know I've been too subtle before; maybe he won't get it. Ah well; if he is the type to use UI when he can arguably get away with it, his foot will slip eventually, and a C&E committee will decide his fate. I will be happy to supply evidence.

[aguahombre]

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

Perhaps Sven didn't go through all the process for us, but I think he gets there. In between the premise and the conclusion would be that information explains and that explanations provide information --- then we stipulate that misinformation is information. It could even get more lengthy if he had to explain which side is getting misinformation from applying or failing to follow the alert procedure. The NOS might be getting misinformation while the OS is getting unauthorized, but helpful, information.

[pran]

Perhaps Sven didn't go through all the process for us, but I think he gets there. In between the premise and the conclusion would be that information explains and that explanations provide information --- then we stipulate that misinformation is information. It could even get more lengthy if he had to explain which side is getting misinformation from applying or failing to follow the alert procedure. The NOS might be getting misinformation while the OS is getting unauthorized, but helpful, information.

I honestly thought it completely unnecessary (for this audience) to elaborate further.

 

An alert informs opponents that the call is defined by the relevant regulations as requiring alert. A missing alert similarly informs opponents that the call is defined by the relevant regulations as not requiring alert.

 

Thus opponents have received a (partial) explanation of the call in question whether or not the call is alerted.

 

And if a call that requires an alert is not alerted, or vice versa, then opponents have received an incorrect explanation (i.e. misinformation).

 

However, from there to (for instance) some adjustment can be a long way to go, and adjusted scores are certainly not automatic.

[gnasher]

I disagree. An alert is not an explanation, and only mistaken explanations require a TD call and correction.

 

In the context of Law 20F5, a mistaken alert is a mistaken explanation. I know that because it says so:

'Mistaken explanation' here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require.

[pran]

In the context of Law 20F5, a mistaken alert is a mistaken explanation. I know that because it says so:

'Mistaken explanation' here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require.

As does Law 21B1a

[blackshoe]

In the context of Law 20F5, a mistaken alert is a mistaken explanation. I know that because it says so:

'Mistaken explanation' here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require.

 

As does Law 21B1a

Fair enough. I don't remember now how we got to this point, and I'm too tired to go back and read the entire thread, so i'll just leave it at that.

[Cascade]

So you ask a question in order to attempt to generate UI. The opponent is deceived by your question. When asked you say the reason you asked was to attempt to generate the UI. Is this a bridge reason?

[gnasher]

So you ask a question in order to attempt to generate UI. The opponent is deceived by your question. When asked you say the reason you asked was to attempt to generate the UI. Is this a bridge reason?

Is it relevant whether you have a bridge reason or not? So far as I can tell, you're allowed to ask a question even if you have no bridge reason for it, as long as your intention is not to mislead.

[pran]

Is it relevant whether you have a bridge reason or not? So far as I can tell, you're allowed to ask a question even if you have no bridge reason for it, as long as your intention is not to mislead.

If your opponent has been deceived or misled by your question your only defence is if you can show an acceptable bridge reason for asking your question.

[gnasher]

If your opponent has been deceived or misled by your question your only defence is if you can show an acceptable bridge reason for asking your question.

Which Law says that?

[pran]

Which Law says that?

73F

[gnasher]

73F

 

73F applies only "when a violation of the Proprieties described in this law" has occurred. If I ask a question for a non-bridge reason, which Propriety have I violated?

[aguahombre]

Ha. Sven did a lot better with L20F5 and 21B1 earlier. This offshoot isn't working as well.

[Cascade]

Asking a question, necessarily varies your tempo - Law73D1.

 

Therefore is subject to the remedies of Law73F if it deceives an innocent opponent.

[aguahombre]

Asking, alerting, or answering is not and should not be considered part of the tempo of bids and plays. It is not considered a break in tempo by the opponent next to call, for instance, when we take time to explain our auction and he listens before acting. Stretching "tempo" to include all time involved in everything is absurd.

 

Stopping the opponents' uncontested auction frequently with questions so as to disconcert them is a different matter. Then, you would be messing with their tempo to gain advantage.

[pran]

A question without bridge reason is clearly a violation of Law 74A2 if it deceives and/or misleads an opponent.

[ggwhiz]

A question without bridge reason is clearly a violation of Law 74A2 if it deceives and/or misleads an opponent.

 

I had a classic when my lho asked about a bid... queen ask.

 

asked about the response...... denies it. Not only does he play the same thing, he was looking at it.

 

It was just a brain cramp though and he actually blushed and begged us to score up the slam (which went down) without calling the director.

[Cascade]

Asking, alerting, or answering is not and should not be considered part of the tempo of bids and plays. It is not considered a break in tempo by the opponent next to call, for instance, when we take time to explain our auction and he listens before acting. Stretching "tempo" to include all time involved in everything is absurd.

 

Really? Last I checked "tempo" meant time, timing or rate or similar. If sometimes I ask a question and sometimes I don't that affects the time I take for my call and therefore is a tempo issue. Just as much as if sometimes I twiddle my thumbs and sometimes I don't.

 

In fact asking and not asking questions are a frequent source of unauthorised information, this is closely related to one's tempo.

 

In what sense is using tempo to include the time taken at your turn a stretch?

[nige1]

Really? Last I checked "tempo" meant time, timing or rate or similar. If sometimes I ask a question and sometimes I don't that affects the time I take for my call and therefore is a tempo issue. Just as much as if sometimes I twiddle my thumbs and sometimes I don't.

In fact asking and not asking questions are a frequent source of unauthorised information, this is closely related to one's tempo.

In what sense is using tempo to include the time taken at your turn a stretch?

IMO, Cascade is right. We're told that you can't rely on opponent's SC. To avoid UI, you must always ask or never ask, unless you can remember forever, after asking once :)

[blackshoe]

A question without bridge reason is clearly a violation of Law 74A2 if it deceives and/or misleads an opponent.

Only if it annoys or embarrasses that opponent, or interferes with his enjoyment of the game (whatever that means).