Missed incorrect alert

[VixTD]

No, I don't think so. This is different because here there was an announcement that the bid was hearts, and that is AI. That is different from your partner failing to ask about a bid, which is UI. You know exactly what your partner knew when your partner made the bid, because both the fact of and content of the announcement is AI.

I'm not quite sure why this is different from the situation where one opponent alerts to show the call is not natural. Where does the boundary lie? Suppose the auction started:

 

1NT - 3♣ - X - all pass

 

Double is takeout of clubs if 3♣ is showing clubs, but partner alerted it because they thought it was a transfer to diamonds. If 3♣ showed diamonds the double would show strength in clubs.

 

The alert is AI to the opening side. Would it make a difference if both members of the opening side knew that the only possible meanings of 3♣ for this pair was either natural or diamonds?

[blackshoe]

Because that would give UI to South.

Uh, huh. What is the "I" part of this UI, and what do you think south might do with it?

[pran]

If, however, (as here) South fails to use his opportunity to change his call according to the corrected information, possibly because he assumed that North had based his double on the incorrect information, he does so on his own risk and enjoys no redress for damage that would have been avoided had he used this opportunity.

 

I don't think South's reason for not changing his call is relevant. He had the choice, he made the wrong one. He said himself he would have bid hearts had he been thinking clearly. I do think Law 12B2 prohibits a score adjustment here. The only question remaining is whether EW should receive a PP, and if so whether that PP should be a warning or in MPs or IMPs, for East's failure to ensure that both opponents were aware of the alert. I think a warning is appropriate; I don't think a PP in points is appropriate.

 

Out of curiosity, I might ask North what he would have done if he'd heard the alert, but the answer has no bearing on the ruling. I would also ask him why he didn't speak up during the Clarification Period when he heard folks talking about an alert that didn't happen. That answer won't affect the ruling either, but it gives the TD the opportunity to remind him to speak up when this happens.

 

My ruling: Result stands (Law 21, Law 12B2); PP(Warning) to EW (BB 4A8, Law 90).

 

South's reason for not changing his call is not relevant and I inserted the word "possibly" just to make that (implicitly) clear.

 

As far as I can see we agree completely on the ruling.

[Oof Arted]

South was not the Secretary Bird, but was familiar with the laws. I must confess: it was me. I'd got it into my mind first of all that "3♣ = a two-suiter, therefore X = penalties" but didn't adjust my thinking when I found that one of the suits shown was the suit bid. If I'd had my wits about me I'd have bid hearts.

 

Of course North's asking or not asking is UI to me, but surely the only way to avoid using UI in these situations is to assume that partner didn't ask because she didn't need to ask. How else do you avoid being influenced by the UI?

 

I didn't ask for a ruling because I didn't think I deserved one, but I might have had taken pity on a player less well versed in the laws. I do think I was put in an awkward situation by the misinformation, even if I should have extricated myself without too much difficulty.

 

 

 

Quietly hanging yourself is the best option here Vix :)

[VixTD]

Quietly hanging yourself is the best option here Vix

I thought I'd already done that. It doesn't answer my question, though.

[iviehoff]

I'm not quite sure why this is different from the situation where one opponent alerts to show the call is not natural. Where does the boundary lie?

The difference is between using an inference from the fact that your partner did not ask the meaning of an alerted call - UI - and using the fact of an announcement - AI. Also You are going too far in saying an opponent "alerts to show the call is not natural". You don't know what the alert is until you find out why. An alert could be a natural bid but with some negative inference they feel the need to draw to your attention.

 

In the first case, partner bid without asking; you then asked and got a wrong explanation, subsequently corrected. It is using UI to assume that partner bid on any basis other than the correct explanation, because it is UI to you that partner did not ask and therefore you can't think what he might know. But if partner had asked and got the wrong explanation, then you should assume he bid on the basis of the wrong explanation, because otherwise we back ourselves into the corner of saying that you have to ask again.

[mfa1010]

I think the situations are equivalent. I think we always have to rely on partner having the right information. Otherwise we are using UI about what partner didn't do to investigate their system.

 

For all we know, partner took the convention card after the announcement, found out about the discrepancy, asked for clarification and got the right answer... But we know he didn't do that? Right, and that is UI! It doesn't matter that this process would have let to some AI for us also (their explanation) - partner's being passive is UI. We can't use that UI to make conclusions about his hand.

 

Less dramatically, partner might just well have realized the mistake (again maybe from the CC) and chosen to say nothing. That would be normal, if he had a clear pass, because why wake them up? When he had a bid, it would be highly speculative, because his bid means different thing in different contexts, but he may have done that. It is perfectly ok to do, only can he not claim misinformation afterwards, when he knows about the system. Again we can't use partner's passitivity to help us guess what he might have realized or not.

 

It follows that if we for instance double 3♦, we are using UI to conclude, that he does indeed have diamonds. Doubling 3♦ would be an illegal bid.

[gnasher]

Uh, huh. What is the "I" part of this UI, and what do you think south might do with it?

The "I" is that North has a takeout double of clubs. I think that if South received this "I", he would do what Law 16 says he should do.

[iviehoff]

For all we know, partner took the convention card after the announcement, found out about the discrepancy, asked for clarification and got the right answer... But we know he didn't do that? Right, and that is UI!

I believe I already covered this point. If partner decides to ignore the explanation he was given by proper procedure in the correct and public manner, and looks instead at a convention card and decides to believe that instead, he does that at his own risk. That is because he can rely upon the explanation that was given to him following proper procedure, even if it subsequently turns out to be incorrect. I therefore should also be able to rely that the information he was acting upon was the information that was given in the proper correct and public manner.

 

You mention the possibility of him having a quiet clarification discussion with an opponent, which would be an irregularity. The correct method of getting a corrected explanation is to call the TD and getting a proper revised explanation in a public manner that I can rely upon as AI also. So I think such irregular clarification activities must also be treated in the same way.

[Trinidad]

When we keep the missed alert out of the equation, this case is relatively simple to me:

 

South does not know what he should think of North's bidding. This is caused by the misinformation by EW. South is allowed to change his call. If this solves the problem then that is great. If it doesn't, there will be an AS, resolving all problems that were created by EW.

 

South does not have to assume that North has a bid that fits the misinformation and South does not have to assume that North has a bid that fits the correct information. South is non-offending and the mess is created by the offenders. Unless he commits a SEWoG with respect to both possible meanings for North's bidding (e.g. bids 7NT), we will adjust the score for both sides.

 

That is part one. Part two is the missing fact that North missed the alert. If I judge that EW were responsible for North missing the alert then nothing changes.

 

If I judge that it was North's fault that he missed the alert then I will subtract the part of the damage that was caused by North's error from the adjustment for NS. I consider it a SEWoG* after the infraction. EW still get the full adjustment.

 

Summarizing: EW will always get the full adjustment for their misinformation. Whether NS get the full adjustment depends on whether they committed a SEWoG.

 

Rik

 

* In my opinion, missing the alert is unrelated to the question whether the bid required an alert.

 

Edited to correct a miscommunication (how appropriate for this discussion ;) )

[pran]

When we keep the missed alert out of the equation, this case is relatively simple to me:

 

South does not know what he should think of North's bidding. This is caused by the misinformation by EW. South is allowed to change his call. If this solves the problem then that is great. If it doesn't, there will be an AS, resolving all problems that were created by EW.

 

South does not have to assume that North has a bid that fits the misinformation and South does not have to assume that North has a bid that fits the correct information. South is non-offending and the mess is created by the offenders. Unless he commits a SEWoG with respect to both possible meanings for North's bidding (e.g. bids 7NT), we will adjust the score for both sides.

 

That is part one. Part two is the missing alert. If I judge that EW were responsible for North missing the alert then nothing changes.

 

If I judge that it was North's fault that he missed the alert then I will subtract the part of the damage that was caused by North's error from the adjustment for NS. I consider it a SEWoG* after the infraction. EW still get the full adjustment.

 

Summarizing: EW will always get the full adjustment for their misinformation. Whether NS get the full adjustment depends on whether they committed a SEWoG.

 

Rik

 

* In my opinion, missing the alert is unrelated to the question whether the bid required an alert.

Missing alert where alert is required (by Law or regulation) is itself misinformation.

[barmar]

Missing alert where alert is required (by Law or regulation) is itself misinformation.

Failing to alert is misinformation. Missing a properly made alert is inattention, not misinformation.

 

You could claim that it's not possible to miss a properly made alert, since regulations require the alerter to ensure that it was noticed -- missing it would be de facto evidence that the alerter failed. As I suggested earlier, I think this is taking things too far -- I think the alerter is required to make a good faith effort, but unless we change procedures to require acknowledgements from the opponents he can never be totally sure.

[blackshoe]

The "I" is that North has a takeout double of clubs. I think that if South received this "I", he would do what Law 16 says he should do.

If the director asks North a question, should North refuse to answer it? If North answers the question, and South is now constrained by UI, does not South have a legitimate complaint against the director?

[pran]

If the director asks North a question, should North refuse to answer it? If North answers the question, and South is now constrained by UI, does not South have a legitimate complaint against the director?

That is why the Director should be very careful about what questions he asks at the table and when to take a player away from the table.

 

As a general rule information passed verbally between the Director and a player is AI to any player being in a position to hear it.

[blackshoe]

I'm not sure I would buy that missing an alert is a serious error within the meaning of the laws. First, I've seen too many alerts where the alert itself was not obvious and the alerter did not comply with the "ensure both opponents are aware of the alert" provision of the laws. Second, do you include in those who have committed an error by missing the alert the hard of hearing and the deaf? (That, btw, is why there's a visual component to an alert - notwithstanding that the visual component is rarely presented by the alerter). I suppose if you judge that the alert was missed solely because the player was paying insufficient attention to the game you could call it an error, but I'm still not convinced it rises to "serious". Hm. I'll ask that question in a new thread, I think.

[Trinidad]

Missing alert where alert is required (by Law or regulation) is itself misinformation.

Failing to alert is misinformation. Missing a properly made alert is inattention, not misinformation.

That was my fault. I phrased it incorrectly ("missing alert" instead of "missed alert"). I edited my post, and I think that Pran will now understand it the way Barmar did.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

I'm not sure I would buy that missing an alert is a serious error within the meaning of the laws. First, I've seen too many alerts where the alert itself was not obvious and the alerter did not comply with the "ensure both opponents are aware of the alert" provision of the laws. Second, do you include in those who have committed an error by missing the alert the hard of hearing and the deaf? (That, btw, is why there's a visual component to an alert - notwithstanding that the visual component is rarely presented by the alerter).

Perhaps you didn't read the whole post. I wrote that I was going to judge who was at fault for North missing the alert: sloppy alerters or a sleeping North. And then:

 

If I judge that EW were responsible for North missing the alert then nothing changes.

 

If I judge that it was North's fault that he missed the alert then I will subtract the part of the damage that was caused by North's error from the adjustment for NS. I consider it a SEWoG* after the infraction. EW still get the full adjustment.

____________

 

I suppose if you judge that the alert was missed solely because the player was paying insufficient attention to the game you could call it an error, but I'm still not convinced it rises to "serious". Hm. I'll ask that question in a new thread, I think.

Subsequent infractions (note that I don't claim that not seeing an alert is an infraction), such as revokes or leads/bids out of turn, are generally considered SEWoGs. If you consider an alert that was properly made. The alerting opponent does not have any reason at all to think that the alert was not noticed. Then I think that not noticing the alert is an error, which -when it comes to the seriousness of the error- is equivalent to a revoke.

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

Not hearing/seeing the alert is after the infraction. But the infraction is the Alert of 3C, and not hearing/seeing the alert is related to the alert. Hence, can't use SEWog. Gotta use something else.

[Trinidad]

Not hearing/seeing the alert is after the infraction. But the infraction is the Alert of 3C, and not hearing/seeing the alert is related to the alert. Hence, can't use SEWog. Gotta use something else.

I don't agree.

 

Seeing or not seeing the alert is not related to the fact that the alert was not justified. You might reason that if there wouldn't have been a wrong alert, it couldn't have been missed, but that is flawed.

 

To give an analogous example: If an opponent bids a sacrifice after a BIT by his partner, then that is an infraction. If we drop a trick defending that sacrifice that is an error unrelated to the infraction. The fact that without the infraction we would have been dummy and wouldn't have been able to misdefend is irrelevant.

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

I don't agree.

 

Seeing or not seeing the alert is not related to the fact that the alert was not justified. You might reason that if there wouldn't have been a wrong alert, it couldn't have been missed, but that is flawed.

 

To give an analogous example: If an opponent bids a sacrifice after a BIT by his partner, then that is an infraction. If we drop a trick defending that sacrifice that is an error unrelated to the infraction. The fact that without the infraction we would have been dummy and wouldn't have been able to misdefend is irrelevant.

 

Rik

Those are analogous?

[Trinidad]

Those are analogous?

If you...

reason that if there wouldn't have been a wrong alert, it couldn't have been missed

... they are.

 

If you have any other reason why failing to see the alert should be related to the fact that the alert was unjustified, I am very curious to hear about it.

 

Rik

[mfa1010]

I believe I already covered this point...

 

You did. But I respectfully don't agree with what you said.

 

I think we always have to assume that partner has full info and takes care of himself.

Otherwise we are using the UI that stems from what partner did or didn't do to get enlightened.

 

We can't think: "At the time partner doubled, he had only heard the announcement. He hadn't asked questions or looked in the CC. Therefore I can conclude xxx about his bidding."

 

Think screens. Or try this:

Bidding starts 2♦(alerted)-D-2♥-P-2♠-P-P to us.

After 2♦ partner read the relevant section of the CC and chose to double. When the bidding got to us, we also read the CC, it says 2♦=X. When we later start to think about reopening the bidding with our weak hand with long diamonds, RHO interrupts (and calls TD): "Oh I'm so sorry, the CC is absolutely wrong, it is that of a different partnership, we play 2♦=Y here." May we use the fact that partner read the wrong thing too, and therefore likely intended his D as a defense to convention X? NO, partner's reading in the CC is UI. We should act as if we don't know what partner did, said, heard etc.

[iviehoff]

I think this is just too counterintuitive to be the realistic approach. An announcement, the fact of which is AI, is made. When later this announcement is corrected, you are saying it will be your fault if you fail to assume that partner had the corrected information from the start. If that's going to be the basis of rulings, a lot of people who think in the manner of normal people will be very upset, but it just won't make sense to them.

 

I think that also, if you think it through, this philosophy will lead to you asking explanations even though your partner has just asked for them, to make sure that you are only using AI, precisely in case something later goes wrong. And I don't think this is desirable.

[mfa1010]

I think this is just too counterintuitive to be the realistic approach. An announcement, the fact of which is AI, is made. When later this announcement is corrected, you are saying it will be your fault if you fail to assume that partner had the corrected information from the start. If that's going to be the basis of rulings, a lot of people who think in the manner of normal people will be very upset, but it just won't make sense to them.

 

What is intuitive is individual :).

 

This is a complex (and theoretical) situation, and I would expect the Director to explain UI consequences when summoned, so noone is on their own about the legal issues.

 

To me it is intuitive that I can use the bids laying on the table and everything the opponents have said as if they have said it only to me. And use nothing else. Partner is percieved to be in his own isolated shelf where he takes care of his own business without me knowing when or how.

 

Try this: Partner pulled his X-card before the wrong transfer-announcement of the 2♦-bid was made. I think we could agree that it is UI that partner did this. But what is the consequence? After 3♦-p-p and getting the correction, I must now assume that partner had misunderstood the bidding (due to the announcement)? So even if the bids on the table plus the sum of the information from the opponents make it clear that partner's double in our system is takeout of diamonds, I must assume that partner meant it as showing diamonds for the lead? It would be illegal to bid as if it was a takeout double, since I can only know it is because partner pulled the X-card before the announcement? I think your view leads to that, and that would be counterintuitive to me.

 

 

I think that also, if you think it through, this philosophy will lead to you asking explanations even though your partner has just asked for them, to make sure that you are only using AI, precisely in case something later goes wrong. And I don't think this is desirable.

 

I don't need to ask again. Everything the opponents' have said is AI to me (and MI to me if it is wrong).

 

The UI I have is the fact that partner chose to ask plus what partner chose not to ask about. This UI I can't "errase" by asking again myself.

 

In general, even if the opponents' explanations are AI for me, their explanations often come with an UI aspect = what partner chose to ask or not ask about and got of information, and what partner therefore could be expected to think. This is only a problem when it gives us reason to expect that partner (due to MI or other) has misunderstood their system. If we ever sniff out that partner has misunderstood their system, UI will inevitably have been helping us (when there are no screens), because we can see what partner did to get enlightened.

[blackshoe]

I seem to be the only one here who thinks it's important to discuss the actual unauthorized information, rather than the action or inaction that (may have) provided that information.

 

A question is not UI. The fact that partner asked, or did not ask, a particular question is not UI. Inference from those facts may be UI, or it may not. It is the inference, not the action, that matters.