Missed incorrect alert

[mfa1010]

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.

 

You have lost me.

 

Say we have a huddle. Then it is usually irrelevant if we call the huddle itself "UI" or the implications of the huddle "UI".

 

Why is the distinction relevant here? Or are you aiming at something else?

[blackshoe]

When you apply Law 16 in UI cases, it seems important to me to know what the "I" is that you're calling unauthorized. Unless you're in the ACBL, where rulings are made ex cathedra and directors rarely, if ever, are called on to explain or justify them (and would probably feel insulted if they were).

[barmar]

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).

In my experience, players with hearing difficulty usually warn the opponents, and ask them to be diligent in including the visual component. Alerting regulations don't require this, and I think they would have a legitimate case if they didn't bother and missed an alert because an opponent failed to use the alert strip/card, but if you know that this is common it seems foolish to depend on it. If you're too proud to admit you're hard of hearing, you're screwed -- you'll have to admit it when you call the director, so you might as well mention it upfront and avoid problems.

[blackshoe]

In my experience, players with hearing difficulty usually warn the opponents, and ask them to be diligent in including the visual component. Alerting regulations don't require this, and I think they would have a legitimate case if they didn't bother and missed an alert because an opponent failed to use the alert strip/card, but if you know that this is common it seems foolish to depend on it. If you're too proud to admit you're hard of hearing, you're screwed -- you'll have to admit it when you call the director, so you might as well mention it upfront and avoid problems.

I don't think I've ever seen or heard a hard of hearing opponent give that warning or make that request. When the question does come up, it's usually when the hard of hearing player realizes she's missed something, and not until then.

[mfa1010]

When you apply Law 16 in UI cases, it seems important to me to know what the "I" is that you're calling unauthorized. Unless you're in the ACBL, where rulings are made ex cathedra and directors rarely, if ever, are called on to explain or justify them (and would probably feel insulted if they were).

 

Right. The "I" here is very real, since it made us conclude that partner has diamonds and not takeout, when he doubled 2♦ after 1N-p-2♦, in spite of the fact that our system says it is takeout given the correct meaning of 2♦ (= to play).

 

So what left is only to find out if this "I" was "A" or "U".

[iviehoff]

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?

You fail to mention the key points on which this case will turn.

 

If the announcement was slow, the late announcement was a purported correction of misinformation, the director should be called, and the fact that partner bid before is now AI and we are in the situation as I describe it.

 

If partner was fast to make his double, then that is his fault and I'm happy with me being forced to assume partner was correctly informed at the time of his bid, whatever stupid that might mean for me.

[barmar]

I don't think I've ever seen or heard a hard of hearing opponent give that warning or make that request. When the question does come up, it's usually when the hard of hearing player realizes she's missed something, and not until then.

I'm not sure what it is, but it seems like I play in a much nicer universe than most of the rest of you. There have been numerous threads over the years where people refer to various obnoxious behaviors as "common", but in my experience they're aberrations; and here we have a vice versa.

 

I don't think I've ever had an opponent point out that they're hard of hearing after the fact.