MI/UI

[Aardv]

I think that unless the TD tells declarer before the play that West's actions are UI, it's unreasonable to rule against declarer for taking an inference from them.

 

Off topic, but is there any reason to prefer a club lead to a heart lead on this hand? (The auction at my table was 2S-4S.) It seemed harsh to me that we lost a vulnerable game swing for guessing the wrong suit (that's not exactly true, but the defence is much easier after a club lead).

[lamford]

It seemed harsh to me that we lost a vulnerable game swing for guessing the wrong suit (that's not exactly true, but the defence is much easier after a club lead).

It seems harsh to me that one is not allowed to have another bash at an opening lead after the first one fails. But rules is rules. I do agree that a TD should explain any relevant UI laws at the time.

[blackshoe]

As I mentioned earlier, I don't think that the damage is caused by the lack of opportunity to double 3D (not 2D). The damage was caused by the failure to alert leading to a TD call. The person who would have doubled 3D was correct to call the TD at that point. The TD call is authorised, but the drawing of the inference that he only called the TD because he wanted to double 3D is unauthorised, as is any guess as to why he asked the TD to speak to him away from the table. Both "arise from" the infraction of the failure to double. We have discussed "arises from" on here before, and the general interpretation of it was "would not have occurred but for" or similar. So, those who rule based one what would have happened had 3D been alerted are missing the point. The adjustment is because of the use of UI to make his contract; not because the play would have been different if 3D had been alerted and doubled. I can buy that this is not UI from partner, but then it is UI from another source, and the same ruling would apply. It still cannot be used by declarer as it did not "arise from" the legal provisions in the Laws.

Which law(s) are you applying?

[Lanor Fow]

Would it be relevant if the NOS were those who called the Director?

 

As Blackshoe often points out when MI is realised the director must be called. The NOS often doesn't do this if there is no damage (otehrwise we would have many more director calls) but if the OS don't call the director, as they are meant to do, and then take inference from the NOS calling to then make the contract is this them not taking advantage of the irregularity not only of their side not alerting, but also not calling the director when they were meant to?

 

I know that inmost MI cases there is no call from either side, but should the failure to do so from the OS lead to a ruling if it did affect things. We would apply such logic to other infractions not usually penalised such as use of the stop card. Whilst a director call might be authorised under 16a (which we discussed when I consulted on this) there is still 12A1.

[helene_t]

I do not want to give declarer the advantage of being able to read from LHO's TD call that he is probably unhappy about picking the wrong opening lead due to MI.

On the other hand, if you say it is UI then declarer would have to chose the wrong line among logical alternatives, which is probably not what you want either.

[Lanor Fow]

ONly 16B talks about LAs, and 16B is UI from partner, which isn't applicable here IMO

[jallerton]

The first call is made at the end of the auction, where east is asking if 3d should have been alerted. 3d is described as showing the honour outside spades. Firstly do you think this is alertable? At the table I said it was and offered West his final pass back. AT this point he asks (before I can stop him) to speak to me away from the table. Away from the table he says that he would have doubled 3d had it been alerted. Given he didn't want his pass back I instructed play to continue, and asked to be called back at the end if necessary.

 

At what point did East ask this question? Had West already made a lead face down? Or was it before the opening lead had been selected? Who called the TD?

[lamford]

At what point did East ask this question? Had West already made a lead face down? Or was it before the opening lead had been selected? Who called the TD?

I think there may have been some confusion over East and West here. I think West with ♦AQxx is more likely to have called the director before he led. It seem unlikely that the person opposite would have wanted to double 3♦. As the OP says, he is not that good with the hand editor, nor, it seems, with compass directions.

[lamford]

Which law(s) are you applying?

16A3.

[Lanor Fow]

I do seem to get my east/wests wrong when posting. West called the director, not east

[blackshoe]

16A3.

Just 16A3? I don't think that's good enough.

[gnasher]

I think these comments are a bit unfair to Grattan, at least, and probably to Kaplan as well.

 

Is that because you think that:

- The wording of the Laws is generally fine, or

- The Laws are poorly worded, but it's not Grattan's and Kaplan's fault, or

- It is their fault but they had some other motives than those that Vampyr suggested?

[blackshoe]

Are those my only choices?

[WellSpyder]

Are those my only choices?

if you have a different reason then presumably the answer to gnasher's question is "no".

[blackshoe]

if you have a different reason then presumably the answer to gnasher's question is "no".

That's a possibility.

[lamford]

Just 16A3? I don't think that's good enough.

I think we only need an infraction. "No player may base a [snip] play on other information" is pretty strong. Someone who drops a singleton king of clubs offside in a ten-card fit because he believes the old wives' tale is using 16A1d, therefore a legal play. Someone who concludes that the reason for a director call is that someone has the ace-queen of diamonds is basing a play on information not listed above, therefore an illegal play. The TD can adjust under 12A1 if all else fails. If the TD call had not been caused by an infraction by the declarer's side, then I would agree that the information arose from the lawful provisions of the Laws and could be used under 16Ac. If we decide that the TD call by the original non-offenders is A1, then we can rule under Law 23 in that a player could have known that any failure to alert where required could lead to a TD call, and that a TD call would, generally, only be made when someone thought they might be damaged, and that information could well be of value to a putative declarer of the offenders' side. Therefore we adjust.

[Trinidad]

I do not want to give declarer the advantage of being able to read from LHO's TD call that he is probably unhappy about picking the wrong opening lead due to MI.

On the other hand, if you say it is UI then declarer would have to chose the wrong line among logical alternatives, which is probably not what you want either.

I do not want that (as in: I am not aiming for that), but I don't have a problem with it either. Keep in mind that declarer and dummy have each committed an infraction. The Laws are designed to fix single infractions. When a side commits more infractions, it is getting messy.

 

I think it is a good principle, in general, that those who cause the mess, pay for the clean-up. In this case West is only guilty of calling to report the mess that NS caused. So, it doesn't hurt my sense of justice if NS pay for the clean up.

 

If that means that South is not allowed to chose to play West for the diamond honors, I don't have any problem with that. Both South and North could have easily prevented that from happening by disclosing their agreements. (And the principle that agreements need to be disclosed is to me one of the most important rules in bridge.)

 

Rik

[gnasher]

Are those my only choices?

No, I was just trying to help by listing possible reasons.

 

So, why do you consider Vampyr's comment unfair?

[blackshoe]

I think we only need an infraction. "No player may base a [snip] play on other information" is pretty strong.

Okay. First, when I posted that, I was reading a different law (16B3). My bad. Still, I think we need to ensure that the I doesn't fall under one of the provisions in A1 or A2. For example, the I in this case arises from the fact that someone called the director. That (calling the TD) is a legal procedure. So I think we need to specify why this isn't AI under Law 16A1{c}.

[VixTD]

There was a failure to alert. When the TD was called, West gave UI to his partner by asking to speak to the TD away from the table, as about the only thing he could be telling the TD was that he would have doubled 3D. At the time, he did not know that this could cause the declarer to choose a different line of play to normal. However, I do not think this request was AI to South, as it arose from the failure to alert, and I do not think this means it arises from the legal procedures authorized in these Laws (16A1c); it arose from an illegal failure to alert.

If, rather than asking to speak to the director away from the table, West had said "but I would have doubled 3♦ for the lead!" for all at the table to hear, would you still consider it to have been "caused" by the failure to alert?

[toukie]

I was North. Stupid me. I thought that since a 2D response to Stayman was not alertable, that this wasn't either.

 

Anyway I ask you to look at West's actions.

 

He called the director when he suspected there was a failure to alert. This is fair enough, he may wish to establish the facts as soon as possible after the event occurred since it may be more difficult to get agreement on a failure to alert at the end of the hand.

 

He also told the director that he wished to speak to him away from the table. This told everyone at the table that he would have doubled 3D.

 

Q. Did he need to do this at the end of the auction?

A. No. He could have done is at the end of the hand if he felt he had been damaged. If he did it at the end of the hand there would not be UI.

 

By doing it at the end of the auctipn he has told his partner to return diamonds.

On this particular layout a diamond return was obvious, but suppose it was not so obvious, suppose declarer had ducked the lead and supposed the his partner had returned a diamond.

 

If this is not deemed acting on UI from west, then effectively what we are saying is that once NS have failed to alert something EW are free to pass UI at will and not be held responsible for it, and that cannot be right.

[Vampyr]

West was clearly unaware that he could have presented his case to the director after the hand was over. He may also have believed that he would have been given short shrift if he spoke to the director after seeing all 52 cards.

 

I think that the notion of West's actions being AI to the OS is pretty far-fetched.

[VixTD]

By doing it [speaking to the director] at the end of the auction he has told his partner to return diamonds.

On this particular layout a diamond return was obvious, but suppose it was not so obvious, suppose declarer had ducked the lead and supposed the his partner had returned a diamond.

 

If this is not deemed acting on UI from west, then effectively what we are saying is that once NS have failed to alert something EW are free to pass UI at will and not be held responsible for it, and that cannot be right.

I don't think anyone has said that West's antics should be AI to East. Lamford is arguing that they should be UI to South, and although I disagree with him, I concede he has a point.

[Vampyr]

I don't think anyone has said that West's antics should be AI to East. Lamford is arguing that they should be UI to South, and although I disagree with him, I concede he has a point.

 

I find it impossible to disagree with Lamford -- the whole situation arose from N/S's infraction.

[jallerton]

As I mentioned earlier, I don't think that the damage is caused by the lack of opportunity to double 3D (not 2D). The damage was caused by the failure to alert leading to a TD call. The person who would have doubled 3D was correct to call the TD at that point. The TD call is authorised, but the drawing of the inference that he only called the TD because he wanted to double 3D is unauthorised, as is any guess as to why he asked the TD to speak to him away from the table. Both "arise from" the infraction of the failure to double. We have discussed "arises from" on here before, and the general interpretation of it was "would not have occurred but for" or similar. So, those who rule based one what would have happened had 3D been alerted are missing the point. The adjustment is because of the use of UI to make his contract; not because the play would have been different if 3D had been alerted and doubled. I can buy that this is not UI from partner, but then it is UI from another source, and the same ruling would apply. It still cannot be used by declarer as it did not "arise from" the legal provisions in the Laws.

 

A. Players’ Use of Information

 

1. A player may use information in the auction or play if:

 

(a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source; or

 

(b) it is authorized information from a withdrawn action (see D); or

 

© 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); or

 

(d) it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information.

 

D. Variations in Tempo or Manner

 

1. It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk.