Cheap Tactics

[Trinidad]

Don't you think that gives you some direction as to what to lead?

In no greater way than a pass would give you some direction as to what to lead if double had said "lead this suit".

The extent of the lead direction inferences is certainly similar. However, the fact that the meaning is the exact opposite of what you would expect makes it alertable.

 

So, where most passes are somewhat lead directing in an expected way, the pass in your example is somewhat lead directing in an unexpected way.

 

As an opponent, I would like to know that the probability for a club lead has increased, rather than decreased (as I would normally expect) after the pass.

 

I don't want to get into the Blue book regulations, but to me this pass is alertable, since to me any alert regulation starts with the main rule about alerts: "Alert what will be unexpected to your opponents."

 

Rik

[gordontd]

In no greater way than a pass would give you some direction as to what to lead if double had said "lead this suit".

I think that's general bridge knowledge. The other situation is quite unusual.

[lamford]

If they do not routinely ask then they are probably transmitting a lot of UI on other boards without anyone realising.

Do you think "absence of a question" is UI because 16B1a gives "for example" before the list of things that are UI. I notice that the list has both an alert and the absence of an alert, but not the absence of a question. I presume you think that not asking about an alerted bid can convey UI in the same way as asking about it. If East had asked about 4C in this example, and been told it was a splinter and then passed, and West then bid 5C, how would you rule?

[campboy]

Do you think "absence of a question" is UI because 16B1a gives "for example" before the list of things that are UI. I notice that the list has both an alert and the absence of an alert, but not the absence of a question. I presume you think that not asking about an alerted bid can convey UI in the same way as asking about it.

Well, the "for example" in 16B1a certainly means it is not ruled out. But the main reason I think it is UI is Law 73B1 (my emphasis):

Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them.

If East had asked about 4C in this example, and been told it was a splinter and then passed, and West then bid 5C, how would you rule?

I would attempt to find out whether East normally asks in this position. If it transpires that he only asks when the answer changes what call he would make, I think there is significant UI and the 5♣ call is illegal.

[lamford]

The extent of the lead direction inferences is certainly similar. However, the fact that the meaning is the exact opposite of what you would expect makes it alertable.

No, the extent of the lead direction inference from double saying "lead this suit" and pass, saying that "I don't want to double to say don't lead this suit", is not similar at all. The double in the first method shows good clubs, the pass in the second method will include the vast majority of hands where you have no view on what should be led at all.

 

If pass says "lead a club", then you (and gnasher and gordontd) are right. If pass says I don't want to double to say "don't lead a club", then I think pass is not alertable. Quite frankly, the idea that pass is alertable here is from cloud-cuckoo-land, with due deference to the EBU senior TD.

[lamford]

Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them.

That I think refers to matters such as the methods used by the German doctors. Also for there to be a different meaning to pass depending on whether there was a question or not would, of course, be illegal. In this case, all East did was call the TD when there was an infraction. He did not need to ask or not ask a question as South then told the TD that 4C was a splinter. Which question or lack of question are you suggesting East used to communicate?

[campboy]

That I think refers to matters such as the methods used by the German doctors. Also for there to be a different meaning to pass depending on whether there was a question or not would, of course, be illegal. In this case, all East did was call the TD when there was an infraction. He did not need to ask or not ask a question as South then told the TD that 4C was a splinter. Which question or lack of question are you suggesting East used to communicate?

In the section of my post you quoted I was not talking about this case at all. I was responding to your general question about whether the absence of a question could give UI.

 

The (non-exhaustive) list in 16B1/73C does not mention a question not asked, probably because it is rare for a question not asked to transmit significant information. But in a situation where not asking does give significant information, I think 73B1 makes it clear that such information is extraneous.

[lamford]

In the section of my post you quoted I was not talking about this case at all. I was responding to your general question about whether the absence of a question could give UI.

 

The (non-exhaustive) list in 16B1/73C does not mention a question not asked, probably because it is rare for a question not asked to transmit significant information. But in a situation where not asking does give significant information, I think 73B1 makes it clear that such information is extraneous.

I misunderstood your post. I agree that there are some situations where not asking conveys information, but I think that can only apply after an alert. For example, 1NT-(2C*)-3NT would say "I don't care what 2C shows, I am happy to bid 3NT anyway". If the player asked and was told it was hearts and another and now bid 3NT, that might show no heart stop and not four spades, perhaps. That seems to fit into the category of a potentially different meaning with or without a question, and therefore illegal communication.

 

I have frequently observed that a player with no interest in bidding passes without asking after 1NT is overcalled artificially. The silent pass should be alerted as 0-7. The 1NT bidder does not double 2M back in, even with a doubleton and a maximum, and nobody notices that UI has been passed and used. Probably everyone should always ask but I have never seen a UI ruling against someone for not asking about an alerted bid. Perhaps there should be.

[Trinidad]

No, the extent of the lead direction inference from double saying "lead this suit" and pass, saying that "I don't want to double to say don't lead this suit", is not similar at all.

That is not the comparison I meant, and I thought it is not the comparison you meant originally.

 

The comparison that I am talking about (and I thought you were talking about is):

1♥-Pass-1♠-Pass;

4♣-Pass¹

1 Double would have meant: "Don't lead clubs", i.e. pass is mildly suggesting a club lead

 

and

 

1♥-Pass-1♠-Pass;

4♣-Pass²

2 Double would have meant: "Please lead clubs", i.e. pass is mildly suggesting a diamond lead

 

These two meanings are similar in the strength of the inference. The second meaning is the expected meaning, the first meaning is (very) unexpected, and, hence, alertable according to any sensible alert regulation.

 

Rik

[lamford]

That is not the comparison I meant, and I thought it is not the comparison you meant originally.

 

The comparison that I am talking about (and I thought you were talking about is):

1♥-Pass-1♠-Pass;

4♣-Pass¹

1 Double would have meant: "Don't lead clubs", i.e. pass is mildly suggesting a club lead

 

and

 

1♥-Pass-1♠-Pass;

4♣-Pass²

2 Double would have meant: "Please lead clubs", i.e. pass is mildly suggesting a diamond lead

 

These two meanings are similar in the strength of the inference. The second meaning is the expected meaning, the first meaning is (very) unexpected, and, hence, alertable according to any sensible alert regulation.

 

Rik

Firstly, I think more people are doubling splinters to say "don't lead this suit" or to ask for a specific other suit. Certainly in a recent national final, few played that double said "lead this suit", so the "very" is nowhere near my experience.

 

But even if you right, then that hardly comes under the heading of a "lead-directing" pass.

[aguahombre]

73B1:

 

"Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them."

 

Information from the TD call, whether considered "authorized" or not, derived from illegal communication.

[blackshoe]

If it transpires that he only asks when the answer changes what call he would make, I think there is significant UI and the 5♣ call is illegal.

While both of those conclusions may be true, the latter does not, IMO, necessarily follow from the former. Also, if we're supposed to rule based on the existence of UI here, why are players advised to ask only when it makes a difference to what they will do?

[blackshoe]

If it's UI, it's UI even if the director can't prove it. However, if he can't demonstrate how whatever action he wants to rule against demonstrably could have suggested by the UI (which, IMO, requires him to also show what the UI is) then it doesn't matter, because he can only adjust the score if he can demonstrate that.

 

I think, or at least hope, that you mean it doesn't matter to the director. It does matter to the other 98% of the people for whom the rules were written.

 

But anyway, I still don't agree with you. The director can usually find out if there was UI by asking questions like "When your partner thinks there's been a failure to alert, does he always call the director? "At what point does he usually call him?" "Have there been any other failures to alert during this session?" "Did anyone call the director on those occasions?"

My point is that you can't rule on the basis of UI if you can't demonstrate how the UI may have led to the alleged infraction. As for the third degree, do you routinely ask such questions in these cases? Does anyone?

[campboy]

These two meanings are similar in the strength of the inference. The second meaning is the expected meaning, the first meaning is (very) unexpected, and, hence, alertable according to any sensible alert regulation.

In order to determine what is or isn't alertable you have to actually look at the alert regulation. And the regulation is very clear that, for calls above 3NT, being unexpected is not sufficient (or, for that matter, necessary). This pass is alertable if and only if it is a "lead-directing pass".

 

Now it seems to me that whether or not you think these passes are lead-directing or not, surely either they both are or they both are not. The only difference between your two meanings is that one is more expected than the other, and this is irrelevant.

[lamford]

While both of those conclusions may be true, the latter does not, IMO, necessarily follow from the former. Also, if we're supposed to rule based on the existence of UI here, why are players advised to ask only when it makes a difference to what they will do?

Indeed, they are discouraged from asking unnecessarily by the EBU. From the Blue Book:

 

2E1 A player has the right to ask questions at his turn to call or play, but exercising this right may have consequences. If a player shows unusual interest in one or more calls of the auction, then this may give rise to unauthorised information. His partner must avoid taking advantage. It may be in a player’s interests to defer questions until either he is about to make the opening lead or his partner’s lead is face-down on the table.

I think that this advice is wrong, and showing unusual lack of interest in one or more calls of the auction gives just as much UI, but this goes undetected. The only sensible approach is to always ask, or always not to ask. Given that the latter is not practical, in that there will be times when one needs to know, one should always ask if one wishes to avoid giving UI.

[lamford]

73B1:

 

"Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them."

 

Information from the TD call, whether considered "authorized" or not, derived from illegal communication.

There is a WBFLC minute that a more precise Law takes priority over the general one where they potentially clash. 16A1c makes it clear that the TD call is authorized information and that it can be used. 73B1 is a general law that one should not communicate with partner in any manner (other than by calls and plays). The former takes priority, so that the TD call is AI and can be used. The TD ruling that 4C should have been alerted is AI as well, as is the statement by East to the TD that there was a failure to alert.

[gnasher]

My point is that you can't rule on the basis of UI if you can't demonstrate how the UI may have led to the alleged infraction.

Yes, I understand your point. I just don't understand why this leads you to the conclusion that the UI doesn't matter, when plainly it does in fact matter to every player who receives such UI.

 

As for the third degree, do you routinely ask such questions in these cases? Does anyone?

I haven't directed any bridge game since about 1986, so the problem has never come up for me. But if I were a director, and a player asked for a ruling on the basis that an opponent's director call had conveyed UI, then yes of course I would try to determine whether the player's assertion was correct.

[gnasher]

Also, if we're supposed to rule based on the existence of UI here, why are players advised to ask only when it makes a difference to what they will do?

Because the people giving the advice haven't given it enough thought.

[blackshoe]

Yes, I understand your point. I just don't understand why this leads you to the conclusion that the UI doesn't matter, when plainly it does in fact matter to every player who receives such UI.

It doesn't matter to the ruling. As for players, I suppose it might matter to them that they may have received UI, if they even recognize the possibility. But I've never seen it come up, and as a player it wouldn't ever have occurred to me until this thread.

 

I haven't directed any bridge game since about 1986, so the problem has never come up for me. But if I were a director, and a player asked for a ruling on the basis that an opponent's director call had conveyed UI, then yes of course I would try to determine whether the player's assertion was correct.

As I said, I've never seen it come up.

[aguahombre]

There is a WBFLC minute that a more precise Law takes priority over the general one where they potentially clash. 16A1c makes it clear that the TD call is authorized information and that it can be used. 73B1 is a general law that one should not communicate with partner in any manner (other than by calls and plays). The former takes priority, so that the TD call is AI and can be used. The TD ruling that 4C should have been alerted is AI as well, as is the statement by East to the TD that there was a failure to alert.

You are referring correctly to the more precise laws about UI and AI. But they refer to using the information obtained.

 

What I am talking about is the illegal communication itself. East used the Director call to communicate with his Partner...message sent and received. This is a violation of 73B1 and subject to disciplinary action.

 

East could have been calling the TD for no other reason than to communicate with Partner.

[blackshoe]

East could have been calling the TD for no other reason than to communicate with Partner.

On what do you base this assertion?

[Bbradley62]

What was the ruling made at the table? Or is this scenario a concoction?

[pran]

You are referring correctly to the more precise laws about UI and AI. But they refer to using the information obtained.

:huh: ?????

[barmar]

Indeed, they are discouraged from asking unnecessarily by the EBU. From the Blue Book:

 

2E1 A player has the right to ask questions at his turn to call or play, but exercising this right may have consequences. If a player shows unusual interest in one or more calls of the auction, then this may give rise to unauthorised information. His partner must avoid taking advantage. It may be in a player’s interests to defer questions until either he is about to make the opening lead or his partner’s lead is face-down on the table.

I think that this advice is wrong, and showing unusual lack of interest in one or more calls of the auction gives just as much UI, but this goes undetected.

If the recommendation is not to ask in general, and players mostly follow this advice, the lack of interest is hardly "unusual". There's little UI from acting normally.

 

However, if your partner asks 90% of the time, and doesn't ask in some particular situation, that would be unusual and probably transmits significant UI.

[aguahombre]

:huh: ?????

What you didn't quote explained what you quoted.

 

East/West knows it is not a natural bid, but this pair also knows it is a Splinter. A double of the Splinter would mean lead something else, but a pass of the splinter does not necessarily mean East has Club length and strength.

 

East found a way to communicate to his partner that his pass shows club length, and West received the communication.

 

In the case of the German seniors, even though people got wrapped up in looking for examples of hands where the illegally communicated information affected board results, the Disciplinary action taken was for the illegal communication itself.

 

In this case, we can show how specific rules (or WBF minutes) treat information received via a Director call as authorized --- and therefore no adjustment for West's use of that information would hold up. But, the deliberate communication to partner is still subject to disciplinary action, IMO.