Unintended splinter

[blackshoe]

Unless some law (and presumably not 16 itself) precludes use of this information.

16B is a different law to 16A.

[pescetom]

A reply to smerriman first.

 

Thanks, I see what you mean now. This is interesting.

 

My initial thought was that given East thought 3N was natural, and 4N was a perfectly reasonable quantitative bid, it's not logical that they could suddenly have remembered 3NT actually wasn't natural. While that seems extremely unlikely, I guess it's possible.

It is decidedly possible. You are tired, or distracted or elated or something else that causes you to lose concentration, and you make a natural bid instead of thinking about your agreements for that call.

There are also two different ways in which he could wake up to his forget: on his own just before partner explains, or from partner's explanation. Mycroft is discriminating between the two, but I think for this director they are equivalent in that the agreement is always AI even during and after the explanation.

I agree that Law 75A apparently indicates differently when it says "his own call has been misinterpreted.", which seems to suggest that the "correct" interpretation of 3NT is natural as mistakenly intended rather than splinter as per agreement.

 

 

The director is in a sense arguing that the knowledge is both UI and AI at the same time, which really doesn't seem right.

I think he is arguing that the agreement is always AI and does not cease to be so because it was reminded by UI. Which is logically problematic, but perhaps not more so than arguing that AI which one possessed but has forgotten becomes UI when one is reminded of it by UI.

 

But even if it were, what polling question would result in 5♣ being considered by most players?

"Your agreement is that 4NT is RKCB asking for keycard replies, would you seriously consider 5♣ indicating 1 keycard?" ?

[pescetom]

Information that is authorized for you, but which you have (temporarily) forgotten, is unauthorized to you if you receive some (other) unauthorized information that makes you remember what you had forgotten.

 

So the information that the true understanding of your partner's 4NT bid is different from what you thought is unauthorized to you when you could have been reminded of such fact from your partner's response to a question asked by an opponent.

 

Thanks for spelling it out clearly.

 

That is how I learned to interpret this situation, but from this site and Bridge Winners rather than from TD training or the Laws themselves. So I was wary but intrigued when I encountered this different perspective from another director.

[smerriman]

"Your agreement is that 4NT is RKCB asking for keycard replies, would you seriously consider 5♣ indicating 1 keycard?" ?

But that's simply not an accurate representation of the situation. Knowledge that 4NT is Blackwood in this situation guarantees that you also have knowledge that 3NT showed spades, after which nobody would seriously consider 5♣.

 

If the laws force you to make a bid that you would never make if there was no UI regardless of the definition of 4NT, something is wrong with the laws.

[barmar]

In fact, 16B1(b) clearly states that logical alternatives are determined based on using the methods of the partnership (even if you had temporarily forgotten what those methods are). Not based on what the player is likely to have thought those methods were at the time.

It makes no sense that the definition of LA should be based on your actual agreement when the whole reason you're in this UI situation is because you forgot the agreement and were then reminded of it by the UI.

 

I understand that that's what the words literally say, but it can't possibly be how it's intended to be applied in situations like this.

[barmar]

Mycroft is discriminating between the two, but I think for this director they are equivalent in that the agreement is always AI even during and after the explanation.

Law 75 talks about taking advantage of UI, but Law 16 doesn't. It just talks about what to do when UI has been made available; even if the player manages to come to the same conclusion on their own, they're still constrained by the UI. This obviates the TD having to read the player's mind to figure out how they realized their mistake.

[mycroft]

"Mycroft is distingushing the two" - not really. I was saying the two situations exist. You say the TD is saying they're the same and the agreement is AI after remembering. I'm saying they're the same and you don't get to "remember" if partner gives you UI, whether you remembered before or after the UI.

 

If you have no UI - no flinching, no tank, and especially no answers to questions - then if you wake up, you are entitled to do anything legal to try to recover from the situation. You're allowed to know that partner took your bid differently/correctly, and use that in your calculations. You need not follow system

 

If you do have UI, there is no way for the director to tell when you remembered or if the UI caused you to remember. Therefore, we have to treat that as irrelevant - it's not whether the UI caused you to wake up or you woke up before the UI, you are constrained in the presence of the UI either way, and you can't take an LA demonstrably suggested by the UI over one not suggested by the UI. You aren't allowed to "wake up", that is, until there is *AI* from the auction that proves that you forgot.

 

I promise you, even though players are generally honest, they will *always* say they remembered their system before partner Alerted/explained. Many will believe it's true. For some of those, it will be true. But it's irrelevant to the Law, deliberately.

 

This is actually one of the nice parts of self-alerting; it's easier to argue you remembered on your own, and not from partner's explanation (which you didn't see). Having said that, it causes other issues when the opponents see 1♠-3NT; 4NT "KC for !S".

[pescetom]

Ok, thanks all for the replies, in particular to pran and mycroft for elegantly stating the mainstream position on how the laws should be interpreted here.

It would be nice if it was more clearly stated in the laws themselves (maybe there is clarification in some WBFLC minutes or similar)?

Anyway for now I'll just set my own compass straight and see if I get a chance to discuss with the director in question.

[sanst]

I’ve been reading this thread again and came to the conclusion that a lot depends on the meaning of the 4NT bid. East forgot the systematic meaning of 3NT and it doesn’t matter whether it was till W alerted and explained the bid or for a ‘ohnosecond’. The director should not accept any story about remembering the meaning by E on his own. E must keep thinking that W knows that he wanted to play 3NT. What is the EW agreement about 4NT in a NT contract, Blackwood or quantitative? If it’s Blackwood the pass is a blatant use of UI and should be treated as such. If quantitative I think pass is logical, but a poll might be necessary.

There is a strange ambiguity in the Laws. You’re not allowed to wake up by alerts and explanations of your partner and should stick to your mistake, but explain the agreements correctly. I’ve never figured out how to do this without causing confusion for the opponents. In this case E should probably have explained 4NT as RKCB with spades and then have passed, not as damage control, but as the logical answer to 4NT quantitative.

[mycroft]

The question I use for education of players in situations like these is: "If they'd bid 5♥ because they 'woke up', and 6♠ was bid and cold, we'd roll it back to 4NT because 5♥ was demonstrably suggested by partner's explanation, right? When the player woke up is irrelevant, it could have been from the explanation. So, how can we require the player to bid 5♥ if passing 4NT works?"

 

Sanst: I agree, it's worth a poll. Having said that, we would need to know what East thought 3NT meant (or what it commonly is in Italy). If I did that here, universally it would be 13-15 or so if "natural" (whether 2M BAL, 3M433, or what). In this world, East has already massively overbid. Also, no matter what East though she had shown, slam isn't on opposite anything that couldn't open 2♣ (and if you have the awful 24-high two-suiter that can't open 2♣ and bid your hand properly, surely that hand can bid the second suit (forcing if a minor) now?)

 

It's not an ambiguity, it's straightforward interpretation. The opponents are entitled to your agreements about your system, and you are not allowed to deliberately misinform them. If anything wakes you up to your having forgotten system, your explanations must be for the system you play, not the system you thought you were playing. If you have already misinformed them, you "should" call the TD and correct the misinformation (although the new Laws allow that correction to be delayed to the end of the auction (a case of avoiding mindreading). That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it when you remember, just that you don't have to).

 

However, you must continue to bid based on the system you thought you were bidding at the time, *if partner has given you UI that would have woken you up*. This is exactly the same case as if partner was the one in a different world, and your bidding was correct, his explanation was wrong. The only difference there is that you have to explain to the opponents the correct system (yours), and that might give partner UI that wakes him up.

 

Yes, this will confuse the opponents. They might even call the director. If they can figure out why they're confused, they can use that information during the play. Hopefully the director won't do anything that unnecessarily helps this happen (like ask declarer why they passed RKC at the table before the opening lead).

[pescetom]

I’ve been reading this thread again and came to the conclusion that a lot depends on the meaning of the 4NT bid. East forgot the systematic meaning of 3NT and it doesn’t matter whether it was till W alerted and explained the bid or for a ‘ohnosecond’. The director should not accept any story about remembering the meaning by E on his own. E must keep thinking that W knows that he wanted to play 3NT. What is the EW agreement about 4NT in a NT contract, Blackwood or quantitative? If it’s Blackwood the pass is a blatant use of UI and should be treated as such. If quantitative I think pass is logical, but a poll might be necessary.

The EW agreement is that 4NT is quantitative over a natural NT. Maybe the director failed to grasp this or had unexpressed doubts about it, however.

 

There is a strange ambiguity in the Laws. You’re not allowed to wake up by alerts and explanations of your partner and should stick to your mistake, but explain the agreements correctly. I’ve never figured out how to do this without causing confusion for the opponents.

I agree about the strange ambiguity, and also find it mysterious that the lawmakers did not see the need to spell this out if it is really what they wanted.

 

In this case E should probably have explained 4NT as RKCB with spades and then have passed, not as damage control, but as the logical answer to 4NT quantitative.

E was woken up to his forget by the explanation and was now aware that partner was asking for keycards. Nobody asked for an explanation of 4NT before the director was called.

[pran]

I feel that this discussion is drifting away into some confusing ambiguity?

in the situation we have here the Director shall proceed as follows:

After play of the board is completed! : Decide whether there has been any irregularity, and if so establish the precise nature of the irregularity.

 

Only after he has ruled that there indeed was an irregularity he should judge on the possible consequences of the irregularity

 

If he judges that the irregularity has damaged the non-offending side then he should award an adjusted score to compensate the non-offending side for their loss due to the irregularity.

 

And if he judges that the offending side has gained from the irregularity then he should award an adjusted score to take away from the offending side their gain from the irregularity.

 

(So the Director should never consider rolling back the auction before first ruling on the question whether there has been an irregularity.)

[sanst]

I feel that this discussion is drifting away into some confusing ambiguity?

in the situation we have here the Director shall proceed as follows:

After play of the board is completed! : Decide whether there has been any irregularity, and if so establish the precise nature of the irregularity.

 

Only after he has ruled that there indeed was an irregularity he should judge on the possible consequences of the irregularity

 

If he judges that the irregularity has damaged the non-offending side then he should award an adjusted score to compensate the non-offending side for their loss due to the irregularity.

 

And if he judges that the offending side has gained from the irregularity then he should award an adjusted score to take away from the offending side their gain from the irregularity.

 

(So the Director should never consider rolling back the auction before first ruling on the question whether there has been an irregularity.)

The discussion on my part is not about what the director should do and when. It’s about what players do at the table. The bidding was 1♠-3NT-4NT-pass. Let’s say for argument’s sake that E bid a natural 3NT, but W alerted and explained correctly as spade fit, void or singleton in hearts. Up to this point nobody but E knows that something has gone wrong. That becomes clear because E passes after a forcing 4NT. Most experienced players know that it’s no use calling the director then, because they would have to continue anyway. Nobody here would do anything else, we all know that the director can’t change the auction. Only after the play the opponents will call the director if they feel damaged. In this case they would probably argue that E should have answered the RKCB bid and the EW most likely would have ended in 6♠, doubled by N, which would have gone off two tricks. Only then the director has a role to play.

 

You wil probably answer that the TD should have been called earlier, but there are many situations when something should or shouldn’t have been done, but is or isn’t done anyway. A prime minister shouldn’t lie and if he does he should be send packing, but ours did lie and wasn’t sent away, even worse, it looks like he can start a new term in office soon.

[pran]

The discussion on my part is not about what the director should do and when. It’s about what players do at the table. The bidding was 1♠-3NT-4NT-pass. Let’s say for argument’s sake that E bid a natural 3NT, but W alerted and explained correctly as spade fit, void or singleton in hearts. Up to this point nobody but E knows that something has gone wrong. That becomes clear because E passes after a forcing 4NT. Most experienced players know that it’s no use calling the director then, because they would have to continue anyway. Nobody here would do anything else, we all know that the director can’t change the auction. Only after the play the opponents will call the director if they feel damaged. In this case they would probably argue that E should have answered the RKCB bid and the EW most likely would have ended in 6♠, doubled by N, which would have gone off two tricks. Only then the director has a role to play.

 

You wil probably answer that the TD should have been called earlier, but there are many situations when something should or shouldn’t have been done, but is or isn’t done anyway. A prime minister shouldn’t lie and if he does he should be send packing, but ours did lie and wasn’t sent away, even worse, it looks like he can start a new term in office soon.

1. A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings, provided that his partner has no more reason than the opponents to be aware of the deviation [but see B2(a)(v) above]. Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership’s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may assess a procedural penalty.

2. Other than in C1 above, no player is obliged to disclose to the opponents that he has deviated from his announced methods.

Note that it is irrelevant whether the deviation is deliberate or accidental!

If a player realizes during the auction that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must summon the Director before the end of the Clarification Period and correct the misexplanation. He may elect to call the Director sooner, but he is under no obligation to do so.

A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. ‘Mistaken explanation’ here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require.

So far we have no indication of any violation of the laws (East has not been asked nor has he given any explanation)

If East is asked about the 4NT bid and now understands that he had forgotten agreements, he must still give a correct explanation of the 4NT bid even though this may reveal that his own bid was a misbid. However, he is under no circumstance allowed to explicitly disclose this fact to opponents even if asked!

 

So the bottom line is still that we have no reason to make any adjustment.

[Zelandakh]

How can a keycard response be a logical alternative when West made a quantitative raise to 4NT?

This is just the wrong question pran and surprising to me from such an experienced TD. I have played in partnerships where my partner insisted that "4NT is always Blackwood". For such a pair West has not made a quantitative raise. The fact that you would play it that way, or me, or indeed every other BBF poster, is neither here nor there. The right question is whether this pair plays a 4NT raise of a natural 3NT call quantitatively. If not then a key card or ace-showing response has to be a LA.

[blackshoe]

Law 16B2: When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result he may announce, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that the Director be called), that he reserves the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed).

 

"Such information" refers to information that is unauthorized. Either defender may consider that East has UI when he (East) passes 4NT. At that time either North or South may reserve his right to call the director. Note "may", meaning failure to do it is not wrong.

 

Law 16B3: When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action suggested by such information, he should summon the Director when play ends⁵. The Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C1) if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender.

 

⁵ It is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later.

 

Procedurally the proper time to call the director is when play ends. It's not illegal to call him as early as when East passes 4NT or as late as just before the end of the correction period (see Law 92B), but the later he's called the more difficult the ruling will be, and if he is called earlier than the end of play the director is going to say "play on" and "call me back after the play ends" and nothing more so there's not much point.

 

IMO 16B2 is poorly worded. A player does not need to "reserve" his right to call the director. He has that right whether he reserves it or not. What 16B2 should be attempting to say is that a player who believes an opponent has conveyed UI to his partner should try to get the opponents to concur that this has happened. If they concur, fine, play on, don't waste time with a director call. If they don't concur they should call the director forthwith so that the existence or non-existence of UI can be established by the director.

 

I suppose a director called before the end of play might take the time to establish at that point whether UI actually exists, but I don't like interrupting a deal in progress any more than is absolutely necessary.

[pran]

This is just the wrong question pran and surprising to me from such an experienced TD. I have played in partnerships where my partner insisted that "4NT is always Blackwood". For such a pair West has not made a quantitative raise. The fact that you would play it that way, or me, or indeed every other BBF poster, is neither here nor there. The right question is whether this pair plays a 4NT raise of a natural 3NT call quantitatively. If not then a key card or ace-showing response has to be a LA.

If you accept that East misbid with his 3NT then you must also accept that he is free to again misbid after West 4NT.

 

A (questionable) fact that the partnership 'always' uses 4NT as Blackwood does not prevent East from either forgetting this agreement and accidentally pass, or from simply making another deliberate misbid.

[mycroft]

In the presence of UI, if East forgot, and if for them "4NT is always Blackwood", the second "deliberate misbid" is in fact not legal.

 

But we check it, sure - in fact, see #19, where I did ask and got the response that for this pair, 4NT isn't always Blackwood. Given that, pran's response is correct. The begged question is not in fact begged, we actually have already confirmed it.

 

It's a good reminder, though, that we don't use our own judgement or bidding style when making rulings, we use the pair's style and the pair's peers' judgement. In general, Zelendakh is right.

[pran]

In the presence of UI, if East forgot, and if for them "4NT is always Blackwood", the second "deliberate misbid" is in fact not legal.

 

But we check it, sure - in fact, see #19, where I did ask and got the response that for this pair, 4NT isn't always Blackwood. Given that, pran's response is correct. The begged question is not in fact begged, we actually have already confirmed it.

 

It's a good reminder, though, that we don't use our own judgement or bidding style when making rulings, we use the pair's style and the pair's peers' judgement. In general, Zelendakh is right.

I wonder:

If East for some odd reason known only to himself decided to bid 3NT with the intention to deliberately pass at his next turn to call whatever happens in between - under what circumstances (if any) can this be illegal?

 

(Please do not claim 'UI' without specifying the precise nature of that UI and who provided it.)

[pescetom]

This is just the wrong question pran and surprising to me from such an experienced TD. I have played in partnerships where my partner insisted that "4NT is always Blackwood". For such a pair West has not made a quantitative raise. The fact that you would play it that way, or me, or indeed every other BBF poster, is neither here nor there. The right question is whether this pair plays a 4NT raise of a natural 3NT call quantitatively. If not then a key card or ace-showing response has to be a LA.

 

The answer to your own question is that this pair plays a 4NT raise of a natural 3NT call quantitatively, as already stated in this thread. The director was told this, but may not have understood it or accepted it, although he did not question it. The majority of pairs in the tournament would have played 4NT as either plain Blackwood or RKCB for the known major.

[sanst]

I wonder:

If East for some odd reason known only to himself decided to bid 3NT with the intention to deliberately pass at his next turn to call whatever happens in between - under what circumstances (if any) can this be illegal?

 

(Please do not claim 'UI' without specifying the precise nature of that UI and who provided it.)

That is not illegal, but it’s far more likely that E forgot the agreement, was informed about that by the alert and explanation from W - which without any doubt is UI - and after some thinking decided to pass the 4NT. If he had deliberately decided to bid as you describe, there would be no reason to think after the 4NT bid. If I as director had to decide between your scenario, assuming that E told me so, and use of UI, I go for the latter. As TD you sometimes decide against a player who then is sad or mad at you because he really, really, REALLY didn’t use UI but became aware of his mistake completely on his own.

[sanst]

That is not illegal, but it’s far more likely that E forgot the agreement, was informed about that by the alert and explanation from W - which without any doubt is UI - and after some thinking decided to pass the 4NT. If he had deliberately decided to bid as you describe, there would be no reason to think after the 4NT bid. If I as director had to decide between your scenario, assuming that E told me so, and use of UI, I go for the latter. As TD you sometimes decide against a player who then is sad or mad at you because he really, really, REALLY didn’t use UI but became aware of his mistake completely on his own.

On second thought, it’s illegal, at least over here, since it’s a protected psych. Partner is forced to answer, but you have ruled out hearts.

[pran]

That is not illegal, but it’s far more likely that E forgot the agreement, was informed about that by the alert and explanation from W - which without any doubt is UI

Which implies that according to law 16 he may not now change his understanding according to this UI but must continue his own part of the auction according to how he had forgotten the agreements!

(He must, however, give opponents correct information by alerting and when asked about agreements.)

 

You continued:

- and after some thinking decided to pass the 4NT. If he had deliberately decided to bid as you describe, there would be no reason to think after the 4NT bid. If I as director had to decide between your scenario, assuming that E told me so, and use of UI, I go for the latter. As TD you sometimes decide against a player who then is sad or mad at you because he really, really, REALLY didn’t use UI but became aware of his mistake completely on his own.

I would rule that he had a legitimate reason for thinking whether to continue with his calls according to his mistake or (from now on) according to agreements.

His premises for the continued auction changed completely with the information he received, and it need not immediately be obvious to him in this situation when to keep "forgetting" the agreements and when to begin "remembering" them.

 

As always it is the duty for the Director to eventually rule on the question of possible damage.

[mycroft]

Bidding it, intending to pass any bid, is not illegal. That doesn't mean you won't get an adverse, correct, ruling.

 

In the presence of UI, if you can not convince the people involved in the decision that that was what you were doing, and not "I forgot and woke up when partner explained the agreement", they will rule based on the latter and you're trying one on. They might even say "What you say may have actually happened, but the Laws require me to...".

 

This applies whenever you make a deliberate anti-systemic bid, but more so when it is an Alertable one; you are almost certainly going to be in the presence of UI from partner, and then Law 16 applies.

 

But Law 16 talks about "logical alternatives" and those are defined in terms of peers playing your system and style. If you can convince the ruling people that you decided to psych this call, knowing what it meant, but sure you would survive any call they made (what about 4♣? 4♦?), then LAs are determined based on that style. The poll will go "you decide to bid 3NT knowing it means ... Partner bids [call]. What do you do?"

 

Again, this is much easier with self-Alerts, because you would explain it as a heart splinter when you made the 3NT call, and the director would know whether you psyched or forgot.

[blackshoe]

If he had deliberately decided to bid as you describe, there would be no reason to think after the 4NT bid.

Does East know that? Did he know that at the table? Or does East know that he has UI, and was thinking about the impact of that UI on his choice?