BBO Discussion Forums: MI/UI - BBO Discussion Forums

blackshoe, on 2015-March-11, 19:13, said:

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.

helene_t, on 2015-March-11, 07:47, said:

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

blackshoe, on 2015-March-12, 02:29, said:

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

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

lamford, on 2015-March-12, 06:01, said:

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}.

lamford, on 2015-March-09, 16:59, said:

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?

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.

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.

toukie, on 2015-March-13, 10:04, said:

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.

VixTD, on 2015-March-13, 12:22, said:

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

lamford, on 2015-March-10, 19:38, said:

Law 16A said:

Law 73D said:

gnasher, on 2015-March-12, 06:40, said:

Why do you not answer, blackshoe?

Vampyr, on 2015-March-13, 20:50, said:

Because I didn't see the post.

Having looked back through the thread, I see that I objected to your characterization of Kaplan's efforts as sacrificing clarity for elegance, and Grattan's as sacrificing clarity "just for the hell of it". I suppose you might have a point about the former — I never met Edgar Kaplan, so I don't know what his motivation was — but although I've not met Grattan either (except online, if that counts) I doubt very much if anyone involved in writing the rules for a game would do that.

blackshoe, on 2015-March-13, 21:38, said:

What do you suppose is the reason, then?

jallerton, on 2015-March-13, 16:30, said:

The director call is authorized and any ruling by the director is authorized. However, inferences as to why the TD was called are not. Otherwise, someone would have to call the TD every time a bid was not alerted in order to defend oneself against deliberately not alerting and seeing which opponent is unhappy.

Vampyr, on 2015-March-14, 05:31, said:

I don't.

Is this 3♦ bid alertable? In the absence of an alert one would understand it to show something in diamonds, but usually not 4+ cards. And the actual agreement is much the same as that, except that N-S have agreed that it promises a diamond honour. I don't think that's enough of a difference to constitute an alertable agreement, not least because an alert would tend to mislead opponents into thinking that it's an artificial call - that puts them at a disadvantage if West wants to double an artificial 3♦ but not a semi-natural 3♦.

But suppose that we eventually persuade ourselves that this 3♦ is alertable, what of it? Well, the fact of the director call, and the identity of the caller, should be UI. But if West voluntarily broadcasts information by asking to talk to the director away from the table, on his own head be it - that should be AI to declarer and UI to East.

Alternatively, if you think it unreasonable to expect West to know the proper procedure, surely it's more unreasonable to expect North to know that you're going to rule the 3♦ bid to be alertable.

Most unreasonable of all is to expect declarer to guess that you're going to rule West's actions to be UI to him. If the TD thinks there's UI, he has to tell declarer so before he plays the hand.

blackshoe, on 2015-March-14, 08:17, said:

Well, obviously the Drafting Committee have either the inability or an unwillingness to express themselves clearly in English. If you don't want to speculate which it is, that's understandable. I think that knowing which it is could help someone who is in a position to influence the writing of the next version (maybe not you or I, but maybe someone we know or could write to) to try to ensure that a clear and unambiguous set of laws is produced.

lamford, on 2015-March-14, 06:04, said:

Maybe that is why the Law requires the TD to be called whenever an explanation is corrected (or a call is alerted late).

Once the TD has been called, the TD is in charge of the table. The Law does not confer any right to a player to ask to speak to the TD away from the table, and the TD did not ask the player to leave the table (so that is not part of the TD call). The Law I quoted above does permit players to draw inferences from the opponents' actions. I suspect that West probably didn't realise at the time that his request was giving information away about his hand.