[barmar]

elwood913, on Jan 9 2009, 02:57 PM, said:

It is my understanding that E is entitled to be "woken up" by a correct alert and/or explanation, and that this does not constitute UI. A correct explanation of the partnership's agreements can remind a player of those agreements and he can act on this knowledge in all further bidding without penalty -- it is not UI. The palyer who misbid must alert and explain his partner's bids as responses to flannery, but does not need to continue to bid his hand as if he doesn't know the meaning of his partner's bids, or as if his own hand is something that it isn't.

Sorry, this is incorrect. Partner's alerts and explanations are UI to him. What makes this complicated is that he's allowed to be "partially" woken up. He should explain his partner's bids in accordance with their agreements, which he's now been reminded of, so that opponents get the same explanations as they would if they read his system notes (for the purposes of discussion, you can assume that the partnership has detailed system notes). But he must continue to bid his hand as if he hadn't heard the alert or explanation -- imagine that you're playing behind screens, or on the Internet with self-alerts.

Screens actually complicate things in a different way. Since you don't hear partner's alerts you never get woken up at all, and you end up giving your screenmate different explanations than the other screenmate. This has resulted in some difficult director calls and appeals in high level competitions.

[Lobowolf]

elwood913, on Jan 9 2009, 02:57 PM, said:

It is my understanding that E is entitled to be "woken up" by a correct alert and/or explanation, and that this does not constitute UI. A correct explanation of the partnership's agreements can remind a player of those agreements and he can act on this knowledge in all further bidding without penalty -- it is not UI.

I gave up directing a few years back for law school, and I haven't read the new revisions to the rules, but my recollection is that this is incorrect. Authorized information comes from legal calls and plays, and from the mannerisms/tone of voice/etc of the OPPONENTS. Unauthorized information comes from partner in the form of pretty much everything that isn't a legal bid or play, including comments, answers to questions, etc.

I could be mistaken...do you have a source for correct explanations being authorized information?

[MFA]

elwood913, on Jan 9 2009, 02:57 PM, said:

It is my understanding that E is entitled to be "woken up" by a correct alert and/or explanation, and that this does not constitute UI. A correct explanation of the partnership's agreements can remind a player of those agreements and he can act on this knowledge in all further bidding without penalty -- it is not UI.

Unfortunately, the rules are not like that.
Alerts and explanations from partner are UI, even if they are correct and according to the system. This is a problem when one has misbid in situations like this.

[Lobowolf]

barmar, on Jan 9 2009, 03:45 PM, said:

elwood913, on Jan 9 2009, 02:57 PM, said:

It is my understanding that E is entitled to be "woken up" by a correct alert and/or explanation, and that this does not constitute UI. A correct explanation of the partnership's agreements can remind a player of those agreements and he can act on this knowledge in all further bidding without penalty -- it is not UI.  The palyer who misbid must alert and explain his partner's bids as responses to flannery, but does not need to continue to bid his hand as if he doesn't know the meaning of his partner's bids, or as if his own hand is something that it isn't.

Sorry, this is incorrect. Partner's alerts and explanations are UI to him. What makes this complicated is that he's allowed to be "partially" woken up. He should explain his partner's bids in accordance with their agreements, which he's now been reminded of, so that opponents get the same explanations as they would if they read his system notes (for the purposes of discussion, you can assume that the partnership has detailed system notes). But he must continue to bid his hand as if he hadn't heard the alert or explanation -- imagine that you're playing behind screens, or on the Internet with self-alerts.

Screens actually complicate things in a different way. Since you don't hear partner's alerts you never get woken up at all, and you end up giving your screenmate different explanations than the other screenmate. This has resulted in some difficult director calls and appeals in high level competitions.

Yes, partner can be "woken up" by a BID that suggests he got it wrong. For instance, if I got stoned one night and agreed to play natural NF 2-level responses, and we had the auction (partner opens):
1NT - (P) - 2H (intended by me as a transfer) - (P)
P - (balance) - ??

If partner explained (correctly) that 2H was to play in our system, I can't be awakened by his explanation, but his pass of my intended transfer would sure wake me up, and I'll take further action.

Having said that, though, there's still a UI issue...if partner had said "It's a transfer" (as I'd intended), and passed anyway, then presumably the reasonable inference is that partner psyched, and under such conditions, I wouldn't be bidding spades at the 3 level.

[blackshoe]

Echognome, on Jan 9 2009, 03:01 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Jan 9 2009, 10:52 AM, said:

You do that, Fluffy, and the director will throw you out of the tournament.

I think you are reading to much into his words. He means figuratively he will be thankful that his RHO has exposed his misbid/psych/whatever, so he can bid the game he always wanted to bid.

Hm. That's fair enough. Sorry, Fluffy.

[blackshoe]

Lobowolf, on Jan 9 2009, 04:53 PM, said:

Yes, partner can be "woken up" by a BID that suggests he got it wrong. For instance, if I got stoned one night and agreed to play natural NF 2-level responses, and we had the auction (partner opens):
1NT - (P) - 2H (intended by me as a transfer) - (P)
P - (balance) - ??

If partner explained (correctly) that 2H was to play in our system, I can't be awakened by his explanation, but his pass of my intended transfer would sure wake me up, and I'll take further action.

Having said that, though, there's still a UI issue...if partner had said "It's a transfer" (as I'd intended), and passed anyway, then presumably the reasonable inference is that partner psyched, and under such conditions, I wouldn't be bidding spades at the 3 level.

If you're stoned, you're likely to do just about anything.

Suppose the auction goes as you say, but partner doesn't say anything (no announcement or alert) when you bid 2♥. You now have UI. That UI may constrain your further action, even when a subsequent call from partner conveys the same information. You still have to consider whether the UI could demonstrably suggest anything, and whether you have LAs to the action you would like to take. In this particular case, you would need to have no LA to your further action, if that action is suggested by UI.