[mjj29]

So, looking at the laws concerned, L16A1 lists a number of legal sources of information, including "the legal calls and plays of the current board", which the 1NT definitely is, with the proviso that it be unaffected by other unauthorised information. L16A3 then goes on to say that other information is extraneous. L16B1(a) says "after a player makes available to his parner extraneous information..." (emphasis mine), which suggests that partner making the legal auction available to you by way of a question doesn't cause a problem for you using that information.

Certainly I think this is the most sane route to take - he's already misbid, do you want to punish him more? (yes, this may end up as a fortunate disaster, but those happen all the time with misbids where they aren't woken up and we don't penalise those).

[gordontd]

nige1, on Aug 16 2010, 05:38 PM, said:

When play was ended, the opening bidder said "I meant to open 1♠ - I thought I had opened 1♠ ". As an opponent, since attention had been drawn to a (putative) infraction, I called the director (although it would not affect our score and I intended to ask the director to waive any penalty). After hearing the facts, the director ruled that there were no grounds for considering an adjustment and asked about what I was complaning. I asked the director whether the "12-14" announcement was authorised information to opener. If not, was Opener obliged to bid as if 2♦ was natural (athough, of course, I accept that he must announce it as "hearts"). The director said No. I asked the director to consult with colleagues. When that request was refused, I asked to appeal the ruling (just to clarify the matter). This request was also denied because "It is a matter of Law". But I still wonder if that is right.

What you don't say is that you then brought it to my attention (although someone else had already asked me) and my colleagues and I discussed it at some length. It was that discussion that led to the original post of this thread.

[gordontd]

mjj29, on Aug 16 2010, 05:39 PM, said:

So, looking at the laws concerned, L16A1 lists a number of legal sources of information, including "the legal calls and plays of the current board", which the 1NT definitely is, with the proviso that it be unaffected by other unauthorised information.

But the knowledge of the auction has been affected by other unauthorised information, namely the announcement.

Quote

L16A1 player may use information in the auction or play if:
-c- 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)

Quote

L16B1. (a) After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark,a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

[nige1]

gordontd, on Aug 16 2010, 11:48 AM, said:

What you don't say is that you then brought it to my attention (although someone else had already asked me) and my colleagues and I discussed it at some length. It was that discussion that led to the original post of this thread.

Sorry, Gordon. I should have said that when the tournament was finished, I asked Gordon for his opinion which resulted in the original post. (I explained that I did not want an adjustment, just an interpretation). I mistakenly thought that had been covered in later posts.

The atmosphere of Brighton is always friendly and relaxed. Directors are helpful, diligent, efficient and polite. I have no complaints about the behaviour of directors.

It is the laws of Bridge that are at fault. For example, the laws are unnecessarily complex, subjective, and incomplete. They bamboozle directors and players alike. If I have time I may give some more examples.

[bluejak]

pran, on Aug 16 2010, 03:47 PM, said:

How can you tell the difference between a (deliberate) psyche and a misbid when the offender makes no attempt to obtain a Law25A correction and thereby apparently pretends that his misbid was deliberate?

Ask him? We are discussing what the Law is here. If you think there is a difficulty in collecting facts it is not necessarily apparent, but more importantly it does not seem relevant. You do not say "I have decided not to rule in this case because it was too difficult to determine the facts".

Of course his failure to ask for a correction does not in any way "pretend" he means something nor that he will lie to you. He may have thought he was out of time for a change, he may have been out of time for a change, he may not understand Law 25A. To assume he is going to be dishonest without finding out the facts at all seems pretty unfair.

pran, on Aug 16 2010, 03:47 PM, said:

There is one fundamental rule in bridge that every player should know: In case of an irregularity you should call the Director and let him sort out the difficulties.

Whoopee. There is one fundamental rule in bridge that every TD should know: in case of an irregularity players often try to sort it out themselves and mess it up for you. But it neither alters what the Law actually is nor reduces your responsibility to sort out players' messes.

pran, on Aug 16 2010, 03:47 PM, said:

South might be ignorant of Law 25A but he has little or no excuse for not knowing the above rule.

He does not need an 'excuse': it is a fact that players regularly do not call the TD when they should for any number of reasons, and assuming it is one specific reason without enquiring does not seem a reasonable way to progress.

pran, on Aug 16 2010, 03:47 PM, said:

As a director in the OP case I would delay my ruling until I know if EW has any case for claiming damage. Then if I find that they have I shall most probably adjust the result on the board as I find equitable.

Damage? You won't even tell us what the Law is in your view!

nige1, on Aug 16 2010, 05:38 PM, said:

I asked the director to consult with colleagues. When that request was refused, I asked to appeal the ruling (just to clarify the matter). This request was also denied because "It is a matter of Law". But I still wonder if that is right.

Whatever the TD may have said, it was discussed with colleagues at the time - at least one, any way. But of course you should have been allowed to appeal, and I have reminded the TD of this.

[mjj29]

gordontd, on Aug 16 2010, 12:01 PM, said:

mjj29, on Aug 16 2010, 05:39 PM, said:

So, looking at the laws concerned, L16A1 lists a number of legal sources of information, including "the legal calls and plays of the current board", which the 1NT definitely is, with the proviso that it be unaffected by other unauthorised information.

But the knowledge of the auction has been affected by other unauthorised information, namely the announcement.

Quote

L16A1A player may use information in the auction or play if:
-c- 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)

Quote

L16B1. (a) After a player makes available to his partner extraneousinformation that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark,a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

My (somewhat tenuous) point was that it's not _extraneous_ information, therefore isn't covered by L16C, therefore doesn't constrain your actions

[gordontd]

mjj29, on Aug 17 2010, 08:33 AM, said:

My (somewhat tenuous) point was that it's not _extraneous_ information, therefore isn't covered by L16C, therefore doesn't constrain your actions

The information in question derives from the legal calls of the current board, but it's not unaffected by unauthorised information from another source, and so it is extraneous by my reading of the Laws.

[bluejak]

mjj29, on Aug 17 2010, 08:33 AM, said:

My (somewhat tenuous) point was that it's not _extraneous_ information, therefore isn't covered by L16C, therefore doesn't constrain your actions

Are you suggesting an Announcement is authorised information to you? Because it contains information, so it must be authorised or unauthorised - and I think you will be pushed to demonstrate it is authorised.

You are falling into the old trap of assuming that where there is AI it 'cancels' or 'subverts' or something UI. But the Law gives you instruction what to do when you have UI from partner but it does not mention UI in that Law so applies whether there is AI or not.

[nige1]

The consensus here (and among other legal experts whom I consulted) is that information from partner's announcement is authorised and you may use it for any purpose. Hence GordonTD, BlueJak, and a few others are outnumbered. Remarkably and unusually, however, to me the relevant rules seem fairly simple and clear, and the majority appears to be out of step.

[blackshoe]

It has always seemed to me that an announcement is a kind of alert, so it boggles my mind that "legal experts" would opine that announcements are always AI. Do they say the same of alerts, Nigel?

[nige1]

blackshoe, on Aug 17 2010, 10:01 AM, said:

It has always seemed to me that an announcement is a kind of alert, so it boggles my mind that "legal experts" would opine that announcements are always AI. Do they say the same of alerts, Nigel?

I believe they're legal experts but it is possible that I overstate their views in the general case; anyway, in this case, they think the opener can use the information from the announcement to alert him to the fact that he opened 1N rather than 1♠; and to conduct the rest of the auction from that revised viewpoint. Nevertheless, the prevalence of widespread (but I believe) erroneous interpretations help players like me to understand why we get such peculiar rulings.

[PeterAlan]

Surely ALL announcements must be authorised information to partner as well as opponents: for example, partner has to be able to correct them (at the appropriate time) if they are erroneous. Let's not start suggesting that they're authorised for some purposes but not others.

At risk of provoking wrath, it seems to me we're in danger of getting into angel-pinhead interface issues in this thread. Even normal, real-world law brings a certain amount of common sense to bear ...

PeterAlan

[bluejak]

It is not a question of angels and pins: it is a question of the absolute basics of UI. Of course you can use UI for some purposes and not others.

When you make a bid, your partner explains it, and you know from the explanation you have got it wrong, it is well known among "Laws experts", almost everyone else who has read RGB, BLML or IBLF regularly, not to mention readers of all English national bridge magazines, that you are required to bid as though partner has not woken you up, but you should alert and explain following your actual agreements. Thus it is well known that you use UI for one thing and not another.

If you care to look at the Laws, you will discover it is illegal to give MI, and it is illegal to use UI in your choice of calls or plays. Nowhere in the Law book does it make it legal to give MI by not using UI nor is it illegal to use UI for the purpose of informing opponents correctly.

This is of considerable importance and people must understand this distinction. Please do not make the mistake of thinking there is anything trivial in this.

[PeterAlan]

Point taken, David - it was a quick reaction to the thread.

PeterAlan

[dburn]

I am not sure I fully understand the problem here. Whether or not the announcement constitutes UI to the opener that he has misbid, it certainly constitutes UI to the opener that his partner has hearts and not diamonds. Thus, if he has for example:

♠AQJxx ♥xx ♦Kxxx ♣Kx

he is in duty bound to "raise" diamonds, not to rebid 2♥.

[Pict]

But if partner fails to announce (as some of mine do) and RHO says 'how strong is the 1NT' - as they invariably do, now I am in the clear?

[bluejak]

Very sneaky.

Not if I am directing!

If your partner commits an infraction I do not expect you to gain from it. So, while it may not be a UI case per se, I shall adjust somehow: I am not going to let you be in a better position by not following the Laws & Regulations.

Of course, if I held the 1♠/1NT hand now I would be in no doubt as to the ethical approach, and as dburn says I would raise or whatever is suitable.

[gordontd]

Pict, on Aug 17 2010, 10:49 PM, said:

But if partner fails to announce (as some of mine do) and RHO says 'how strong is the 1NT' - as they invariably do, now I am in the clear?

L16B1. (a) includes "a reply to a question" in its list of sources of extraneous information partner might make available.

[Pict]

gordontd, on Aug 17 2010, 05:12 PM, said:

Pict, on Aug 17 2010, 10:49 PM, said:

But if partner fails to announce (as some of mine do) and RHO says 'how strong is the 1NT' - as they invariably do, now I am in the clear?

L16B1. (a) includes "a reply to a question" in its list of sources of extraneous information partner might make available.

Interesting, but I am sure that I will have looked at my bidding cards before partner replies to opponents question, Gordon.

I remain convinced that this a 'change the Laws' topic.

I personally would not try to change my bid as a result of my failure to look at the cards from the bidding box. Pran may think me an idiot. Bluejak may think me a target.

I'm not breaking any rules, and I feel comfortable with my ethics.

And I know that I look at the bidding on the table many times in the auction.

For the logicians, are the statements:

'I may know I bid 1NT because partner says it is true.'

'I do know I bid 1NT because I looked at the table and my bid was there.'

of equal evidential validity?

[dburn]

Suppose that you really do open 1♠ and partner announces "12-14" before responding 2♦. What are your legal responsibilities in this case?