[pran]

Pict, on Aug 20 2010, 08:54 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Aug 19 2010, 05:21 PM, said:

You said "I don't get the sense that this is an area of established interpretation". That's what I was referring to when I said "then you're not paying attention". We are telling you what is the established interpretation. You don't want to believe us. Fine. That's your choice. But I think you will find, sooner or later, that it's going to bite you in the ass.

Dull evening so:

Do the UI Laws apply to play of the cards as well as bidding?.

Of course they do.

Pict, on Aug 20 2010, 08:54 PM, said:

I lead an unintended card at trick 1 and I'm alerted by partner's explanation of our lead style to the fact that I played the wrong card.

Do I spend the rest of the play assuming that a card in my hand is not really there??.

Why should you? You know what you have done, but you are forbidden later in the play to base your play on the UI you have received from your partner. You may for instance not complete a card signal differently from what you started because this UI alerted you that you were about to give partner a wrong signal.

Pict, on Aug 20 2010, 08:54 PM, said:

I'm aware I could more easily get away this in the play, but let's assume active ethics.

[Pict]

pran, on Aug 20 2010, 05:11 PM, said:

Pict, on Aug 20 2010, 08:54 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Aug 19 2010, 05:21 PM, said:

You said "I don't get the sense that this is an area of established interpretation". That's what I was referring to when I said "then you're not paying attention". We are telling you what is the established interpretation. You don't want to believe us. Fine. That's your choice. But I think you will find, sooner or later, that it's going to bite you in the ass.

Dull evening so:

Do the UI Laws apply to play of the cards as well as bidding?.

Of course they do.

Pict, on Aug 20 2010, 08:54 PM, said:

I lead an unintended card at trick 1 and I'm alerted by partner's explanation of our lead style to the fact that I played the wrong card.

Do I spend the rest of the play assuming that a card in my hand is not really there??.

Why should you? You know what you have done, but you are forbidden later in the play to base your play on the UI you have received from your partner. You may for instance not complete a card signal differently from what you started because this UI alerted you that you were about to give partner a wrong signal.

Pict, on Aug 20 2010, 08:54 PM, said:

I'm aware I could more easily get away this in the play, but let's assume active ethics.

Pran, this is a bit of a boring post because it's all about obvious errors.

But what on earth did you mean by your reply?

I intend to lead (H)onour v the opponents contract.

In fact I lead x.

Partner's explanation of our lead style alerts me to look and see I lead x.

At trick 2 I get the lead.

Can make my original lead ((H)onour). Am I allowed to know I have (H)onour any more than I am allowed to know my bid card says 1NT and not 1S.

It's probably a good thing that we limit the obsessive arguments to bidding rather than play, but the Laws, so far as I know, don't approve this convenient TD job creation scheme.

[pran]

Pict, on Aug 21 2010, 09:16 PM, said:

pran, on Aug 20 2010, 05:11 PM, said:

Pict, on Aug 20 2010, 08:54 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Aug 19 2010, 05:21 PM, said:

You said "I don't get the sense that this is an area of established interpretation". That's what I was referring to when I said "then you're not paying attention". We are telling you what is the established interpretation. You don't want to believe us. Fine. That's your choice. But I think you will find, sooner or later, that it's going to bite you in the ass.

Dull evening so:

Do the UI Laws apply to play of the cards as well as bidding?.

Of course they do.

Pict, on Aug 20 2010, 08:54 PM, said:

I lead an unintended card at trick 1 and I'm alerted by partner's explanation of our lead style to the fact that I played the wrong card.

Do I spend the rest of the play assuming that a card in my hand is not really there??.

Why should you? You know what you have done, but you are forbidden later in the play to base your play on the UI you have received from your partner. You may for instance not complete a card signal differently from what you started because this UI alerted you that you were about to give partner a wrong signal.

Pict, on Aug 20 2010, 08:54 PM, said:

I'm aware I could more easily get away this in the play, but let's assume active ethics.

Pran, this is a bit of a boring post because it's all about obvious errors.

But what on earth did you mean by your reply?

I intend to lead (H)onour v the opponents contract.

In fact I lead x.

Partner's explanation of our lead style alerts me to look and see I lead x.

At trick 2 I get the lead.

Can make my original lead ((H)onour). Am I allowed to know I have (H)onour any more than I am allowed to know my bid card says 1NT and not 1S.

It's probably a good thing that we limit the obsessive arguments to bidding rather than play, but the Laws, so far as I know, don't approve this convenient TD job creation scheme.

Sure you can.

What you may not do is to (later in the play) select a play that "could be suggested over another alternative play" from the unauthorized information conveyed to you by partners explanation to opponents.

I think the best example of such an illegal play is if you initially led (say) the 3 from 5 3 2 initiating a high-low signal that you have led from an odd number of cards in that suit.

If your partner's explanation to your opponents wakes you up to the fact that a high-low signal in this position actually indicates an even number of cards it will now be a violation of Law 16B1 if you next time you play a card in that suit plays the 5 rather than the 2 since playing the 5 now is suggested over playing the 2 by the "wakeup" from your partner.

I hope this makes my first post clear?

[PeterAlan]

Let's take this really slowly, if only for dummies like me, go back to the original question and summarise what appears to be the received view.

(Actually not the original question, which (the heading) was "Is the auction AI?", and the answer to which seems for the reasons below unequivocally to be Yes, but instead the one in the OP.)

First, it seems to be accepted that at the time of partner's announcement it is legal for the opener to be woken up to the fact that (s)he has actually bid 1NT rather than 1♠ and (s)he could have changed the bid immediately under Law 25A. (See, for example, gordontd's post at the foot of the first page.) Had (s)he done so, other considerations would not have arisen.

I can't actually tell where chapter and verse has been given on the basis for this, but it seems clear enough (see below) that Law 16A1[c] allows for the wake-up, and the rest follows in the normal way.

On that basis, it (the fact of having bid 1NT) is therefore what is loosely called Authorised Information (a term which, like Unauthorised Information, does not not appear in the Definitions section and which therefore derives from the construction of the Laws) to opener. However, this does not mean that UI considerations can no longer come into play.

The question arises of whether other actions of opener are constrained by the information in the announcement; in particular, whether it is also Unauthorised Information to him/her for the purposes of Law 16B. The received view, if I have understood it correctly, is:

(1) It is indeed possible for information to be both Authorised (for the purposes of, say, Law 16A1[c]) and Unauthorised (for the purposes of, say, Law 16B1). This has caused some surprise to those like me who naively regarded the terms as mutually exclusive ; and

(2) It was UI for the purposes of opener's response to the 2♦ transfer, and for the remainder of the auction (subject to the usual caveats).

I've been careful in the way I've drawn the above, because I think, for example, that the first paragraph of David's characterisation below was misleading:

bluejak, on Aug 17 2010, 08:29 AM, said:

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.

I think it is absolutely clear that an Announcement is authorised information - Law 161A[c] says so explicitly:

"1. A player may use information in the auction or play if:

...

[c] it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorised or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorised in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following); or ..."

As I read this, the announcement is information "arising from the legal procedures authorised in these laws and regulations", so is explicitly authorised, but the parenthesised caveat deals with the point that it may also be UI for purposes covered by Law16B1. Those purposes cover choices of call or play by the recipient subsequent to the receipt of UI.

Because of the way that the Laws are worded it seems to me that one must deal with the AI / UI question in the way I have above (and David did in his second paragraph), allowing information to be AI for some purpose(s) yet UI for other(s), rather than by way of David's dichotomy "it contains information, so it must be authorised or unauthorised". It was naively accepting this dichotomy that led to my earlier quick and erroneous post. The more nuanced approach seems to be necessary, and is of course at the very least clearly implicit in many of the posts above, and virtually explicit in some. And as dburn makes clear, even if you have prior AI, receiving the same information subsequently as UI brings you within the Law 16B constraints.

OK, that deals with what I believe the general consensus of the thread to have been. If I'm wrong, and still missing something, I'd be grateful if someone would make clear what it is, because I'm really struggling if so, and I'm the man at the Clapham bridge table.

On a detail, and with my tongue only slightly in my cheek, may I just question the immediate assumption that the announcement was UI for the purposes of Law 16B? We're treating announcements as a special kind of alert, and that Law refers to extraneous information made available by partner through "for example, ... an unexpected alert" with a footnote clarifying that "unexpected" means "unexpected in relation to the basis of his action". If we're taking a truly forensic approach to the Laws, does the announcement meet the test? It's not "unexpected" in relation to the "basis of his action", namely the 1NT bid that we've put on the table and left there.

Now let's suppose that opener exercised their Law 25 right and changed the opening bid from 1NT to 1♠ (having been woken up by the announcement, but before partner bids of course). How is opener to treat a bid of 2♦ by partner now? Is it UI to you that partner's bid now means diamonds and not a transfer to hearts, and if not, why not? After all, it's still UI that your partner announced the erroneous 1NT.

The logic of the thread would seem to suggest that despite being able to able to wake yourself up enough to change your call you can't base your subsequent calls on the knowledge that you've done so, since the knowledge that partner's 2♦ bid now really means diamonds derives from the UI of the original announcement.

Finally, may I mention again the second sentence of the Introduction to the Laws (which "for the avoidance of doubt ... form part of the Laws"): "[The Laws] are primarily designed not as a punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged." In a case such as this, where an inadvertent mistake has led to an easily-rectifiable position in which no damage has occured, it is surely appropriate to seek an interpretation that allows normal play to continue rather than to impose deliberate bidding misunderstandings on one side. The Laws start before Law 1, and we do ourselves no favours when we forget this.

PeterAlan

[blackshoe]

PeterAlan, on Aug 23 2010, 12:53 PM, said:

The logic of the thread would seem to suggest that despite being able to able to wake yourself up enough to change your call you can't base your subsequent calls on the knowledge that you've done so, since the knowledge that partner's 2♦ bid now really means diamonds derives from the UI of the original announcement.

Here, I think, is where you've gone wrong. When you change your call under Law 25A, it is because you didn't intend to bid 1NT in the first place, so the Law allows you to change it. However, since you never intended to bid 1NT, it is as if you'd never made that call in the first place. The meaning of partner's 2♦ call does not depend at all on your 1NT, or on partner's announcment, it depends solely on the fact that you bid, and partner is replying to, 1♠. Of course, that would not be the case had partner bid 2♦ before you changed your call, but then if he had, you wouldn't have been allowed to change it.

[bluejak]

Sorry, PeterAlan: I do not agree with you: I still think it completely clear that partner's Announcement is Unauthorised Information. The fact that you are allowed to use it [and other things that might seem strange] to avoid an unintended call from becoming part of the legal auction is inconsistent, true, but it does not make Unauthorised Information authorised.

[pran]

bluejak, on Aug 24 2010, 12:17 AM, said:

Sorry, PeterAlan: I do not agree with you: I still think it completely clear that partner's Announcement is Unauthorised Information. The fact that you are allowed to use it [and other things that might seem strange] to avoid an unintended call from becoming part of the legal auction is inconsistent, true, but it does not make Unauthorised Information authorised.

But in a case like this maybe irrelevant? (as it concerns a call that by definition was never made)