[blackshoe]

Let's just shoot any player who provides UI, in any form, to his partner. Then pretty soon we won't have this problem.

[dburn]

I have long argued that the penalty for a revoke should be death, for then the game would soon be played only by people who can follow suit, and the absurd revoke laws would be eliminated not by statute but by natural selection.

Still, it should be restated that the transmission of UI is not necessarily an infraction, nor is the receipt of it; the only infraction is to base an action directly on UI received.

It should, for completeness, also be stated that South's action in bidding 4♥ was very probably illegal - but the full hand is not shown, so I cannot make any definite pronouncement. What is clear, though, is that rhetorical pronouncements to the effect that "South doesn't have any UI" are... well, they are seriously in error even though they may not have been made by wild gamblers. At the very least, though, the people who made them owe AlexJonson an apology.

[campboy]

dburn, on 2011-March-11, 12:41, said:

South, who can work this out as well as you or I can, now has the UI that North has such a hand (or is cheating, but one does not presume that any more than one presumes partner is psyching).

South has that information, but why is it unauthorised?

[dburn]

campboy, on 2011-March-11, 20:32, said:

South has that information, but why is it unauthorised?

Because South has informed the entire table (including North) that North has a bad hand. North, who did not intend to show a bad hand but an invitational hand, may now not bid again unless he has a seriously good invitational hand (just as I may not without at least a very good 16 count bid 3NT after 1NT announced as weak - pass - 2NT invitational - pass, for we play a strong no trump at this vulnerability but partner forgot).

So, in the actual case, North may not bid 3♥ without a seriously good invitational hand (which was what he had - he had passed as dealer an eleven count with six hearts, forsooth). But South, who is in duty bound to consider that North might have a "mycroft" (a bad hand on which no one would actually bid, but with which at least one of South's peers is supposed to consider that North might bid), can't raise unless he would raise all "mycrofts" to game.

The actual South hand might have been such, but it has not been posted, so I cannot comment. I say only that I cannot conceive of a hand that would raise a "mycroft" (just competing, partner) that did not raise at its previous turn. Blackshoe and others owe AlexJonson an apology; the latter has a case even though he didn't know what it was, while the former have consistently talked nonsense even though they should not have done.

What is important is this:

if you make UI available to partner (as by hesitating, misexplaining one of his calls, or the like) then partner is constrained to take no action that is less pure than the driven snow; but

the conclusion that partner's action is squeaky clean is not authorised information to you. In fact, you are (probably, but Law 73 is not a model of clarity) obliged to treat it as tainted, with the constraints that go thereby.

As blackshoe (almost) wisely remarks, and as an eminent Director in years gone by really did remark, "play fast, don't cheat, and keep your kids out of the ballroom".

[aguahombre]

Not being the intellectual that Mr. Burn is, I don't understand throwing around of the term "cheating", nor the concept that if North has what South says he has, and chooses to make another call --he is doing something wrong.

It would seem to this simple soul that any hand which is actually invitational would have to pass with the UI that his (North's) bid was misconstrued....but any hand within the explanation can bid again. But, like I said....I am not clever enough to understand, and the comments by David seem to me like Orwellian double-think.

[campboy]

dburn, on 2011-March-11, 22:09, said:

the conclusion that partner's action is squeaky clean is not authorised information to you. In fact, you are (probably, but Law 73 is not a model of clarity) obliged to treat it as tainted, with the constraints that go thereby.

You don't answer my question, which was "why not?" Are the laws themselves, and their consequences, now to be treated as UI?

I don't see anything in law 73 which is relevant here. In particular law 73C, which begins "When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his partner", is not relevant, since South doesn't. The information you describe, even if unauthorised which I dispute, did not come from partner.

[dburn]

We will try a simpler example.

A competitive auction concludes: slow (non-forcing) pass by you; pass; double (penalty) by partner; all pass.

You know that your partner is an ethical player aware of his responsibilities under Laws 16 and 73. You know therefore that he would not double unless he had no logical alternative to that call.

But you may not therefore base the defence on the fact that partner has a rock-solid double, because that information is not authorised - you would not have it had you passed in tempo. Confronted by a choice between playing partner for a solid double and a marginal one, you have UI, and you in turn have responsibilities under Laws 16 and 73.

This isn't doublethink - this is obvious.

[blackshoe]

It may be obvious, and it may be a workable approach at the highest levels, but if you expect the average club player to even begin to be able to think this way, you're dreaming.

[peachy]

blackshoe, on 2011-March-13, 10:29, said:

It may be obvious, and it may be a workable approach at the highest levels, but if you expect the average club player to even begin to be able to think this way, you're dreaming.

Both you and dburn are right!
But what to do when the average club player does not see his obligation to not base his action on UI - I say, educate, and then make the appropriate ruling. IMO, it serves no purpose to let it slide if TD is called to the table and there are laws that prescribe a ruling. But that happens at clubs anyway when both sides engage in the same UI tactics in ignorance of the laws (or even just choosing to ignore them although aware) and TD is not called...

[campboy]

dburn, on 2011-March-13, 08:03, said:

We will try a simpler example.

A competitive auction concludes: slow (non-forcing) pass by you; pass; double (penalty) by partner; all pass.

You know that your partner is an ethical player aware of his responsibilities under Laws 16 and 73. You know therefore that he would not double unless he had no logical alternative to that call.

But you may not therefore base the defence on the fact that partner has a rock-solid double, because that information is not authorised - you would not have it had you passed in tempo. Confronted by a choice between playing partner for a solid double and a marginal one, you have UI, and you in turn have responsibilities under Laws 16 and 73.

This isn't doublethink - this is obvious.

The simplicity, or otherwise, of the example isn't the point. You keep telling us what the information is (and I have not disputed it) but keep failing to give any legal reason why it is unauthorised. If knowledge of the laws is authorised then it follows that knowledge of what they require of partner is also authorised. And even if it were unauthorised, since it does not come from partner, 16B and 73C would not be relevant.

[aguahombre]

Yeh, Camp. I think he is saying that knowledge of the rules is authorized. but knowledge that partner will follow the rules is not ---hence you are screwed no matter what you do.

And it is very true that the average club player would not grasp this concept. Nor am I sure we want them to.

[dburn]

dburn, on 2011-March-13, 08:03, said:

We will try a simpler example.

A competitive auction concludes: slow (non-forcing) pass by you; pass; double (penalty) by partner; all pass.

You know that your partner is an ethical player aware of his responsibilities under Laws 16 and 73. You know therefore that he would not double unless he had no logical alternative to that call.

But you may not therefore base the defence on the fact that partner has a rock-solid double, because that information is not authorised - you would not have it had you passed in tempo. Confronted by a choice between playing partner for a solid double and a marginal one, you have UI, and you in turn have responsibilities under Laws 16 and 73.

This isn't doublethink - this is obvious.

campboy, on 2011-March-13, 14:47, said:

The simplicity, or otherwise, of the example isn't the point. You keep telling us what the information is (and I have not disputed it) but keep failing to give any legal reason why it is unauthorised. If knowledge of the laws is authorised then it follows that knowledge of what they require of partner is also authorised. And even if it were unauthorised, since it does not come from partner, 16B and 73C would not be relevant.

Oh, Law 73C isn't particularly relevant. But this is:

Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007 said:

Law 73A1 Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of calls and plays.
Law 73A2 Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste.
Law 73B1 Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made...

Nor is Law 16B particularly relevant. But this is:

Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007 said:

Law 16A Players’ Use of Information

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

(a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board ... and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source [emphasis mine]

Now, in both the actual case and the example I have given, a player knows that his partner has no logical alternative to the action he has chosen. The player would not know this had he not misexplained his partner's call (in the actual case) or broken tempo (in my example). He cannot make use of this information, because it has occurred as a result of illegal communication and not solely as a result of legal calls and plays.

To be frank, I am somewhat baffled by campboy's position. Does he contend that as a result of illegal communication between partners, a player is allowed to possess and to use information that he would not otherwise possess and could not otherwise use? If not, what does he contend?

This assertion:

campboy, on 2011-March-13, 14:47, said:

If knowledge of the laws is authorised then it follows that knowledge of what they require of partner is also authorised.

is simply false; a player is not allowed to know anything about his partner's hand other than what the player can deduce from the legal calls and plays of the current board. He is certainly not allowed to know something that he can only deduce because of his own infraction (misinformation) or his own failure to follow correct procedure (passing slowly).

[blackshoe]

That somebody "can" deduce something does not mean that he did deduce it. Granted, that doesn't matter ("could have been suggested" in Law 16B3), but let's keep all the ducks aligned.

[campboy]

Are you deliberately trying to mislead with your quote of 16A1? The very next word in the law is "or"; a player may also use information "arising from the legal procedures authorised in these laws or regulations" (subject to law 16B1), among other things. Note that this phrase appears explicitly in the context of information which is not specified by the laws to be authorised (or not to be).

As to law 73, of course deliberately hesitating in order to constrain partner's action is illegal. However, I do not believe that unintentionally constraining partner's action is illegal, whether by hesitating or asking a question (which is mentioned later in 73B1). One could interpret law 73 that way of course, but I believe "communication" in this context refers to a deliberate act intended to pass information. Certainly I do not see how acting on information which has been passed can count as "communication"; if anything it is the passing of information, and hence the hesitation, whose legality might be questioned under this law.

[campboy]

dburn, on 2011-March-13, 15:48, said:

a player is not allowed to know anything about his partner's hand other than what the player can deduce from the legal calls and plays of the current board.

I believe there are situations where this is not the case. For example, 27B1a gives an example of where 16D does not apply to a withdrawn (illegal) call, and thus conventional wisdom is that said call is authorised. Your response may be that law 27B1a is ridiculous, and I would agree with that, but it does demonstrate that the above is not some universal principle from which we may deduce that information is UI.

[dburn]

campboy, on 2011-March-13, 16:48, said:

Are you deliberately trying to mislead with your quote of 16A1?

No.

campboy, on 2011-March-13, 16:48, said:

The very next word in the law is "or"; a player may also use information "arising from the legal procedures authorised in these laws or regulations" (subject to law 16B1), among other things. Note that this phrase appears explicitly in the context of information which is not specified by the laws to be authorised (or not to be).

Do you contend that a misexplanation is a legal procedure? It is becoming increasingly difficult for me to understand what you do contend, but it appears in simple terms to be this:

a player does something illegal (no doubt unintentionally); and
thereby acquires information that he would not have acquired had he not broken the Law; but
the player may base further action on that information, because it is authorised (or "not unauthorised").

If that is the case... well, the term "doublethink" has been used earlier, and seems appropriate.

campboy, on 2011-March-13, 16:48, said:

As to law 73, of course deliberately hesitating in order to constrain partner's action is illegal. However, I do not believe that unintentionally constraining partner's action is illegal, whether by hesitating or asking a question (which is mentioned later in 73B1).

No more do I. But this does not mean that partner's action is the only action that is constrained.

campboy, on 2011-March-13, 16:48, said:

One could interpret law 73 that way of course, but I believe "communication" in this context refers to a deliberate act intended to pass information. Certainly I do not see how acting on information which has been passed can count as "communication"; if anything it is the passing of information, and hence the hesitation, whose legality might be questioned under this law.

I believe that "communication" in this context refers to the transmission of information, whether intended or not. A player may bid, say, "four diamonds" to communicate the fact that in his judgement and according to his methods, four diamonds best describes his hand; such communication is of course legal. But the way in which he bids four diamonds will on occasion communicate his degree of certainty that four diamonds actually accords with his methods, or actually best describes his hand; such communication is of course illegal. Acting on information illegally communicated is also, of course, illegal.

Suppose partner doubles loudly (or, with bidding boxes, quickly and emphatically). Now you know what you are not entitled to know: he is sure he can beat the contract. You may not use this information. If partner doubles when to do so could have been suggested by some information you have illegally given him, he conveys illegally the information that he really has this double - he is in effect doubling loudly. You may not use this information either.

Of course, it may not matter very much - the guy has to do something, and if he really does have his double he is entitled to make it. But you are not entitled to use the information that he really has this double, since you came by it entirely as a result of your own side's infraction. Most of the time that won't matter either, but when it does, your actions are constrained.

[campboy]

dburn, on 2011-March-14, 04:33, said:

Do you contend that a misexplanation is a legal procedure?

No, I contend that what happens after a misexplanation is legal procedure, in particular the restrictions on partner's actions arise from legal procedure (ie the laws) and thus are authorised.

Quote

It is becoming increasingly difficult for me to understand what you do contend, but it appears in simple terms to be this:

a player does something illegal (no doubt unintentionally); and
thereby acquires information that he would not have acquired had he not broken the Law; but
the player may base further action on that information, because it is authorised (or "not unauthorised").

If that is the case... well, the term "doublethink" has been used earlier, and seems appropriate.

In the case of your hesitation example, I do not even agree that he has done something illegal. While I accept that a reading of law 73A and B which takes "communication" to be "anything which gives information, intentional or not" is reasonable (in isolation at least), and would imply that any break in tempo is illegal, I do not think it is the only reasonable interpretation of that word. Moreover I do not think the conclusion (any BIT is illegal) is one with which many people would agree, and I do not think it is consistent with 73D, which talks about unintentional variations of tempo or manner not necessarily being infractions, thus I prefer my interpretation.

Now certainly in the original case, by misexplaining, the player has broken the law. And I must admit that I had temporarily forgotten the cases were different! Even in the original case, though, I am not convinced that we can legally rule that the player has UI -- and the fact that we want to rule this way because we think the consequences might otherwise be unjust does not necessarily mean that the laws permit us to do so.

[bluejak]

There have been discussions in the past about the secondary effects of UI, namely that a player assumes that when he gives UI to his partner, his partner's actions will be legal and therefore not borderline in certain directions. However, others with whom I have discussed this and myself have tended to come to two conclusions:

• Theoretically, this should be illegal, and
  
• this is not illegal since the Laws nowhere make it illegal.

There also was a feeling that perhaps this was correct practically because it would be too complicated to police adequately.

However, I am interested in Burn's interpretation of Law 16A1A:

Quote

A player may use information in the auction or play if:
(a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source

I fancy he is right and that this makes such "reverse UI" illegal. Theoretically correct, certainly, maybe difficult to rule, but that is not really the point: we decide how to rule correctly here, and this is the Law that makes it illegal. I do not think Laws 16B, 16C or 73C apply, since the UI is from the player who is using it, so any ruling under Law 16A1A will need to be adjusted via Law 12A1.

Why has it taken so long to decide this? Simple, because it is a change in the Law. If you compare the 1997 Laws, Law 16 [first sentence] has no mention of "unaffected by unauthorized information from another source" so in my view use of reverse UI is illegal, but only since the 2007 Laws applied.

[aguahombre]

I don't know how we got to misinformation, from my original post. Opener's explanation was in accord with their agreement to play weak J.S. responses, as written on their card. Sorry if I failed to mention this. I did not see that any poster asked that question, either.

Somehow, responder decided it didn't apply when he was a passed hand. 2H was a misbid, brought to his attention by the correct explanation.

Certainly we should all agree that if opener had misexplained 2H, or explained his "guess" with no actual agreement, then he would be toast if he used his own misinformation in combination with another bid by partner to act further.

[dburn]

For clarity: I do not believe that it is always an infraction of Law to vary one's tempo; the Law speaks of "undue hesitation", whereas time taken to consider a difficult problem may be regarded as "due hesitation". But a player who transmits information by the manner in which he acts, over and above the information transmitted by the action itself, may nonetheless be a guilty party in the matter of illegal communication.

As I have said, in the normal run of events when a player P takes an action X, his partner knows only that X is the action that in P's mind best describes P's hand. Of course, depending on who P is and the circumstances surrounding X, his partner may know a great deal more, but no such information is authorised. That is, after all, the objective of Laws 16, 73, and one or two others.

There is a difference, and it may be a considerable difference in some cases, between "this call is partner's best attempt to describe his hand" and "this call is partner's best attempt to comply with Laws 16 and 73". The former information is authorised, because the Laws say so. The latter isn't, because the Laws say so: the information does not arise from legal procedures (it arises from legal processes, or from legal proceedings, but these are not the same thing at all as legal procedures); and of course it is affected by unauthorised information from another source.