[blackshoe]

What do you think?

[mrdct]

 blackshoe, on 2011-June-08, 07:34, said:

Calling the director is a legal procedure authorized in the laws (see Law 9). Per Law 16A1{c}, information arising from such procedures is authorized.

You conveniently omitted the qualifier "but see B1 following" which clearly brings a director call and the related questions and comments by partner into the "extraneous information" camp.

[blackshoe]

 mrdct, on 2011-June-09, 02:57, said:

You conveniently omitted the qualifier "but see B1 following" which clearly brings a director call and the related questions and comments by partner into the "extraneous information" camp.

"Conveniently", is it? You should go into politics, or "journalism". You're really good at sly innuendos.

I do not agree that the reference to B1 "Clearly brings a director call… into the 'extraneous information' camp". As for "related questions and comments", we weren't talking about that, but only the call itself. At least, that's all I was talking about.

[Phil]

 mrdct, on 2011-June-09, 02:57, said:

You conveniently omitted the qualifier "but see B1 following" which clearly brings a director call and the related questions and comments by partner into the "extraneous information" camp.

Emphasis mine

Quote

LAW 9
Procedure Following An Irregularity

A. drawing Attention to an irregularity

1. unless prohibited by law, any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call.

2. unless prohibited by law, declarer or either defender may draw attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period. For incorrectly pointed card see Law 65B3.

3. When an irregularity has occurred, dummy may not draw attention to it during the play period but may do so after play of the hand is concluded. Any player, however, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43).

4. there is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one’s own side (but see Law 20F5 for correction of partner’s apparently mistaken explanation).

B. After Attention is drawn to an irregularity

1. (a) the director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity.

(b) Any player, including dummy, may summon the director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity.

( c ) Summoning the director does not cause a player to forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be entitled.

(d) the fact that a player draws attention to an irregularity committed by his side does not
affect the rights of the opponents.

2. no player shall take any action until the director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

c. Premature correction of an irregularity

Any premature correction of an irregularity by the offender may subject him to a further rectification (see the lead restrictions in Law 26).

and...

Quote

16.

A. 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 (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source;

or
(b) it is authorized information from a withdrawn action (see d below); or

© 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 below); or

(d) it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information.

2. Players may also take account of their estimate of their own score, of the traits of their opponents and any requirement of the tournament regulations.

3. no player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous).

4. if there is a violation of this law causing damage, the director adjusts the score in accordance with Law 12c.

B. extraneous information from Partner

1. (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.

(b) A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and
using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

The 16B(1) reference in 16A (1©) discusses procedures specified in the laws such as alerts as well as 16B(1) itself. It says nothing about a director call.

As far as "questions and remarks" are concerned, I said upthread that a question to a director could create a problem. A simple director call does not.

[nige1]

IMO UI may arise from drawing attention to an alleged irregularity
For example, by naming a card allegedly played by declarer from his hand -- especially if declarer disputes the accusation.

Similarly, here, the problem is that partner may not have noticed the alleged BIT, to which you draw attention. Should partner allow that new information to affect his choice of action?

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2011-June-09, 09:54, said:

"Conveniently", is it? You should go into politics, or "journalism". You're really good at sly innuendos.

I do not agree that the reference to B1 "Clearly brings a director call… into the 'extraneous information' camp". As for "related questions and comments", we weren't talking about that, but only the call itself. At least, that's all I was talking about.

So there's no UI from calling the director, but as soon as he answers the director's "What can I do for you?" question, there's UI. Seems like splitting hairs.

However, I'm of the opinion that even though there's UI, it doesn't suggest anything specific. There could be a number of reasons why he felt the need for protection in this auction, so you're not much constrained.

[blackshoe]

We seem to have defined the problem as "UI exists, therefore everyone is constrained in their actions." If that is truly the law, then IMO the only way to save the game is to isolate each player from the other three, so that the only thing they see is the actually calls and plays made (and the artificially imposed tempo will have to be long enough to ensure no "hesitation" problems). I doubt there are many who would like to play bridge that way.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2011-June-09, 17:02, said:

However, I'm of the opinion that even though there's UI, it doesn't suggest anything specific. There could be a number of reasons why he felt the need for protection in this auction, so you're not much constrained.

There you go.

[mrdct]

 Phil, on 2011-June-09, 09:58, said:

16B(1) reference in 16A (1©) discusses procedures specified in the laws such as alerts as well as 16B(1) itself. It says nothing about a director call.

As far as "questions and remarks" are concerned, I said upthread that a question to a director could create a problem. A simple director call does not.

The examples given in 16B1 are just that, examples. If you rewind to the first bit of 16B1a "...a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play" this is obviously very broad and surely includes anything that partner does other than legal bids, calls and plays. Refering back to 16A1c, the qualifier to the "arising from legal procedure" exemption is quite obviously there to make it clear that UI can still be transmitted by doing something compliant under the laws and regulations. If the circumstances are such that based on partnership experience the player in question only calls the TD for BIT situations where damage or potential damage is perceived, his partner can eliminate the hands on which partner wouldn't bother calling the TD which is clearly UI.

[bluejak]

 blackshoe, on 2011-June-09, 17:16, said:

We seem to have defined the problem as "UI exists, therefore everyone is constrained in their actions." If that is truly the law, then IMO the only way to save the game is to isolate each player from the other three, so that the only thing they see is the actually calls and plays made (and the artificially imposed tempo will have to be long enough to ensure no "hesitation" problems). I doubt there are many who would like to play bridge that way.

There is another considerably better solution: not to worry about the vast majority of UI which is effectively irrelevant. In my view, that is what we do, ie act sensibly within the Laws.

[blackshoe]

Yes, that's a better solution. Am I not permitted a little hyperbole to show how ridiculous the position of some is?

[bluejak]

Sure!

[nige1]

 bluejak, on 2011-June-09, 18:27, said:

There is another considerably better solution: not to worry about the vast majority of UI which is effectively irrelevant. In my view, that is what we do, ie act sensibly within the Laws.

It is true that the use of UI from from BITs, alerts, and explanations causes damage. But the use of UI from other sources causes just as much damage. I agree with mrdct that directors should acknowledge the existence of the latter and deal with it as best they can.

[blackshoe]

Okay, Nigel. What is the UI from the director call in this case, and how did it cause damage?

[nige1]

 blackshoe, on 2011-June-10, 14:03, said:

Okay, Nigel. What is the UI from the director call in this case, and how did it cause damage?

Perhaps there was no BIT. If there was a BIT, perhaps partner was unaware of it. But

 nige1, on 2011-June-07, 20:23, said:

Calling partner's attention to opponent's BIT may put partner off a speculative double or an aggressive slam and it tends to deter partner from mere competition.

[blackshoe]

Speculation. You cannot make a ruling based on speculation. Where's your evidence?

[Phil]

If a director call falls in a forest, can anyone hear it?