[lamford]

 campboy, on 2012-January-14, 18:51, said:

If law 16B1a precludes the use of this information, why does it matter whether anyone had removed their cards from the board? 16B1a does not distinguish between information received before and after the start of the auction period.

It is assumed that it permitted to discuss system before the auction period. Using common sense, rather than Laws. Of course some information such as "They just bid 6NT on board 17 on table 3" would be UI at any time up to completion of the board.

[campboy]

 lamford, on 2012-January-14, 18:54, said:

It is assumed that it permitted to discuss system before the auction period. Using common sense, rather than Laws. Of course some information such as "They just bid 6NT on board 17 on table 3" would be UI at any time up to completion of the board.

I agree with you that it is common sense that you should be permitted to discuss your system before the auction period starts for your side but not after. I thought the purpose of this thread was to determine whether the laws are consistent with common sense on this point.

[lamford]

 campboy, on 2012-January-14, 19:10, said:

I agree with you that it is common sense that you should be permitted to discuss your system before the auction period starts for your side but not after. I thought the purpose of this thread was to determine whether the laws are consistent with common sense on this point.

Yes I agree. Maybe change, in 40A1a, "Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion" by adding "before the start of the auction period." Come to think of it, that seems a major omission!

[aguahombre]

Would that make a difference? Would it also preclude SB from asking after we pull our cards out? Or would it just encourage the OP SB to wait until we do?

[blackshoe]

 gnasher, on 2012-January-14, 15:54, said:

16B1 prohibits the use of "extraneous information". "Extraneous information" is apparently defined in 16A3 as information not mentioned in 16A1 and 16A2.

Therefore 16A1 and 16A2 define the information covered by 16B1. Given that, you can't use 16B1 to define the information covered by 16A1.

I didn't. 16A1 says that information received before a player looks at his hand is AI unless "the Laws preclude his use of this information". 16B1 says that if information is received from partner via, among other things, remarks, and that information suggests a particular action over an LA, that particular action may not be chosen.. 16B1 makes no comment about when those remarks might be made. Law 16A3 reiterates that the player in receipt of that information cannot use it.

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2012-January-14, 20:45, said:

I didn't. 16A1 says that information received before a player looks at his hand is AI unless "the Laws preclude his use of this information". 16B1 says that if information is received from partner via, among other things, remarks, and that information suggests a particular action over an LA, that particular action may not be chosen.. 16B1 makes no comment about when those remarks might be made. Law 16A3 reiterates that the player in receipt of that information cannot use it.

You are mistaken. 16B1 says that if extraneous information is received from partner via, among other things, remarks, and that information suggests a particular action over an LA, that particular action may not be chosen.

So what makes information extraneous? More particularly, when Law 16A3 says that "other information" is "designated extraneous", what does it mean?

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-January-15, 03:44

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2012-January-15, 03:40, said:

So what makes information extraneous? More particularly, when Law 16A3 says that "other information" is "designated extraneous", what does it mean?

Information other than that defined in 16A1 or 16A2, I think. 16B1a does not set a time when the information can be received (I think it should say "during the auction period"), but all of the examples relate to the auction. If SB had asked and received a reply before the board arrived, it would seem ludicrous to rule that this was UI.

[blackshoe]

Paul's right, information other than that listed in 16A1 and 16A2 is extraneous per 16A3. I agree with his last sentence, too.

Okay, if I have to move reference to 16A1 in my construction, I will. Need I repeat it all, or will you (Andy in particular) still insist I'm mistaken?

[gnasher]

Obviously we're only talking about a[nother] poor piece of wording in the Laws, so we can't reject an interpretation just because it's absurd, but yes, I still disagee with your argument as I understand it.

Paraphrasing the relevant laws:
- 16A1d: If you knew it before you picked up your cards, you can use it, unless some other rule says you can't.
- 16A3: EI is defined as "anything that you're not allowed to use".
- 16B1a: If it's EI, your actions are constrained.

Working backwards:
- If you're applying 16B1a, you have to establish that the information is EI.
- For it to be EI, it must meet the conditions of 16A3.
- For it to meet the conditions of 16A3, it must not be usable under 16A1d.
- You knew it before you picked up your cards. So, which other rule says you can't use it?

This is essentially the same argument as Campboy made in post #3.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-January-15, 13:39

[blackshoe]

Which other law says I can't use it? 16B1a.

You think my interpretation is absurd? You said yourself the law is poorly worded. Why is my interpretation any more absurd than yours?

Tell you what. You want to know what the lawmakers intend in this case? Ask them.

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2012-January-15, 13:37, said:

Obviously we're only talking about a[nother] poor piece of wording in the Laws

Where Laws do not make sense, we have to interpret them as logically as we can. The intention of the Laws is that the information is extraneous. Otherwise one can make any comment after viewing one's hand but before the partner does.

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2012-January-15, 15:56, said:

You think my interpretation is absurd? You said yourself the law is poorly worded. Why is my interpretation any more absurd than yours?

No, not at all. I think that my interpretation is absurd, but also correct given the wording of the laws. I think that your interpretation is incorrect in that it uses circular logic, but the end result is obviously sensible. In this instance I'd accept the argument that we have to make the Laws work, so we should just ignore the bits we don't like (or however it is that DWS phrases this).

[blackshoe]

Given the structure of the laws, I don't see how one can arrive at the conclusion that the information in question is UI without using circular logic. That being the case, this seems a perfect topic for the upcoming Drafting Subcommittee

[TimG]

Hasn't East asked a question at an inappropriate time (during the auction period when it was not his turn to call)?

 lamford, on 2012-January-14, 06:45, said:

---

IMP pairs; lead J♥; table result 4♠=

East on this hand was our friend from a couple of other threads, the club's equivalent of the Secretary Bird. North-South were two rubber-bridge players, without a CC. It was round 1, and as the players were removing their cards from the board, East asked "Your basic system, please". North replied "strong NT, and 2/1". South added, "Thanks for telling me, pard, I thought we were just playing strong and 5". The auction proceeded as shown, and ten tricks proved routine. However SB was not happy. He asked, "How did you know that 1NT was forcing?" South replied, "I assumed it was in a 2/1 system; how else can you bid?". "Director", called SB.

"You had UI from your partner's response that your basic system was 2/1", continued SB. "The auction period begins when either partner withdraws their cards from the board (Law 17A) and your partner had taken out his cards when you responded to my question. You therefore had UI during the auction from your partner's reply to a question, and when you bid over 1NT you chose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. You only knew you were playing 2/1 from partner's reply, and if 1NT were not forcing, it would be automatic to pass it."

"I can see why rubber-bridge players don't play duplicate with dickheads like you around," replied South. "Surely we are entitled to know our basic system?"

"Not if it comes from UI", replied SB, "and rubber bridge players without convention cards that have undisclosed implicit understandings are not particularly welcome either. I have no qualms about pigging you over a technicality. Go and fleece your pigeons at rubber bridge."

The director arrived, and calmed matters a little. But how do you rule?

[blackshoe]

 TimG, on 2012-January-16, 15:48, said:

Hasn't East asked a question at an inappropriate time (during the auction period when it was not his turn to call)?

Certainly if the auction period has started for his side this is true.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2012-January-16, 18:00, said:

Certainly if the auction period has started for his side this is true.

Oh, I misunderstood earlier. The auction period starts for one side only when one of them has taken cards out?

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 17A: The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either partner withdraws his cards from the board.