[lamford]

---

Senior Camrose, fortunately with screens. 2H was not alerted on East's side, but was correctly alerted as weak on West's side. North asked East when West raised if 2H was weak. At this point, East, Muggins, realised that West had opened 1C, not 1S as he had thought. I don't think there is any real problem with screens, as the actual auction is authorised, and I chose 6H which was a small gain as one pair missed it.

Without screens it would be interesting, as the alert of 2H would wake East up to the fact that he had misread the auction. Is East allowed to realise his error, or must the "unexpected alert" mean that he must continue to think his partner has opened 1S? Something like QJxxx Jxxx KQ Kx would offer no play for slam and the five level is not safe.

[paulg]

It looks like North had the senior moment.

[lamford]

He was caught unawares, and thought he might not have seen an alert!

[barmar]

Maybe a better question is whether East is allowed to be woken up by North's question. The definition of AI and UI doesn't make any mention of an opponent's questions, but it feels wrong that a player needs to be wary of helping an opponent by asking a legitimate question.

OTOH, North has no reason to ask this during the auction, as they're going to pass with their 5 count regardless. They should wait until the end of the auction. Being "caught unawares" shouldn't make a difference.

[sanst]

 barmar, on 2023-July-28, 15:55, said:

Maybe a better question is whether East is allowed to be woken up by North's question. The definition of AI and UI doesn't make any mention of an opponent's questions, but it feels wrong that a player needs to be wary of helping an opponent by asking a legitimate question.

I would think that’s about the same as with an alert from the partner. That’s a regular procedure, but nonetheless you’re not allowed to use the information that there has been an alert. You’re only allowed to use the information arising from bidding cards and playing cards, nothing else.

[blackshoe]

 sanst, on 2023-July-29, 02:28, said:

You’re only allowed to use the information arising from bidding cards and playing cards, nothing else.

Quote

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 (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 C); 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 following); 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.

[sanst]

Of course I know that. But as a general rule, it’s pretty good and easy to explain to novices, if you include the opponents’ system/convention cards - sorry, I forgot to mention these.

[mycroft]

Does c) apply to opponents' questions not triggered by your side's Alerts/failure to Alert/incomplete explanation? arising from the legal procedures (asking questions) authorized...

[weejonnie]

The EBU White book suggests that players are expected to protect themselves in obvious examples of MI

"It is only experienced players who are expected to protect themselves. If such players receive
an explanation which is implausible, and they are able to protect themselves by seeking further
clarification without putting their side’s interests at risk (e.g. by transmitting unauthorised
information or waking the opposition up), failure to do so may prejudice the redress to which
they would otherwise be entitled."

The inference here is that opponents are allowed to be woken up by questions from the opposition.

[pescetom]

 weejonnie, on 2023-August-13, 03:57, said:

The EBU White book suggests that players are expected to protect themselves in obvious examples of MI

"It is only experienced players who are expected to protect themselves. If such players receive
an explanation which is implausible, and they are able to protect themselves by seeking further
clarification without putting their side’s interests at risk (e.g. by transmitting unauthorised
information or waking the opposition up), failure to do so may prejudice the redress to which
they would otherwise be entitled."

The inference here is that opponents are allowed to be woken up by questions from the opposition.

There is also the inference that they retain their rights to redress if they omit to ask an obviously pertinent question because it would wake up the opponents.

[lamford]

 sanst, on 2023-July-29, 02:28, said:

You’re only allowed to use the information arising from bidding cards and playing cards, nothing else.

But the bidding cards themselves tell East that he has misbid. The alert also tells him he has misbid.