[Shugart23]

Partner opens 1c and I make a mistake in my response and I actually realized my mistake before my LHO passed, My misguided partner behind an asking sequence searching for slam but instead of answering his first question (control asking) , I attempt to bail out at 3NT. Was I allowed to do this ?

[blackshoe]

Why would you not be allowed to do this? You have no UI.

[paulg]

Firstly, I assume that your mistake was not a mechanical error otherwise you would be able to change your bid if partner has not called. So you have to live with the wrong response.

The next question is whether you have unauthorised information from partner before you make your choice: for example, did partner alert your call when you did not expect it, or did your partner explain your response to the opponents stating what your call meant?

If you have no unauthorised information, you can do whatever you think is best to get yourself out of the mess you have created - you suggest that this might be 3NT and this would be permitted.

If you have unauthorised information, then you are not permitted to 'wake up' to your call being wrong even though you remembered - primarily because this can never be proved. You must carefully avoid taking advantage of this unauthorised information, which generally means that you must bid as if you make the call you wanted to make and respond to what partner's bid would mean in that context.

For example (and I will use my system), suppose that your partner opens 1♣ and you respond 1♥ to show 4+ spades, forgetting that you do not play transfers with this partner and he assumes that you have shown 4+ hearts. He does not alert 1♥, which gives you unauthorised information, so you are not allowed to wake up to this.

Partner rebids 2NT, which in your transfer response system shows at least four spades and a game forcing hand, but in partner's system shows 18-19 balanced. If you take any action to make it likely that you do not finish in a spade contract, then you are likely to get ruled against. You should not alert 2NT, because you should only alert convention bids in the world where you are correct, not in the world that you are having to make bids.

It can be very confusing and my advice is: try and do your best but do not appeal when the director rules against you.

[mycroft]

Paul's answer is wonderful. I'm just going to highlight a couple of things:

• "unauthorized information from partner [includes] a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected alert or failure to alert..." Law 73C1, excerpted and edited, my emphasis. As he said, just because partner didn't say anything doesn't mean there was no UI - if you would expect them to have said something.
  
• "Try your best but don't appeal" - Probably right. Ethically, if you do your best and this time the director judges that you still used UI (or did the thing that someone using UI would have done, with a reasonable alternative available, yada yada Law 16), you are in the clear. They're probably right, though, so accept it and go on. Hopefully they explain what the alternative was, and why they ruled it logical (so you know better for next time); but even without that, they're probably right.
  
  Note that if instead you try to work out if you can "get away" with the call suggested by the UI, *even if the director or your opponents believe there was no LA*, you might be legally in the clear, but you have not been ethical (and can be penalized for it, see 73C2)(*)
  
• "this can never be proved" - yeah, and I guarantee you that there are many people who will say "I woke up on my own" (or the equivalent "I didn't notice any hesitation"). For many of them, they will even believe it. For several of *them*, it will be true. But there are the rest, and players already think we directors are gullible idiots who only do this because we can't actually *play*. So the Laws are written, as much as possible, so that directors don't have to rule on intent or thinking, just on actions and facts.

(*) Note that even if you are not, the reputation of being an angle shooter can be enough penalty even without a ruling *on this hand*. For those who "don't care about their reputation", fine, but that does mean that your opponents will call on closer to borderline "potential use of UI" hands because they know you're one who sails close to the wind. And some of those "closer to borderline" hands will turn out to be slam dunk rulings against you.

[barmar]

As far as Law 16 is concerned, it doesn't even matter if you woke up on your own. The rules about what you an do after receiving UI are based on what hypothetical peers would do in the same situation. It's written in such a way that the TD is not required to read your mind or judge the truth of statements that are practically always self-serving.

But this also means that when you're ruled against in a UI situation, it's not an accusation that you intentionally did anything wrong. Sometimes UI puts you in a no-win situation, and you just have to accept it.

[jillybean]

I haven't read all of the thread, this may have been covered up thread.
The interpretation of Law16 is a contentious issue among players.

Some say, bid what you like and the Director will sort it out with your hypothetical peers.
Others say, when you have received UI you must carefully avoid taking any advantage from the UI.

[blackshoe]

Those who say "bid what you like and let the director sort it out" are harking back to days long past. Lawmakers and directors no longer suggest that as the way to go.

[mycroft]

Funny, they're both saying (what they think is) the same thing - "bid as you would have without the UI. You can't let it influence you." And it's not a discussion about Law 16 - and you know that. Law 16, with its "demonstrably suggested" and "logical alternative" and "some would think about and non-zero would take" and "does the action taken have to be logical" and... is absolutely impossible to analyze and get right at the table, and anybody who tries is either deluded or trying to get away with it. But it's not the only Law in the book about unauthorized information from partner.

As you know (Bob), I am quite firmly of the opinion that Law 73 is for the players, and Law 16 is for the director when there was potentially a violation, or lack of sufficient care, of Law 73. I know there are several who disagree with me (here, in particular), and for them, go to it. Just don't tell me that "trying to work out if [undesirable action] is Logical enough that they have to not use the UI" is "carefully avoiding", and we're all good.

The ones that quote the Law are either RingTFLB or understand that the reason 73C is phrased the way it is is that if you "just bid what you would have", you *will*, almost universally, use the UI. Subconsciously, you will convince yourself that the call you want to make is "what you always would have made", because [reasons not related to the UI]. At least sometimes. You have to push hard the other way to actually get to balance. And if you go too far? Well, at least you'll never hear "I'm not forcing you to take a bad score. Your partner's choice to think at a dangerous time earned your side the bad score." And when you explain to partner what you did *and why*, it might get partner thinking about ways to minimize UI transmission, or maybe ways to minimize the restrictions on you when UI must be transmitted to play effective bridge.

The ones that don't either have a sunny view of people's (not them, of course, no, they're clearly able to. But *others*, you know the ones they're giving advice to) ability to "ignore the UI", or they're advocating for a strategy of "Ignore the proprieties; following that will lead to worse scores in aggregate over 'hoping the opponents don't notice' or 'hoping you get away with it' or 'hoping the director can't L16 correctly'." Which, of course, *works*, by and large, because the opponents have no clue how badly they're being swindled on a regular basis (or how badly they're swindling those same opponents in turn, again, totally innocently ("innocently"?))

I really don't care about the argument, or players' personal decision-making strategy. In flight A at the regional, they can [-]ing well protect themselves. As long as protecting themselves doesn't involve "how dare *they* bid like *that* against *me*?" like one Name Pro in Penticton (who got the ruling, and a 1/4 board Procedural penalty for his behaviour. On Elvis night, no less), I'm not too concerned. In flight B or below, the difference between "carefully avoiding" and "ignoring" is pretty small (mostly because they don't really *understand* what the UI says, they just subconsciously know how to bid. So even if they try, they don't know how to try sanely), and the opponents do the same back to them.

I do realize there are stratified games (where the protecting A pairs can't believe what the B pairs are doing, or that the C pairs have never seen this auction), and eventually players masterpoint out of Flight B, and might be getting a warm welcome as they finally learn what ethics *mean*. I do think we should be educating earlier, especially on "what your opponents are getting away with" (but, of course, so you can see it when *you* were getting away with it before, too, neh? or if not, at least your classmates who are now opponents might...) But I've been tilting at that windmill for decades, and I know how Quixotic a challenge it is. So - yeah. I really don't care.

I will correct, when acting as a director, or when not an opponent at the table, anyone who pulls out the "just ignore" line, pointing them at Law 73C. I will point out, when teaching about the Law (to directors, here on BBF, or just 'things players need to know'), about Law 16 vs Law 73, and how you can both be ethically pure and ruled against, or not have the score adjusted but given a PP for violating the Proprieties (or both.) I will do my part. But as for the rest of the time? CTFD, or don't, I don't care, it's your problem. Just don't take it out on the opponents.