BBO Discussion Forums: UI case ACBL - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

UI case ACBL Failure to announce/alert

#1 User is offline   jh51 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 231
  • Joined: 2009-November-17

Posted 2012-May-25, 14:00



The 4 bid was not announced. I was west and chose to look at the opponent's convention card before making my call. After the bidding was complete, North informed us of South's failure to announce his transfer bid. South mentioned that she remembered that 4 was a transfer when I looked at her partner's convention card. 4 made 6.

Clearly South's failure to announce was UI to North, but I don't know that anything but 4 is a LA.

Since South woke up when I looked at her partner's convention card, is the AI or UI? I would think UI, but I am not a rules expert.

If South has UI, is passing 4 a logical alternative?

What is the correct ruling on this hand?

I must admit that at the table, I did not think to call the director as I should have.
0

#2 User is offline   ArtK78 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,016
  • Joined: 2004-September-05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Galloway NJ USA
  • Interests:Bridge, Poker, participatory and spectator sports.
    Occupation - Tax Attorney in Atlantic City, NJ.

Posted 2012-May-25, 14:43

I am not a rules expert, but I would suspect that any action of an opponent would be AI, not UI.
0

#3 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 11,771
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-May-26, 11:07

View PostArtK78, on 2012-May-25, 14:43, said:

I am not a rules expert, but I would suspect that any action of an opponent would be AI, not UI.

If the opponent had said something like "I see on your CC that you play Texas Transfers", that would be AI. But I don't think the mere act of looking at your card should be allowed to wake you up. Opponents should be able to take advantage of their right to know your methods without disadvantaging themselves.

#4 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,030
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2012-May-26, 12:34

What information about your own methods does an opponent looking at your system card transmit?
--------------------
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
Factor in Alzheimers, and I can not recall a bad result from aggessive action in this situation. -- Aguahombre
When I look through the hand records after a club evening, the boards I didn't play are always the ones where I would have done great. -- Cherdano
0

#5 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 11,771
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-May-26, 12:41

It reminds you that this bid is likely to be artificial, since the opponent felt the need to look, and that wakes you up to the fact that you play the convention.

How about a similar scenario? Instead of looking at your CC, he asks you "Is that a transfer?". You had initially forgotten, but his question reminded you that it is. Obviously, you must answer "yes", since otherwise it would be MI. But are you allowed to bid based on this?

#6 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,030
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2012-May-26, 12:56

I don't think so.

What worries me, though, at least as a player, is the possibility that I might wake up before the UI, and before I can say anything, I get the UI. The director will have only my word that I woke up on my own, so he will rule on the basis that I acted on UI, if that's a possibility. That's the law, and as a director I apply it (and recognize that it makes my job easier) but as a player, I don't like it.
--------------------
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
Factor in Alzheimers, and I can not recall a bad result from aggessive action in this situation. -- Aguahombre
When I look through the hand records after a club evening, the boards I didn't play are always the ones where I would have done great. -- Cherdano
0

#7 User is offline   Trinidad 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,274
  • Joined: 2005-October-09
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2012-May-27, 06:58

North has UI: South didn't alert 4. But North doesn't have an LA. Therefore, 4 is allowed.

South hears North pull from 4X to 4. This sequence cannot show two suits, there are other sequences for that. Neither can 4 be some kind of cue. If 4 was a sign off in game, then 4 is impossible.

Based on that AI, South can conclude that North intended 4 as a transfer. Therefore, South is allowed to pass 4.

The remaining issue will be the misinformation. It seems that East was aware that 4 was a transfer. Otherwise he wouldn't have doubled 4 (Dbl would have been takeout). West said that he was not misinformed, since he looked at the CC.

So, the only infraction was the failure to alert, but it didn't lead to damage. No AS, but it would be possible to penalize NS (though I don't see any reason to do more than warn).

Rik
I want my opponents to leave my table with a smile on their face and without matchpoints on their score card - in that order.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
1

#8 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 11,771
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-May-27, 23:46

View Postblackshoe, on 2012-May-26, 12:56, said:

I don't think so.

What worries me, though, at least as a player, is the possibility that I might wake up before the UI, and before I can say anything, I get the UI. The director will have only my word that I woke up on my own, so he will rule on the basis that I acted on UI, if that's a possibility. That's the law, and as a director I apply it (and recognize that it makes my job easier) but as a player, I don't like it.

Just because a statement is self-serving it doesn't mean the TD has to ignore it. Try to seem as honest as possible when you make them, and maybe he'll believe you.

And if he doesn't, that's the breaks for forgetting your agreements, even briefly.

#9 User is offline   iviehoff 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,165
  • Joined: 2009-July-15

Posted 2012-May-28, 02:14

View Postjh51, on 2012-May-25, 14:00, said:

After the bidding was complete, North informed us of South's failure to announce his transfer bid. South mentioned that she remembered that 4 was a transfer when I looked at her partner's convention card.
Since South woke up when I looked at her partner's convention card, is the AI or UI? I would think UI, but I am not a rules expert.

We would be aware precisely when South woke up if South had obeyed law 20F4 that says she must immediately call the director at the point of becoming aware of the misexplanation.* If called at precisely the point in time mentioned, East can still have his call again, though in fact in the present case East is probably happy about his call. But probably just as importantly, it assures West that East's call is not affected by MI.

Whether the opponent's action of looking at a convention card, which is equivalent to asking for the meaning of a bid, is AI/UI is irrelevant to the present case. What precedent consistently shows is that if you are woken up to a fact about your own system following from the opponents enquiring about your system, that relevant fact about your own system is now certainly UI.

*A very curious fact about 20F4 is that everyone seems to assume that the procedure under 20F4 case includes a corrected explanation following the attendance of the director, but actually the law does not say so. It instructs the player only to call the director, not to correct the explanation, even after calling the director. The director is instructed to apply certain laws, but they do not mention getting a corrected explanation out of the player. This omission might be thought significant because in the other case, correcting your partner's (never corrected) misexplanation, the law does instruct you to give a corrected explanation, and when to give it.
0

#10 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 11,771
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-May-28, 17:07

I think 21B1a implies that the MI is corrected. Otherwise, how would the opponent know whether to change his call because his original call was based on MI?

#11 User is online   campboy 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,994
  • Joined: 2009-July-21

Posted 2012-May-29, 03:31

South has no UI. Pass is not an LA for North, but what about redouble? The TD should investigate what it means.
0

#12 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,030
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2012-May-29, 06:27

I moved iviehoff's last post and my predecessor to it to a new topic in "Changing Laws".
--------------------
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
Factor in Alzheimers, and I can not recall a bad result from aggessive action in this situation. -- Aguahombre
When I look through the hand records after a club evening, the boards I didn't play are always the ones where I would have done great. -- Cherdano
0

#13 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,030
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2012-May-29, 06:34

View Postbarmar, on 2012-May-27, 23:46, said:

Try to seem as honest as possible when you make them, and maybe he'll believe you.

I don't think much of a world in which the default assumption is that people are liars. Well, except maybe politicians. :ph34r:
--------------------
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
Factor in Alzheimers, and I can not recall a bad result from aggessive action in this situation. -- Aguahombre
When I look through the hand records after a club evening, the boards I didn't play are always the ones where I would have done great. -- Cherdano
0

#14 User is offline   Lanor Fow 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 107
  • Joined: 2007-May-19

Posted 2012-May-29, 07:20

Which is why you rule against anyone in a 'I realised before I got the UI' case, where there is no evidence to support that surely. To not do that would be to accuse the poeple you rule against of lying and deciding those you rule with as being honest.
1

#15 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 11,771
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-May-29, 09:14

View PostLanor Fow, on 2012-May-29, 07:20, said:

Which is why you rule against anyone in a 'I realised before I got the UI' case, where there is no evidence to support that surely. To not do that would be to accuse the poeple you rule against of lying and deciding those you rule with as being honest.

So instead of accusing some people of lying, you think it's better to accuse ALL people who say that of lying? Since you're consistent, it's not as bad an accusation? Or are you saying that it's not an accusation, it's just a mechanical application of a process that ignores what the player claims?

#16 User is offline   Lanor Fow 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 107
  • Joined: 2007-May-19

Posted 2012-May-29, 10:14

It's not meant an accusation, any more than applying laws that have such phrases 'May be aware' etc. The laws seem to be normally designed to allow rulings against people without accusing them of cheating.

There is probably no way of telling the difference between those who are telling the truth and thsoe who aren't without any other evidence, and in a 'I remembered before I got UI' case there is rarely going to be any evidence. If I rule consistently this way then I can explain that I am not accusing them of cheating, but because there is no way of verifying their statement and poeple who would cheat could say the same, I always rule this way (worded a lot better than that of course).

I'm not that experienced a director, but I thought this was the standard way of dealing with this situation. I certainly didn't come up with it myself and thought I heard it from some very experienced directors. If my approach is wrong here I would very much like to be corrected.

If I am ever convinced that a player is lying to me as a director in any circumstances, this would be dealt with much more severely than applying UI laws.
1

#17 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,030
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2012-May-29, 15:40

You're not wrong, Lanor.
--------------------
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
Factor in Alzheimers, and I can not recall a bad result from aggessive action in this situation. -- Aguahombre
When I look through the hand records after a club evening, the boards I didn't play are always the ones where I would have done great. -- Cherdano
0

#18 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,700
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2012-May-29, 17:13

View PostLanor Fow, on 2012-May-29, 10:14, said:

It's not meant an accusation, any more than applying laws that have such phrases 'May be aware' etc. The laws seem to be normally designed to allow rulings against people without accusing them of cheating.




Yes, this is the point, and similarly with UI. You don't accuse anyone of anything; you just say "This is the way we have to rule when this happens".
London, England
0

#19 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,519
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2012-May-30, 01:40

View Postiviehoff, on 2012-May-28, 02:14, said:

What precedent consistently shows is that if you are woken up to a fact about your own system following from the opponents enquiring about your system, that relevant fact about your own system is now certainly UI.

Can you give a real-life example of this precedent? That is, of UI being created by the opponent's enquiry rather than by partner's answer?

Also, what is the legal justification for this view? It seems to me that it is authorised, because the opponent's enquiry arises "from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations", and is not "otherwise specified" to be unauthorised.
If future responses could be on topic, i.e. comparing the two suggested systems, rather than some alternative nutjob method, that'd be appreciated, thanks. - MickyB
1

#20 User is offline   bluejak 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,686
  • Joined: 2007-August-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, Cats, Railways, Transport timetables

Posted 2012-May-30, 07:00

Yet again, the "I have UI and AI" problem rears its ugly head. If an opponent asks a question that is AI and partner's reply is UI. People then ask whether the AI trumps the UI. It doesn't: if you read the UI Laws they apply whether there is AI as well or not.

If a player has AI and UI what should he do? Follow Law 73C as far as the UI is concerned.

If a player has AI and UI what should the do TD when called? Follow Law 16B as far as the UI is concerned.
David Stevenson

Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users