[duschek]

As for the question whether it should be considered slightly offensive to summon the TD, consider this. If you say "I am sorry, I am unsure about the correct procedure in this situation", should you continue:

1) "... so let's ask the TD to make sure that we do not make a mistake", or
2) "... so I'll leave it to you opponents to decide the rules".

Somehow, I much prefer the first approach. When somebody learns that the opponents are offended because they think they have the right to define the rules ahead of the TD, that somebody should ask the TD to discuss the matter with the players

As to whether LHO is entitled to know what his partner said: Regardless whether he heard it or not, for UI purposes we will assume any statement from RHO as being heard by LHO. If he is to avoid choosing a logical alternative suggested by UI, obviously he has to know for sure what that UI consists of. So he has to be told now, before his next turn to call.

[barmar]

VixTD, on Sep 16 2009, 10:00 AM, said:

Vampyr, on Sep 15 2009, 11:24 PM, said:

Perhaps there is no danger of your "using" UI, but people who take action suggested by UI rarely do it on purpose; that is cheating.

When I said "using UI" I did not mean necessarily deliberately using UI.

Quote

If UI has become available it does not matter whether you have actually received it. Your obligations under L16 are the same whether you have heard partner's explanation or not.

I don't really understand what you mean by this. If UI was available and there was any chance that I might have received any of it (even just a clue from e.g. the length of the answer) I would expect the benefit of the doubt to be given against me. But if I definitely couldn't have received it (e.g. I was called to the phone as an opponent asked, and the explanation given when I was out of the room) then the UI wasn't really made available, and I wonder how I could be expected to follow L16.

There's a difference between "couldn't receive the UI" and "didn't receive the UI". If you couldn't receive the UI (e.g. screens are in use, or the director asked you to step away from the table while your partner gave an explanation) then you aren't under any obligation to avoid using the UI (in fact, it could be argued that there wasn't any UI to begin with).

But if you could have received UI, but somehow didn't (e.g. you were distracted when the UI was transmitted), you're still obligated not to use it. But as you indicated, it's hard to bend over backwards not to use the UI if you don't realize that the UI exists.

So if the director sends you away from the table, you obviously shouldn't ask for a repetition of what was said while you were away. But if an explanation was given normally while you're at the table, and you missed some or all of it, it's reasonable to ask them to repeat it; it was given in a way that you were expected to hear it, so it's only fair that you should hear it all clearly so that you can meet whatever your ethical obligations are (avoid using the UI, correct the explanation at later if necessary, etc.).

[richlp]

barmar, on Sep 16 2009, 03:18 PM, said:

But if you could have received UI, but somehow didn't (e.g. you were distracted when the UI was transmitted), you're still obligated not to use it.  But as you indicated, it's hard to bend over backwards not to use the UI if you don't realize that the UI exists.

I'm extremely confused by this statement.

Are you talking about a situation where I don't know if the information I've received is UI or AI?

If not, regardless of whether or not I could have received UI, if I didn't receive UI, how could I possibly know not to use it?

[blackshoe]

Quote

When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information.

(The emphasis is mine).

A player who has not heard what his partner said may still have UI "available to him" if he was in a position where he could have heard it.

The laws do not expect TDs to determine whether the player did hear what his partner said, only that he could have.

Law16B1{a} said:

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.

Law 16B3 said:

When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the director when play ends. The director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12c) if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender.

If the TD determines that a player could have received UI, and that he took an action that demonstrably could have been suggested over an LA by that UI, then assuming there was damage to the NOS, he will, as law 16B3 requires him to do, adjust the score. This is so even if the player concerned adamantly maintains that he didn't receive a thing.

[bluejak]

So, if you are in receipt of UI but you do not know what it is, you need to find out so as to follow Law 73C. If partner answers a question and you do not hear his answer properly, it is very difficult to follow your ethical obligations.

For this and other reasons I still believe that if a player does not hear his partner's answer to a question that he should be told what it was if he asks. I have no problem with an opponent calling the TD instead of telling him because the TD is there to sort matters out, but I believe the TD should instruct that the answer be repeated.

[blackshoe]

I don't usually post "me too"s, but, well, me too.

[barmar]

I'll "me, three", just to confirm that that's how I would have answered richlp.

[lamford]

bluejak, on Aug 30 2009, 06:24 PM, said:

But not giving you redress because you did not call the TD earlier is against the Laws of bridge.

I don't think that is quite right. For example:

LAW 11: FORFEITURE OF THE RIGHT TO RECTIFICATION
A. Action by Non-Offending Side
The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director.

Law 16B3 indicates, in the footnote, that it is not an infraction to call the TD earlier or later than the end of play, which I presume overrides the above

I agree it all depends on the tone of the question. But if the player thought the tone conveyed UI, and that damage "could well result", then he should indeed call the TD under 16B2; this gives the opportunity for the opponents to dispute the claim that the question was asked in a leading manner.

[bluejak]

It does not matter: rulings like this are given any time during the Correction Period. If there is a dispute over facts then the TD will generally rule against the person who called him, ie the norm is to assume no irregularity if not called earlier. But rulings are not not given because of a late call.

What you say does not really disagree with me - except that you say it does. Not giving a ruling because of the late call is illegal, as I said: the ruling going against the pair because it is late is normal and not what I said.