[Phil]

The next time someone says, "when in doubt, alert", I will direct them to this thread

[bluejak]

gnasher, on Sep 7 2010, 02:12 PM, said:

bluejak, on Sep 7 2010, 01:30 PM, said:

I think we do have to differentiate between the people who think UI is useful or non-existent, and the actual meaning of UI.

If your partner indicates something to you other than by a call or play, it is information, and it is unauthorised. It is often useless.  But what does that mean?

First, two examples, both from above.

• You open a 12 to 14 NT.  Partner says "12 to 14".  That is information: it is not from a call or play: it is therefore unauthorised.  It is not really useful, but ....
  
  
  
  
• My sister is coming round sometime. That is information: it is not from a call or play: it is therefore unauthorised.  It is certainly not useful to this hand.

Some people are saying that these are not UI, but that is wrong: they pass information, and they are unauthorised.  But are they useful? In the sister case it is clearly not worth worrying about.  It is UI but cannot suggest anything.

In the other case there is some slight interest.  Knowing your partner has interpreted your call correctly could be of some interest.  I do think there is the possibility of a slight problem, though not one I am going to lose any sleep over.

As I understand it, you're saying that if you receive UI which adds little or nothing to what you already knew, the UI doesn't constrain you. Is that correct?

If so, which Law says that?

No, I said nothing like that at all. I am saying I shall lose no sleep over it, and not worry at all, which is completely different.

[shyams]

The bridge laws equivalent of a zugzwang in chess?

[Pict]

iviehoff, on Sep 7 2010, 03:16 AM, said:

Knowledge of the explanation is clearly unauthorised, and I presume no one is denying that. In saying "There cannot be any UI" it seems to there is are two possible things you are saying

(1) It doesn't actually provide any useful information, ie the information content of what is unauthorised is nil, in the same way that "My sister is coming around on Thursday" is plainly UI, but the information content, in relation to the game of bridge, is usually nil.
or
(2) That such information of that nature in this situation could not be said to demonstrably suggest any bid over any LA.

I think "partner has not forgotten our agreements and thinks the bid means the same as me" is material information, so there is UI, and I think it is hard to deny that.

So I think you'd be on stronger ground if what you were saying were (2), ie, there is in fact UI, but UI that partner thinks the bid is the same as I think it is, provided that is in fact our agreement, is not in general UI that could demonstrably suggest anything in preference to LAs.

Iviehoff

Some care is needed with your examples.

1. I can easily create a 'back story' about my sister and her view that my bidding needs to be much bolder.

This certainly may suggest bids to me when I'm playing before I next encounter her. I would rather say that the news that she is coming round is not information of any kind in the context of a bridge competition - whatever the back story.

2. As I've indicated above (and you doubtless know better than me), the definition of UI contains the fact that a bid is suggested.

Once I've verified that partner's explanation matches my intention (and so far as I can said to know) our system the possibility of UI has already been eliminated because no bid can be suggested: if it could then gynn's conundru on marginal raises of NT would take effect. Until I heard his explanation of course UI could have been created.

It is my opinion that the Laws as written are adequate. The gloss usually put on them - in terms of 'information that is not AI is UI' - is mostly an adequate simplification, but is not actually accurate or correct. Gnasher's example demonstrates this.

You might compare the situation with a scientific proposition that is useful, and accurate to a certain level, but can be falsified.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on Sep 7 2010, 04:11 PM, said:

No, I said nothing like that at all.  I am saying I shall lose no sleep over it, and not worry at all, which is completely different.

OK, I'm sorry I misunderstood you.

Going back to this:

Quote

In the other case there is some slight interest.  Knowing your partner has interpreted your call correctly could be of some interest.  I do think there is the possibility of a slight problem

What causes the problem to be "slight" rather than not? And when and how does such a slight problem constrain your actions?

I'm not being argumentative. I'm genuinely having difficulty with understanding the consequences of UI when you also have AI that points in the same direction as the UI.

[JanM]

gwnn, on Sep 6 2010, 04:33 PM, said:

This thread is still in Chinese to me and Google Translate doesn't seem to help me.

This post expressed my state of mind perfectly . So I did what I usually do when something about Laws confuses me and consulted my expert. He said "of course the alert and explanation are UI, the question is whether they suggest one action over another." He then waffled a little, by saying that this particular UI might be less bad than other UI, so if the AI suggested something I wouldn't have to reject that because the UI also suggested it. I said that was still Chinese. So he gave me an example.

Suppose partner opens 1NT, the next hand doubles and you bid 2♥, which is a transfer. Partner alerts, explains that it's a transfer and then passes. You are now in a "better" situation than if this had happened behind screens, since you don't have to worry that partner forgot, and you aren't entitled to take advantage of that information. "Wait a moment" said I, are you seriously saying that if partner DOESN'T alert my 2♥ bid I have to bid as if he had alerted and knew what we were playing (if he passes I can't base subsequent decisions on the possibility that he forgot), but if he DOES alert, I now have to base subsequent decisions on the possibility that he forgot? That's not fair! So he tried a further example , which he says was discussed by one of the Laws Committees "a long time ago," he couldn't remember when but Edgar was involved in the discussion.

The auction went P-P-1S-DBL-2C alerted and explained (correctly) as Drury - P-P. Now the responder knew that his partner had psyched 1♠ with a bunch of clubs. He didn't have to factor in any possibility that opener had forgotten they play Drury here. He had a club fit and later psyched (sorry, don't know exactly what or in what auction). The UI from the correct explanation made the psyche significantly less risky, since he didn't have to worry that partner had forgotten their agreement.

I still don't much like this, but at least I can see the reason that a correct alert and explanation is UI and might under some circumstances (not I think those of the OP) limit the partner's actions.

[helene_t]

I suppose this is just semantics but to me the word "information" means something not known already. If I already know that p recalls our agreement then it is not information (and therefor not unauthorized information) that p confirms that he recalls the agreement.

Some may use the word "information" differently but anyway, I suppose the question is whether we can really assume that players would (absent any extraneous confirmation) be confident that p recalls their agreements.

It may be naive to say "yes, we can assume so", but generally I prefer to avoid accusing players of being unethical and prefer to avoid adjusting boards as long as a reasonable case can be made.

Now if this pair didn't really have any agreements about the 3♠ bid and both partners were just guessing how p would take it (and happened to guess the same) then it would be different, but as the problem was stated in the OP I would allow opener to bid w/e he wants.

[pran]

helene_t, on Sep 7 2010, 07:50 PM, said:

I suppose this is just semantics but to me the word "information" means something not known already. If I already know that p recalls our agreement then it is not information (and therefor not unauthorized information) that p confirms that he recalls the agreement.

Some may use the word "information" differently but anyway, I suppose the question is whether we can really assume that players would (absent any extraneous confirmation) be confident that p recalls their agreements.

It may be naive to say "yes, we can assume so", but generally I prefer to avoid accusing players of being unethical and prefer to avoid adjusting boards as long as a reasonable case can be made.

Now if this pair didn't really have any agreements about the 3♠ bid and both partners were just guessing how p would take it (and happened to guess the same) then it would be different, but as the problem was stated in the OP I would allow opener to bid w/e he wants.

"Information" is "something" that reduces the amount of alternatives. (Agreed: "Something not known already", but a more formal way of defining "information".)

If your agreement is that an 1NT opening bid shows 15-17 and your partner tells your opponents that your 1NT opening bid shows 15-17, then the "information" you have from this explanation is a removal of the alternative that your partner has forgotten your agreements.

And this "information" (that partner remembers your agreement) is in fact unauthorized to you (although rather as a technicality).

[mycroft]

Of course there is UI. To prosecute a UI case, however:

- There has to be information given to partner that is unauthorized
- There has to be a alternative that is logical in the context of the AI
- That is worse than the alternative the player wants to take, given the UI
- That they take.

Yes, there's an issue if you decide to open a crappy 15-count a 12-14NT and partner signs off (say 1NT-2D transfer; 2H-p-(2S)). Yes, there's an issue if you have a borderline invite in this case - especially if you invite heavy. That's a function of the fact that *to rule on a case*, we can't get inside your mind, and to minimize people deliberately cheating, we have to rule with a jaundiced eye. But no matter what you play, there will be places where this applies.

For the OP, if they think that this hand is the kind of hand that wants to stop in 3S if they can, but thinks that 4S is going to score better than 4D a majority of the time (given the chance of it being doubled), then go ahead and make the call. This doubly applies if the hand improves offensively (or devalues defensively) knowing the opponents' diamond fit. If the hand is a "well, thinking about it again, this really should have made a game try last round", then there's a possibility that the TDs will believe that you really did forget when you bid 3S, and you might get ruled against if 4S, indeed, makes.

Yes, it is Useless UI. But I know that I always feel more comfortable in my crazy Precision system when I hear the Alerts - even if they're not asked. I can't and don't use that, but I do feel better. I know that there are pairs out there who rely on the Alerts (and the explanations, when they either choose to over-Announce or get friendly opponents who ask all the time) to stay on the same track. I also know pairs who look up when they signal to make sure partner saw it, that play WeaSeL against preempts (although they would swear that they don't *do* it, it just works out that way), and all kinds of other "useless UI". Not so useless, no?

[bluejak]

gnasher, on Sep 7 2010, 06:14 PM, said:

bluejak, on Sep 7 2010, 04:11 PM, said:

No, I said nothing like that at all.  I am saying I shall lose no sleep over it, and not worry at all, which is completely different.

OK, I'm sorry I misunderstood you.

Going back to this:

Quote

In the other case there is some slight interest.  Knowing your partner has interpreted your call correctly could be of some interest.  I do think there is the possibility of a slight problem

What causes the problem to be "slight" rather than not? And when and how does such a slight problem constrain your actions?

I'm not being argumentative. I'm genuinely having difficulty with understanding the consequences of UI when you also have AI that points in the same direction as the UI.

This forum is designed for practical solutions to practical problems. Now, I do not mind people discussing impractical problems, and I may make the odd comment, but I am not going to make much effort over them. One of the three reasons I left BLML was that they were not involved in running a game of bridge.

Now, there is a slight point of interest. Fine, but not enough that I am going to worry about it.

I am not trying to be argumentative: I am just not very interested. If my partner tells me that my 1NT is 12 to 14 when it is 12 to 14, I am not going to worry about the effects of UI - and I pride myself on playing a highly ethical game.

Why a slight problem? Because I do not expect to give more than one ruling every ten years based on this. So it is a slight problem to my mind.

[jallerton]

gnasher, on Sep 6 2010, 10:04 PM, said:

As I understand it:
- The alert and explanation provide UI
- The UI tells opener that responder can still have a hand that would have accepted an invitation.
- Therefore the UI, taken in isolation, suggests bidding over passing.

However, common sense might suggest that opener can do as he pleases, because the UI added nothing to what he already knew.  Do the Laws say that too?

I'm mainly interested in what the rules require opener to do here - I realise that it's hard to comment on the actual ruling without seeing opener's hand.

There are two Laws to consider:

Law73C said:

Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner
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.

In the example you cite, where the UI does not tell partner anything he does not already know from AI, then there cannot possibly be any actions which are "taking any advantage"of the UI. Hence Opener is not constrained by Law 73C.

Law16B said:

1. (a) 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.

Note the list commencing with a "remark" is preceded by "for example" so just because "expected alert" is not in the list that does not imply that expected alerts are not UI. In fact Law 16A confirms that alerts are not authorised information.

However, in this case, where Opener was already sure of the meaning of 3♠, the extraneous information did not suggest any action at all. Hence no logical alternative "could demonstrably have been suggested over another" and Opener is free to bid whatever he wishes.

Change the facts and make Opener only (say) 75% sure how 3♠ is going to be interpreted. Now it is theoretically possible that Opener could be contrained by the UI which now provides reassurance that 3♠ has been interpreted as Opener had hoped.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Sep 7 2010, 05:44 PM, said:

This forum is designed for practical solutions to practical problems.  Now, I do not mind people discussing impractical problems, and I may make the odd comment, but I am not going to make much effort over them.  One of the three reasons I left BLML was that they were not involved in running a game of bridge.

Now, there is a slight point of interest.  Fine, but not enough that I am going to worry about it.

With all due respect I don't think this is a slight problem, I have come across this theme a number of times. I don't have time to write about it now but it led to a huge problem for me at the table once. I'll probably get to it later. Then there is the appeal I referred to, gnasher's problem that occured...

Btw I don't think a 12-14 notrump is a very good comparison. That bid has a clear objective measure. This issue is much more troublesome in cases involving bids that are 'competitive' or 'weak' or 'shows doubt' or that kind of thing where reasonable people may disagree that the hand is anything like what is being described. In the original problem if opener bid 4♠ the director would only be called if the opponents thought 3♠ might have been intended as invitational, and thus that opener may have taken advantage of the explanation. That kind of thing definitely happens so it's a common problem that sorely lacks a clear solution.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on Sep 7 2010, 11:44 PM, said:

This forum is designed for practical solutions to practical problems.  Now, I do not mind people discussing impractical problems, and I may make the odd comment, but I am not going to make much effort over them.  One of the three reasons I left BLML was that they were not involved in running a game of bridge.

Now, there is a slight point of interest.  Fine, but not enough that I am going to worry about it.

I am not trying to be argumentative: I am just not very interested.  If my partner tells me that my 1NT is 12 to 14 when it is 12 to 14, I am not going to worry about the effects of UI - and I pride myself on playing a highly ethical game.

Why a slight problem?  Because I do not expect to give more than one ruling every ten years based on this.  So it is a slight problem to my mind.

According to the pinned thread entitled "Welcome! - Forum rules - Abbreviations", this forum is, amongst other things, the "general one for the Laws". Since I had (and still have) a question about the meaning and correct interpretation of one of the Laws, this seemed a sensible place to post it. If you aren't sufficiently interested in the question to answer it, that's OK. There's no need to post a response explaining exactly how uninterested you are.

I am also slightly surprised at the suggestion that anyone might be entitled to "mind" what other people choose to discuss.

[Pict]

jdonn, on Sep 7 2010, 06:29 PM, said:

Btw I don't think a 12-14 notrump is a very good comparison. That bid has a clear objective measure. This issue is much more troublesome in cases involving bids that are 'competitive' or 'weak' or 'shows doubt' or that kind of thing where reasonable people may disagree that the hand is anything like what is being described. In the original problem if opener bid 4♠ the director would only be called if the opponents thought 3♠ might have been intended as invitational, and thus that opener may have taken advantage of the explanation. That kind of thing definitely happens so it's a common problem that sorely lacks a clear solution.

I don't disagree, but 12-14 NT was not a comparison, but a simple and unambiguous case testing the same principle. That way we avoid a pointless discussion about whether we 'believe' Gnasher and his partner really had an agreement and he really remembered it.

Certainly there are practical difficulties in real life as you indicate, but I still think that it is worth being clear that the possibility of UI from partner telling you what you know and have agreed is not one of those practical difficulties.

[iviehoff]

Pict, on Sep 7 2010, 04:27 PM, said:

Some care is needed with your examples.
1. I can easily create a 'back story' about my sister and her view that my bidding needs to be much bolder.
2. As I've indicated above (and you doubtless know better than me), the definition of UI contains the fact that a bid is suggested.

I took care to include the word "usually" in my sister example, for just the kind of reason you give.

There is no explicit definition of unauthorised information in the laws, rather the law says that certain things are unauthorised information. Law 16B is headed "Authorized and Unauthorized Information", but doesn't actually explicitly define unauthorised information. Law 73C comes closer to a definition of unauthorised information, but actually only says that certain things are unauthorised, and does not purport to be a complete list. 73C makes clear that all explanations are unauthorised. 73C only refers to unexpected alerts. 16A says that certain things are authorised.

The "may suggest a bid or play" wording occurs only in 16B where it says what is extraneous information. In gives an non-exahaustive list of things that may be extraneous information, including unexpected alerts. But it is clear that an expected alert can also be extraneous, precisely because it does suggest something, ie, that nothing is wrong. There is also the case that Bluejak gives, where I have misbid an alertable bid - in this case the alert is expected in one sense and unexpected in another. 73C makes clear that an explanation is always unauthorised.

[helene_t]

Pict, on Sep 6 2010, 11:34 PM, said:

Have you become an avatar for Bluejak?

BlueJak found a white cat! Oh my!

BlueJak was weeding out in his law jungle when a white cat came along. The white cat is fat and lazy and desperately needs someone to oversee its diet and exercise program.
BlueJak via FarmVille

[shyams]

IMHO, while jallerton's detailed response addresses most points, I worry about Directors uniformly applying this principle:

jallerton, on Sep 8 2010, 12:16 AM, said:

()... in this case, where Opener was already sure of the meaning of 3♠, the extraneous information did not suggest any action at all.  Hence no logical alternative "could demonstrably have been suggested over another" and Opener is free to bid whatever he wishes.

The constraint is that Law 21B.1b requires the TD to "to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary"

I'd suspect most convention cards won't have such an agreement noted / recorded. Therefore, the OS(!!) has to produce system notes to convince everyone that there is no UI. IMHO the OS will often be unable to produce such notes (even in serious tournaments). And any verbal explanations / confirmations by the OS can easily be discounted as "self-serving".

jdonn, on Sep 8 2010, 12:29 AM, said:

Btw I don't think a 12-14 notrump is a very good comparison. That bid has a clear objective measure. This issue is much more troublesome in cases involving bids that are 'competitive' or 'weak' or 'shows doubt' or that kind of thing where reasonable people may disagree that the hand is anything like what is being described. In the original problem if opener bid 4♠ the director would only be called if the opponents thought 3♠ might have been intended as invitational, and thus that opener may have taken advantage of the explanation. That kind of thing definitely happens so it's a common problem that sorely lacks a clear solution.

I totally agree with jdonn. The problem is common enough, and it lacks a clear solution.

[gnasher]

jallerton, on Sep 8 2010, 12:16 AM, said:

However, in this case, where Opener was already sure of the meaning of 3♠, the extraneous information did not suggest any action at all. Hence no logical alternative "could demonstrably have been suggested over another" and Opener is free to bid whatever he wishes.

I still don't get this bit. The extraneous information, taken in isolation, does suggest a particular action - it suggests bidding 4♠.

Are you saying that "extraneous information that may suggest a call or play" actually means "extraneous information that may suggest a call or play other than what was already suggested by the available AI"?

Quote

Change the facts and make Opener only (say) 75% sure how 3♠ is going to be interpreted.  Now it is theoretically possible that Opener could be contrained by the UI which now provides reassurance that 3♠ has been interpreted as Opener had hoped.

So we weigh the AI against the UI, and if the AI is sufficiently strong we can ignore the UI?

[campboy]

Why does it matter what the UI suggests when "taken in isolation"? Those words do not appear in law 16. The question is: what does the UI (demonstrably) suggest in a context where we already know the AI? If it adds no new information, then how can it suggest anything?

[mycroft]

There are two (practical) cases here. Again, the theory is the theory, but this is in practise.

• No, if the AI is sufficient, you can't just ignore the UI. But UI, by itself, isn't a problem. If there is no reasonable alternative to the call or play you decide to make, *using only, but not ignoring, the AI*, then there's no restriction. You're still under UI restrictions, but they in no way limit your action. Almost all situations (literally, I've run into one that I can remember in 10 or so years that even required thinking about) fall into this category.
  
  
• There is a problem with Mistaken Explanation vs Mistaken Bid vs forgets vs deliberate use of the Alert system to make 2-way calls. There's nothing short of a patented mind-reading machine that will solve this problem - the "I was always going to" problem or the "of course I remembered, I just evaluated my hand wrong" problem.
  
  If you have a borderline game try and choose to make the weaker "strictly competitive" call, and then choose (for whatever reason) to push on to game, the TDs are going to look with a (mildly) jaundiced eye. You could have forgotten that you play this way. You could have re-evaluated your hand given the further auction and it re-evaluates to "game should make or be a good sac." You could have re-evaluated your hand and said "that was dumb, I should have made a game try, thanks opps for giving me the opportunity to bid again." You may invite heavy (compared to your environment), secure in the knowledge that you might get another chance after "strictly competitive". You might be walking the dog. There could be many other reasons - but the actively unethical player who forgets will use the information from partner (which is unauthorized) to wake up from his forget, and bid - and justify - just the same as you. Who do we rule against - given that we likely can't tell the difference?
  
  Yes, there are people who believe that they are entitled to hear their partner's explanations and bid accordingly. I have had the auction 1D-1NT-p-2H (not announced); p-p-X-2S (partner didn't Announce my transfer, so my 5 spades will play better than her non-existent 6 hearts opposite my 3). That's not even subtle, and it got ruled back. But those same people will happily listen to partner's non-Alert in 1C!-1NT!; 2C-2H(4 spades, not Alerted); 2NT-3S; 4S to get to their 4-4 spade fit - and of course, won't explain that their bid showed spades and hope to get away with it. They'll listen to partner's Alert and explanation of a call, use it to wake up to their system, and "recover" accordingly. And for every person that I've just described, there are 4 or 5 (or 40!) who do it without knowing they are doing it.
  
  Yes, that means that sometimes you are going to be caught up in the net. But please believe that it is a rare occurrence. It's even rarer if you are not playing weird systems (oops).

In other words, I know it happens occasionally, and I have sympathy (especially to jdonn) when it does; but the impact of doing it the other way would happen much more often (even though, still very rare) and be worse.