[aguahombre]

No. The thread is saying:

1) Partner's alert and explanation are proper.
2)But you and your partner are expected to know your agreements.
3)Even though the alert and explanation are in accord with your agreements, that conversation is UI to you. It isn't for your benefit.
4)If you use that information as a basis for further action, that is a no no
5)If you don't use it, all is well (unless the TD thinks you did use it).
6)The director might decide you did use it, if your hand is close to a real invite and you later bid again (He might determine you misbid per your style and were alerted by the explanation).
7)Nevertheless, you couldn't close your ears, because if his explanation was not in accord with your agreements, you might have to disclose, later.

Have I covered it?

[dburn]

aguahombre, on Sep 6 2010, 09:33 PM, said:

No.  The thread is saying:

1) Partner's alert and explanation are proper.
2)But you and your partner are expected to know your agreements.
3)Even though the alert and explanation are in accord with your agreements, that conversation is UI to you. It isn't for your benefit.
4)If you use that information as a basis for further action, that is a no no
5)If you don't use it, all is well (unless the TD thinks you did use it).
6)The director might decide you did use it, if your hand is close to a real invite and you later bid again (He might determine you misbid per your style and were alerted by the explanation).
7)Nevertheless, you couldn't close your ears, because if his explanation was not in accord with your agreements, you might have to disclose, later.

Have I covered it?

More or less. The sticking point is this splendid part of Law 16B:

Laws of Duplicate Bridge said:

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by [...] an unexpected alert or failure to alert (i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action) [...]

Since nobody at all has any idea what this means, the question of whether "expected alerts" are AI is unresolved (just because unexpected alerts are UI, expected alerts are not necessarily AI - the principle of exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis is unknown to the WBFLC).

But the truth is that anything partner does apart from making a legal call or play is UI to you - including, pace richlp, alerting when he is supposed to alert and telling the opponents what you are actually playing.

For all that, if someone in the given position bid 4♠ on the given auction, it would be difficult to show that he had infringed any Law. Maybe he had three little diamonds - a holding which is not yet illegal, though I suppose some authorities might try to ban it on humanitarian grounds.

[mjj29]

jdonn, on Sep 6 2010, 06:08 PM, said:

Pict, on Sep 6 2010, 05:46 PM, said:

Well, let's consider.

It's say the EBU, I open 1 NT, partner announces 12-14.

We do indeed play 12-14.

The OP says bidder intended as announced.

There cannot be any UI in this scenario.

The fact that explanations are extraneous does not and cannot create UI.

Hilighted portion = Still wrong!

L16B1(a) says "... an unexpected alert" (emphasis mine) - ergo, if it's expected, it's not UI? Or, perhaps, it's UI, but not UI to which L16B applies, so does not constrain your actions.

Edit: I see dburn has also made this point

[iviehoff]

Pict, on Sep 6 2010, 11:46 PM, said:

It's say the EBU, I open 1 NT, partner announces 12-14.
We do indeed play 12-14.
The OP says bidder intended as announced.
There cannot be any UI in this scenario.
The fact that explanations are extraneous does not and cannot create UI.

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.

It seems to me that if you and your partner bid in accordance with your agreements, and explanations are correct, and then someone comes along and says you are restricted by the UI of the explanations, then the procedure for explaining bids is fundamentally flawed and needs changing.

[gwnn]

How is this different from:

I open 1NT, 12-14, I have 13 points.

My partner alerts, LHO asks, partner tells him that it's 12-14. Partner bids 2NT, natural and invitational.

Now I know that partner does not have 8-9 balanced and he has 10-11 balanced, so if I have a close decision, I'm not allowed to accept it because my Bizarro World UI suggests accepting!

edit: I see that there have been a number of posts regarding NT ranges but perhaps not about this exact situation.

[karlson]

To see if I understand gnasher's point, I'm going to modify gwnn's example a tiny bit.

A pair plays different NT ranges (12-14 or 15-17) depending on seat and vulnerability. In this position they play 15-17, but opener decides to open a very good 14 count 1N. Partner explains as 15-17 and bids 2n. Bidding 3n may well be a logical alternative, especially if our good 14 had a 6-card minor or something. Since the UI from the explanation suggests not accepting the invitation (even though so does the AI), the laws actually support ruling against a player who passes in this spot.

I agree that this doesn't really seem reasonable and at some point we have to give the side with UI some benefit of the doubt.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on Sep 7 2010, 03:33 AM, said:

No. The thread is saying:

1) Partner's alert and explanation are proper.
2)But you and your partner are expected to know your agreements.
3)Even though the alert and explanation are in accord with your agreements, that conversation is UI to you. It isn't for your benefit.
4)If you use that information as a basis for further action, that is a no no
5)If you don't use it, all is well (unless the TD thinks you did use it).
6)The director might decide you did use it, if your hand is close to a real invite and you later bid again (He might determine you misbid per your style and were alerted by the explanation).
7)Nevertheless, you couldn't close your ears, because if his explanation was not in accord with your agreements, you might have to disclose, later.

Have I covered it?

I can't speak for anybody else, but that isn't what I was asking or saying. My question was

me said:

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?

[gnasher]

Regarding the use of "unexpected" in Law 16, I think that David Burn snipped the most relevant part:

Quote

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

It seems to me that this says:
- An unexpected alert conveys UI
- An expected alert does not
- An answer to a question conveys UI, regardless of whether the answer was expected.
Thus in my example partner's explanation does convey UI, even though the answer was exactly what opener expected to hear.

It also seems to me that even though this UI merely reinforces existing AI, it constrains the recipient in exactly the same way as any other UI would do.

So, please can somebody explain what's wrong with this interpretation?

Answers on the lines of "If X is true, the law is an ass. Therefore X is untrue." will receive no marks.

[Pict]

dburn, on Sep 6 2010, 10:35 PM, said:

[

Laws of Duplicate Bridge said:

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by [...] an unexpected alert or failure to alert (i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action) [...]

'Extraneous information that may suggest a call'

If I have 12-14, open 12-14 and hear partner announce 12-14, in what construction of the Law is a call suggested to me?

[Free]

Ofcourse there is UI, come on!

Just put screens and see if opener thinks the same. He would've bid 3♠ constructively, his partner passed, so 4♠ has very little chance of success. The only reason to bid 4♠ would be to go -1 and score better than 4♦= imo.

Now however, opener bid 3♠ as being constructive, and his partner alerted him to the fact that his bid was NOT constructive at all. Opener has more information, because he knows his partner will pass 4♦ most of the time. So there could still be a chance that 4♠ makes since the invitation wasn't even considered. Combined with the chances I explained before, bidding 4♠ looks way more appealing imo.

I would not accept the 4♠ call, especially not if the reason is that 4♠ might make!

Since we're comparing with similar situations, let me give one as well. Suppose you play 14-16NT and you forget it, you think you're playing 10-13 and open 1NT on 13HCP. Partner alerts, explains correctly as 14-16, and bids 2NT invitational. Now you know he has 9-10HCP, so you'll pass because you only have 13. However, if you wouldn't get partner's alert and correct explanation you'd bid 3NT because you're maximum (same with screens). So yes, there is an influence by getting the correct explanation from partner, so it must be considered UI!

I don't understand why a correct explanation of a correct call (with correct intentions) can ever convey UI. It only says partner knows what you have and he's doing what he thinks is best, which is what you expect from your partner all the time anyway...

[paulg]

gnasher, on Sep 7 2010, 11:42 AM, said:

Regarding the use of "unexpected" in Law 16, I think that David Burn snipped the most relevant part:

Quote

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

It seems to me that this says:
- An unexpected alert conveys UI
- An expected alert does not
- An answer to a question conveys UI, regardless of whether the answer was expected.
Thus in my example partner's explanation does convey UI, even though the answer was exactly what opener expected to hear.

It also seems to me that even though this UI merely reinforces existing AI, it constrains the recipient in exactly the same way as any other UI would do.

So, please can somebody explain what's wrong with this interpretation?

I think your interpretation is fine. Seems pointless, but not wrong (no doubt it is not pointless, but that does not stop it seeming so).

As Pict says, how does the fact that partner has told our opponents of our correct agreement, which I apparently did know, suggest anything?

Or was I really unsure and the phrase 'self-serving' has appeared on the appeal ruling?

[bluejak]

Free, on Sep 7 2010, 12:43 PM, said:

I don't understand why a correct explanation of a correct call (with correct intentions) can ever convey UI.  It only says partner knows what you have and he's doing what he thinks is best, which is what you expect from your partner all the time anyway...

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. For those who do not think there is a problem, consider the following:

Your partner opens 1NT, you bid 2♥ signoff, not transfer. Partner bids 2♠. What do you do now?

Consider the following possibilities:

• Partner announced "transfer"
  
• Partner neither announced nor alerted, meaning a weak signoff in England

We often get the former case. Responder rebids his hearts in a firm voice and opener passes, and opponents/TDs/readers of IBLF get hot under the collar.

Now consider the latter case. Is there a problem with passing [or raising] 2♠? Suppose I tell you that the same player bid 3♥ with the same hand on the same sequence [but 2♥ was announced as a transfer] in the previous session with a different partner?

[hotShot]

Quote

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

If I open 1♠ and make the remark: "I open 1♠",
there is no extraneous information, so this Law would not apply.

If an opponent asks about the agreed meaning of a bid, and there is an agreement and it is properly disclosed, there is no extraneous information.

Unless there is reason to believe that the agreement was forgotten, there is no case.

[gnasher]

cardsharp, on Sep 7 2010, 12:54 PM, said:

I think your interpretation is fine. Seems pointless, but not wrong (no doubt it is not pointless, but that does not stop it seeming so).

As Pict says, how does the fact that partner has told our opponents of our correct agreement, which I apparently did know, suggest anything?

You have UI and AI that partner has interpreted your bid the way that you intended it.

The UI and the AI both suggest 4♠ over pass.

When you have UI, you may not choose from logical alternatives an action that was suggested by the UI. That applies regardless of whether you have AI that suggests the same action.

4♠ and pass are both logical alternatives.

Therefore you may not bid 4♠.


The conclusion is absurd, obviously. But is there anything wrong with my route to this conclusion?

[gnasher]

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?

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2010-September-07, 07:25

[ahydra]

And there were people in my thread saying the UI laws are just fine as they are... :/

Something ought to be done about this, before screens need to be introduced at all tournaments or partners are sent away from the table every time an explanation of an alerted call is required. However the fix may be as easy as clarifying in the law book the "exception proves the rule" issue with regards to unexpected/expected alerts or explanations.

Of course, that's still going to leave the dodgy cases where people make an upgrade/downgrade/misjudgement so their hand no longer fits the explanation and then it's pot luck whether you get a bunch of TDs who agree or a bunch of TDs who disagree with your judgement, but unfortunately there'll always be an element of that in bridge so we can't do much for it, particularly with the rather bad wording of the UI laws.

ahydra

[Free]

Law 16A1D is pretty clear:

Quote

LAW 16 AUTHORIZED AND UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION

Quote

A. Players’ Use of Information

Quote

1. A player may use information in the auction or play if:

Quote

(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.

Seems like a correct explanation of a correct call is information the player possessed before he took his hand from the board, so he can use it...

[RMB1]

Gnasher, let me be the one to answer the original question "no".

If opener can have a hand that would make a marginal invitation with 3♠ if 3♠ were invitational, would bid 3♠ preemptively if 3♠ is not invitational, and would compete to 4♠ (if partner hasn't doubled, say).

Then, with such a hand, opener would bid 3♠ (and then 4♠) but we would not know if he knew 3♠ was not invitational and so he appears to have used UI from the explanation of 3♠.

In this case, it is possible that there would be a ruling against opener. When opener had known their agreements all along (for instance, when he bid 3♠) such a ruling is (to say the least) unfortunate.

[ahydra]

RMB1, on Sep 7 2010, 08:32 AM, said:

Then, with such a hand, opener would bid 3♠ (and then 4♠) but we would not know if he knew 3♠ was not invitational and so he appears to have used UI from the explanation of 3♠.

In this case, it is possible that there would be a ruling against opener. When opener had known their agreements all along (for instance, when he bid 3♠) such a ruling is (to say the least) unfortunate.

Indeed. Although one would hope we presume a partnership is aware of their system (particularly if they can offer up a system file with at least some details of this kind of auction), as discussed in my thread on UI such presumptions may open the door to cheaters.

Free's argument is somewhat dodgy IMO, but it does support what surely is the sensible view to take in these cases - if there's no actual evidence a partnership has forgotten its understandings, then they can be said to have known the meaning of the bid before the auction began and so the information is useable. (We still haven't fixed the fact that the explanation is UI though -.-)

ahydra

[Free]

ahydra, on Sep 7 2010, 03:22 PM, said:

Free's argument is somewhat dodgy IMO, but it does support what surely is the sensible view to take in these cases - if there's no actual evidence a partnership has forgotten its understandings, then they can be said to have known the meaning of the bid before the auction began and so the information is useable. (We still haven't fixed the fact that the explanation is UI though -.-)

ahydra

Then read further Law 16B1:

Quote

B. Extraneous Information from Partner

Quote

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.
( b ) A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

This is pretty clear imo.