[Fluffy]

I had never read that TD will disregard any claim that you had realized before the UI took place. Is this on an english book?

[Fluffy]

Vampyr, on 2013-September-02, 09:02, said:

I don't think this is right, Andy; in fact I think that you have contradicted yourself. Anyway if this thread gets moved into the correct forum (mods?) we can hear from the likes of Gordon and Robin.

Just because a hoard of secretary birds have managed to hijack a judgement topic into another thing doesn't mean it has to be moved, it could be copied and cut so you can discuss your stuff while guys who actually consider the real question asked by the OP can stay on topic.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-September-02, 13:20, said:

To "try to get out of the mess" sounds like a breach of 73C. If you know that you have misbid, you just select from LAs one not demonstrably suggested by the UI.

73C forbids you from taking advantage of UI. Information that you already possessed is AI. If the UI simply repeats the AI, acting on the AI is not taking advantage of the UI: it is taking advantage of the AI.

The "L" in "LA" stands for "logical". If the AI tells you that an action is illogical, it's not an LA.

Compare these situations:
(1) I bid 2♣ in response to my 1NT. I know that this is Stayman. Then partner explains it as Stayman, giving me UI. However, my LAs are the actions that were logical before I received the UI. Hence I can legally assume partner is responding to Stayman.
(2) I bid 4♣, intending to deny ♦K. I realise that I have made the wrong bid, and actually I denied ♠K. Then partner explains that I have denied ♠K, giving me UI. However, my LAs are the actions that were logical before I recevied the UI. Hence I can legally assume that partner thinks I have denied ♠K.

From a legal point of view, the two situations are exactly equivalent. In (2), it is perfectly legal to act on the knowledge that you made a mistake. But there's no point in doing so, because you will still have your score adjusted.

[gnasher]

Fluffy, on 2013-September-02, 14:48, said:

Just because a hoard of secretary birds have managed to hijack a judgement topic into another thing doesn't mean it has to be moved, it could be copied and cut so you can discuss your stuff while guys who actually consider the real question asked by the OP can stay on topic.

But we have answered the real question. A bridge problem that includes partner's explanation is, by definition, partly a UI problem. And the complete solution is the first half of Trinidad's post (no 11).

Quote

I had never read that TD will disregard any claim that you had realized before the UI took place. Is this on an english book?

I believe it's a universal approach, but I may be wrong. I think any other approach is unworkable.

Suppose that we required the director to use his judgement in this situatiion. Then three people all have the same auction. They make the wrong response to a relay, hear partner's explanation, and then appear to act on the knowledge from the explanation. All three claim that they remembered their methods just before they heard partner's explanation.

Two of the players are Mother Teresa and Dr Somebody from Germany. The director believes Mother Teresa, so she keeps her score. He disbelieves Dr Somebody, and adjusts his score to 6NTx-5. Everybody nods approvingly.

The third player is a young bridge pro from Madrid. What should the director to do?

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-September-02, 14:59, said:

(1) I bid 2♣ in response to my 1NT. I know that this is Stayman. Then partner explains it as Stayman, giving me UI. However, my LAs are the actions that were logical before I received the UI. Hence I can legally assume partner is responding to Stayman.

A better comparison with that might be that you bid 2♣ which you think is Stayman but partner alerts it, and explains it when asked as a puppet to 2♦. There are several possibilities
a) you forgot that it was a puppet to 2♦ but you remembered that you made a mistake before partner bid
b) you made a mistake and realised your error because of partner's unexpected alert.
c) you are certain that it was Stayman but partner has mistakenly alerted.

a) and b) are rolled into one, and the TD indeed assumes you were woken up by the alert - that is accepted practice. However, a correct application of 16b means that you should select your LAs now using the methods of the partnership, but Law 75 indicates that you must instead pretend that you still think you are playing Stayman (whether or not you are), in all three cases, and interpret partner's response of 2♦ as denying a four-card major (but you alert it as a forced puppet). And it is accepted practice also that Law 75 overrides the wrongly worded Law 16B.

And on the question at the start of this thread, I presume that I am able to show the king of spades now, in what I briefly believed were the methods when I denied the king of diamonds. I would imagine that I was planning to show the king of spades in some way or another if asked, and so I would make that bid now.

[quiddity]

gnasher, on 2013-September-02, 15:22, said:

The third player is a young bridge pro from Madrid. What should the director to do?

"I could give you my word as a Spaniard."
"No good, I've known too many Spaniards."

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-September-02, 18:37, said:

A better comparison with that might be that you bid 2♣ which you think is Stayman but partner alerts it, and explains it when asked as a puppet to 2♦.

That's a different comparison, but I don't think it's a very informative one, because it's just a second example of the situation in the original post.

Quote

a) and b) are rolled into one

They are rolled into one for the purpose of giving a ruling, but not for the purpose of determining what is legal.

[PhilG007]

Fibbing is OK...as long as partner is also deceived...(!)

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-September-03, 01:19, said:

They are rolled into one for the purpose of giving a ruling, but not for the purpose of determining what is legal.

Law 75, which outlines the responsibilities of the players, does not provide an exemption for the situation where the player remembers that he has misbid himself, but later receives UI. So "what is legal" and "how the director rules" are the same.

Mind you the example in that Law, where one makes a weak takeout of 2♦ opposite a strong 1NT, but partner bids 2NT, and one has to treat it as a strong game-try, is utterly absurd, and I think the AI that partner had misinterpreted our 2♦ is overwhelming. But the WBFLC in their wisdom thinks not.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-September-03, 02:43, said:

Law 75, which outlines the responsibilities of the players, does not provide an exemption for the situation where the player remembers that he has misbid himself, but later receives UI. So "what is legal" and "how the director rules" are the same.

Law 75 gives three examples, none of which apply here. The one in 75A reads "South, having heard North’s explanation, knows that his own 2♦ bid has been misinterpreted." What we are discussing is the equivalent of "South, prior to hearing North’s explanation, knew that his own 2♦ bid wouild be misinterpreted. North's explanation adds no new information to that knowledge."

[Fluffy]

gnasher, on 2013-September-02, 15:22, said:

I believe it's a universal approach, but I may be wrong. I think any other approach is unworkable.

I agree with you in general, and in almost all of the cases, however there could be situations were for example you make another bid before opponent's ask about the previous one, and that subsequent bid makes it obvious that you really know what is going on. Or perhaps something else happens before the UI that makes it clear like you explaining partner's bid as an asking for the card you missed, the most obvious would be LHO asks but RHO doesn't, so when he asks about your bid you might have already asked partner's relay which makes it clear you know what has happened.

That's why I was disagreeing with your absolute terms.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-September-03, 03:14, said:

Law 75 gives three examples, none of which apply here.

But they are all examples. And in all of them you have to pretend that you still have your original misconception. You don't argue that "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 <snip>" does not include "cough" and therefore there is no "UI from a cough". Charles Ingram would agree with you, but the spirit of Law 75 is that if you originally had a misconception you have to continue to have that misconception however you found out.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-September-03, 05:05, said:

But they are all examples. And in all of them you have to pretend that you still have your original misconception. You don't argue that "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 <snip>" does not include "cough" and therefore there is no "UI from a cough". Charles Ingram would agree with you, but the spirit of Law 75 is that if you originally had a misconception you have to continue to have that misconception however you found out.

Nionsense. Law 75 contains three different examples, each relating to a different principle
75A: You may not use UI.
75B: The opponents are entitled to know your agreements.
75C: The opponents are not entitled to know that you have misbid.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-September-03, 05:24, said:

Nionsense. Law 75 contains three different examples, each relating to a different principle
75A: You may not use UI.
75B: The opponents are entitled to know your agreements.
75C: The opponents are not entitled to know that you have misbid.

They all (purport to) refer to a "misleading explanation being given to the opponents", so they also relate to the same principle - UI. In all of them whether it says so or not, the player must bid according to his original misconception (or correct belief). It states in C that there is no infraction. But C is no different than the part of A where the explanation is correct, so there is UI there as well and if that is used then there is an infraction. And in B there is UI that partner has wrongly explained your bid. So, you must not bend the auction to accommodate that. The opponents knowing your agreements and not being entitled to know that you have misbid are important aspects, but the purpose of the clause is to clarify the responsibilities of the players (and the Director).

You seem to think that the Director acts one way but the players can act another. And I am tired of this thread and will not post on it any more. gnasher is right and all the TDs are wrong, and any PPs given when someone says he remembered himself were mistaken.

[mikeh]

chasetb, on 2013-September-01, 22:30, said:

Let's say you are playing a method (whether Spiral Scan or DCB or something similar), and you have a mess-up in that you denied a specific card you have. Earlier today, I had shown 8-11 HCP, 4243 shape, the A♦, but denied the K♠ (I thought I had denied the K♦ when I bid, but realized my mess up a few seconds later, right before partner explained it to opps). My only top honors were A♦, K♠, Q♥ How would you recover, not being able to show/fabricate any Jacks?

I'll post the hand here in 2-3 days. Thanks to everyone who votes or posts, and doubly for anyone who votes, and posts their reasoning why!

The simple answer, as someone who has played relays and DCB and spiral scan sequences, is that you can't recover, at least not reliably.

I've told the story before of reaching 6♠, in international competition, with KQ10xx opposite void as my trump suit. At the end of the long relay auction, LHO asked me for an explanation, and I volunteered, after giving him the 'correct' explanation, that I thought that something had 'gone off the tracks'. I didn't tell him why, but it was because I was looking at the heart AK and partner had described holding one, but not both, of those cards.

My situation wasn't analogous, but the fact is that at your point in the auction, whatever you do 'won't work'.

In addition, because an explanation has been given, albeit that you recognized the error before the explanation, both you and your partner are twice-damned, in that no director nor committee (where committees exist) will let you keep any good result that arises from you now doing something anti-systemic, in the hope that partner will work out that a mistake has happened.

Consider this:

You choose to make a misbid now, hoping to wake up partner to the idea that something has gone wrong.

There are two possibilities.

One is that the action you take, showing or denying a specific holding, is in fact consistent with partner's hand and view of the bidding. Now he continues to bid but on the basis of 2 bits of misinformation, not one. I don't like your chances of landing on your feet.

The other is that your action is 'impossible'.

Ok, he knows something went wrong.

Can he work out that it was earlier...that you showed the wrong King?

Maybe he can, in real life, but he isn't going to be allowed to keep the benefit of it.

He knows that the 'mistake' you just made...the red flag you just waved...was made right after he gave an explanation of your earlier misbid. I can tell you that as someone with experience sitting on Committees, no way are you keeping this result.

As Andy noted, imo correctly, the reality is that no TD nor any rational committee can ever let anyone keep this sort of result, because they cannot descend to assessing the honesty of any player who claims (but cannot ever demonstrate) that he or she made the determination without regard to UI, when such UI was demonstrably present when the effect of the determination becomes apparent.

To allow or require TD's to make this honesty decision invites less-scrupulous players to lie, adds subconscious pressure on many innocent players to misremember, and invites the agony of having honest people being told they are being dis-believed and dishonest people gaining an unfair advantage.

So I think you just answer any more questions honestly, in keeping with your methods. If you are lucky, the presence of an unexpected King and the absence of the one shown will make no difference to the outcome. If you get what you deserve (bear in mind that 'I've been there, done that' myself) then that'll help you remember the system better next time

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-September-03, 05:53, said:

They all (purport to) refer to a "misleading explanation being given to the opponents", so they also relate to the same principle - UI.

Er no. They purport to, and actually do, relate to three different possible consequences of an explanation: (A) UI; (B) MI; (C ) I.

Quote

In all of them whether it says so or not, the player must bid according to his original misconception (or correct belief).

Does "whether it says so or not" mean "even though Law 75 doesn't say this, it's true"?

If that's what you mean, perhaps you should tell us which law you (now) think makes it true.

Quote

You seem to think that the Director acts one way but the players can act another.

Yes, because the Director and the players have different information, and because I'm making a distinction between what is required of a player by the rules, and directorial practice in applying those rules. Only the player knows what was in his mind prior to the UI, and as a matter of practice (not law) the director will disregard unsupported claims to have remembered before the UI was received.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-September-03, 12:10

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2013-September-03, 12:06, said:

Yes, because the Director and the players have different information, and because I'm making a distinction between what is required of a player by the rules, and directorial practice in applying those rules.

I think it's rather too nice a distinction, and since it has no practical purpose that I can see, making it can only sow confusion. I know I was confused at first.

Also, is there truly a distinction? If you are "permitted" to do something, but you will get ruled against 100% of the time, was it really legal in the first place? In any case it was foolish, since you could have emerged with a good result if you had known that the "I" would have to be assumed by the director to be UI.

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2013-September-03, 12:19, said:

I think it's rather too nice a distinction, and since it has no practical purpose that I can see, making it can only sow confusion. I know I was confused at first.

It was in reply to Fluffy's reasonable question "Why doesn't it matter? he realized before UI was given, so the UI didn't change anything." It's not really my fault that Paul spent a further six posts trying to replace my answer with an incorrect one.

Quote

Also, is there truly a distinction? If you are "permitted" to do something, but you will get ruled against 100% of the time, was it really legal in the first place?

Yes, there is a distinction. Knowingly breaking the rules in the hope of gaining an advantage is cheating. Following the rules is not cheating. In such matters we should be very clear about what our words mean.

It was and is legal because the laws say it is legal

Quote

In any case it was foolish, since you could have emerged with a good result if you had known that the "I" would have to be assumed by the director to be UI.

Not necessarily. Suppose that you are in the unfortunate position of knowing that your preferred action is legal, but also knowing that a TD will rule it to be illegal. There are two possible tactics:
- Choose some action that the TD will rule to be legal, and hope to survive.
- Choose the action that you want to make, and hope that the opponents don't ask for a ruling.
The second approach is perfectly legal, because the action itself is legal.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2013-September-03, 13:35, said:

- Choose the action that you want to make, and hope that the opponents don't ask for a ruling.
The second approach is perfectly legal, because the action itself is legal.

This seems a bit sharp, since the opponents may not realise or remember that there was a misbid and UI.

[hautbois]

If I answer every subsequent relay honestly, partner may still work out that I misbid earlier and it seems the most naturally ethical thing to do.