[gnasher]

 mycroft, on 2012-January-30, 14:25, said:

Do you agree partner's bid was slow? Yes.

Do you agree that as a result, you have Unauthorized Information, and you must carefully avoid using that Unauthorized information (and that "what I always would have bid" isn't carefully avoiding), throughout the rest of the auction and play, and that if I think it's possible you didn't follow that to the letter, I can call the TD to get an adjusted result? And do you realize that as the transmitter of the UI, you are *not* under those restrictions - and that it's not, actually, wrong to have to think about a hand?

Uh, what?

But by "reserving one's rights" or "agreeing we have a slow call", you're asking that entire litany of questions, and probably more that I can't think of off the top of my head. But I bet there are thousands of bridge players who don't know what that "entire litany" is - and they're just going to answer the question asked. And that puts them in a disadvantageous position that is unwelcome (unless you're the kind of player who likes having those kinds of ethically dubious advantages - which I'm sure none of the people here are, but we all know one!)

When playing in the rare air of Flight A, one can assume that we all know the whole game. Others' club games may be different, but I wouldn't expect the C pairs to understand it all.

You mean that if they knew the consequences of telling the truth they'd lie instead? Perhaps some players would, but I'm not sure that we should have much sympathy for them.

[mycroft]

 gnasher, on 2012-January-30, 15:11, said:

You mean that if they knew the consequences of telling the truth they'd lie instead?

Where do you get that from?

If they don't know what they're agreeing to, how can they be expected to do the right thing? If they don't know what their restrictions are, how can they best attempt to follow Law 10C4? Or best attempt to follow Law 73, for that matter?
Anyone who's talked to a "but I just bid what I always would" person - or who's dealt with "that kind of" player who says "they agreed there was a hesitation and HE BID ANYWAY!" - will realize how much better things would be if they were informed *before they bid* what their responsibility was, and that is why the ACBL recommendation is, still, to call the TD on transmission of UI.

Perhaps better would be better education on these matters so that we could just expect that SilverLMs would know what "do we agree that call was slow?" or "we all agree she was fumbling with the bidding box, right?" meant; but the way it is is the way it is.

[mgoetze]

 jillybean, on 2012-January-30, 08:07, said:

We have another 7 boards to play against these opponents. One of them forgot they were playing nmf but apparently remembered after the auction ended but still didn't say anything. The other forgot or didn't know we should be told that there has been a failure to alert before we make our lead. No damage this time but perhaps next time we will be, is it best to wait until we are damaged?

How do you know the opponent remembered after the auction when (s)he didn't say anything?

There are alternative possible explanations:
- Both of them forgot
- The CC is outdated

Depending on the mood at the table, I might try something like "You guys know your CC has NMF on it, don't you?" after the hand, and proceed based on their reaction, e.g. "I'd appreciate it if you could spend a quick moment to bring your CC up-to-date" or "I think you need to tell us about that [partner's failure to alert] after the final pass, we could call the director just to ask about it if you'd like".

I find this one much easier than your original problem, somehow.

[blackshoe]

 mycroft, on 2012-January-30, 17:05, said:

that is why the ACBL recommendation is, still, to call the TD on transmission of UI.

Who in the ACBL is making that recommendation, and to whom is it being made? It sounds like one of those things that gets told to Tournament TDs and nobody else.

There is nothing in the law about calling the TD on transmission of UI. Given the ACBL's stance on who's in charge of the laws in North America, if the ACBL wanted the law to say that, it would say it. Since it doesn't, recommending that people call the TD anyway seems just a bit disingenuous.

[jillybean]

 barmar, on 2012-January-30, 10:04, said:

When it's my legal opportunity to ask questions (before the lead if I'm opening leader, otherwise after partner makes his face-down lead), I usually ask "Was there a failure to alert 2♦?" I believe this is necessary to comply with ACBL's regulation that says experienced players should try to protect themselves if they think there has been misinformation due to a failure to alert.

I had no interest in entering the auction, I don't believe I needed to protect myself, I suspected 2♦ was artificial but didn't want to draw attention to it. Should I still say something?

 mgoetze, on 2012-January-30, 17:40, said:

How do you know the opponent remembered after the auction when (s)he didn't say anything?

After the hand partner asked if there was a failure to alert.

 mgoetze, on 2012-January-30, 17:40, said:

There are alternative possible explanations:
- Both of them forgot
- The CC is outdated

Depending on the mood at the table, I might try something like "You guys know your CC has NMF on it, don't you?" after the hand, and proceed based on their reaction, e.g. "I'd appreciate it if you could spend a quick moment to bring your CC up-to-date" or "I think you need to tell us about that [partner's failure to alert] after the final pass, we could call the director just to ask about it if you'd like".

I find this one much easier than your original problem, somehow.

This is another way of teaching the laws at the table.

[mycroft]

Blackshoe, it's an ISTR, from when the comments on the new Laws came out. Not that we're going to get those who are used to the old method to change, so go with it. There's certainly nothing *wrong* with doing it that way, especially if there's any chance that the opponents don't understand the ramifications of the question they are being asked.

And, of course, good players who know the Laws playing against other good players who know the Laws are going to bypass it, just like they used to do when it was against the Law to. Now, at least, it's legal to do it the "obvious" way.

[Vampyr]

 mycroft, on 2012-January-30, 18:42, said:

There's certainly nothing *wrong* with doing it that way, especially if there's any chance that the opponents don't understand the ramifications of the question they are being asked.

This could be a problem, but it is a practical impossibility to call the director when there is a transmission of UI. Because it happens all the time. At a tournament the directors are too busy to go to every table every five minutes, and at clubs with playing directors it is even worse. And at a privately held knockout or the like you would have to keep the referee on the phone for the full duration of the match.

Perhaps the advice works in club games with paid directors. But that is the only circumstance I can think of.

[barmar]

 gnasher, on 2012-January-30, 15:11, said:

You mean that if they knew the consequences of telling the truth they'd lie instead? Perhaps some players would, but I'm not sure that we should have much sympathy for them.

 mycroft, on 2012-January-30, 17:05, said:

Where do you get that from?

If they don't know what they're agreeing to, how can they be expected to do the right thing?

You're just asking them a question of fact: was or was there not a hesitation? They need to "do the right thing" (i.e. not take advantage of UI) whether or not you ask.

[Zelandakh]

I think the best way of teaching at the table is when your side has the problem. For example, I had a hand not so long back where my LHO opened 1♥. Partner paused for a long time before passing, then pass on my right. With a borderline re-open I naturally passed. After the hand I said to my partner, but also the table, that without the pause I would have re-opened but the pause suggested it so I had to pass. Whether or not the opponents took notice of this I do not know but it cannot hurt to expose them to this. I am certain my partner's understanding of the UI laws has improved enormously from such examples and discussions.

[blackshoe]

Heh. That's a good method, Zel. Doesn't always work, though. I had a partner once who tanked in some auction and then bid 3♥. I passed because it seemed to me the tank suggested I should bid 4. 4 duly made. She angrily asked me why I didn't bid it, and I said, basically, "because you tanked". She refused to play with me after that.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2012-January-31, 08:46, said:

Heh. That's a good method, Zel. Doesn't always work, though. I had a partner once who tanked in some auction and then bid 3♥. I passed because it seemed to me the tank suggested I should bid 4. 4 duly made. She angrily asked me why I didn't bid it, and I said, basically, "because you tanked". She refused to play with me after that.

Why?

[blackshoe]

She never said. I can only assume she wanted me to bid in spite of the UI.

[phil_20686]

 blackshoe, on 2012-January-31, 08:46, said:

Heh. That's a good method, Zel. Doesn't always work, though. I had a partner once who tanked in some auction and then bid 3♥. I passed because it seemed to me the tank suggested I should bid 4. 4 duly made. She angrily asked me why I didn't bid it, and I said, basically, "because you tanked". She refused to play with me after that.

You shold be thankful for small mercies, at least she didn't say "I presume you don't think a slow double means penalties either" <sigh for dramatic effect>

[Bbradley62]

Sounds like she didn't think pass was a logical alternative, and thought you were punishing her to prove a point.

[blackshoe]

 Bbradley62, on 2012-January-31, 10:15, said:

Sounds like she didn't think pass was a logical alternative, and thought you were punishing her to prove a point.

Possibly. I'm not sure at this point exactly what I did say, but "because you tanked" certainly leaves room for that assumption.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2012-January-31, 10:18, said:

Possibly. I'm not sure at this point exactly what I did say, but "because you tanked" certainly leaves room for that assumption.

Yes, you are much more precise when you write about L.A.'s and UI here on the fora. I don't always agree, but I certainly understand what your position is.

[Vampyr]

 Bbradley62, on 2012-January-31, 10:15, said:

Sounds like she didn't think pass was a logical alternative, and thought you were punishing her to prove a point.

If that is a possibility, then Blackshoe must have a seriously bad reputation. It's probably more like:

Recently my partner didn't bid 6♥ because he didn't want to rule out a grand. I was about to bid 6♥, then thought of some potential hands he could have and bid 4; I had already made a strong slam try.

Partner passed, and I didn't agree that pass is a logical alternative for a player who didn't bid 6 as a signoff, since he was considering a grand. I thought partner was kind of an idiot, but is not unusual for partner to go too far in carefully avoiding etc. I guess some partnerships end due to one difference of opinion about had evaluation.

 blackshoe, on 2012-January-31, 10:18, said:

Possibly. I'm not sure at this point exactly what I did say, but "because you tanked" certainly leaves room for that assumption.

Well, you wouldn't have said that. More likely you explained why you thought Pass was a logical alternative.

[mjj29]

 Vampyr, on 2012-January-30, 12:43, said:

Thanks for the clarification. I don't understand the last part, though. Why would opponents agree something if they didn't understand what they were being asked to agree?

You ask, for example, "Do you agree that 3♠ was slow?", and a person will not say "yes" unless they understand what you have said.

Sure, that's fine - but a lot of the time you get "I'm reserving my rights!" "um... ok?", where the other play has no idea that this means they have agreed to the BIT, because they've not come across the term before and didn't think it was a question to which they had to agree or disagree.

It's an appalling phrase, since it conveys no information about what it actually means, it's just a shame that the laws/regulations/common practice has encouraged that rather than the far more descriptive and less confrontational "Can we agree there was a break in tempo before 3♠?"

[blackshoe]

"I'm reserving my rights" means just what it says. Of course, if you don't know what rights he's talking about, you should probably ask, but people confronted with an expression like this not surprisingly do not always react logically. They are non-plussed by it, they at least momentarily don't know what to do, and so they do nothing.

"Can we agree..." certainly feels like a better approach than "I reserve my rights", but the latter is what the law specifies.

[Vampyr]

 mjj29, on 2012-February-01, 09:26, said:

Sure, that's fine - but a lot of the time you get "I'm reserving my rights!" "um... ok?", where the other play has no idea that this means they have agreed to the BIT, because they've not come across the term before and didn't think it was a question to which they had to agree or disagree.

It's an appalling phrase, since it conveys no information about what it actually means,

I have been saying this for ages, and in fact I don't think that it means anything at all or, more importantly, that the opponents have actually agreed to anything.

 blackshoe, on 2012-February-01, 10:08, said:

"Can we agree..." certainly feels like a better approach than "I reserve my rights", but the latter is what the law specifies.

Not exactly. The Law doesn't say you have to use such a phrase, and I think that "reserve" is supposed to mean "put off until another time" rather than lodge some sort of notice of intent. That is not what the word normally means in English, but what else is new.