[nige1]

West's alert provided no UI to East because (sfi tells us) this 3♦ bid is alertable and NS asked no questions, at any stage. If NS weren't damaged, why do they deserve a score adjustment in their favour?

[ggwhiz]

 nige1, on 2013-December-30, 16:06, said:

West's alert provided no UI to East because (sfi tells us) this 3♦ bid is alertable and NS asked no questions, at any stage. If NS weren't damaged, why do they deserve a score adjustment in their favour?

If the alert by west was for a bergen raise confirmed as the partnership agreement per the cc and the auction proceeded with the fielding of a misbid as posted? (if that's the case) how are n/s not damaged?

I agree 100% that asking questions when you don't need to know so as to cause a possible UI situation for the opps is deplorable but feel that UI exists or should when there is a wake up alert, questioned or not.

[RSliwinski]

 blackshoe, on 2013-December-30, 15:08, said:

Law 20F5 applies to misexplanations by partner only. Law 20F4 applies to misexplanations by oneself.

In Ton's example, South failed to alert a 3♣ call which, per partnership agreement, should have been alerted. North correctly gave no indication of a problem at the time. South subsequently bid 4♣, which has an artificial meaning per partnership agreement, so North correctly alerted it. This woke South up to the fact that he should have alerted 3♣. He is now required by Law 20F4 immediately to call the director and correct his own earlier misexplanation. So no, I do not mean that only partner's incorrect alerts or non-alerts are MI, if that's what you were thinking. Your own are as well.

I do, of cource, understand the difference between 20F4 and 20F5 but this was not at issue. The question, which you now answered, was if misstaken alerts (and non-alerts) were to be treated as "misstaken explanations" also in case when this is done by myself and not by the partner.
I have no problems with that but then I do not understand your earlier remark when you make difference in player's obligations when

1) the player realises his explanation was incorrect, and
2) the player realises his alert was incorrect.

As I see it case 2 is a subcase of case 1 so in both cases the player has to call TD. But maybe I misunderstood you.

[nige1]

 ggwhiz, on 2013-December-30, 16:11, said:

If the alert by west was for a bergen raise confirmed as the partnership agreement per the cc and the auction proceeded with the fielding of a misbid as posted (if that's the case) how are n/s not damaged? I agree 100% that asking questions when you don't need to know so as to cause a possible UI situation for the opps is deplorable.

Is the Bergen CC agreement speculation or is ggwhiz privy to more information than we are? For example, did East consult his own convention-card, during the auction? Anyway, if there's no UI or CPU, is there a penalty for fielding your own misbid?

[CSGibson]

 ggwhiz, on 2013-December-30, 16:11, said:

If the alert by west was for a bergen raise confirmed as the partnership agreement per the cc and the auction proceeded with the fielding of a misbid as posted? (if that's the case) how are n/s not damaged?

I agree 100% that asking questions when you don't need to know so as to cause a possible UI situation for the opps is deplorable.

N-S may have been screwed by the misunderstanding, but WHERE IS THE UI? A screwjob is not enough for an adjustment, sometimes bad bridge wins. But E didn't know that W was on a different page through the alert procedure, they just fluked into a good result.

Let's say that I thought a 2N response to a 1M bid was traditional jacoby, and my partner thought it was a limit raise plus. We'd still just say alert, and alert responses as normal, but no explanation is given. We get to a horrible minor suit slam that makes as a result (one thought 3♣ was shortness, the other all minimums, etc, and the confusion propels us to slam). Why should my opponents get redress?

Here, a similar situation exists. I'm pretty sure that these are not regular partners...regular partners tend to know if they are playing Bergen or weak jump shifts...so E-W don't know their alerting style, there is no inference that "my partner never alerts weak jump shifts, so he must think its something else," and its unlikely that their partnership discussion extended to whether either knows if weak jump shifts are alertable.

I think the only leg you have to stand on is that maybe one person in the partnership THOUGHT they had UI because they didn't know that weak jump shifts were alertable - but that wasn't established clearly, and its not clear to me that acting on fake UI is an infraction anyway.

[ggwhiz]

 CSGibson, on 2013-December-30, 16:38, said:

WHERE IS THE UI?

An alert of what I thought was a non-alertable bid? I know we don't have all the relevant facts here and I'm grasping at what they might be but the 7♦ bid is suspicious as is the pass of it. Too much coincidence for my taste.

[blackshoe]

 ggwhiz, on 2013-December-30, 16:11, said:

If the alert by west was for a bergen raise confirmed as the partnership agreement per the cc and the auction proceeded with the fielding of a misbid as posted? (if that's the case) how are n/s not damaged?

I agree 100% that asking questions when you don't need to know so as to cause a possible UI situation for the opps is deplorable but feel that UI exists or should when there is a wake up alert, questioned or not.

Let's set aside the question of damage for the moment. East made an alertable bid, West alerted it. This should have been expected by East, but given the testimony that it is rarely alerted, it may not have been. If it was expected, then East has no UI, because as was pointed out, nobody asked about the alert. West, expecting a Bergen raise, bid what was probably some form of Blackwood and, receiving a reasonable response, bid the slam he thought he could make. How is that "fielding a misbid"?

Now East has to decide what's going on. Either the wheels have come off, and West thinks East has hearts, or West is suggesting a small slam in hearts would be better than one in diamonds. Either way, it doesn't look to me like East, with eight diamonds and one measly heart, has a logical alternative to 7♦.

It doesn't look to me like there's been an infraction here, unless the alert of 3♦ was not expected by East. If there hasn't, the question of "damage" is irrelevant.

So did East expect West to alert 3♦? Damfino. Did anybody ask him?

[blackshoe]

 RSliwinski, on 2013-December-30, 16:15, said:

I do, of cource, understand the difference between 20F4 and 20F5 but this was not at issue. The question, which you now answered, was if misstaken alerts (and non-alerts) were to be treated as "misstaken explanations" also in case when this is done by myself and not by the partner.
I have no problems with that but then I do not understand your earlier remark when you make difference in player's obligations when

1) the player realises his explanation was incorrect, and
2) the player realises his alert was incorrect.

As I see it case 2 is a subcase of case 1 so in both cases the player has to call TD. But maybe I misunderstood you.

I disagree. An alert is not an explanation, and only mistaken explanations require a TD call and correction.

[trevahound]

 blackshoe, on 2013-December-30, 15:11, said:

I think what these folks were trying to tell you is that the law gives you the right to ask questions about alerts, whether you have a bridge reason for doing so or not, and that if asking your question "cements UI" for the opponents, that's their problem. I do not think they were telling you that you should use the tactic of asking questions to try to ensure the opponents fall into a UI problem. But perhaps you should go back and ask them.

I have. Their position is you may ask questions for any non-prohibited reason (and the only prohibited reasons would be to convey various information to your partner via your questions), and if answering those questions causes UI or MI problems for the opps, tough. Their position is further that there is absolutely nothing wrong with this -- I may feel differently, but that's up to me, and there's no obligation on anyone else to agree with the way I feel about this. Why the questions were asked that led to UI or MI being introduced is irrelevant (presuming it was asked at a legal time by a legal asker), both as to any adjustments and to any procedural or ethical issues.

[nige1]

 Cascade, on 2013-December-30, 09:47, said:

I would think that a player that asked in order to cause the opponents problems was engaging in sharp practice.

To determine intent you need to go on the director mind-reading course. Anyway, I doubt that asking to cause opponents problems is sharp practice. On the contrary, Bridge legislators make the rules increasingly sophisticated and convoluted, fully aware that this reduces the importance of ordinary bridge skills, enhances the advantage of the secretary-bird, and increases the influence of subjective director-decisions on results. This topic is another illustration that directors and players can't agree on how to apply the rules to basic cases, with agreed facts. Surely the time has come to simplify and clarify the rules?

[blackshoe]

 trevahound, on 2013-December-30, 19:23, said:

I have. Their position is you may ask questions for any non-prohibited reason (and the only prohibited reasons would be to convey various information to your partner via your questions), and if answering those questions causes UI or MI problems for the opps, tough. Their position is further that there is absolutely nothing wrong with this -- I may feel differently, but that's up to me, and there's no obligation on anyone else to agree with the way I feel about this. Why the questions were asked that led to UI or MI being introduced is irrelevant (presuming it was asked at a legal time by a legal asker), both as to any adjustments and to any procedural or ethical issues.

Law 72A says, in part, "The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these Laws." The people who are telling you "it's okay" are right about the letter of the law. I'm not so sure about the ethical standard they're setting.

<shrug> It's not something I've ever seen, so I'm not going to worry about it.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2013-December-30, 19:06, said:

I disagree. An alert is not an explanation, and only mistaken explanations require a TD call and correction.

Law 21B1a said:

Until the end of the auction period and provided that his partner has not subsequently called, a player may change a call without other rectification for his side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent (see Law 17E). Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation.

So yes, legally an alert (or missing alert) is an explanation.

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2013-December-30, 23:52, said:

Law 72A says, in part, "The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these Laws."

The part about "ethical standards" is a nonsense. The Laws don't set out any ethical standards which are not also laws.

Asking a question in order to inflict UI on the opponents is one of the few things which are legal but which most players would regard as unethical (in the normal English meaning of the word). This is, of course, completely different from asking a question because you want to follow the auction, or because you want to avoid giving UI, or because you like hearing the sound of your own voice.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2013-December-31, 03:47, said:

So yes, legally an alert (or missing alert) is an explanation.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

[mycroft]

Personally, anyone who tries this (legal) tactic for that reason (as opposed to any of the other reasons that might end up putting the opponents in a UI trap) gets the same response from me, both as a TD and a player, as any other "on the line" practise. As a TD: "it's legal, and if you choose to win that way, you're certainly allowed to" (and, of course, any technical failure to follow the Laws that might get waved away with normal players that I am called about I will nail them for); as a player, if they want to follow the Laws to the letter, well, two can play at that game. I actually like playing it that way (though without the sharp practise), and as a TD, I'm likely to be able to do it better (whether, as a TD, I can play better than said expert, I'm sure several people will chirp in on, experts and "experts" among them).

I have, in fact, put people in UI traps like that; but that has never been my purpose in asking. Frequently, it's one of those "we think you'll think this is a complete explanation" (arguably, with some pairs, "we hope you'll think this is a complete explanation") situations, and I'm reasonably certain there's more to it than I've been told (maybe because I play a similar system, or because the explanation as given, without other underpinnings in the system, is unplayable). Frankly, I just assume that they actually know their system when I'm asking; if I think they could be misunderstanding, I won't help them by letting them tell each other where they are (yes, yes, UI, try proving it - and there are some pairs we all know that know their system, but are so much more comfortable when partner tells them yes, they are still on the same page).

Having said that, I disagree with any belief that at BAM, a correction to 7♦ is reasonable. Partner took control, for whatever reason; partner put you in a "we're off one KC" slam. +1430 beats +1370; it even beats +1390. -100 beats *nothing* and at best ties 6♥-1. 4=7=1=1 with the same high cards, or the same hand without the ♠A and with the ♥J, and you've turned a win (or a push, if the opponents are as good as your partner) into a loss. Without UI, it's certainly *legal*; I just think it's bad bridge. But the coincidence of showing keycards for hearts (or submarining the ♦K), and then pulling 6♥ to 7♦, makes it very likely that he knows that partner thinks he has hearts, and that he worked it out from the Alert (never mind the fact that a NF JS would also be Alertable. Did East know that?) Whether within the Laws, I can rule that UI was transmitted, I can certainly ask questions that will give me an idea whether the Alert woke East up or not. If East is sharp enough to BS well enough that I can't distinguish it from "no UI transmitted", so be it. At least he knows that we've painted the bullseye on him. If East actually did "no UI transmitted" (whether or not I think the above case occurred instead), so be it - that's something his partner is going to have to work with.

Obviously, I would agree that a correction to a higher suit at the 6 level is reasonable. But not a correction to an "unmakeable" grand.

[mycroft]

I think the first question, of course, is "What was 5♦?" and then "Why did you bid it?" He can get me by saying "key card for hearts" and "I remembered immediately after bidding 3♦." and then after "What did the Alert say?" he can say "well, my IJS was passable, therefore Alertable; so I expected that" or the like. As I said, I should be able to phrase my questions well enough that East gets the unspoken "you know we'll be watching very carefully for any other "legal" calls you make, right?" But I know I've been too subtle before; maybe he won't get it. Ah well; if he is the type to use UI when he can arguably get away with it, his foot will slip eventually, and a C&E committee will decide his fate. I will be happy to supply evidence.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2013-December-31, 10:26, said:

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

Perhaps Sven didn't go through all the process for us, but I think he gets there. In between the premise and the conclusion would be that information explains and that explanations provide information --- then we stipulate that misinformation is information. It could even get more lengthy if he had to explain which side is getting misinformation from applying or failing to follow the alert procedure. The NOS might be getting misinformation while the OS is getting unauthorized, but helpful, information.

[pran]

 aguahombre, on 2013-December-31, 11:22, said:

Perhaps Sven didn't go through all the process for us, but I think he gets there. In between the premise and the conclusion would be that information explains and that explanations provide information --- then we stipulate that misinformation is information. It could even get more lengthy if he had to explain which side is getting misinformation from applying or failing to follow the alert procedure. The NOS might be getting misinformation while the OS is getting unauthorized, but helpful, information.

I honestly thought it completely unnecessary (for this audience) to elaborate further.

An alert informs opponents that the call is defined by the relevant regulations as requiring alert. A missing alert similarly informs opponents that the call is defined by the relevant regulations as not requiring alert.

Thus opponents have received a (partial) explanation of the call in question whether or not the call is alerted.

And if a call that requires an alert is not alerted, or vice versa, then opponents have received an incorrect explanation (i.e. misinformation).

However, from there to (for instance) some adjustment can be a long way to go, and adjusted scores are certainly not automatic.

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2013-December-30, 19:06, said:

I disagree. An alert is not an explanation, and only mistaken explanations require a TD call and correction.

In the context of Law 20F5, a mistaken alert is a mistaken explanation. I know that because it says so:
'Mistaken explanation' here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require.

[pran]

 gnasher, on 2013-December-31, 18:23, said:

In the context of Law 20F5, a mistaken alert is a mistaken explanation. I know that because it says so:
'Mistaken explanation' here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require.

As does Law 21B1a