what are my ethical obligations?

[James Lawrence]

Last night, I held

Qxx
KT
Axx
AQxxx

and RHO opens 1C (alerted --- could be short as in 5cM. This is a
standard alert in the UK.)

I overcall a strong notrump and LHO passes.

Partner now asks what the 1C opening was. Turns out it was actually a
precision club, which means that my 1NT showed the minors (hence he
now alerts it). He bids 2D.

What are my obligations now? I have misbid. I knew both our agreements
over a short club and a strong club, but I forgot what the opps were
playing (and yes I know I should have asked, but I thought I already
knew, I just remembered *their* system wrong. Neither opp had a
covention card, but that is not unusual at the club.) On the other
hand, I was "woken up" by authorised information, albeit that came
from the answer to a question asked by partner.

In fact opener bids 2NT before I have to decide whether to "complete
the transfer" (2D would have been a transfer if 1NT was natural). If
opener had passed instead, would I have been ethically bound to bid 2H?

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

James Lawrence skrev:

Yes.

--
Bertel, Denmark
http://bridge.lundhansen.dk/

[Mark Brader]

James Lawrence:

> Last night, I held
>
> Qxx
> KT
> Axx
> AQxxx
>
> and RHO opens 1C (alerted --- could be short as in 5cM. This is a
> standard alert in the UK.)

It would have been clearer if you had written "alerted -- I assume
it means 'could be short'...".

> I overcall a strong notrump and LHO passes.
>
> Partner now asks what the 1C opening was. Turns out it was actually a
> precision club, which means that my 1NT showed the minors (hence he
> now alerts it). He bids 2D.
>
> What are my obligations now?

You must not reveal your misbid now. (You may do so after the play,
or if you or your partner becomes dummy, but not sooner. You might
want to reveal what you were thinking if at that time someone claims
your side must have misexplained your agreements, but there is still
no obligation to.)

From here on if you're asked questions about your partner's calls --
or have to decide whether to alert/announce any of partner's calls
-- then you must do this as if you had known all along that 1NT was
for minors.

But for your own bidding, you must put on your other hat and continue
the auction as if 1NT had been natural. Likewise, if you end up
defending, you must defend as if partner's calls meant what they did
if 1NT was natural. The only possible escape from these UI constraints
is if partner makes a call or play that only makes sense in an auction
where 1NT was for minors and would be impossible in an auction where
1NT was natural. Even if that happens, you still have to be careful
about whether the condition is really true, and you should probably
call the director after play to protect the opponents.
--
Mark Brader "The great strength of the totalitarian state
Toronto is that it will force those who fear it
m...@vex.net to imitate it." -- Hitler (alleged)

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Eric Leong]

On Sep 16, 1:52 am, James Lawrence <james.lawre...@pathintel.com>
wrote:

Part of the answer depends on how much you want to respect the game.
What you are really asking is "What is the lowest ethical standard I
can use to get away with this?"
If you had not heard your partner's explanation what would you have
bid over 2D?
One would think the answer to what you do is obvious.

Eric Leong

[Charles Brenner]

What partner explanation?

Charles

[boblipton]

On Sep 16, 4:52 am, James Lawrence <james.lawre...@pathintel.com>
wrote:

Yes. Next time they alert 1 Club, take a look at the card.

Bob

[Carl]

On Sep 16, 4:52 am, James Lawrence <james.lawre...@pathintel.com>
wrote:

>

> Partner now asks what the 1C opening was.

Your failure to ask before your bid puts your partner in a bind. He
knows (or should know) that your 1N bid is highly dependent on the
meaning of the 1C opening, so you either already know what the opps
are playing, or you made an assumption, in which case HIS asking is
going to possibly provide you with a wake-up call.

He can avoid this situation, or minimise it, by reviewing the
opponent's card, which doesn't exist, so really he can't. Sort of a
mess you got here.

[derek]

On Sep 16, 5:52 am, James Lawrence <james.lawre...@pathintel.com>
wrote:

> Last night, I held
>
> Qxx
> KT
> Axx
> AQxxx
>
> and RHO opens 1C (alerted --- could be short as in 5cM. This is a
> standard alert in the UK.)

?? In the Std. American version of 5cM, "could be short" means "as
few as 2". In the UK, where opening 1M on 4 cards is not unheard-of,
one would suspect that the alert actually means "as few as three" -
which isn't considered short at all in a 5cM system.

>
> I overcall a strong notrump and LHO passes.
>
> Partner now asks what the 1C opening was.

So was the 1C alerted, or announced? I thought the UK didn't have
announcements. If it was alerted, and nobody asked, how do you know
"could be short"? If you were told without asking, it was improper -
and since you weren't told the actual agreement at that point, it was
also misinformation.

> Turns out it was actually a
> precision club, which means that my 1NT showed the minors (hence he
> now alerts it). He bids 2D.
>
> What are my obligations now? I have misbid. I knew both our agreements

No you haven't. You made a bid - correct based on what you thought
was true. You were either misled or you were simply mistaken as to
what they showed, but in either case, your bid is simply what you
think was right, and there's no error (in law) on your part.

> over a short club and a strong club, but I forgot what the opps were
> playing (and yes I know I should have asked, but I thought I already
> knew, I just remembered *their* system wrong. Neither opp had a
> covention card, but that is not unusual at the club.) On the other
> hand, I was "woken up" by authorised information, albeit that came
> from the answer to a question asked by partner.

Precisely.

>
> In fact opener bids 2NT before I have to decide whether to "complete
> the transfer" (2D would have been a transfer if 1NT was natural). If
> opener had passed instead, would I have been ethically bound to bid 2H?

I'm not as categorically in favor of that as everybody else. You may
not observe that your partner prefers diamonds over clubs - which is
what his bid shows if you were really showing minors. But if you
really have a strong 1N bid, what else would you do? So bid 2H. The
real problem is going to be your partner's next bid.

[Douglas Newlands]

This is the nub of the matter; it's all AI with no UI present so you
can do what you like.
Thus, you could pass 2D if RHO passed and after RHO's 2N bid you can
pass in comfort knowing a good partner who will never bid 3D.
A poor partner is a worry but 3D should be safe-ish.

doug

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<103275ea-d3e1-4f8d...@1g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>,

derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:

> On Sep 16, 5:52 am, James Lawrence <james.lawre...@pathintel.com>
> wrote:
> > Last night, I held
> >
> > Qxx
> > KT
> > Axx
> > AQxxx
> >
> > and RHO opens 1C (alerted --- could be short as in 5cM. This is a
> > standard alert in the UK.)
>
> ?? In the Std. American version of 5cM, "could be short" means "as
> few as 2". In the UK, where opening 1M on 4 cards is not unheard-of,
> one would suspect that the alert actually means "as few as three" -
> which isn't considered short at all in a 5cM system.
> >
> > I overcall a strong notrump and LHO passes.
> >
> > Partner now asks what the 1C opening was.
>
> So was the 1C alerted, or announced? I thought the UK didn't have
> announcements. If it was alerted, and nobody asked, how do you know

They added announcements5 years ago, but they're not the same as ACBL's
announcements. The EBU alert chart can be found at:

http://www.ebu.co.uk/publications/ConventionCards-SystemsInformation/Anno
uncements%20Table.pdf

They alert 1C and 1D that could be shorter than 3, or that are
artificial, they don't alert or announce if it shows 3+ in the suit.

> "could be short"? If you were told without asking, it was improper -
> and since you weren't told the actual agreement at that point, it was
> also misinformation.

Didn't he makes this clear later in his message? Or are you
demonstrating what happens when you leap to conclusions before getting
all the facts, as he did during the auction?

>
> > Turns out it was actually a
> > precision club, which means that my 1NT showed the minors (hence he
> > now alerts it). He bids 2D.
> >
> > What are my obligations now? I have misbid. I knew both our agreements
>
> No you haven't. You made a bid - correct based on what you thought
> was true. You were either misled or you were simply mistaken as to
> what they showed, but in either case, your bid is simply what you
> think was right, and there's no error (in law) on your part.

His agreement is that if they open a strong club, 1NT shows minors.
They opened a strong club, he bid 1NT, but he doesn't have the minors.
If you make a bid that you've agreed shows X, and you don't have X, then
you've either misbid or psyched, depending on whether you violated your
agreement deliberately.

In this case it was a misbid, brought on by the fact that he didn't
ascertain what the alert of 1C was for.

> > In fact opener bids 2NT before I have to decide whether to "complete
> > the transfer" (2D would have been a transfer if 1NT was natural). If
> > opener had passed instead, would I have been ethically bound to bid 2H?
>
> I'm not as categorically in favor of that as everybody else. You may
> not observe that your partner prefers diamonds over clubs - which is
> what his bid shows if you were really showing minors. But if you
> really have a strong 1N bid, what else would you do? So bid 2H. The
> real problem is going to be your partner's next bid.

Yeah, this auction is likely to go completely off the rails. Partner
will probably interpret 2H as some kind of cue bid. But since he's
pretty close to broke (he and LHO have at most 9 HCP combined), he
probably won't have anything he can cue bid, so he'll bid 3D. But since
you're still supposed to treat all this as response to your strong NT,
you have to take that as a 2nd suit and game force. Without a good fit
for either red suit, you'll now have to bid 3NT. This might be the
first bid that will seem totally impossible to partner, so maybe he'll
figure out what happened and pass.

Now comes the next tricky question: before LHO leads, are you required
to tell the opponents that your 1NT showed a strong NT, not minors?
Normally you're not required to disclose misbids, and I came to the
conclusion above that this was really a misbid. But just as Derek
thought, it seems different from a typical misbid, which usually comes
from forgetting your own system, not the opponents'.

But I'll stick with my opinion, and say that you're not required to
disclose. They heard the continuations, they may be able to come to the
same conclusion that partner did.

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

[Barry Margolin]

In article <j5114n$cbg$1...@douglasnewlands.eternal-september.org>,

Douglas Newlands <douglas....@gmail.com> wrote:

> > What partner explanation?
>
> This is the nub of the matter; it's all AI with no UI present so you
> can do what you like.

I'm not so sure, although it's tricky.

It's true that your partner didn't explain your 1NT bid. But if he
hadn't asked the question about 1C, you wouldn't have heard THEIR
explanation.

While it doesn't cover all cases, often a good way to figure out what's
UI versus AI is to imagine that you were playing with screens --
anything happening on the other side of the screen would generally be
UI. In this case, partner would ask his screenmate for an explanation,
and you wouldn't see the answer, so you would continue bidding as if
you'd shown a strong NT.

[Thomas Dehn]

On 09/16/2011 10:52 AM, James Lawrence wrote:
> Last night, I held
>
> Qxx
> KT
> Axx
> AQxxx
>
> and RHO opens 1C (alerted --- could be short as in 5cM. This is a
> standard alert in the UK.)
>
> I overcall a strong notrump and LHO passes.
>
> Partner now asks what the 1C opening was. Turns out it was actually a
> precision club, which means that my 1NT showed the minors (hence he
> now alerts it). He bids 2D.

Wait a sec.
How come you first write that 1C was alerted, "could be short",
and then it actually is a precision club.

Did you misinterpret the alert of 1C, or were you misinformed?


Thomas

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Carl skrev:

> He can avoid this situation, or minimise it, by reviewing the
> opponent's card, which doesn't exist, so really he can't. Sort of a
> mess you got here.

Yes - but who created the mess?

There is no doubt that the opponents ought to produce a system
card. But the player did not mention that he looked for one when
1C was alerted. He just assumed that he knew what the alert
meant. If he had wanted to check the card and found there was
none, he could himself have asked at that point of time, and the
whole mess had been avoided.

So I would divide the blame for the mess equally among the two
pairs.

[Steve Foster]

His post makes it clear that he misinterpreted the 1C.


--
Steve Foster
For SSL Certificates, Domains, etc, visit.:
https://netshop.virtual-isp.net

[Steve Foster]

derek wrote:

> On Sep 16, 5:52 am, James Lawrence <james.lawre...@pathintel.com>
> wrote:
> > Last night, I held
> >
> > Qxx
> > KT
> > Axx
> > AQxxx
> >
> > and RHO opens 1C (alerted --- could be short as in 5cM. This is a
> > standard alert in the UK.)
>
> ?? In the Std. American version of 5cM, "could be short" means "as
> few as 2". In the UK, where opening 1M on 4 cards is not unheard-of,
> one would suspect that the alert actually means "as few as three" -
> which isn't considered short at all in a 5cM system.

The UK version of 5cM is exactly the same. If playing prepared club,
it's "could be as short as 2", and requires an alert. Playing better
minor, a 1m opening does not require an alert, since it now promises at
least 3 cards.

If playing Acol, opening 1C normally shows at least 4. But that's
irrelevant to this conversation.

> >
> > I overcall a strong notrump and LHO passes.
> >
> > Partner now asks what the 1C opening was.
>
> So was the 1C alerted, or announced? I thought the UK didn't have
> announcements. If it was alerted, and nobody asked, how do you know
> "could be short"? If you were told without asking, it was improper -
> and since you weren't told the actual agreement at that point, it was
> also misinformation.

He told you it was alerted.

He also told you that he made an assumption about the meaning of the
bid, and didn't ask (nor was he told).

England (the portion of the UK under EBU jurisdiction) has
announcements. I don't think any of the other parts of the UK that play
bridge under other RAs (Scotland, Wales & NI - the WBU, SBU and NIBU
respectively) have announcements. AIUI, the scope of EBU announcements
is narrower than in the ACBL (we announce 1NT point range, "Stayman"
and "Transfer to M" responses to 1NT, and "strong, F|strong,
NF|i'mediate|weak" for natural 2x openers).

> > Turns out it was actually a
> > precision club, which means that my 1NT showed the minors (hence he
> > now alerts it). He bids 2D.
> >
> > What are my obligations now? I have misbid. I knew both our
> > agreements
>
> No you haven't. You made a bid - correct based on what you thought
> was true. You were either misled or you were simply mistaken as to
> what they showed, but in either case, your bid is simply what you
> think was right, and there's no error (in law) on your part.

He *has* misbid.

[Mark Brader]

Douglas Newlands:

> This is the nub of the matter; it's all AI with no UI present so you
> can do what you like.

No, partner's alert of 1NT is UI.
--
Mark Brader "'You wanted it to WORK? That costs EXTRA!'
Toronto is probably the second-place security hole
m...@vex.net after simple carelessness." -- John Woods

[Douglas Newlands]

On 18/09/11 2:19 PM, Mark Brader wrote:
> Douglas Newlands:
>> This is the nub of the matter; it's all AI with no UI present so you
>> can do what you like.
>
> No, partner's alert of 1NT is UI.

Ummm, yes I hadn't noticed that. That certainly moves it back into the
difficult category!
Suppose the OP played comic NT which requires an alert (assuming it is
permitted since this is hypothetical). Then there would an alert of 1NT
either way. Is he free to act anyway he likes now?

doug

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Douglas Newlands skrev:

>> No, partner's alert of 1NT is UI.

> Ummm, yes I hadn't noticed that. That certainly moves it back into the
> difficult category!

I don't think so though I agree that there is a grey area.

> Suppose the OP played comic NT which requires an alert (assuming it is
> permitted since this is hypothetical). Then there would an alert of 1NT
> either way. Is he free to act anyway he likes now?

Partner's actions must nok wake him up from his misunderstanding
of the opening bid. Only when the following auction makes it
clear what happened (if indeed it does), will he be allowed to
bid unrestricted.

[John Crinnion]

On Sep 16, 9:52 am, James Lawrence <james.lawre...@pathintel.com>
wrote:

Your ethical obligations are the same as everybody else's.

They include, but are in no wise restricted to, cleaning your teeth
and saying your prayers before going to bed.

[derek]

On Sep 17, 12:00 am, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <103275ea-d3e1-4f8d-9e82-e883385c8...@1g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>,

Not clear enough for me, apparently. I still don't see where he ever
explained how he knew the 1C "could be short". In any case, their
alert chart says 1C shouldn't have been "announced", so I stand by
what I said, since he's implied that it _was_ announced. It should
have been _alerted_ (as a strong Precision 1C), and then he should
have asked. Yes, a shorter-than-3 1C should also have been alerted,
and he doesn't know which until he asks, but if opener's partner
actually said "could be short" or some such, he's been misled.

> Or are you
> demonstrating what happens when you leap to conclusions before getting
> all the facts, as he did during the auction?

I thought it was clear that I was demonstrating that I didn't really
understand the sequence of events. Can't say I'm sure of them still.

> > > Turns out it was actually a
> > > precision club, which means that my 1NT showed the minors (hence he
> > > now alerts it). He bids 2D.
>
> > > What are my obligations now? I  have misbid. I knew both our agreements
>
> > No you haven't.  You made a bid - correct based on what you thought
> > was true.  You were either misled or you were simply mistaken as to
> > what they showed, but in either case, your bid is simply what you
> > think was right, and there's no error (in law) on your part.
>
> His agreement is that if they open a strong club, 1NT shows minors.  

OK, but it's not a misbid unless you know it was a strong club. I'm
strongly leaning to the position that he _couldn't_ have known that,
unless he realized that he was misinformed.

> Now comes the next tricky question: before LHO leads, are you required
> to tell the opponents that your 1NT showed a strong NT, not minors?

Absolutely not. If we accept that it was a misbid, you're fully
entitled to misbid without ever telling anybody.

[derek]

On Sep 17, 7:25 am, "Steve Foster" <stevefos...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

> derek wrote:
>
> > > and RHO opens 1C (alerted --- could be short as in 5cM. This is a
> > > standard alert in the UK.)
>
>

> > > Partner now asks what the 1C opening was.
>
> > So was the 1C alerted, or announced?  I thought the UK didn't have
> > announcements.  If it was alerted, and nobody asked, how do you know
> > "could be short"?  If you were told without asking, it was improper -
> > and since you weren't told the actual agreement at that point, it was
> > also misinformation.
>
> He told you it was alerted.
>
> He also told you that he made an assumption about the meaning of the
> bid, and didn't ask (nor was he told).

I'm glad you can read his mind. The rest of us have to go by what he
wrote. He wrote both that it was "alerted --- could be short" and
that he made an assumption. Based _purely_ on what he wrote, it
appears his assumption was influenced by an improper announcement, but
it certainly could be that the "could be short" _was_ his assumption.
It's far from clear to me.

[Lorne]

"James Lawrence" wrote in message
news:b3ee9d4d-4c08-4af7...@24g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...

........................................................................................

This comes down to whether finding out the oppo are playing strong club from
the oppo replying to partners legitimate question is UI or not. I do not
think it is clear. Usually if the opponents make a correct statement of
their methods it is authorised info to you and partner but here you have
clouded the issue by making an incorrect assumption before finding out as a
result of your partners question.

Note if LHO opens and partner asks the answer is authorised info. So the
question to answer is whether the fact you bid making a false assumption
alters anything about the info being authorised.

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<0353896b-4247-4326...@15g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:

> On Sep 17, 12:00�ｿｽam, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > In article
> > <103275ea-d3e1-4f8d-9e82-e883385c8...@1g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>,
> >

> > �ｿｽderek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> > > On Sep 16, 5:52�ｿｽam, James Lawrence <james.lawre...@pathintel.com>

> > > wrote:
> > > > Last night, I held
> >
> > > > Qxx
> > > > KT
> > > > Axx
> > > > AQxxx
> >
> > > > and RHO opens 1C (alerted --- could be short as in 5cM. This is a
> > > > standard alert in the UK.)
> >

> > > ?? �ｿｽIn the Std. American version of 5cM, "could be short" means "as
> > > few as 2". �ｿｽIn the UK, where opening 1M on 4 cards is not unheard-of,

> > > one would suspect that the alert actually means "as few as three" -
> > > which isn't considered short at all in a 5cM system.
> >
> > > > I overcall a strong notrump and LHO passes.
> >
> > > > Partner now asks what the 1C opening was.
> >

> > > So was the 1C alerted, or announced? �ｿｽI thought the UK didn't have
> > > announcements. �ｿｽIf it was alerted, and nobody asked, how do you know

> >
> > They added announcements5 years ago, but they're not the same as ACBL's

> > announcements. �ｿｽThe EBU alert chart can be found at:

> >
> > http://www.ebu.co.uk/publications/ConventionCards-SystemsInformation/Announc
> > ements%20Table.pdf
> >
> > They alert 1C and 1D that could be shorter than 3, or that are
> > artificial, they don't alert or announce if it shows 3+ in the suit.
> >

> > > "could be short"? �ｿｽIf you were told without asking, it was improper -

> > > and since you weren't told the actual agreement at that point, it was
> > > also misinformation.
> >

> > Didn't he makes this clear later in his message? �ｿｽ

>
> Not clear enough for me, apparently. I still don't see where he ever
> explained how he knew the 1C "could be short". In any case, their
> alert chart says 1C shouldn't have been "announced", so I stand by
> what I said, since he's implied that it _was_ announced. It should
> have been _alerted_ (as a strong Precision 1C), and then he should
> have asked. Yes, a shorter-than-3 1C should also have been alerted,
> and he doesn't know which until he asks, but if opener's partner
> actually said "could be short" or some such, he's been misled.

He said it was alerted, not announced.. Then he said "I forgot what

the opps were playing (and yes I know I should have asked, but I
thought I already knew, I just remembered *their* system wrong."

Seems very clear to me. The bid was alerted correctly. He didn't ask
for an explanation, because he thought he knew what the opponents
played, and then he made his overcall based on that incorrect assumption.

Then his partner asked for an explanation of 1C, so that he could know
whether the 1NT needed to be alerted.

[James Lawrence]

Sorry if I didn't make it clear in the OP:

1C was just alerted. I *thought* it was a short club a la 5 card
majors, but I didn't ask about it (I should have done, but I didn't).
I think partner thought the same, because he didn't alert my 1NT at
first.

Partner asked about the 1C at his turn, and was then told it was
precision. Opps did not give us misinformation (the only announcement
at the 1-level in the UK is for opening a natural 1NT). Thus partner
alerts my 1NT at this point. This is UI of course, but the explanation
already woke me up.

Thus the crux of the problem is: must I "fall asleep" again?

James.

[David Stevenson]

Douglas Newlands wrote

Is it?

The 1C may be short - you assume - and only know otherwise because of
your partner's question.

Your 1NT was natural, but partner alerted it [slowly].

Doesn't sound authorised to me.

--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm

[David Stevenson]

Bertel Lund Hansen wrote

No way! Playing in a club that regularly does not have CCs they open
an alertable 1C and alert it. The opponents do not bother to ask and
get in a mess. 100% of blame for pair that did not ask.

[David Stevenson]

derek wrote

>On Sep 16, 5:52 am, James Lawrence <james.lawre...@pathintel.com>
>wrote:
>> Last night, I held
>>
>> Qxx
>> KT
>> Axx
>> AQxxx
>>
>> and RHO opens 1C (alerted --- could be short as in 5cM. This is a
>> standard alert in the UK.)
>
>?? In the Std. American version of 5cM, "could be short" means "as
>few as 2". In the UK, where opening 1M on 4 cards is not unheard-of,
>one would suspect that the alert actually means "as few as three" -
>which isn't considered short at all in a 5cM system.

Three card minors are not alertable in the UK, and "could be short"
means fewer than three.

>> I overcall a strong notrump and LHO passes.
>>
>> Partner now asks what the 1C opening was.

>So was the 1C alerted, or announced? I thought the UK didn't have
>announcements. If it was alerted, and nobody asked, how do you know
>"could be short"? If you were told without asking, it was improper -
>and since you weren't told the actual agreement at that point, it was
>also misinformation.

Alerted. Of course the UK has announcements - after all, I introduced
them! But we do not alert short clubs.

>> Turns out it was actually a
>> precision club, which means that my 1NT showed the minors (hence he
>> now alerts it). He bids 2D.
>>
>> What are my obligations now? I have misbid. I knew both our agreements
>
>No you haven't. You made a bid - correct based on what you thought
>was true. You were either misled or you were simply mistaken as to
>what they showed, but in either case, your bid is simply what you
>think was right, and there's no error (in law) on your part.

If you actually read the OP, no, he was not misled, he just did not
bother to ask.

>> over a short club and a strong club, but I forgot what the opps were
>> playing (and yes I know I should have asked, but I thought I already
>> knew, I just remembered *their* system wrong. Neither opp had a
>> covention card, but that is not unusual at the club.) On the other
>> hand, I was "woken up" by authorised information, albeit that came
>> from the answer to a question asked by partner.
>
>Precisely.

If you read this again you will find he was not misinformed.

=================================================================
Steve Foster wrote

>England (the portion of the UK under EBU jurisdiction) has
>announcements. I don't think any of the other parts of the UK that play
>bridge under other RAs (Scotland, Wales & NI - the WBU, SBU and NIBU
>respectively) have announcements. AIUI, the scope of EBU announcements
>is narrower than in the ACBL (we announce 1NT point range, "Stayman"
>and "Transfer to M" responses to 1NT, and "strong, F|strong,
>NF|i'mediate|weak" for natural 2x openers).

It is not narrower: it is different. For example, we announce a
strong or intermediate opening two: the ACBL does not.

Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have
announcements, only Scotland do not.

[David Stevenson]

David Stevenson wrote

> Alerted. Of course the UK has announcements - after all, I
>introduced them! But we do not alert short clubs.

Silly misprint. I either meant to write:

'But we do not announce short clubs.'

or

'But we do alert short clubs.'

[PSmith]

On Sep 19, 8:42 am, James Lawrence <james.lawre...@pathintel.com>
wrote:

The answers in this thread have been almost unanimous, but I don't
think anyone has quoted any law to support them, and I don't think
they're right.

Information from opponents' explanations is authorised, whether in
response to your question or a question from your partner. (Other
related things are unauthorised; for example, you should not make
inferences about your partner's hand based on whether or not he has
asked a question. But that's a completely different issue).

So yes, here it is legal for you to use the information that your
opponents are playing Precision, even though you were previously
mistaken about it before you heard the answer to the question. Because
of that information you know that you've misbid, and you can make
whatever calls you like from then on to try and deal with that.

By the way, I think that it's not only legal, but also completely
proper, ethical, etc. The spirit of bridge is that everybody should be
as well informed as they need/want to be about their opponents'
system. So to the extent that one can avoid somebody being at a
disadvantage because of a misconception about their opponent's
methods, that's a good thing. (Obviously this is completely different
from the situation where one has a misconception about one's OWN
methods).

If I'm mistaken about something here, I'd be happy if someone can
quote a law to set me right.

Peter Smith

[Stu Goodgold]

You noted that the response was nearly unanimous that the OP cannot use the information of what the alerted bid means once his partner asks its meaning and wake the OP up to his misconception. So there is a sound basis in bridge Law.

The pertinent law is Law 16B1a: 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, ..... the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

OPs partner asked a question. That is UI to the OP, and now so is the resulting answer from the opps. The consensus interpretation is that OP cannot use the information from UI to wake up to his mistake.

-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA

[PSmith]

If that interpretation of Law 16B1a is right, then the law would say
that answers by the opponents to my partner's questions are not
authorised information to me.
But that isn't the way the law is normally interpreted. People
routinely listen to the opponent's answers to their partner's
questions and use
the information provided. Under your interpretation of 16B1a, if my
partner asks an opponent to explain a bid, I would actually be obliged
to choose,
from among logical alternatives, in the _opposite_ direction to that
suggested by the opponent's explanation, right?

But actually the passage you quote doesn't say that the information
from the opponent is unauthorised. It says that the "extraneous
information made available by partner" is unauthorised. For example,
information about my partner's hand which I can deduce from the fact
that he has asked a question. But I don't think it's reasonable (or
consistent with the way that bridge is normally played) to construe
the opponents' explanations as "extraneous information made available
by partner".

[Stu Goodgold]

You may argue your logic all you wish. You are entitled to your opponents agreements; you still have to ask for them yourself. You are not entitled to have partner ask the opps to wake you up.

Your question on which law applied was answered. Many others on rgb, a few of them international experts on the Law, have answered similarly. There are many bridge players (most of them less experienced) who don't understand Law 16 or think it is wrong; apparently you are one of them. But right now that is how the law is written and how it is applied.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

PSmith skrev:

> If that interpretation of Law 16B1a is right,

It is in this case.

> then the law would say that answers by the opponents to my
> partner's questions are not authorised information to me.

No, and it doesn't. It says that your partner must not wake you
up. If you hear answers to his questions that do not wake you up
and maybe even answer questions you yourself intended to ask,
then there is no problem [1].

There is another law that is relevant.

LAW 73 - COMMUNICATION

A. Appropriate Communication between Partners

1. Communication between partners during the auction and play
shall be effected only by means of calls and plays.
2. [...]

B. Inappropriate Communication between Partners

1. Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in
which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures,
questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and
explanations given or not given to them.

> But that isn't the way the law is normally interpreted. People
> routinely listen to the opponent's answers to their partner's
> questions and use the information provided. Under your
> interpretation of 16B1a, if my partner asks an opponent to
> explain a bid, I would actually be obliged to choose, from
> among logical alternatives, in the _opposite_ direction to
> that suggested by the opponent's explanation, right?

Wrong. If there is no communication between partners when a
question is asked and answered, then there is no problem [1].

> But actually the passage you quote doesn't say that the information
> from the opponent is unauthorised. It says that the "extraneous
> information made available by partner" is unauthorised.

Precisely.

> For example, information about my partner's hand which I can
> deduce from the fact that he has asked a question. But I don't
> think it's reasonable (or consistent with the way that bridge
> is normally played) to construe the opponents' explanations as
> "extraneous information made available by partner".

Remember once again the unanimous answers in *this particular
case*.

[1] In fact there is always UI when partner asks a question (if
nothing else, then the fact that he wanted the answer), and in
reality there is a grey area in this sort of cases, some of which
can be very hard to decide. But this one is not among them.

[Adam Beneschan]

On Sep 20, 2:50 pm, Stu Goodgold <st...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> You may argue your logic all you wish.  You are entitled to your opponents agreements; you still have to ask
> for them yourself.  You are not entitled to have partner ask the opps to wake you up.

The trouble, I think, is that "you still have to ask for them
yourself" surely doesn't apply in a case where you haven't yet made
any assumptions about the opponent's bidding. Certainly, if LHO opens
1C, alerted, and partner asks what it means, the opponents' response
is AI for me. I don't have to ask again when it's my turn. The case
where you've already bid based on a mistaken assumption is different;
but I don't there's any clear language in the Laws that says that
these cases are different and why. So we're relying on the
interpretation of experts and/or Laws Commissions to tell us that
there's UI in one case and not the other. I don't have any problem
accepting that interpretation. But I'm not convinced that there's a
clear answer in the Laws alone.

In the thread "another ruling 20110823", on August 24, I posted a
question about a case I think is closely related, with a number of
scenarios in which I tried to explore where the line is drawn between
where an answer to partner's question is AI and where it's UI. But
nobody tried to respond. As I said back then, I think there's a gray
area in the Laws on this matter.

-- Adam

[KWSchneider]

On Sep 20, 6:17 pm, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote:

> As I said back then, I think there's a gray
> area in the Laws on this matter.

Would that be "gray matter"?

Kurt

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Adam Beneschan skrev:

> In the thread "another ruling 20110823", on August 24, I posted a
> question about a case I think is closely related, with a number of
> scenarios in which I tried to explore where the line is drawn between
> where an answer to partner's question is AI and where it's UI. But
> nobody tried to respond. As I said back then, I think there's a gray
> area in the Laws on this matter.

I refrained from answering them simply because I couldn't draw a
clear line. I should maybe have confirmed that there indeed is a
grey area with difficult problems.

[Mark Brader]

Stu Goodgold;

>> You may argue your logic all you wish. You are entitled to your
>> opponents agreements; you still have to ask for them yourself.

Adam Beneschan:

> The trouble, I think, is that "you still have to ask for them
> yourself" surely doesn't apply in a case where you haven't yet made
> any assumptions about the opponent's bidding. Certainly, if LHO opens
> 1C, alerted, and partner asks what it means, the opponents' response
> is AI for me. I don't have to ask again when it's my turn.

I agree. Stu is overstating his case, and P. Smith has made a
valid point that I did not see anyone making earlier in the thread
(and certainly did not think of when I posted my original answer).

> The case where you've already bid based on a mistaken assumption
> is different; but I don't there's any clear language in the Laws
> that says that these cases are different and why.

And I agree with this also.


Law 16B1(a) talks about UI made available by partner "as for example
by a remark, a question, a reply to a question", and I for one have
always assumed that when it says "reply", it means *partner's* reply
to a question. As Adam says, when it goes 1C on my left, alerted,
and partner asks, the answer is authorized to me, even though the
information became available to me as a result of partner's question.

But 16B1(a) doesn't explicitly say that it means what I thought it did,
or that it doesn't, and I now wish it was explicit one way or the other.


It still seems to me that my original answer was correct -- you must
continue on the basis of "not being woken up" -- but I can't prove it.
--
Mark Brader | "Simple things should be simple." -- Alan Kay, on UIs
m...@vex.net | "Too many ... try to make complex things simple ...
Toronto | and succeed ... only in making simple things complex."
| -- Jeff Prothero
My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Mark Brader skrev:

> Law 16B1(a) talks about UI made available by partner "as for example
> by a remark, a question, a reply to a question", and I for one have
> always assumed that when it says "reply", it means *partner's* reply
> to a question.

I still do.

> As Adam says, when it goes 1C on my left, alerted,
> and partner asks, the answer is authorized to me, even though the
> information became available to me as a result of partner's question.

I disagree. It is law 73 (quote in my other answer) that prevents
you from using the (indirect) communication from partner about
how he understands your bid. That is certainly UI.

> It still seems to me that my original answer was correct -- you must
> continue on the basis of "not being woken up" -- but I can't prove it.

I have tried.

[Adam Beneschan]

Heh heh heh...

I do think I have a lot of gray matter in my head... or at least I
used to. Looking in the mirror, it appears that most of it has found
its way out of my head and into my hair.

-- Adam

[David Stevenson]

PSmith wrote

>The answers in this thread have been almost unanimous, but I don't
>think anyone has quoted any law to support them, and I don't think
>they're right.
>
>Information from opponents' explanations is authorised, whether in
>response to your question or a question from your partner. (Other
>related things are unauthorised; for example, you should not make
>inferences about your partner's hand based on whether or not he has
>asked a question. But that's a completely different issue).

Information from opponents' replies to questions is authorised:
information from partner's questions is not. However, while that is no
doubt true - and I really think you know that without my having to
bother finding the Law - let us see what is happening here.

It is not a case of you asking a question and getting an answer which
is - of course - completely authorised, even if it wakes you up to
something you did not realise.

But in the case cited, partner's question makes you realise that you
have gone wrong. Sure, a lawyer type might try to get around this by
pretending it is the answer that told him, but it is not, not at all:
the answer told you what they were playing in a particular situation,
but it is partner's question that made you realise that you had the
situation wrong.

>So yes, here it is legal for you to use the information that your
>opponents are playing Precision, even though you were previously
>mistaken about it before you heard the answer to the question. Because
>of that information you know that you've misbid, and you can make
>whatever calls you like from then on to try and deal with that.
>
>By the way, I think that it's not only legal, but also completely
>proper, ethical, etc. The spirit of bridge is that everybody should be
>as well informed as they need/want to be about their opponents'
>system. So to the extent that one can avoid somebody being at a
>disadvantage because of a misconception about their opponent's
>methods, that's a good thing. (Obviously this is completely different
>from the situation where one has a misconception about one's OWN
>methods).

Yukk! You think it proper and ethical to make a serious mistake
through your own foolishness, and be saved from the consequences by
partner's question, just because you can claim it is the answer not the
question that told you? That is not the way bridge is played, nor
should it be. People who make mistakes should live with them, not try
to weasel out of them in any way possible.

=================================================
Mark Brader wrote

>Law 16B1(a) talks about UI made available by partner "as for example
>by a remark, a question, a reply to a question", and I for one have
>always assumed that when it says "reply", it means *partner's* reply

>to a question. As Adam says, when it goes 1C on my left, alerted,

>and partner asks, the answer is authorized to me, even though the
>information became available to me as a result of partner's question.

The fact that you have made a mistake is clarified to you by partner's
question.

[PSmith]

On Sep 21, 12:53 am, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> PSmith wrote

>
> >By the way, I think that it's not only legal, but also completely
> >proper, ethical, etc. The spirit of bridge is that everybody should be
> >as well informed as they need/want to be about their opponents'
> >system. So to the extent that one can avoid somebody being at a
> >disadvantage because of a misconception about their opponent's
> >methods, that's a good thing. (Obviously this is completely different
> >from the situation where one has a misconception about one's OWN
> >methods).
>
>   Yukk!  You think it proper and ethical to make a serious mistake
> through your own foolishness, and be saved from the consequences by
> partner's question, just because you can claim it is the answer not the
> question that told you?  That is not the way bridge is played, nor
> should it be.  People who make mistakes should live with them, not try
> to weasel out of them in any way possible.

Yes yes yes. Let me put it the other way around. I do not want to
profit from my opponents' misunderstanding of my system. If my
opponents misunderstand my system for whatever reason, I would like
them to find out about it as soon as possible, and I'll try to help
them to do so to the extent that I can. I believe this is completely
in the spirit of how bridge should be played.

This is not just kindness. I am very happy to profit from my
opponents' misunderstanding _of their own system_.

By the way, in the case in this thread it's not weaselling to say that
it's the answer and not the question that passed the information.
Presumably partner's question was along the lines of "What's 1C?". The
OP already thought he knew what 1C was. It turns out he didn't. The
question "What's 1C?" is not what woke him up.

Peter Smith

[PSmith]

On Sep 20, 11:03 pm, Bertel Lund Hansen
<splitteminebrams...@lundhansen.dk> skrev:

> PSmith skrev:
>
> > If that interpretation of Law 16B1a is right,
>
> It is in this case.
>
> > then the law would say that answers by the opponents to my
> > partner's questions are not authorised information to me.
>
> No, and it doesn't. It says that your partner must not wake you
> up. If you hear answers to his questions that do not wake you up
> and maybe even answer questions you yourself intended to ask,
> then there is no problem [1].
>

Thanks for your reply. But you are ascribing things into Law 16B1a
that are not there. You say "it says that your partner must not wake
you up". Overall your last paragraph seems to say the following: the
information from the opponent's answer to my partner's question is
authorised if it doesn't contradict something I previously believed,
and it is unauthorised if it does contradict something I previously
believed.

That sounds fine, but there really isn't anything in Law 16B1a that
supports that particular distinction. Here is the whole text:

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 by the extraneous information.

This law describes various types of information that are unauthorised,
and specifies what should be done when unauthorised information is
passed. The relevant point is about whether the opponent's answer to
the question is "extraneous information made available by partner". I
don't see anything that changes depending on whether the player
previously had a misconception.

By the way yes, of course I understand that the very fact of asking
the question can convey information, and that such information is
unauthorised. I also understand that even the answer could in some
situations be construed as unauthorised, for example in a situation
where a player asks a question purely for his partner's benefit
because there is some information about the opponents' system that he
wants to make sure his partner receives.

Peter Smith

[boblipton]

Although the thread has shifted to asking if the meaning of the 1C bid
is AI, people are missing the point: you had the opportunity to find
out when you made your overcall and failed to. You have placed partner
in an ethical bind by not asking because this is potentially a means
of passing information illicitly by the decision to choose to ask or
not ask when a 1C call is alerted. Likewise, partner can choose to
pass information to you by either asking or not asking. In short, you
have created a mess and are looking for absolution. All that can be
said in partner's defense is that he should conclude that you know
what opponents' 1C opening means and therefore should not ask lest it
wake partner up to its meaning, since you are not permitted to ask for
partner's benefit. Since you know, and he doesn't, he quite properly
asks.... but now his actions wake you up, which you are not permitted
to do.

One thing is clear: partner is not permitted to say anything to wake
you up. Had partner known what they played, he would have been wrong
to ask, would have bid 2D all the same and you would have blithely
accepted the transfer to hearts and then he should have done something
like assume that you had a massive hand in diamonds. I've been there.
I've done it and had partner cursing me, all because he didn't bother
to ask what the alert of 1C meant. You are to blame for this mess and
you are not permitted to wake up. Apologize, learn your lesson and
move on.

Bob

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<64632d91-04f7-4cdd...@8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

boblipton <bobl...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:

> Although the thread has shifted to asking if the meaning of the 1C bid
> is AI, people are missing the point: you had the opportunity to find
> out when you made your overcall and failed to. You have placed partner
> in an ethical bind by not asking because this is potentially a means
> of passing information illicitly by the decision to choose to ask or
> not ask when a 1C call is alerted. Likewise, partner can choose to
> pass information to you by either asking or not asking. In short, you
> have created a mess and are looking for absolution. All that can be
> said in partner's defense is that he should conclude that you know
> what opponents' 1C opening means and therefore should not ask lest it
> wake partner up to its meaning, since you are not permitted to ask for
> partner's benefit. Since you know, and he doesn't, he quite properly
> asks.... but now his actions wake you up, which you are not permitted
> to do.

This is why I think this is a good case for the "What if we were playing
with screens" criteria. If screens were in use, you wouldn't hear
partner's question or the answer. You could have asked your screenmate
for an explanation of the 1C bid, but since you didn't you will probably
never be woken up.

[James Lawrence]

An interesting set of replies. I am persuaded that, on balance, I
would have been obliged to bid 2H (had there not been an interposing
bid).

James.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

PSmith skrev:

> Thanks for your reply. But you are ascribing things into Law 16B1a
> that are not there.

I was trying to convey the meaning of the law in ordinary
language.

> You say "it says that your partner must not wake
> you up".

Law 73 - which is as important as law 16 - says that
communication between partners must only be made through calls
and plays.

If some action from partner that is not a call or a play - no
matter which specific action it is - sends you a message that you
didn't get in a legal fashion, then this message is UI.

In the present case his question, the answer and his alert tell
you that he does not think that your 1 NT was natural. You
thought it was. This new information, achieved not through calls
and plays, is UI. And the case is clear as the many agreeing
messages in this thread show.

As Adam Beneschan reminded us from a previous thread, it is
possible to construct some difficult examples, and my refrasing
of the law certainly should not be taken as a valid substitute,
but I am trying to make this specific case clear.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Barry Margolin skrev:

> This is why I think this is a good case for the "What if we were playing
> with screens" criteria.

I rthink that this idea is a great one for explaining (and indeed
following) the gist of the law in this kind of case.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

PSmith skrev:

> By the way, in the case in this thread it's not weaselling to say that
> it's the answer and not the question that passed the information.
> Presumably partner's question was along the lines of "What's 1C?". The
> OP already thought he knew what 1C was. It turns out he didn't. The
> question "What's 1C?" is not what woke him up.

It was not partners alert that woke me up. It was the noise his
fist made on the table.

[Charles Brenner]

On Sep 21, 2:35 am, Bertel Lund Hansen

It's an attractive rule because it would be reasonably easy to
understand and to apply, and would sometimes (as here) lessen
complicated arguments of ambiguous points. Also, the idea that screens
don't change anything - that "bridge is still bridge" - is appealing.

But is it correct?

Charles

[Charles Brenner]

On Sep 20, 5:51 pm, PSmith <psmip...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sep 21, 12:53 am, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > PSmith wrote
>
> > >By the way, I think that it's not only legal, but also completely
> > >proper, ethical, etc. The spirit of bridge is that everybody should be
> > >as well informed as they need/want to be about their opponents'
> > >system. So to the extent that one can avoid somebody being at a
> > >disadvantage because of a misconception about their opponent's
> > >methods, that's a good thing. (Obviously this is completely different
> > >from the situation where one has a misconception about one's OWN
> > >methods).
>
> >   Yukk!  You think it proper and ethical to make a serious mistake
> > through your own foolishness, and be saved from the consequences by
> > partner's question, just because you can claim it is the answer not the
> > question that told you?  That is not the way bridge is played, nor
> > should it be.  People who make mistakes should live with them, not try
> > to weasel out of them in any way possible.
>
> Yes yes yes. Let me put it the other way around. I do not want to
> profit from my opponents' misunderstanding of my system.

"other way around" -- exactly. I'm impatient with the sanctimonious
assertion that wondering what a player's ethical obligation is amounts
to weaseling out of fair play. That's both illogical and unresponsive.
It tries to switch the subject under discussion from the interesting
question "what is the applicable rule and logic?" to "what should I do
in the situation?" And the way to see that they're completely
different questions is to modify the second question by putting the
shoe on the other foot: Suppose our opponents are in this confusing
quandary. I want and expect them to be fair, but at the same time I
don't want to be too harsh. If they want to do more than the letter of
the law that's up to them, but I would not be happy with myself if I
insisted on it, or if I gossiped about them for yielding less than I
might (but are within their rights). So it is interesting to figure
out what the letter of the law is, and not productive to say "never
mind that, just play safe and bend over backwards."

Charles

[Mark Brader]

Mark Brader:

> > As Adam says, when it goes 1C on my left, alerted,
> > and partner asks, the answer is authorized to me, even though the
> > information became available to me as a result of partner's question.

Bertel Lund Hansen:
> I disagree.

You are advocating this procedure, then?

LHO: 1C
RHO: Alert
Partner: Please explain
RHO: Usually natural, but in certain cases he could have as little
as 1 card in clubs.
Partner: Pass
RHO: 1NT
Me: Please explain 1C.

Or maybe you misread what you were disagreeing with?

> It is law 73 (quote in my other answer) that prevents
> you from using the (indirect) communication from partner about
> how he understands your bid. That is certainly UI.

But now you're talking about the situation in the original posting.
The question here is how to distinguish it from the straight 1C-alert-
please explain, in terms of the Laws.
--
Mark Brader | "Courtly love-poetry may first have been written
Toronto | during long periods of abstinence on the Crusades,
m...@vex.net | but it would not have flourished in the cold of
| northern Europe without some help from the chimney."
| -- James Burke

[Mark Brader]

Bob Lipton:

> Although the thread has shifted to asking if the meaning of the 1C bid
> is AI, people are missing the point: you had the opportunity to find
> out when you made your overcall and failed to.

Of course. The question was about what to do next if you *did* get
into that situation, To say it should be about something else sounds
as though *you* are missing the point.

> You have placed partner in an ethical bind by not asking...

Nonsense. Just because partner didn't already know what the opponents'
1C opening meant doesn't mean that I didn't. If the meaning of my bid
depends on the meaning of theirs, and I don't ask, partner can simply
assume I already knew.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | An actual human would feel guilt in this situation.
m...@vex.net | -- Scott Adams: Dilbert

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Mark Brader]

Barry Margolin:

> This is why I think this is a good case for the "What if we were playing
> with screens" criteria.

I have no idea of what Barry is getting at. The situation described
would be impossible in the first place if screens were in use.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "After much soul-searching, the DMR decided to
m...@vex.net | go with UNIX." -- "/aur" magazine, April-May '89

[Mark Brader]

Bertel Lund Hansen:

> Law 73 - which is as important as law 16 - says that
> communication between partners must only be made through calls
> and plays.
>
> If some action from partner that is not a call or a play - no
> matter which specific action it is - sends you a message that you
> didn't get in a legal fashion, then this message is UI.

Okay, this is the "other message" that I hadn't seen when responding
to Bertel before. The thing is that Law 73 is explicitly about
communication *between partners*.

At one time it was disputed whether Law 73 allows partner to ask a
question in order to be sure I hear the answer. Law 20G1 was then
added to explicitly prohibit this type of asking. It is logical to
reason that the people who felt that Law 73 *does* allow questions
of that kind therefore must have been correct, otherwise 20G1 would
not have been needed. And if Law 73, by itself, allows questions of
*that* kind, then it follows that hearing the answer to partner's
legitimate question "Please explain 1C" is *not* a form of partnership
communication.

I don't have a problem with Bertel's interpretation being accepted --
but I still say it's only an interpretation and not clear in the Laws.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "To great evils we submit; we resent
m...@vex.net little provocations." -- W. Hazlitt, 1822

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[derek]

On Sep 22, 2:41 pm, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> Bob Lipton:
>
> > Although the thread has shifted to asking if the meaning of the 1C bid
> > is AI, people are missing the point:  you had the opportunity to find
> > out when you made your overcall and failed to.
>
> Of course.  The question was about what to do next if you *did* get
> into that situation,  To say it should be about something else sounds
> as though *you* are missing the point.
>
> > You have placed partner in an ethical bind by not asking...
>
> Nonsense.  Just because partner didn't already know what the opponents'
> 1C opening meant doesn't mean that I didn't.  If the meaning of my bid
> depends on the meaning of theirs, and I don't ask, partner can simply
> assume I already knew.

In fact, has to assume. The only person you've put in an ethical bind
by not asking is yourself.

[Mark Brader]

Mark Brader:

> > If the meaning of my bid depends on the meaning of theirs,
> > and I don't ask, partner can simply assume I already knew.

"Derek":

> In fact, has to assume.

Good point. Because, of course, the fact that I didn't ask is UI to
partner.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "One thing that surprises you about this business
m...@vex.net | is the surprises." -- Tim Baker

[David Stevenson]

Mark Brader wrote

>Bertel Lund Hansen:
>> Law 73 - which is as important as law 16 - says that
>> communication between partners must only be made through calls
>> and plays.
>>
>> If some action from partner that is not a call or a play - no
>> matter which specific action it is - sends you a message that you
>> didn't get in a legal fashion, then this message is UI.
>
>Okay, this is the "other message" that I hadn't seen when responding
>to Bertel before. The thing is that Law 73 is explicitly about
>communication *between partners*.
>
>At one time it was disputed whether Law 73 allows partner to ask a
>question in order to be sure I hear the answer. Law 20G1 was then
>added to explicitly prohibit this type of asking. It is logical to
>reason that the people who felt that Law 73 *does* allow questions
>of that kind therefore must have been correct, otherwise 20G1 would
>not have been needed. And if Law 73, by itself, allows questions of
>*that* kind, then it follows that hearing the answer to partner's
>legitimate question "Please explain 1C" is *not* a form of partnership
>communication.

It was perfectly clear that communication between partners was
illegal, but since it was not explicitly stated in this scenario it was
felt safer to state it.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <Y-GdnXwrwrAk7ubT...@vex.net>,
m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

> Barry Margolin:
> > This is why I think this is a good case for the "What if we were playing
> > with screens" criteria.
>
> I have no idea of what Barry is getting at. The situation described
> would be impossible in the first place if screens were in use.

That's the point. You say to yourself "If we were playing with screens,
I never would have gotten into this dilemma. I should ignore partner's
question and the answer, and continue bidding with my previous
assumption."

Someone else suggested that ignoring partner's question in other
situations means you would have to ask redundant questions. I think
it's only necessary to adopt the above approach in problematic
situations like the one in the OP. The big difference is that partner's
question comes AFTER you've gone wrong, he's not allowed to set you
right. In the more common cases, partner asks his question earlier, and
the answer is then considered available to both of you.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Mark Brader skrev:

>>> As Adam says, when it goes 1C on my left, alerted,
>>> and partner asks, the answer is authorized to me, even though the
>>> information became available to me as a result of partner's question.

> Bertel Lund Hansen:

>> I disagree.

> You are advocating this procedure, then?

No. I had the original question in mind.

[David Stevenson]

Barry Margolin wrote

>In article <Y-GdnXwrwrAk7ubT...@vex.net>,
> m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>
>> Barry Margolin:
>> > This is why I think this is a good case for the "What if we were playing
>> > with screens" criteria.
>>
>> I have no idea of what Barry is getting at. The situation described
>> would be impossible in the first place if screens were in use.
>
>That's the point. You say to yourself "If we were playing with screens,
>I never would have gotten into this dilemma. I should ignore partner's
>question and the answer, and continue bidding with my previous
>assumption."

Quite frankly, it is often not a good idea to think about screens at
all. I often get follow-up questions to my replies to Mr Bridge [a
magazine I write a Laws-related article for] which say but if so-and-so
was such-and-such and I want to scream and tear my hair. Different
situations have different solutions. UI with screens is different form
UI without screens.

[Mark Brader]

Mark Brader:

>> At one time it was disputed whether Law 73 allows partner to ask a
>> question in order to be sure I hear the answer. Law 20G1 was then
>> added to explicitly prohibit this type of asking.

David Stevenson:

> It was perfectly clear that communication between partners was
> illegal, but since it was not explicitly stated in this scenario it was
> felt safer to state it.

Of course communication between partners was always illegal; but I'm
taking about asking a question in order for partner to hear the answer.
The dispute was about whether this scenario *constitutes* communication
between partners.
--
Mark Brader | "Whose tracks these are I think I know;
Toronto | The railroad has gone bankrupt, though..."
m...@vex.net | --Michael Wares (after Frost)

[Mark Brader]

Barry Margolin:
>>>> This is why I think this is a good case for the "What if we were playing
>>>> with screens" criteria.

Mark Brader;

>>> I have no idea of what Barry is getting at. The situation described
>>> would be impossible in the first place if screens were in use.

Barry Margolin:

>> That's the point. You say to yourself "If we were playing with screens,
>> I never would have gotten into this dilemma. I should ignore partner's
>> question and the answer, and continue bidding with my previous
>> assumption."

No, you say to yourself "If we were playing with screens, I never would
have gotten into this dilemma", and you get distracted by thinking
about that, when it's irrelevant.

David Stevenson:

> Quite frankly, it is often not a good idea to think about screens at
> all. I often get follow-up questions to my replies to Mr Bridge [a
> magazine I write a Laws-related article for] which say but if so-and-so
> was such-and-such and I want to scream and tear my hair. Different
> situations have different solutions.

Well, not *always*, and sometimes the followup is legitimately
asking you to justify why it's different.

> UI with screens is different form UI without screens.

In particular, questions and answers with screens are different.
--
Mark Brader "I can say nothing at this point."
Toronto "Well, you were wrong."
m...@vex.net -- Monty Python's Flying Circus

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Mark Brader skrev:

> Of course communication between partners was always illegal; but I'm
> taking about asking a question in order for partner to hear the answer.
> The dispute was about whether this scenario *constitutes* communication
> between partners.

There 'flowed' information from partner to you about how he
interpreted your bid. That is certainly communication.

Do not get distracted by the fact that the response to the
question in itself is AI.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <$zqgphAC6IfOFw$S...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,

David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Barry Margolin wrote
> >In article <Y-GdnXwrwrAk7ubT...@vex.net>,
> > m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> >
> >> Barry Margolin:
> >> > This is why I think this is a good case for the "What if we were playing
> >> > with screens" criteria.
> >>
> >> I have no idea of what Barry is getting at. The situation described
> >> would be impossible in the first place if screens were in use.
> >
> >That's the point. You say to yourself "If we were playing with screens,
> >I never would have gotten into this dilemma. I should ignore partner's
> >question and the answer, and continue bidding with my previous
> >assumption."
>
> Quite frankly, it is often not a good idea to think about screens at
> all. I often get follow-up questions to my replies to Mr Bridge [a
> magazine I write a Laws-related article for] which say but if so-and-so
> was such-and-such and I want to scream and tear my hair. Different
> situations have different solutions. UI with screens is different form
> UI without screens.

True.

But figuring out your ethical obligations is difficult, as this thread
(and many we've had in the past) indicates, and doing it in the heat of
the moment at the table is even harder. Players need some easy
guidelines. My suggestion is "Information you couldn't have gotten due
to partner's actions if you were playing with screens is probably
unauthorized, and you should pretend you didn't hear it."

It may not be perfect, but it's practical.

[Mark Brader]

Barry Margolin:
>>>>> This is why I think this is a good case for the "What if we were playing
>>>>> with screens" criteria.

Mark Brader:

>>>> I have no idea of what Barry is getting at. The situation described
>>>> would be impossible in the first place if screens were in use.

Barry Margolin:

> But figuring out your ethical obligations is difficult, as this thread
> (and many we've had in the past) indicates, and doing it in the heat of
> the moment at the table is even harder. Players need some easy
> guidelines. My suggestion is "Information you couldn't have gotten due
> to partner's actions if you were playing with screens is probably
> unauthorized, and you should pretend you didn't hear it."

Ah, so *that's* what you meant. It's wrong in two ways. First, it's
not a strong enough constraint -- UI can make it *illegal* to do what
you would have done if you hadn't heard it, in cases where there is a
logical alternative.

And second, in these situations where your bidding agreements have gone
off the rails, you have to give correct alerts and explanations even if
it was UI from partner that reminded you of what your agreements applicable
to this auction really are.
--
Mark Brader | "You can't go around quoting politicians accurately:
Toronto | that's dirty journalism, and you know it!"
m...@vex.net | --The Senator was Indiscreet

[Björn Westling]

On 16 Sep, 10:52, James Lawrence <james.lawre...@pathintel.com> wrote:
> Last night, I held
>
> Qxx
> KT
> Axx
> AQxxx
>
> and RHO opens 1C (alerted --- could be short as in 5cM. This is a
> standard alert in the UK.)
>
> I overcall a strong notrump and LHO passes.
>
> Partner now asks what the 1C opening was. Turns out it was actually a
> precision club, which means that my 1NT showed the minors (hence he
> now alerts it). He bids 2D.
>
> What are my obligations now? I have misbid. I knew both our agreements
> over a short club and a strong club, but I forgot what the opps were
> playing (and yes I know I should have asked, but I thought I already
> knew, I just remembered *their* system wrong. Neither opp had a
> covention card, but that is not unusual at the club.) On the other
> hand, I was "woken up" by authorised information, albeit that came
> from the answer to a question asked by partner.
>
> In fact opener bids 2NT before I have to decide whether to "complete
> the transfer" (2D would have been a transfer if 1NT was natural). If
> opener had passed instead, would I have been ethically bound to bid 2H?

I had exactly the opposite problem:
Opps opened 1C, which was alerted. I looked at their CC and saw that
they played strong club, so I entered with 1 NT showing minors.
Partner called 2C, which I alerted, and when I explained that 2C was a
preference, partner was nonplussed.

It turned out that opponent actually opened 1D, not 1C, so my call
actually should have been natural. Of course I passed on 2C,because I
would have passed if noone had made any queries.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <fdidnXtAYbpVHuDT...@vex.net>,
m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

> Barry Margolin:
> >>>>> This is why I think this is a good case for the "What if we were playing
> >>>>> with screens" criteria.
>
> Mark Brader:
> >>>> I have no idea of what Barry is getting at. The situation described
> >>>> would be impossible in the first place if screens were in use.
>
> Barry Margolin:
> > But figuring out your ethical obligations is difficult, as this thread
> > (and many we've had in the past) indicates, and doing it in the heat of
> > the moment at the table is even harder. Players need some easy
> > guidelines. My suggestion is "Information you couldn't have gotten due
> > to partner's actions if you were playing with screens is probably
> > unauthorized, and you should pretend you didn't hear it."
>
> Ah, so *that's* what you meant. It's wrong in two ways. First, it's
> not a strong enough constraint -- UI can make it *illegal* to do what
> you would have done if you hadn't heard it, in cases where there is a
> logical alternative.
>
> And second, in these situations where your bidding agreements have gone
> off the rails, you have to give correct alerts and explanations even if
> it was UI from partner that reminded you of what your agreements applicable
> to this auction really are.

I admitted in my first message that the analogy isn't perfect. It's a
helpful *guideline*. It tells you which Information is Unauthorized,
but doesn't address all the details of how you're supposed to deal with
it.

[Charles Brenner]

On Sep 23, 8:23 pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <$zqgphAC6IfOF...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,

>  David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Barry Margolin wrote

> > >In article <Y-GdnXwrwrAk7ubTnZ2dnUVZ_oedn...@vex.net>,

> > > m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>
> > >> Barry Margolin:
> > >> > This is why I think this is a good case for the "What if we were playing
> > >> > with screens" criteria.
>
> > >> I have no idea of what Barry is getting at.  The situation described
> > >> would be impossible in the first place if screens were in use.
>
> > >That's the point.  You say to yourself "If we were playing with screens,
> > >I never would have gotten into this dilemma. I should ignore partner's
> > >question and the answer, and continue bidding with my previous
> > >assumption."
>
> >    Quite frankly, it is often not a good idea to think about screens at
> > all.  I often get follow-up questions to my replies to Mr Bridge [a
> > magazine I write a Laws-related article for] which say but if so-and-so
> > was such-and-such and I want to scream and tear my hair.  Different
> > situations have different solutions.  UI with screens is different form
> > UI without screens.
>
> True.
>
> But figuring out your ethical obligations is difficult, as this thread
> (and many we've had in the past) indicates, and doing it in the heat of
> the moment at the table is even harder.  Players need some easy
> guidelines.  My suggestion is "Information you couldn't have gotten due
> to partner's actions if you were playing with screens is probably
> unauthorized, and you should pretend you didn't hear it."
>
> It may not be perfect, but it's practical.

I suspect you're right, that as an at-the-table rule it can be
useful.

Charles

[David Stevenson]

It is far from perfect, and as such, impractical. You are required to
avoid any advantage from UI, so ignoring it is wrong.

See? That is an example of the danger of the screen test. You have
just given advice that means someone will act illegally. On the other
hand the idea that screen helps deciding what is UI may be true, though
I doubt whether it is helpful.

[Steve Willner]

On 9/16/2011 4:53 AM, James Lawrence wrote:
>...RHO opens 1C (alerted --- could be short as in 5cM. This is a

> standard alert in the UK.)
>
> I overcall a strong notrump and LHO passes.
>
> Partner now asks what the 1C opening was. Turns out it was actually a
> precision club, which means that my 1NT showed the minors

Despite all the answers in this thread, I don't think anyone has quoted
the correct Law, 16A1a, which reads in relevant part "A player may use
information in the auction or play if:
(a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board
... and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source."

Unfortunately, there is no clarification of what it means to be
"unaffected." However, consider the common case where South bids, North
alerts, West asks, and North explains. The explanation is universally
considered AI to East despite having been prompted (affected??) by
West's question. West's question itself and the fact that he asked are,
of course, UI to East, but the explanation from North is AI. Thus I'd
say that in the OP case, the fact that 1C was Precision is AI.
Partner's question and alert are UI as always.

That doesn't solve the problem, though. The OP says he knew his methods
over Precision, but there is no way to prove it short of mind reading.
An alternative possibility is that he was momentarily confused and
thought 1NT was natural over the strong club and was eventually "woken
up" by partner's alert. It's certainly open to a Director to rule that
way; I suppose this is a "balance of probabilities" type ruling. (If
the opponents had proper system cards, no doubt the chance of mistaking
their system would be lower than in the actual case.) There's also the
question of what methods the partnership is deemed to play in some
presumed fantasy agreements; not everyone plays transfers, for example.

To answer the original question, I think the OP's ethical obligation is
to get the best score he can within the rules (L72A). To do that, he
has to guess how the Director is likely to rule in the circumstances.
Not easy!

For the future, I'd advise even those who play in the EBU to
automatically ask about all alerted calls on the first round of the
auction regardless of the cards they hold. If you adopt this approach,
be sure you do it every single time without fail -- yes, even or perhaps
especially with a flat zero-count. You may once in awhile find yourself
ruled against, but overall I think your chances improve.

By the way, if I were writing the rules, they'd be different and
clearer, but that's irrelevant to what we have now.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA