[Flem72]

I wonder whether the community can come up with simple, "black letter" statements that prescribe how one should behave at the table when partner has, or may have, violated a Law? Sort of a "Bridge Violations (and How to Avoid Them) for Dummies." (If some previous thread has done this, apologies and please provide a link.)

I realize that there are many categories of violations, and that there are distinguishable exemplars within categories; perhaps a heading would help?

To start, hoping this will pick up steam:

UI: When partner fails to alert an alertable call: Behave as if partner has remembered the agreement and forgotten to alert.

Regards and Happy Trails,

Scott Needham
Boulder, Colorado, USA

[Cyberyeti]

Flem72, on 2012-May-20, 08:25, said:

I wonder whether the community can come up with simple, "black letter" statements that prescribe how one should behave at the table when partner has, or may have, violated a Law? Sort of a "Bridge Violations (and How to Avoid Them) for Dummies." (If some previous thread has done this, apologies and please provide a link.)

I realize that there are many categories of violations, and that there are distinguishable exemplars within categories; perhaps a heading would help?

To start, hoping this will pick up steam:

UI: When partner fails to alert an alertable call: Behave as if partner has remembered the agreement and forgotten to alert.

Regards and Happy Trails,

Scott Needham
Boulder, Colorado, USA

"Behave just as if partner has alerted the call and explained it as you intended it". It could be you that's wrong not partner, this covers either.

[aguahombre]

Flem72, on 2012-May-20, 08:25, said:

UI: When partner fails to alert an alertable call: Behave as if partner has remembered the agreement and forgotten to alert.

That one is in-fact written somewhere. I don't think I have seen a comprehensive list all in one place for a proper mindset when dealing with partnership UI and MI. If there is one, great. But, maybe this thread will produce enough fodder for you to compile one.

How about:

B.I.T. during the auction: Assume partner was making sure the bid is according to our system/agreements and then got it right, rather than that he/she had a close choice.

[ahydra]

I'm tempted to add

Just about everything: CALL THE TD

but that should be taken as a given

How about: Following a hesitation from their partner, after opponents make a call that they may not have made otherwise: call the TD to "reserve your rights".

ahydra

[blackshoe]

ahydra, on 2012-May-20, 09:45, said:

How about: Following a hesitation from their partner, after opponents make a call that they may not have made otherwise: call the TD to "reserve your rights".

That isn't what the law says.

Quote

Law 16B2: When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result, he may announce, unless prohibited by the regulating Authority (which may require that the director be called), that he reserves the right to summon the director later. The opponents should summon the director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed.

The purpose of this law is to establish that UI has been passed, not that damage has occurred. Later, there is

Quote

Law 16B3: When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been sug- gested by such information, he should summon the director when play ends.

There is a footnote to this law that says "it is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later". Of course, the footnote directly contradicts the wording of the law, since the use of "should" indicates that failure to do it is an infraction, but never mind that.

If you do not establish the existence of UI at the time it occurs, you may have difficulty convincing the TD later that it did.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2012-May-20, 09:05, said:

B.I.T. during the auction: Assume partner was making sure the bid is according to our system/agreements and then got it right, rather than that he/she had a close choice.

This will not necessarily work, especially in a competitive auction -- ie a slow pass or double. In fact, in constructive auctions this will not work when it is obvious what partner might have been thinking.

ahydra, on 2012-May-20, 09:45, said:

How about: Following a hesitation from their partner, after opponents make a call that they may not have made otherwise: call the TD to "reserve your rights".

LOL you do not call the director to "reserve your rights". That is the point.

All you need to do at the time is agree the BIT; you can worry about damage after the hand is played.

blackshoe, on 2012-May-20, 11:24, said:

If you do not establish the existence of UI at the time it occurs, you may have difficulty convincing the TD later that it did.

Well, you will not have difficulty if the opponents agree. But they may not remember the tempo of the various bids, and of course if their ethioc are dodgy they will disagree even if they remember that there was a BIT.

[ahydra]

Vampyr, on 2012-May-20, 14:07, said:

LOL you do not call the director to "reserve your rights". That is the point.

All you need to do at the time is agree the BIT; you can worry about damage after the hand is played.

John Pain said himself at the TD course today that one should/can (can't remember which) call the TD in the situation I described (slow call from opp #1, opp #2 makes a subsequent call that may be influenced by UI).

But as blackshoe pointed out perhaps you don't need to call the TD here, but when play ends instead. The advantage I see in calling the TD earlier is that he can write down the auction and details of the BIT, which players may not remember clearly after the hand.

ahydra

[aguahombre]

I didn't think this thread was looking for things which might "work", but rather what mindset the partner of the player whose action was an irregularity should maintain and base his own bids/plays upon.

Certainly there will be adverse rulings from time to time no matter what we do. I am more interested in ideas for the players, not the directors, to use as guidelines.

[Mbodell]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-May-20, 08:51, said:

"Behave just as if partner has alerted the call and explained it as you intended it". It could be you that's wrong not partner, this covers either.

This isn't quite right though. If you later have a choice of calls, A and B, that either could be reasonable opposite the alerted and explained call, but one of which would be suggested if partner thought the call was natural, you must select the other. I.e., you must be mindful to not select from amongst LA one that is suggested by the UI.

[barmar]

Mbodell, on 2012-May-20, 15:14, said:

This isn't quite right though. If you later have a choice of calls, A and B, that either could be reasonable opposite the alerted and explained call, but one of which would be suggested if partner thought the call was natural, you must select the other. I.e., you must be mindful to not select from amongst LA one that is suggested by the UI.

In most cases of failure/incorrect alerts, this is effectively the same as assuming partner alerted correctly.

[bluejak]

Flem72, on 2012-May-20, 08:25, said:

UI: When partner fails to alert an alertable call: Behave as if partner has remembered the agreement and forgotten to alert.

Not good enough: you have to make an effort to gain no advantage: in other words you actively avoid using UI, not passively.

ahydra, on 2012-May-20, 14:56, said:

John Pain said himself at the TD course today that one should/can (can't remember which) call the TD in the situation I described (slow call from opp #1, opp #2 makes a subsequent call that may be influenced by UI).

"can", surely: you can just reserve your rights, which establishes that there was a slow call. If they agree the call was slow you do not need the TD, if they disagree, get the TD now to sort it out.

[Flem72]

bluejak, on 2012-May-21, 10:38, said:

Not good enough: you have to make an effort to gain no advantage: in other words you actively avoid using UI, not passively.

Difficult for me to see what this might mean: if in such cases I assume P's call means what our agreement says it should mean, and bid accordingly, what more is to be done? As I understand this issue, if partner's call after my unalerted call is itself alertable according to our agreement, I must alert it--notwithstanding that then everyone knows what is going on. And now PARTNER may have a huge problem.

Correct?

[blackshoe]

There are two separate issues, perhaps three. If partner didn't alert a call that should have been alerted, you have UI, and you must make every effort to avoid taking advantage of it (Law 73C). Likewise, when you alert partner's response, and explain it according to your actual agreement, he has UI, and must make every effort, etc. But there is also the question of MI. Partner's failure to alert has misinformed the opponents. You cannot compound this infraction by failing to properly alert and explain his bids according to your agreements.

[Mbodell]

Flem72, on 2012-May-21, 17:09, said:

Difficult for me to see what this might mean: if in such cases I assume P's call means what our agreement says it should mean, and bid accordingly, what more is to be done? As I understand this issue, if partner's call after my unalerted call is itself alertable according to our agreement, I must alert it--notwithstanding that then everyone knows what is going on. And now PARTNER may have a huge problem.

Correct?

Not correct. Imagine that you've mini-splintered in support and partner didn't alert it and has bid some new suit, ostensibly a cue. If reasonable things for you to do would be to bid game, or make your own cue, and both are calls someone like you might make (even if you think you'd only bid game normally without the UI), then you may have to cue (since if partner is confused bidding game might be suggested to stop the confusion). That is the bit about actively avoiding taking advantage.

[Flem72]

Mbodell, on 2012-May-21, 22:24, said:

Not correct. Imagine that you've mini-splintered in support and partner didn't alert it and has bid some new suit, ostensibly a cue. If reasonable things for you to do would be to bid game, or make your own cue, and both are calls someone like you might make (even if you think you'd only bid game normally without the UI), then you may have to cue (since if partner is confused bidding game might be suggested to stop the confusion). That is the bit about actively avoiding taking advantage.

Fine. Though you have taken this a step farther, I thought that's what I was saying: If according to agreement my hand would bid game after I minisplinter (no alert), and P cues, I bid game, but I can't imagine that, by system or just by bridge logic, I wouldn't cue in response. Forward-going followed by forward-going and all that. Maybe the minisplinter example is not the best; there are probably more ambiguous ones. Maybe I need to think up a truly convuluted example to begin to appreciate the difficulties; maybe abstract examples of what it might mean to actively take advantage are rare ATT; maybe it is much more frequently possible to actively take advantage when the non-alert is a drop-dead kind of thing, or a game invitational kind of thing, than a slammish kind of thing. I do know, however, that my reading of casebooks has not helped articulate the subtleties.