[rwbarton]

---

2♦ was intended as the majors but the actual agreement was natural so West did not alert.

The subsequent auction is probably AI to East that West took 2♦ as natural, but for the sake of argument let us assume it is not and that it was West's non-alert of 2♦ which gave East UI that 2♦ was natural. There was no need for an adjustment, so the director was not called and there is no actual ruling. But after the hand North and East disagreed about East's obligations after the auction.

North thought that after the auction East should mention a missing alert of 2♦, as though the actual agreement was 2♦ = majors, as it was only through UI that East came to realize that that was in fact not the EW agreement.

East disagreed, claiming that NS had correct information about the auction insofar as 2♦ was not alerted and that NS are not entitled to know what East thought 2♦ showed. East believed that the laws regarding UI applied only to calls and plays and not to explanations of EW's bids.

Comments?

[blackshoe]

West's unexpected (from East's point of view) failure to alert is UI to East, and he is constrained not to take advantage of it (Law 73C). It does not seem to me that East did take advantage of it, so there is no UI problem.

Law 75C, in discussing mistaken calls, says (directions changed to correspond to those in this thread)

Quote

East must not correct West’s explanation [i.e. in this case the failure to alert] (or notify the director) immediately, and he has no responsibility to do so subsequently.

Nowhere in the laws does it say that when UI is the source of East's knowledge that he has misbid he must explain that he misbid to his opponents. On the contrary, they opponents are not entitled to be told that. So East was correct, and North was not, in the OP, as to East's obligations.

I'm sure this was just a friendly discussion between players after the hand, but really if a player wants to know the answer to questions like this — or wants his opponent to know, for future reference — he should ask the director to explain the law. Otherwise you take a chance that somebody will get upset, and then you really do have a problem.

Note: don't fool yourself in these situations. If your partner's failure to alert (or in other scenarios, his alert) reminds you of the actual agreement, that's fine and all the above applies. But if you still believe your bid required (or did not require) an alert that was not (or was) given, or you aren't sure, then you should treat this as an MI situation, call the director at the appropriate time, and explain what you understand the correct information to be. The appropriate time, btw, is after the auction is over if your side is declaring, or after the play is over if you're defending.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2012-August-04, 20:22
Reason for edit: added some thoughts.

[barmar]

The way to think of it is that the opponents are entitled to know everything they would know if they had a copy of all your system notes, as well as transcripts of all your partnership discussions about system. Your explanations should replicate the information they would get by reading these notes. As far as what you're required to tell the opponents, it doesn't matter how you're reminded of it -- UI is not a problem for the disclosure process. UI only constrains how you bid/play, not what you disclose.

[rwbarton]

Thanks for the replies.

What's the purpose of having both law 16B1 and law 73C?

[RMB1]

rwbarton, on 2012-August-05, 05:54, said:

What's the purpose of having both law 16B1 and law 73C?

Law 73 was part of the proprietries, while Law 16 was part of the (other) laws. There is now no distinction between these different parts of the laws, but the difference remains that Law 73C tells a player how to behave, Law 16 tells a TD how to adjust when a player fails to behave (properly).

[gnasher]

RMB1, on 2012-August-05, 06:39, said:

Law 73 was part of the proprietries, while Law 16 was part of the (other) laws. There is now no distinction between these different parts of the laws, but the difference remains that Law 73C tells a player how to behave, Law 16 tells a TD how to adjust when a player fails to behave (properly).

I don't think that's true: most of Law 16 tells a player how to behave.

Personally I try to obey Law 16 (or the parts of it that are addressed to players), and I treat 73C as a pointless paraphrasing of 16B1(a). I realise that this may not be exactly what the lawmakers intended, but if they really cared that much they'd have given us one of their marvellous minutes to explain what they actually meant.

[blackshoe]

I don't think Law 73C is pointless - it's a concise phrasing of the principle players should follow when they have UI.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2012-August-05, 09:46, said:

if they really cared that much they'd have given us one of their marvellous minutes to explain what they actually meant.

Maybe they have done so, and have disseminated it in their usual fashion.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2012-August-05, 12:49, said:

I don't think Law 73C is pointless - it's a concise phrasing of the principle players should follow when they have UI.

Perhaps I should have said "pointless for anyone who already understands Law 16".

Edit: In fact, I think that's what I did say. I said that I treat it as pointless, not that everyone should. If you've already read and understood Law 16, reading a summary is pointless; if you haven't read Law 16 and aren't going to, it's worthwhile to read a summary instead.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-August-05, 13:32

[RMB1]

gnasher, on 2012-August-05, 09:46, said:

I don't think that's true: most of Law 16 tells a player how to behave.

OK. I was distracted by the distinction we draw between Law 16 and Law 73C.

There is no "purpose" in having both Law 16 and Law 73C, the existence of Law 73C is a historical accident. The intent of Law 73C would be better expressed early in the wording of Law 16.

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2012-August-05, 14:40, said:

OK. I was distracted by the distinction we draw between Law 16 and Law 73C.

There is no "purpose" in having both Law 16 and Law 73C, the existence of Law 73C is a historical accident. The intent of Law 73C would be better expressed early in the wording of Law 16.

I agree with you. However, Law 16 states:
"<snip>a logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it." My emphasis.

In this, and countless other examples, the LAs for North-South are selected assuming 2D is natural for both sides. It does not say, nor even imply, "using the methods of the partnership believed by the player in question". And we are obliged to rule based on the current faulty laws as they stand.

Does Law 73 override Law 16? I do not think so. If the player is following his obligations precisely under Law 16, how can he be taking advantage of the UI?

[barmar]

lamford, on 2012-August-06, 02:07, said:

I agree with you. However, Law 16 states:
"<snip>a logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it." My emphasis.

In this, and countless other examples, the LAs for North-South are selected assuming 2D is natural for both sides. It does not say, nor even imply, "using the methods of the partnership believed by the player in question". And we are obliged to rule based on the current faulty laws as they stand.

Could this really be what was intended? If a player has forgotten his system, and then gets into a situation where we must determine his LAs, can it really be right for them to be based on his actual system, not what he thinks his system is?

I think the lawmakers simply failed to consider the possibility of UI being dealt with in the midst of a forget (except, perhaps, for the specific situation where the UI wakes them up, which I think is addressed in the communication laws).

[mink]

lamford, on 2012-August-06, 02:07, said:

In this, and countless other examples, the LAs for North-South are selected assuming 2D is natural for both sides. It does not say, nor even imply, "using the methods of the partnership believed by the player in question". And we are obliged to rule based on the current faulty laws as they stand.

In all cases where a non-agreed method was imagined, UI that reminds the player of the actual method cannot be handled without implying your wording of the law. If we take literally what the law says, this would be in contradiction to the principles stated earlier in law 16A and in law 73C. Law 16B1b is technical detail. If this obviously does not make sense if taken literally in this case, it must be okay to assume what was clearly intended.

Karl

[campboy]

lamford, on 2012-August-06, 02:07, said:

I agree with you. However, Law 16 states:
"<snip>a logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it." My emphasis.

I suppose we could argue that "the class of players in question" only includes those players who have forgotten what their actual methods are.

[Fluffy]

East must be sure that their actual agreement is that 2♦ is natural, it might be possible that their real agreement is that 2♦ is majors and west forgot.

subsequent auction is AI to east that west missunderstood only after 3♦, west can pass 2♦ with diamonds, so he has UI on his third round bid but not in the 4th.

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2012-August-04, 20:08, said:

West's unexpected (from East's point of view) failure to alert is UI to East, and he is constrained not to take advantage of it (Law 73C). It does not seem to me that East did take advantage of it, so there is no UI problem.

Are we sure of this ? P of an artificial 2♦ (majors) shows an awful lot of diamonds normally, so if E has a diamond fragment he should probably be bidding it.

My impression in all previous cases I've been involved in (the most recent I put up on these boards where a multi was opened by an opp who was actually playing an Acol strong 2♦) is that "methods of the partnership" was intended (and interpreted by TDs) to mean "methods the player thought were the partnership methods at the time he made the misbid", but the law doesn't seem to say this.

[iviehoff]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-07, 05:57, said:

Are we sure of this ? P of an artificial 2♦ (majors) shows an awful lot of diamonds normally, so if E has a diamond fragment he should probably be bidding it.

Clearly we can't expect him to raise 3DX which is doubled into game. But should he raise the 2DX where it appears the double is for takeout at this stage? Partner's choice of pass (apparently) to show diamonds is quite the opposite of invitational, as one pass by the ops ends the auction at this point. Also, unless the other side make a penalty pass, he will have a later opportunity to call with more information. I think raising to 3D at this point is unlikely to be a LA, but it could be polled.

[Cyberyeti]

iviehoff, on 2012-August-07, 06:36, said:

Clearly we can't expect him to raise 3DX which is doubled into game. But should he raise the 2DX where it appears the double is for takeout at this stage? Partner's choice of pass (apparently) to show diamonds is quite the opposite of invitational, as one pass by the ops ends the auction at this point. Also, unless the other side make a penalty pass, he will have a later opportunity to call with more information. I think raising to 3D at this point is unlikely to be a LA, but it could be polled.

It's the opposite of invitational assuming a misfit, if I was say 1165 I could have quite a good hand and pass 2♦, the knowledge that partner is something like (45)31 wakes me up again as it's now a fit auction, hence I'd feel like raising 2♦X to 3 with a (45)31.

[Fluffy]

yeti, remember partner pased over 1NT initially he cannot have a monster, not even a decent hand for some players

[barmar]

campboy, on 2012-August-07, 03:53, said:

I suppose we could argue that "the class of players in question" only includes those players who have forgotten what their actual methods are.

I've brought it up numerous times before -- if you interpret "class of players" too narrowly, the pool of peers may diminish to uselessness.

But the law says "methods of the partnership". What are the partnership methods when one player remembers and the other has forgotten?

I think the only way to make that law work reasonably is to interpret "partnership methods" as "partnership methods, as understood by the player whose LAs are being determined."