[Shugart23]

I want to post this up at our club. I need to keep it to under a page. I'd like any suggestions for improvement or other/better examples, if anyone would offer some. Thanks

Unauthorized information :

Law 16 Section B
When a player makes available to partner extraneous information that may suggest a call, the partner may not choose an alternative that could be suggested by the extraneous bid.
Extraneous information includes a reply to a question, an unexpected alert or a failure to alert.

Example 1: Opener opens 4C as a preemptive bid, Partner announces that the bid is Gerber and replies 4D. Opener cannot use the extraneous information that Partner believes the bid is Gerber and correct back to 5C if there are other logical alternatives. Opener likely has to pass

Example 2: Opener bids 1NT and LHO bids 2H. Responder Doubles intending the double to mean a transfer to Spades. Opener does not recognize this and fails to alert. Opener bids a natural 3D. Responder now knows from Opener’s failure to alert that Opener doesn’t realize Responder has Spades and uses this unauthorized information to correct to 3S whereupon Opener realizes his mistake and bids 4S. Defenders have a claim for damages (especially if Responder has 2-3 Diamonds)

Example 3 : Opener bids 1NT and LHO bids 2C intending to show both Majors. RHO opponent fails to alert and bids 3C. LHO cannot correct to one of the Majors without running the risk of a claim for damages

Example 4: Opener bids 1NT and LHO doubles for penalty but the bid is alerted and explained as showing a single suited hand. RHO bids 2C (having a doubleton) as RHO thinks that’s the partnership agreement. LHO, having 2 clubs, cannot correct without running the risk of a claim for damages

Example 5: Partner opens 1NT, you bid 2H (transfer to Spades). Opener misses it and bids 3H...You have 6 spades, 3 hearts,4 clubs and a void. What are your options ?

[CSGibson]

I disagree with example one's conclusion that opener likely has to pass - this is a natural and forcing call, or an artificial and forcing call for most people. No one corrects out of 8 card suits with their own non-forcing 8 card suit.

I disagree with example 2. If responder doubled intending it as a transfer, then 3D becomes a super accept, whatever it would show in the auction 1N-2H, 3D. Responder has an obligation to evaluate his hand in context, and pretend that opener has a super hand for spades, instead of maybe a small doubleton.

I disagree with example 3. If 3C is non-conventional, then overcaller should look at his hand and evaluate as though RHO had a very good hand with clubs - not a poor hand, since he didn't pass 2 clubs. It might be appropriate to bid 4/5C, to try 3N, or to show a 6 card major. If 3C is conventional, overcaller should answer the convention.

I disagree with example 4. LHO can correct if his X was based on a single-suited hand. AKQJxx Axx Ax xx I would expect to routinely bid 2S over 2C. What opener must not do is to realize that partner may actually have values instead of a weak runout, and bid 3N.

Example 5: The only option is to pretend that partner had a super accept of spades, if that is what 3H shows. Depending on what 3H shows systemically, and what your values warrant, you might bid 3S, 4C, 4D, 4S, or 5D conceivably. If you don't play superaccepts, then there is no unauthorized information because anything other than 2S gives you authorized information that partner forgot.


All of your examples are flawed in my opinion, or at least your conclusions are. They seem to say if there is UI, then pass, whereas what the law is saying is that you cannot bid in a way that caters to UI, whatever that may be - in other words, you have to pretend partner explained the bid the exact way that you meant it, and bid accordingly.

[WellSpyder]

I sympathise with your desire to keep this simple by not including more actual hands than necessary and not necessarily spelling out the concept of a Logical Alternative, but it does perhaps risk being potentially misleading in one or two places as a result. In example 3, for instance, it may well depend on whether the overcaller is 5-4 in the majors or 6-6. In example 5, the answer will depend on what your agreement is about the meaning of a transfer break - perhaps that is what you have in mind. For many people, a transfer break will always have support for responder's suit, so rebidding the spades may well be fine.

One other thought. Most people I know would play a response to a pre-empt as forcing. If that is the case, then a pass cannot be the required bid in example 1 - though, of course, you cannot assume partner has simply told you how many aces they have.

[Shugart23]

CSGibson, on 2013-August-21, 08:10, said:

I disagree with example one's conclusion that opener likely has to pass - this is a natural and forcing call, or an artificial and forcing call for most people. No one corrects out of 8 card suits with their own non-forcing 8 card suit.

I disagree with example 2. If responder doubled intending it as a transfer, then 3D becomes a super accept, whatever it would show in the auction 1N-2H, 3D. Responder has an obligation to evaluate his hand in context, and pretend that opener has a super hand for spades, instead of maybe a small doubleton.

I disagree with example 3. If 3C is non-conventional, then overcaller should look at his hand and evaluate as though RHO had a very good hand with clubs - not a poor hand, since he didn't pass 2 clubs. It might be appropriate to bid 4/5C, to try 3N, or to show a 6 card major. If 3C is conventional, overcaller should answer the convention.

I disagree with example 4. LHO can correct if his X was based on a single-suited hand. AKQJxx Axx Ax xx I would expect to routinely bid 2S over 2C. What opener must not do is to realize that partner may actually have values instead of a weak runout, and bid 3N.

Example 5: The only option is to pretend that partner had a super accept of spades, if that is what 3H shows. Depending on what 3H shows systemically, and what your values warrant, you might bid 3S, 4C, 4D, 4S, or 5D conceivably. If you don't play superaccepts, then there is no unauthorized information because anything other than 2S gives you authorized information that partner forgot.


All of your examples are flawed in my opinion, or at least your conclusions are. They seem to say if there is UI, then pass, whereas what the law is saying is that you cannot bid in a way that caters to UI, whatever that may be - in other words, you have to pretend partner explained the bid the exact way that you meant it, and bid accordingly.

Thanks, no I am not trying to say people have to Pass. I am trying to say you cant use the UI to make your bid and give some simple examples....As wellspyder points out, I am trying not to complicate it with LA discussion....maybe an impossible task ?

We see these types of examples all the time and people are absolutely clueless that UI is being passed and used 'illegally'. I'm trying to educate , and definately not mis-inform. Maybe I need to say thatfor each example UI is beign passed and there is the potential risk of damage

[TylerE]

This is one of those times when teaching the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing.

[Shugart23]

Shugart23, on 2013-August-21, 08:28, said:

Thanks, no I am not trying to say people have to Pass. I am trying to say you cant use the UI to make your bid and give some simple examples....As wellspyder points out, I am trying not to complicate it with LA discussion....maybe an impossible task ?

We see these types of examples all the time and people are absolutely clueless that UI is being passed and used 'illegally'. I'm trying to educate , and definately not mis-inform. Maybe I need to say thatfor each example UI is beign passed and there is the potential risk of damage

In most of my examples, I am not saying Pass is required. I am saying that the Declarer runs the non-trival risk of damages being claimed if he takes certain actions...I think that is a true statement in each of my examples....

(I agree that 4D over 4C preempt could be forcing or could be natural with no tolerance for 4C)

[Shugart23]

TylerE, on 2013-August-21, 08:32, said:

This is one of those times when teaching the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing.

Yes, that's generally always the case. Can you make suggestions for improvement ?

[CSGibson]

Shugart23, on 2013-August-21, 08:39, said:

Yes, that's generally always the case. Can you make suggestions for improvement ?

Several: First, don't put anything up at your club. Ethical obligations are complex and vary from hand to hand, trying to make a simple one or two sentence "you should do this" poster will do more harm than good - people will feel educated without actually being educated.

2nd: If you are ignoring the first suggestion, then definitely don't use examples that actually happened against you at the club. People will feel singled out, and will tend to view your "help" as an attack.

3rd: You might be better off having an expert give a seminar before the game rather than post a flier, or to give one example hand but with full details. Also, if people are interested in this type of thing, you might want to think about letting them know about NABC casebooks, giving a link to where they can be found on the ACBL site. They have thorough and good write-ups, and analysis of the write-ups.

[Shugart23]

CSGibson, on 2013-August-21, 08:47, said:

Several: First, don't put anything up at your club. Ethical obligations are complex and vary from hand to hand, trying to make a simple one or two sentence "you should do this" poster will do more harm than good - people will feel educated without actually being educated.

2nd: If you are ignoring the first suggestion, then definitely don't use examples that actually happened against you at the club. People will feel singled out, and will tend to view your "help" as an attack.

3rd: You might be better off having an expert give a seminar before the game rather than post a flier, or to give one example hand but with full details. Also, if people are interested in this type of thing, you might want to think about letting them know about NABC casebooks, giving a link to where they can be found on the ACBL site. They have thorough and good write-ups, and analysis of the write-ups.

Thanks Chris...Sound advice although I don't think there is any interest in it since most people at the club are clueless that they use UI ....no, I'm just making up the examples (only one was real)....I'm not particularly frustrated by anything that has happened to my score; it's just a club game after all ...I do think people ought to know the rules and when I bring it up I just get blank stares , especially by people who are supposed A and B players

Oh well, maybe there is no point.....Thanks to all for your comments

[ggwhiz]

2. I think you have to lose this one. The Director has to determine the meaning of 3♦ over a transfer and stopping there may be just as damaging as getting to 4♠ so it gets too messy imo.

3. Add but with exceptional distribution you may have a case for no logical alternative (makes my previous point that you don't have to roll over). I don't think this short reference goes too far into LA LA land.

4. Runs the RISK of a claim for damages... only a risk (in bold?) and flows well from 3 above.

5. No problem in leaving them with some food for thought but you may add. You are obliged to bid as if your pard knows you have shown spades if you have a partnership agreement for what this bid would show then.

ps. Valid points by Chris but if you take on an education role at least you have to try. Active Ethics and ZT posters are on display in one of our clubs and I'm now convinced that Bridge players can't read.

[fromageGB]

Maybe a contrary opinion, but I do think you should go ahead with something on these lines. There does need to be greater awareness of the ethics of UI : a partner of mine spends a good deal of time trying to prevent needless questions in the course of bidding, rather than wait to the end, and it is a hard job. As to the detail, perhaps put in a disclaimer that these are just typical example situations, and that in all cases the director should be called, and he may reach a different conclusion depending on the actual circumstances.

[Shugart23]

fromageGB, on 2013-August-21, 09:44, said:

Maybe a contrary opinion, but I do think you should go ahead with something on these lines. There does need to be greater awareness of the ethics of UI : a partner of mine spends a good deal of time trying to prevent needless questions in the course of bidding, rather than wait to the end, and it is a hard job. As to the detail, perhaps put in a disclaimer that these are just typical example situations, and that in all cases the director should be called, and he may reach a different conclusion depending on the actual circumstances.

Thanks...

[blackshoe]

"Extraneous information includes a reply to a question, an unexpected alert or an unexpected failure to alert."

Fixed. :-)

You might do better to approach the question from the viewpoint of Law 73C - you aren't allowed to take advantage of UI. Well, not just that — you're supposed to actively avoid taking advantage. So you can't (for example) do what you "were always going to do".

My commodore once said to me (in fact to all the officers in the command) "It is not enough that an officer avoid impropriety. He must avoid even the appearance of impropriety." Good advice in many things — including bridge.

[barmar]

CSGibson, on 2013-August-21, 08:47, said:

3rd: You might be better off having an expert give a seminar before the game rather than post a flier, or to give one example hand but with full details. Also, if people are interested in this type of thing, you might want to think about letting them know about NABC casebooks, giving a link to where they can be found on the ACBL site. They have thorough and good write-ups, and analysis of the write-ups.

I see a couple of problems with this.

First, a seminar only helps the people who happen to attend it. A flyer is there for all members of the club, including future members.

Second, information like this often goes in one ear and out the other. A flyer can be consulted forever.

And regarding the casebooks, these are mostly about complicated cases, since they come from appeals. For understanding obligations in typical cases, they may be more confusing than helpful.

[barmar]

CSGibson, on 2013-August-21, 08:10, said:

...
I disagree with example 2. If responder doubled intending it as a transfer, then 3D becomes a super accept, whatever it would show in the auction 1N-2H, 3D. Responder has an obligation to evaluate his hand in context, and pretend that opener has a super hand for spades, instead of maybe a small doubleton.
...
Example 5: The only option is to pretend that partner had a super accept of spades, if that is what 3H shows. Depending on what 3H shows systemically, and what your values warrant, you might bid 3S, 4C, 4D, 4S, or 5D conceivably. If you don't play superaccepts, then there is no unauthorized information because anything other than 2S gives you authorized information that partner forgot.

I'll bet 99% of club players don't use a new suit as a super-accept, the only super-accept they know is jumping in the suit being transferred to (and even this might not be in their normal repertoire). In this case, opener bidding a new suit probably has no meaning in their system, and they may be able to conclude that opener misunderstood their bid without running afoul of UI laws.

[ggwhiz]

It just occurred to me that if you put a bunch of these flyers on the table with a short quiz on what do you do with? and score it to award some free plays, they will read it.

Maybe start with an ethics based bidding contest and publish results (winners only?) with comments from a panel of local experts. And you could run such a thing on various topics as often as needed to make an impact.

In case they surprise you, limit the number of free plays to be drawn from a list of winners that will include those that know the laws but choose to ignore them

[CSGibson]

barmar, on 2013-August-21, 12:46, said:

I'll bet 99% of club players don't use a new suit as a super-accept, the only super-accept they know is jumping in the suit being transferred to (and even this might not be in their normal repertoire). In this case, opener bidding a new suit probably has no meaning in their system, and they may be able to conclude that opener misunderstood their bid without running afoul of UI laws.

I believe you to be wrong, but mostly because you used 99% instead of 85 or 90% - ie, wrong in degree. 17% of ACBL players have more than 1,000 masterpoints, and 7% more than 2000. I believe the majority of those players would be experienced enough to have some sort of agreement about superaccepts that expands to suit bids.

[aguahombre]

Percentages aren't my bag. But, forgetting the super clubs like in LV and elsewhere, I believe Barry's 99% to be only slightly into the realm of hyperbole. The ACBL stats on Masterpoint averages don't work for me. A person can get a lot of points without learning anything, and also not all club players are ACBL members.

In fact, we have one lady who has accumulated 3000+ points and is very good at card play and judgement, but doesn't play anything artificial beyond Stayman and 2-suit transfers --- a new suit after being transferred would mean she missorted her hand. A novice playing with her feels like he/she is in a comfortable rocking chair.

[jillybean]

Shugart23, on 2013-August-21, 07:44, said:

I want to post this up at our club. I need to keep it to under a page. I'd like any suggestions for improvement or other/better examples, if anyone would offer some.

I could write 10 pages, you haven't even touched on Unauthorized information : eye rolling, heavy sigh, fiddling with bid cards before passing, slamming bid card on table, placing pass or double card on table while continuing to hold onto it, breaks in tempo, placing bid on table then tapping the table with finger and/or glaring at partner.

I can't add to what other posters have already answered but I commend what you are doing and would love to see the finished product and the response from players.

[nige1]

Shugart23, on 2013-August-21, 07:44, said:

I want to post this up at our club. I need to keep it to under a page. I'd like any suggestions for improvement or other/better examples, if anyone would offer some. Thanks
Unauthorized information :
Law 16 Section B
When a player makes available to partner extraneous information that may suggest a call, the partner may not choose an alternative that could be suggested by the extraneous bid.
Extraneous information includes a reply to a question, an unexpected alert or a failure to alert.
Example 1: Opener opens 4C as a preemptive bid, Partner announces that the bid is Gerber and replies 4D. Opener cannot use the extraneous information that Partner believes the bid is Gerber and correct back to 5C if there are other logical alternatives. Opener likely has to pass
Example 2: Opener bids 1NT and LHO bids 2H. Responder Doubles intending the double to mean a transfer to Spades. Opener does not recognize this and fails to alert. Opener bids a natural 3D. Responder now knows from Opener's failure to alert that Opener doesn't realize Responder has Spades and uses this unauthorized information to correct to 3S whereupon Opener realizes his mistake and bids 4S. Defenders have a claim for damages (especially if Responder has 2-3 Diamonds)
Example 3 : Opener bids 1NT and LHO bids 2C intending to show both Majors. RHO opponent fails to alert and bids 3C. LHO cannot correct to one of the Majors without running the risk of a claim for damages
Example 4: Opener bids 1NT and LHO doubles for penalty but the bid is alerted and explained as showing a single suited hand. RHO bids 2C (having a doubleton) as RHO thinks that's the partnership agreement. LHO, having 2 clubs, cannot correct without running the risk of a claim for damages
Example 5: Partner opens 1NT, you bid 2H (transfer to Spades). Opener misses it and bids 3H...You have 6 spades, 3 hearts,4 clubs and a void. What are your options ?

fromageGB, on 2013-August-21, 09:44, said:

Maybe a contrary opinion, but I do think you should go ahead with something on these lines. There does need to be greater awareness of the ethics of UI : a partner of mine spends a good deal of time trying to prevent needless questions in the course of bidding, rather than wait to the end, and it is a hard job. As to the detail, perhaps put in a disclaimer that these are just typical example situations, and that in all cases the director should be called, and he may reach a different conclusion depending on the actual circumstances.

Agree with FromageGB's comments but Shugart23's examples seem better than those in the ACBL Club Directors Handbook. A problem is that the laws are so complex a mess that they're hard to interpret. For example, some paradigm cases posed in director courses with recommended rulings, when presented for comment in laws forums, attract widespread ridicule.