[jhenrikj]

lamford, on 2019-January-06, 16:38, said:

I don't see anywhere in the Laws where it says that you are allowed to use a question by your partner to assist you in any way in deciding on a play. The two questions, combined with the two answers, could have been used to suggest rising with the ace of clubs. If a question is UI, then any element of the answer which uses the question is also UI. It would be better and clearer if 16B1 said "questions from partner and the replies to those questions". With screens, you would not see the written response or know that partner had asked a question. The same principles are surely intended.

The same principles is surely not intended, as with many other situations where the screen regulations even contradict the laws.

As long as the question itself does not demonstrably suggest a play over another, both the question and the answer is AI, and that's the way the law is intended. If my partnern asks a question about the opponents agreements. I'm allowed to use that information as o unit, both question and answer, instead of having to ask the same question myself.

[lamford]

jhenrikj, on 2019-January-07, 03:46, said:

The same principles is surely not intended, as with many other situations where the screen regulations even contradict the laws.

As long as the question itself does not demonstrably suggest a play over another, both the question and the answer is AI, and that's the way the law is intended. If my partner asks a question about the opponents agreements. I'm allowed to use that information as o unit, both question and answer, instead of having to ask the same question myself.

On the first point, the principle is that one judges what would have happened with screens in most UI situations. At least on the 20 or so ACs I have been on.

I don't know whether the translation into Dutch says otherwise, but the English version is very clear:
Any extraneous information from partner that might suggest a call or play is unauthorized. (my emphasis)

You have completely misrepresented the Law when you write (again my emphasis):
"As long as the question itself does not demonstrably suggest a play over another, both the question and the answer is AI." "Demonstrably suggest" and "might suggest" are poles apart.

The questions from ChCh might suggest that RR rises on the first round of clubs, and weejonnie is exactly correct on this and most others are just wrong.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2019-January-07, 07:15, said:

On the first point, the principle is that one judges what would have happened with screens in most UI situations. At least on the 20 or so ACs I have been on.

When screens are in use, there are a number of differences regarding disclosure. Players explain their own bids to their screenmates, and questions/answers necessarily have to take place twice.

But there's nothing in the Laws that supports the notion that we should expect everything to happen equivalently without screens. We don't expect players to cover their ears while partner is asking a question. They're allowed to hear the question, they're just not allowed to use the question itself to influence their actions.

Here's another way to look at it.

When I was in a child, some teachers would chide students for giving terse answers to questions. If they asked asked something like "Is X true?", you were expected to answer "Yes, X is true" (and perhaps continue with "because ...") rather than just "yes".

Now let's translate that to the Q/A with an opponent. You could ask "Does that show spades?". The opponent could answer simply "yes", or they could answer, "yes, that shows spades". For the purposes of deciding what the partner of the asker is allowed to know, should the form of this answer really make a difference? If the terse answer is given, does the partner really have to ask "Yes to what?" so he's allowed to know that they have spades?

The way this particular UI law is intended is that partner isn't allowed to infer that you care about spades from the question. And the Law about asking solely for partner's benefit means that you're not allowed to ask the question if you don't really need to know the answer, but think partner does and they wouldn't ask the question themselves for some reason.

[pran]

lamford, on 2019-January-07, 07:15, said:

On the first point, the principle is that one judges what would have happened with screens in most UI situations. At least on the 20 or so ACs I have been on.

I don't know whether the translation into Dutch says otherwise, but the English version is very clear:
Any extraneous information from partner that might suggest a call or play is unauthorized. (my emphasis)

You have completely misrepresented the Law when you write (again my emphasis):
"As long as the question itself does not demonstrably suggest a play over another, both the question and the answer is AI." "Demonstrably suggest" and "might suggest" are poles apart.

The questions from ChCh might suggest that RR rises on the first round of clubs, and weejonnie is exactly correct on this and most others are just wrong.

When Law 16B1 uses the clause: that might suggest a call or play does that include cases where the probability of such inference is as little as say 1%?

I believe "Demonstrably suggest" requires more than 50% (i.e. it is more likely than not that it "suggests".)

So where do we draw the line between: "might", "might possibly", "can", "can at all" just to mention a few grades (where IMHO "might" requires the highest probability among these)?

[barmar]

pran, on 2019-January-07, 09:35, said:

So where do we draw the line between: "might", "might possibly", "can", "can at all" just to mention a few grades (where IMHO "might" requires the highest probability among these)?

Based on how it interpets the "could have been aware" clause, I think SB draws the line very liberally when judging an opponent.

[lamford]

pran, on 2019-January-07, 09:35, said:

So where do we draw the line between: "might", "might possibly", "can", "can at all" just to mention a few grades (where IMHO "might" requires the highest probability among these)?

The interpretation of the laws, where these terms are not defined more precisely by case law, is in the hands of the TD. "Demonstrably suggest" has a higher benchmark than "logical alternative". For example, after the auction 1S-(Pass)-3S(slow)-(Pass), the logical alternatives will be pass and bidding game (or making a slam-try). However, nothing about the speed of 3S there demonstrably suggests either, as 3S could be shaded or heavy. Logical alternative is normally something that at least 20% of players would consider and 10% would choose, so that there could be as many as 10 such LAs. Other phrases such as "could well damage the non-offending side" are open to interpretation, as is "might suggest a call or play". By comparison with logical alternatives, if the question in this case gives a 20% chance that RR will work out that the opponents are off two keycards and a 10% chance that this will cause RR to rise with the ace, we adjust. Given that there is less than a 50% chance of RR knowing what the contract is, for him, the threshold might not have been crossed, but I think we have to adjust anyway, as East's questions might suggest a play to most Wests. When I tried a few intermediate players, they concluded that declarer was off two keycards from the questions. Until then they assume that 5D was 0 keycards because that is what dummy has.

[sanst]

lamford, on 2019-January-10, 08:38, said:

Until then they assume that 5D was 0 keycards because that is what dummy has.

Therefore I never assume what the answer means and always ask. There are to many variations in use. The same with Stayman.

[lamford]

sanst, on 2019-January-11, 02:19, said:

Therefore I never assume what the answer means and always ask. There are to many variations in use. The same with Stayman.

RR would be well-advised to follow your advice but ChCh was keen to ensure that his omission did not matter.

[pescetom]

Can ChCh protect himself (ethically or otherwise) against the risk of conveying UI to RR by calling the Director before attempting to discover how many keycards were promised?
If so, what should he say to the Director and how should the Director proceed?

[weejonnie]

pescetom, on 2019-January-11, 11:30, said:

Can ChCh protect himself (ethically or otherwise) against the risk of conveying UI to RR by calling the Director before attempting to discover how many keycards were promised?
If so, what should he say to the Director and how should the Director proceed?

I suppose he could call the Director, when the director appears ask to speak with him away from the table. After he explains the problem, the director asks SB (or whoever) to give his answers also away from the table.

Obviously this gives UI to RR, however the nature of the UI isn't obvious and RR might not be able to work it out - and if he did he would not take advantage of it - he is scrupulously ethical (although I am sure his GA would, no doubt causing the A♣ to fall accidentally on the table.)

[blackshoe]

I'm too tired to look up the English regs on alerts above 3NT, but I am certain that in North America, if a bid is otherwise alertable, the fact that it is above 3NT and at or after opener's second call does not mean it is not alertable, it means the alert is to be delayed until after the final pass of the auction.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2019-January-11, 23:46, said:

I'm too tired to look up the English regs on alerts above 3NT, but I am certain that in North America, if a bid is otherwise alertable, the fact that it is above 3NT and at or after opener's second call does not mean it is not alertable, it means the alert is to be delayed until after the final pass of the auction.

- - - - except when playing with screens.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2019-January-11, 23:46, said:

I'm too tired to look up the English regs on alerts above 3NT, but I am certain that in North America, if a bid is otherwise alertable, the fact that it is above 3NT and at or after opener's second call does not mean it is not alertable, it means the alert is to be delayed until after the final pass of the auction.

Blackshoe's revelation implies that CC kindly asked questions that helped his opponents avoid infractions. Hence the questions are UI and so, probably, are the answers,

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2019-January-11, 23:46, said:

I'm too tired to look up the English regs on alerts above 3NT, but I am certain that in North America, if a bid is otherwise alertable, the fact that it is above 3NT and at or after opener's second call does not mean it is not alertable, it means the alert is to be delayed until after the final pass of the auction.

It's not so world-wide, however.
In Italy, for instance, in absence of screens, above 3NT and at or after opener's second call, there is no alert, period.
No delayed alerts, it's up to opponents to ask.

[pescetom]

weejonnie, on 2019-January-11, 13:58, said:

I suppose he could call the Director, when the director appears ask to speak with him away from the table. After he explains the problem, the director asks SB (or whoever) to give his answers also away from the table.

Obviously this gives UI to RR, however the nature of the UI isn't obvious

Thanks, that's what I hoped.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2019-January-12, 05:07, said:

Blackshoe's revelation implies that CC kindly asked questions that helped his opponents avoid infractions. Hence the questions are UI and so, probably, are the answers,

I don't see any logical way to get from what I wrote earlier to what you write here.

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2019-January-12, 07:25, said:

It's not so world-wide, however.

I didn't say it was world-wide, did I?

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2019-January-12, 13:48, said:

I didn't say it was world-wide, did I?

No you didn't. Nor did I say you did

I thought it was worth pointing out, particularly as Italy follows the WBF Systems Policy recommendations to the letter.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2019-January-11, 23:46, said:

I'm too tired to look up the English regs on alerts above 3NT, but I am certain that in North America, if a bid is otherwise alertable, the fact that it is above 3NT and at or after opener's second call does not mean it is not alertable, it means the alert is to be delayed until after the final pass of the auction.

What kind of calls merit this delayed-alert treatment?

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2019-January-12, 19:40, said:

What kind of calls merit this delayed-alert treatment?

Basically, any bid which would be alerted because of its meaning, but which occurs at or after opener's second bid and is above 3NT is delayed.

Suppose the auction goes 1♠-(P)-4♦, where 4♦ is a splinter bid. 4♦ requires an alert because it's artificial. The alert is immediate because it's on the first round of bidding.

Now suppose instead the auction goes 1♣-(P)-1♠-(P)-4♦, where again 4♦ is a splinter. 4♦ requires an alert because it's artificial. However, because it occurs at (or after, in some cases) opener's second call, and is above 3NT, the alert is delayed until the Clarification Period - i.e., after the final pass of the auction.

Alerts for passes, doubles, and redoubles, if required, are always immediate.