[Lanor Fow]

---

I'm not good with the editor, East was the dealer so North did not pass initially. If someone can tell me how to edit this I will. [Fixed. See below. -- ER]

2s - 10-12 6 card suit
2nt - alerted
3d - not alerted

The first call is made at the end of the auction, where east is asking if 3d should have been alerted. 3d is described as showing the honour outside spades. Firstly do you think this is alertable? At the table I said it was and offered West his final pass back. AT this point he asks (before I can stop him) to speak to me away from the table. Away from the table he says that he would have doubled 3d had it been alerted. Given he didn't want his pass back I instructed play to continue, and asked to be called back at the end if necessary.

I got called back at the end of play (given above), 4s having made. West complained that South had taken a line, based on the director call, that assumed he had AQ of diamonds. South shrugged his shoulders somewhat but didn't deny it. N/S contended that this wasn't unauthorised information. South said that there was an alternate line of playing east for the queen of diamonds but it didn't seem any better than the line he took. How do you rule?

If it helps, a poll of two players on how they would play given bidding and opening lead had both taking the ace of clubs and switch to a spade. One of them considered the line of three hearts initially, but said it was too committal. Another played given the west hand, found the diamond switch to be obvious if they get in with a club.

This post has been edited by Lanor Fow: 2015-March-09, 15:08
Reason for edit: Fixed the hand viewer information

[blackshoe]

Fixed it, I think. Had to figure out the right bits in the handviewer output. Basically find the dealer (specified as "n") and change it to "e" and then delete the initial pass from the auction ("a=pp2s...").

If when the first TD call came there were already three passes on the table, then East cannot get his final pass back, only West can. Was "East" in your post an error?

Calling the director is part of the legal procedures of the game, and so information gleaned from the director call is authorized (Law 16A1{c}).

Result stands.

[Cyberyeti]

If W doubled 3♦ I have little doubt declarer would have played this way. W should not have asked to talk to you away from the table and should have said what he said after the board, I feel sorry for him, but I think he's created his own AI for declarer so no adjustment.

[weejonnie]

Lanor Fow, on 2015-March-09, 13:06, said:

---

I'm not good with the editor, East was the dealer so North did not pass initially. If someone can tell me how to edit this I will.

2s - 10-12 6 card suit
2nt - alerted
3d - not alerted

The first call is made at the end of the auction, where east is asking if 3d should have been alerted. 3d is described as showing the honour outside spades. Firstly do you think this is alertable?

I would assume so: there are several different ways of replying to 2NT and it appears to be co-incidence that the honour was in diamonds. But: east should not be asking about a single bid - he should ask about all the bids during the auction to avoid giving UI to his partner (which he has just done!). The fact is that he has also given AI to South that he holds diamond honours.

Quote

At the table I said it was and offered east his final pass back.

Fine 21B1

Quote

AT this point he asks (before I can stop him) to speak to me away from the table.

I think you should have advised East that this is neither necessary nor permissible, that should he feel that his side have been damaged to call you back - where you would adjust the score if necessary 21B3. IMHO you should also advise West that knowledge of East's request is unauthorised. It would also appear that such knowledge is authorised to South. It would be up to you to decide whether EW should have a PP.

Quote

Away from the table he says that he would have doubled 3d had it been alerted. Given he didn't want his pass back I instructed play to continue, and asked to be called back at the end if necessary.

Having arrived in this position, this is correct.

Quote

I got called back at the end of play (given above), 4s having made. East complained that South had taken a line, based on the director call, that assumed he had AQ of diamonds. South shrugged his shoulders somewhat but didn't deny it. N/S contended that this wasn't unauthorised information. South said that there was an alternate line of playing west for the queen of diamonds but it didn't seem any better than the line he took. How do you rule?

Well from 1st principles
Was there MI? Yes - failure to alert the 3D bid
Did EW suffer a loss? Probably not = the double (if made) would alert South that West had the diamond honours and thus South would take the line actually taken.
Therefore there seems to be no need for an adjustment.

Quote

If it helps, a poll of two players on how they would play given bidding and opening lead had both taking the ace of clubs and switch to a spade. One of them considered the line of three hearts initially, but said it was too committal. Another played given the west hand, found the diamond switch to be obvious if they get in with a club.

Although I think the result should stand, this exemplifies the difficulty that experienced players have when they are told to protect themselves, but risk giving UI by doing so.

[Lanor Fow]

Fixed east west issues in post

[Vampyr]

Is the fact that West wanted to speak to the director away from the table really AI to NS? When the request resulted from their failure to alert?

[Lanor Fow]

Weejonnie, perhaps I should have advised that speaking with me away from teh table wasn't a good idea, but given I failed to preempt the request, I didn't feel that having the conversation would make the situation worse than it being requested (and might help if I was called back on MI later). I'm not sure what you're suggesting I give E/W a PP for.

Blackshoe, thanks for sorting the diagram for me. Yes it was west I offered the final pass back to, not east. I've edited the post.

[trevahound]

Vampyr, on 2015-March-09, 15:28, said:

Is the fact that West wanted to speak to the director away from the table really AI to NS? When the request resulted from their failure to alert?

Forgive my ignorance, here, please, but what would one assume an unalerted 3♦ to mean? I would presume that if it genuinely wasn't alertable, it was a second suit, and by definition of my first call likely to be only 3 cards in length often. Or is W arguing that he'd only double if it did show honors? Seems like he might want to double only if it was not alerted, not other way round.

And W is on lead. I sometimes find myself on lead when I've made a lead directing double, but I don't call folks over from other tables to brag about it.

Cheers,

Brian Zaugg

[lamford]

I was not told about the UI, but was asked how I would play 4S on a club lead. I thought the normal line by a country mile was to win with the ace and play a spade at trick two. This usually needs the queen of diamonds onside - around 50%, while playing three top hearts usually needs them 3-3, around 36%. A simulation since then shows that this view was correct, and playing a spade at trick two is quite a bit better than three top hearts, winning in 13 out of 24 hands, compared with 10 for playing three top hearts. Guessing diamonds correctly would increase the 13 to 17 as well.

I am seeing the (potential) UI for the first time, and it is quite interesting. My thoughts are as follows:
a) Showing a feature after a 2NT enquiry is alertable. Blue Book 4C1a makes it clear that only if it promises 3+cards is it not alertable. Weak two bidders who show features will know this for sure, and they have a duty to alert. More so if they can show a shortage.
b) There was a failure to alert. When the TD was called, West gave UI to his partner by asking to speak to the TD away from the table, as about the only thing he could be telling the TD was that he would have doubled 3D. At the time, he did not know that this could cause the declarer to choose a different line of play to normal. However, I do not think this request was AI to South, as it arose from the failure to alert, and I do not think this means it arises from the legal procedures authorized in these Laws (16A1c); it arose from an illegal failure to alert. If we allow South to draw an inference from an opponent's director call, then that is an incentive not to alert correctly. West, not unreasonably, thought it would give UI to his partner to tell the whole table that he would have doubled 3D if it had been alerted. There is another issue. When someone fails to alert or wrongly alerts, they could have been aware that it would work to their advantage. The exact way it does is not relevant. If it does work to their advantage, then the TD should seriously consider a Law 23 adjustment.

I do not know what the ruling was here, but I would tend to adjust to something close to 100% of 4S-1. Declarer changed his line of play based on UI arising from his partner's infraction, not AI arising from the legal procedures authorized in the Laws.

[lamford]

trevahound, on 2015-March-09, 16:55, said:

And W is on lead. I sometimes find myself on lead when I've made a lead directing double, but I don't call folks over from other tables to brag about it.

There are two reasons to double 3D; one is that North may become declarer in 3NT, and we want a diamond lead. The other is that partner may need to switch to a diamond against a spade contract if he gains the lead. I think I would have doubled 3D anyway on this hand, but that is not relevant. We are not adjusting to what would have happened if 3D had been alerted; we are adjusting if we decide declarer used UI to help make his contract.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2015-March-09, 16:59, said:

I do not know what the ruling was here, but I would tend to adjust to something close to 100% of 4S-1. Declarer changed his line of play based on UI arising from his partner's infraction, not AI arising from the legal procedures authorized in the Laws.

Hm. Law 16B speaks to unauthorized information from partner. The information that West wanted to speak to the director away from the table didn't come from partner, it came from West. Which law calls information "arising from partner's infraction" but not coming from partner, unauthorized?

I'm leery of claims that when a player does something "the only possible reason he could have" is one that serves a complainant.

[blackshoe]

Without saying I would adjust the score, what line of play by South that avoids the alleged use of UI would result in a better score for EW?

Another: 2NT was alerted, but not questioned. What would West have assumed it meant? If he made such an assumption, what would that lead him to conclude that 3♦ meant?

[nige1]

Agree with Lamford. According to EBU regulations, North should alert South's 3♦ if it just shows a feature (e.g. if singleton A or doubleton Kx would qualify). On that assumption, South is in receipt of UI because of East's question about North's failure to alert. South correctly guessed the reason for West's concern but, IMO, should not be allowed to benefit from his partner's infraction.

I suppose a director might judge that the UI laws, on their own, could allow him to adjust. Failing that, he would have to decide which of two, apparently contradictory, laws apply in this case:

TFLB L12A1 said:

The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent.

TFLB L12B2 said:

The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

We can but hope that the WBFLC radically simplify the next edition of TFLB -- or provide an English translation.

[blackshoe]

An English translation of a document written in English? Good luck with that.

[Lanor Fow]

Blackshoe, If declarer were to play ace of clubs then a spade, west could win the spade, play through a club which east could win and switch to a diamond for one off.

[Vampyr]

trevahound, on 2015-March-09, 16:55, said:

Forgive my ignorance, here, please, but what would one assume an unalerted 3♦ to mean? I would presume that if it genuinely wasn't alertable, it was a second suit, and by definition of my first call likely to be only 3 cards in length often. Or is W arguing that he'd only double if it did show honors? Seems like he might want to double only if it was not alerted, not other way round.

He might not want to double if it showed, eg, a shortage. The problem with the lack of an alert is that it is pretty natural to ask about an alerted bid, but asking about an unaltered bid puts undue emphasis on the bid and shows more interest in it.

blackshoe, on 2015-March-09, 21:39, said:

An English translation of a document written in English? Good luck with that.

He means actual English, rather than thousands of English words seemingly put into a sentence generator.

It seems to me that Kaplanese sacrificed clarity to a desire for elegance. Grattanese sacrifices clarity and lack of ambiguity just for the hell of it.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2015-March-10, 04:28, said:

Grattanese sacrifices clarity and lack of ambiguity just for the hell of it.

It is just a coincidence that Grattanese is an anagram of RESTAGNATE.

[VixTD]

lamford, on 2015-March-09, 16:59, said:

There was a failure to alert. When the TD was called, West gave UI to his partner by asking to speak to the TD away from the table, as about the only thing he could be telling the TD was that he would have doubled 3D. At the time, he did not know that this could cause the declarer to choose a different line of play to normal. However, I do not think this request was AI to South, as it arose from the failure to alert, and I do not think this means it arises from the legal procedures authorized in these Laws (16A1c); it arose from an illegal failure to alert. If we allow South to draw an inference from an opponent's director call, then that is an incentive not to alert correctly.

In my experience of ruling in this sort of situation a lot of inexperienced EW players tend to panic and think they have to tell the director immediately if the failure to alert could have affected their action. I certainly don't approve of fining them, but neither do I think that the failure to alert caused them to speak to the director in private, and to rule that West's action is unauthorized to South just gives defenders an incentive to play these kind of tricks.

Most defenders either know enough to keep quiet or don't know and have already blurted out how they think they've been damaged before the TD arrives. I'm as guilty as any TD for abbreviating rulings to save time, but sometimes when I think the players will benefit I give them the "full pie-and-mash" ruling with no corners cut:

"You are entitled to a full explanation of your opponents' methods, but you haven't had that here as there has been a failure to alert. If you would have taken a different course of action earlier in the auction you mustn't indicate that now, but you may be entitled to an adjusted score later if you have been damaged by the failure to alert. If you (West) would have made a different call at your last turn to call with the correct information you may retract that call and the auction will continue from that point, and North-South have to bear in mind that they have unauthorized information...."

You get the idea, but directors can't go through all this for every misinformation ruling, and as I've said it's often too late anyway.

[blackshoe]

Lanor Fow, on 2015-March-10, 01:31, said:

Blackshoe, If declarer were to play ace of clubs then a spade, west could win the spade, play through a club which east could win and switch to a diamond for one off.

Fair enough.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2015-March-10, 04:28, said:

He means actual English, rather than thousands of English words seemingly put into a sentence generator.

You exaggerate.

Vampyr, on 2015-March-10, 04:28, said:

t seems to me that Kaplanese sacrificed clarity to a desire for elegance. Grattanese sacrifices clarity and lack of ambiguity just for the hell of it.

lamford, on 2015-March-10, 04:46, said:

It is just a coincidence that Grattanese is an anagram of RESTAGNATE.

I think these comments are a bit unfair to Grattan, at least, and probably to Kaplan as well.