[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-August-10, 10:31, said:

No, I suggest that the assertion "alerts are not authorized" is incorrect because it overlooks the word "unexpected" in the law, and because it is not the alert, but the inference from the alert about what partner thinks you have that is unauthorized information. Put it another way: an alert cannot be unauthorized information because it is not information, it is an action.

Law 16B1 uses the clause "as for example".

I must disagree that the inference from an expected alert is necessarily authorized: Such inference is a confirmation that your partner has understood your call the way you intended it (or hoped for). This confirmation is certainly not derived from legal calls and play of the current board and therefore does not satisfy the primary condition in Law 16A1 as to what constitutes authorized information.

This may be clearer when you remember that information about the existence of alerts is never passed to the other side of the screen when playing with screens.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2012-August-10, 16:14, said:

I must disagree that the inference from an expected alert is necessarily authorized…

Well, good, since I didn't say that.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-August-10, 18:28, said:

pran, on 2012-August-10, 16:14, said:

I must disagree that the inference from an expected alert is necessarily authorized...

Well, good, since I didn't say that.

Oh, did I misunderstand your statement: I suggest that the assertion "alerts are not authorized" is incorrect because it overlooks the word "unexpected" in the law...?

[blackshoe]

Yes, you did.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-August-11, 08:13, said:

Yes, you did.

So we agree then that all alerts, whether expected or unexpected, are actions resulting in extraneous information to partner?

Fine

[blackshoe]

No, we do not.

Quote

Law 16B1{a}, in part: After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by … an unexpected alert or failure to alert…

If a player makes a call, expecting his partner to alert or not alert according to their agreements, and his partner does alert or not alert as expected, how can the expected alert or lack thereof possibly suggest a call or play?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-August-11, 12:35, said:

No, we do not.

If a player makes a call, expecting his partner to alert or not alert according to their agreements, and his partner does alert or not alert as expected, how can the expected alert or lack thereof possibly suggest a call or play?

If the player feels unsure whether his partner has the correct understanding of his call then the expected alert or lack of alert reassures him that they are on the same wavelength and that he does not need to consider any "rescue action".

The reason why he feels unsure can for instance be the possibility that partner has forgotten an understanding, possibly because of a recent change of agreements or that partner has a tendency to forgetting. It can also be that the player has gambled on a particular call in an undiscussed situation.

[blackshoe]

Sure, we can posit situations where just about anything could maybe possibly have generated UI. But IMO it's highly unlikely that an expected alert would be anywhere near top of the list. Maybe you've seen it happen. I never have.

[mjj29]

I thought the argument was that expected alerts were extraneous information but didn't suggest anything?

[blackshoe]

I did say that, I think, back upthread somewhere.

[barmar]

pran, on 2012-August-10, 16:14, said:

Law 16B1 uses the clause "as for example".

True, but examples are supposed to help you figure out what belongs to the class being described. They didn't have to specify "unexpected" -- the fact that they did suggests that expected alerts should not be included.

[barmar]

I actually brought up something like this issue last fall on rec.games.bridge, in the thread Partner's alert confirms he understood bid.

The concensus was that since you're supposed to bid as if partner understands you, you aren't expected to adjust your bidding just because you received the UI that confirms this.

[pran]

The simple rule is:
You are supposed to carry out your entire auction as if you don't know whether or not partner alerted.

If you honestly do that then everything is in order.

I fully agree that an expected (lack of) alert should in most cases not lead to any problem.

[barmar]

The case where a normal alert can cause UI problems is when you forgot your agreement, and the alert wakes you up. But this isn't actually an expected alert, because due to your forgetting you didn't expect the alert. It would have been an expected alert if you were bidding correctly.

It's also possible that both your agreement and what you mistakenly thought your agreement was are alertable. Then the alert is expected, but the UI can come if they ask for an explanation.

[pran]

barmar, on 2012-August-12, 03:09, said:

The case where a normal alert can cause UI problems is when you forgot your agreement, and the alert wakes you up. But this isn't actually an expected alert, because due to your forgetting you didn't expect the alert. It would have been an expected alert if you were bidding correctly.

It's also possible that both your agreement and what you mistakenly thought your agreement was are alertable. Then the alert is expected, but the UI can come if they ask for an explanation.

My prime concern is if I make a questionable call, anxiously awaiting my partner's reaction - whether he alerts it or not.

If he does as I "hope" then I have the unauthorized information (i.e. confirmation) that we are "on line"; if he does the opposite then I have the unauthorized information (i.e. warning) that we are not.

Had we been playing with screens so that I am denied any knowledge of his reactions then I might even not have taken the chance on such a questionable call.

Such situations will of course be almost impossible for any TD to judge and rule, so this is mainly a question of the players' ethics. But that doesn't make the principle any less important.

[Zelandakh]

If you are hoping that partner alerts then you are not expecting it. Thus it is not an expected alert.

[pran]

Zelandakh, on 2012-August-13, 06:06, said:

If you are hoping that partner alerts then you are not expecting it. Thus it is not an expected alert.

If you expect that he will alert it, even believe that he will do so and indeed hope that he will do so . . . . .

[Zelandakh]

Let's say we have an auction where we make a bid that is probably artificial according to our agreements but we have not discussed it, so it is possible partner will think it is natural. So we make the bid. Partner thinks the bid is probably natural but undiscussed so it is possible it is meant as artificial. They should therefore alert as I understand the rules in most jurisdictions. So if partner is properly ethical then the alert should not allow us to conclude that the bid has been understood.

Similarly, it is not entirely unexpected for partner to alert, nor not to alert. I think we need to read a little more deeply into the word "unexpected" here. I always took expected here to mean 100%, partner should alert here, either because it is definitely alertable or because there is doubt and a potential meaning is alertable. If I am only 90% certain then the alert is not expected because a non-alert would also not be unexpected. But perhaps I have read more into the Law than is really there...

[barmar]

pran, on 2012-August-12, 05:09, said:

My prime concern is if I make a questionable call, anxiously awaiting my partner's reaction - whether he alerts it or not.

If he does as I "hope" then I have the unauthorized information (i.e. confirmation) that we are "on line"; if he does the opposite then I have the unauthorized information (i.e. warning) that we are not.

Had we been playing with screens so that I am denied any knowledge of his reactions then I might even not have taken the chance on such a questionable call.

Such situations will of course be almost impossible for any TD to judge and rule, so this is mainly a question of the players' ethics. But that doesn't make the principle any less important.

That indeed was the concern I was raising when I started that RGB thread. But as you point out, you're damned if he does, damned if he doesn't -- you have UI no matter what partner does. And if you're required to do the opposite of what the UI suggests (unless there's only one LA), you're screwed. Which would effectively mean that you can rarely legally make "creative" calls.

[bluejak]

robdixon87, on 2012-August-08, 19:52, said:

What action do you now take? At the table, North bid 4♥ (which made) because 'my partner had not understood my 2♠ bid'. I tried to explain how that was a gross abuse of UI from partner's non-alert of 2♠, but didn't really have time to do so with lots of other rulings impending.

If you cannot get it across to him, perhaps a small PP is in order. The whole aim of PPs is to prevent recurrence of infractions.

robdixon87, on 2012-August-08, 20:15, said:

Do you mean a DP? I thought PPs were for violations of procedure e.g. a PP I gave on another board (which also had a contract adjustment attached to it) tonight was for 2NT-3♥ announced as 'transfer to ♠'?

As someone else explained, DPs are for bad behaviour. PPs are given rarely for gross misuse of UI.

Siegmund, on 2012-August-08, 22:53, said:

I am a lot more willing than the rest of you to take into account the fact that partner passed over 1C too. It depends on this pair's style, yes, but there are more than a few pairs for whom passing a strong a strong club NV all but guarantees a balanced hand. Anything else might have made a weak 1-suited or 2-suited bid. Virtually all of the hands where passing 2S is a reasonable action -- weakish hands with long spades and short hearts, or, conceivably, some spade-minor two-suiters assuming partner has the wrong minor -- are hands where many people would have acted before. You know partner has at most 13HCP so he can't have one of the big hands that passes first and backs in later.

At least for some pairs, there is simply no such thing as a hand which passes 1C initially but has enough spades to want to play 2S opposite an unsuitable hand.

I don't know if this is such a pair. If it is, however, I am a LOT closer to ruling Table Result Stands than to PPing anybody. If South is a very timid stodgy type and NS have no defence over strong club, well, then yes, there is either a use of UI factor in play or -- more likely in many "life novice" partnerships -- previous experience that partner often forgets certain conventions, which is really an MI thing.

Interesting. If partner cannot have long spades, then the player could bid 4♣ and argue that, since 3♠ cannot have long spades, it must show a club fit. But 4♥ is Unauthorised Panic and certainly illegal.

pran, on 2012-August-12, 01:45, said:

The simple rule is:
You are supposed to carry out your entire auction as if you don't know whether or not partner alerted.

If you honestly do that then everything is in order.

SHRIEK !!!!!!

Law 73C makes it clear that if you have UI from partner this approach is unacceptable. Anytime partner makes an unexpected alert or failure to alert constraints are put on you.