[Cascade]

Observed today a player ashamedly coaching her partner in the postmortum:

"you should have bid game because you know my hand will be strong after your hesitation"

[AlexJonson]

Cascade, on 2011-July-17, 04:39, said:

Observed today a player ashamedly coaching her partner in the postmortum:

"you should have bid game because you know my hand will be strong after your hesitation"

I guess you are referring to the primitive 1-(H)2-3-? or something similar.

But then 1-2-3-? is not necessarily detectably or even really any different.

Perhaps second hand UI is a temporary fantasy we should abandon, before we spoil the game a bit more.

(Unnecessary quotation mark removed)

[Free]

lol nice one Wayne

[Cascade]

AlexJonson, on 2011-July-17, 14:10, said:

I guess you are referring to the primitive 1-(H)2-3-? or something similar.

But then 1-2-3-? is not necessarily detectably or even really any different.

Perhaps second hand UI is a temporary fantasy we should abandon, before we spoil the game a bit more.

(Unnecessary quotation mark removed)

No the auction was:

2♠ (Dbl) 3♠ (Pass*)
Pass (4♦) ...

[nige1]

Cascade, on 2011-July-17, 04:39, said:

Observed today a player unashamedly coaching her partner in the postmortem: "you should have bid game because you know my hand will be strong after your hesitation"

DBurn drew attention to similar examples. IMO she was inciting her partner to break the UI law. If you overhear such an exhortation, are you duty-bound to report it?

[semeai]

Here's an example of this related by Gavin Wolpert on bridgewinners.com: http://www.bridgewin...rmation-level-2

[mrdct]

What's going over there Wayne? I read a Facebook post from someone at your National Congress that "in New Zealand, that your partner asked a question is Authorised Information".

[MickyB]

I don't find the comment surprising - if I hadn't read it on these forums, it wouldn't have occurred to me that this might not be permitted.

[Cascade]

mrdct, on 2011-July-17, 18:02, said:

What's going over there Wayne? I read a Facebook post from someone at your National Congress that "in New Zealand, that your partner asked a question is Authorised Information".

Who knows?

I talked with Keiran about the other situation. Apparently the auction was 1♥ Pass 3♥ Pass*; Pass 3♠ ... and this was allowed after the unmistakable hesitation over 3♥ by partner. I don't have the hand but it sounded unreasonable to me. Keiran said he might write up some more details - hopefully he will.

My situation didn't involve a TD call so there was no ruling. A disappointing aspect of this incident that I did not mention earlier is that the players involved were experienced and have represented New Zealand in international competition.

[iviehoff]

semeai, on 2011-July-17, 16:23, said:

Here's an example of this related by Gavin Wolpert on bridgewinners.com: http://www.bridgewin...rmation-level-2

A very clear argument was made by one of the commenters there. To paraphrase:

16A1a says a player can use information if
"it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board ... and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source"

A call that your partner makes under the restrictions of UI is a legal call that is affected by UI from another source. So that seems to say pretty clearly that "second order UI" is UI.

[semeai]

iviehoff, on 2011-July-18, 09:17, said:

A very clear argument was made by one of the commenters there. To paraphrase:

16A1a says a player can use information if
"it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board ... and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source"

A call that your partner makes under the restrictions of UI is a legal call that is affected by UI from another source. So that seems to say pretty clearly that "second order UI" is UI.

(I have no credentials to be discussing laws, but...)

It may be best for "second order UI" to be disallowed, but this reasoning seems merely to be wishful thinking. The "unauthorized information" in 16A1a must refer to information that is unauthorized to you, otherwise there would be an issue with using information deriving from calls/plays/etc but which is affected by information that is unauthorized to an opponent, which is surely not the case.

The distaste here seems to come from the fact that one could conceivably use this to one's advantage, and even plan a hesitation for this purpose (probably doing this is cheating somehow, though I don't know the relevant law). What I gather from reading some of these laws threads, though, is that things are not illegal merely because they could be misused by unsavory types. Maybe I've gotten the wrong impression, though.

[AlexJonson]

The problem in this discussion is the notion that partner's honesty is UI to you.

If we go there, then IMO we go where no reasonable Bridge player will follow.

This is what the 'second order' UI is about.

[barmar]

I think the problem with trying to prohibit use of second order UI is that it can result in situations where anything you do can be ruled improper, like the paradox of someone saying, "I'm lying."

[blackshoe]

What now of third, fourth and fifth order UI? "Partner knows that I know that he knows that I know that he has UI, so..."

[semeai]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-18, 19:12, said:

What now of third, fourth and fifth order UI? "Partner knows that I know that he knows that I know that he has UI, so..."

So if it's a clear-cut bid, but just barely, I might worry that partner will raise me and decide to pass after all?

[Vampyr]

In the other thread there was a clear consensus that "second order" or "reverse" UI is still UI, and a player must make every effort etc. Why must the question be dredged up again?

[semeai]

Vampyr, on 2011-July-18, 21:50, said:

In the other thread there was a clear consensus that "second order" or "reverse" UI is still UI, and a player must make every effort etc. Why must the question be dredged up again?

Sorry, which other thread is this?

[Vampyr]

semeai, on 2011-July-18, 22:15, said:

Sorry, which other thread is this?

This one:

http://www.bridgebas...4695-ui-ruling/

[lamford]

nige1, on 2011-July-17, 16:10, said:

DBurn drew attention to similar examples. IMO she was inciting her partner to break the UI law.

If it is the same DBurn, judging by his beard I don't think he is female; and I know he was not inciting his partner to break UI laws; in fact he bends over backwards to avoid doing so.

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2011-July-19, 09:51, said:

If it is the same DBurn, judging by his beard I don't think he is female; and I know he was not inciting his partner to break UI laws; in fact he bends over backwards to avoid doing so.

The antecedent of "she" was "player", not "DBurn". Please read more carefully.

And I agree with nige1.