[Flem72]

Sparked by a long discussion on BridgeWinners following an article by Debbie Rosenberg:

In an auction where P fails to alert, so that I am required to bid as if P had alerted (I am in 'Convention Mode" while P is not), thre may come a point where P makes a bid in response to one of mine that I would be required to alert in Convention Mode. So I alert as if our auction had been conventional all along. This wakes P. What the heck should happen now?

[ArtK78]

You have to do what you have to do. The alert, unfortunately, is UI to partner. Partner must act as if the alert was not made.

[barmar]

Partner is in a complicated situation. He has to continue to bid as if he didn't hear your alert, but he must alert and explain according to your actual agreements now that he has been woken up.

Also, if being woken up makes him realize that an earlier explanation was wrong, he must call the TD, in accordance with Law 20F4. The Law doesn't actually say that the player should then be instructed to correct his explanation, but I think it's implied (otherwise, how is an opponent supposed to know if his call was influenced by the MI?).

[paulg]

This happens all the time. I see it at clubs and tournaments, perpetrated by novices and grandmasters alike.

After I have received the director's permission to talk to slap the offenders, I then say that it is quite simple. "'Waking partner up' is not an infraction unless he takes advantage of the unauthorised information. On the other hand, not informing the opponents of your agreements is an infraction that incurs a lot more slapping. Now call the director and get some ice for that bruise."

(Hopefully blackshoe or bluejak will tell me if I'm wrong)

[lamford]

barmar, on 2012-August-29, 12:27, said:

Partner is in a complicated situation. He has to continue to bid as if he didn't hear your alert, but he must alert and explain according to your actual agreements now that he has been woken up.

Under the 2007 Laws he has to continue to select LAs according to the actual partnership methods (Law 16B1). He will, however, be ruled against. He could choose to anticipate the 2017 Laws and bid according to his understanding of the actual partnership methods at the time, but if he is successful, the opponents may successfully appeal under the 2007 Laws, so he cannot win whichever route he chooses.

[barmar]

Are we going to get into this debate again? Doesn't 73C imply that my interpretation of 16B1 is correct? If the UI reminds him of his actual partnership methods and he selects LAs based on that, he's not "carefully avoid[ing] taking any advantage from that unauthorized information."

Under your interpretation, these two laws directly contradict each other in wakeup situations. That has to be resolved.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2012-August-30, 03:15, said:

Are we going to get into this debate again? Doesn't 73C imply that my interpretation of 16B1 is correct? If the UI reminds him of his actual partnership methods and he selects LAs based on that, he's not "carefully avoid[ing] taking any advantage from that unauthorized information."

Under your interpretation, these two laws directly contradict each other in wakeup situations. That has to be resolved.

I agree is has to be resolved. By your argument, if you open 2C, strong, but partner says 12-14 and you look down to see you bid 1NT, you should not change it, as you are not carefully avoiding taking any advantage from the unauthorized information. Jallerton argued similarly, but the WBFLC have, I believe, issued a law change that you can use the UI here. If you are supposed to use the UI to select your LA, then you should do exactly that. You have to carefully avoid taking any advantage of the UI when selecting between the LAs, not in choosing what they are.

It is not an interpretation to say that you select LAs according to your partnership methods. It is a clear requirement of 16B1. Until 2017 or an interim Law change.

[campboy]

In some other thread I suggested that this problem could be easily dealt with by interpreting "the class of players in question" in 16B1 to include only players who have forgotten the meaning of whatever bid it was.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2012-August-30, 04:09, said:

In some other thread I suggested that this problem could be easily dealt with by interpreting "the class of players in question" in 16B1 to include only players who have forgotten the meaning of whatever bid it was.

A better approach is to change "methods of the partnership" to read "perceived methods of the partnership". The methods of the partnership are the same even if they have been forgotten.

[billw55]

paulg, on 2012-August-29, 16:36, said:

After I have received the director's permission to talk to slap the offenders, I then say that it is quite simple. "'Waking partner up' is not an infraction unless he takes advantage of the unauthorised information. On the other hand, not informing the opponents of your agreements is an infraction that incurs a lot more slapping. Now call the director and get some ice for that bruise."

Really? Your director gives players permission to lecture their ops on laws, during the session?

edit: early AM for me, I may have overlooked sarcasm. lol

[campboy]

lamford, on 2012-August-30, 04:57, said:

A better approach is to change "methods of the partnership" to read "perceived methods of the partnership". The methods of the partnership are the same even if they have been forgotten.

It is undeniable that the WBF would do well to change the law as you suggest. My point was that those of us without the power to change the law can still reasonably interpret it in such a way as to make sensible rulings. We simply have to decide what alternatives a player using the same methods but having forgotten them might seriously consider, etc.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2012-August-30, 08:08, said:

My point was that those of us without the power to change the law can still reasonably interpret it in such a way as to make sensible rulings.

My point is that you can't without ignoring the clear meaning of the Law as it stands. In another thread it states, under 74B, that it is an infraction to be "looking intently at any other player during the auction and play". Would you say that the Law should clearly mean "at any time" and apply a sanction to someone doing so before the auction period had begun, for example before either of his side had withdrawn the cards from the board? If so, then why bother applying the wording of any Laws at all? Just make up your own Laws.

[campboy]

I'm not ignoring the clear meaning of the law as it stands, I'm just reading the whole law rather than an isolated phrase. Players who have forgotten their methods is a class of player; the player in question is in that class. We routinely use the "class of player" criterion to discount any pollee who would not have considered a call the player made earlier in the auction; why is it any different if the reason he would not have considered it is because he knew what his methods were?

[barmar]

campboy, on 2012-August-31, 03:10, said:

I'm not ignoring the clear meaning of the law as it stands, I'm just reading the whole law rather than an isolated phrase. Players who have forgotten their methods is a class of player; the player in question is in that class. We routinely use the "class of player" criterion to discount any pollee who would not have considered a call the player made earlier in the auction; why is it any different if the reason he would not have considered it is because he knew what his methods were?

Perhaps because that "class" only includes one member, the player whose actions we're judging?

[lamford]

campboy, on 2012-August-31, 03:10, said:

Players who have forgotten their methods is a class of player; the player in question is in that class.

There is no problem with deciding that the player is in a class of one, someone who forgets that he is playing a precision club, however briefly. That just means it is hard to poll players. However, when it comes to Law 16B, he must still selected his LAs based on the "methods of the partnership". Just as he must alert and explain according to the "methods of the partnership". There is no problem with that, unless you are of the de Wael school, which also ignores the Law.

[campboy]

I'm pretty sure the player involved is not the only person ever to have forgotten he was playing precision.

The law does not say that a player should determine what the LAs are based on the methods of the partnership. What it says is

Quote

A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players involved and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

With my suggested interpretation of "class of player", then, we need to consider what a player using the methods of the partnership who has temporarily forgotten them might do. While there are obvious difficulties with conducting a poll, it is not too difficult to imagine what such a player might do.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2012-September-03, 14:46, said:

we need to consider what a player using the methods of the partnership who has temporarily forgotten them might do.

In order to "use the methods of the partnership" this player has to remember them for that purpose. It does not say a player "with the methods of the partnership" it says a player "using the methods of the partnership". If he has forgotten them, but something reminded him, then he still has to use them to decide on LAs or he risks being in breach of Law 16. If he remembers them, even from UI, he judges which LA would be selected by his peers using the same methods, and then and only then carefully avoids taking advantage of the UI by not selecting the LA demonstrably suggested.

Nothing in the Law suggests otherwise. Nor is there any inconsistency.

[rwbarton]

lamford, on 2012-September-06, 12:00, said:

In order to "use the methods of the partnership" this player has to remember them for that purpose. It does not say a player "with the methods of the partnership" it says a player "using the methods of the partnership". If he has forgotten them, but something reminded him, then he still has to use them to decide on LAs or he risks being in breach of Law 16. If he remembers them, even from UI, he judges which LA would be selected by his peers using the same methods, and then and only then carefully avoids taking advantage of the UI by not selecting the LA demonstrably suggested.

Nothing in the Law suggests otherwise. Nor is there any inconsistency.

But sometimes there will be only one LA in view of the actual agreement; are you saying the player with UI can now "wake up" and make that call without penalty? That will seem unfair to most, since the player may well have gotten it wrong if playing with screens.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2012-September-06, 12:00, said:

Nothing in the Law suggests otherwise. Nor is there any inconsistency.

Of course there's an inconsistency. It's hidden behind your "then and only then", which has no basis in law.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2012-September-07, 03:02, said:

Of course there's an inconsistency. It's hidden behind your "then and only then", which has no basis in law.

To ignore 16B and only follow 73C would be inconsistent. And many think that 73C is just a relic of old Laws, and 16B should apply, and be the main basis on which rulings should be made. The WBFLC have already pronounced that one need not apply 73C when changing an inadvertent call. Laws have to be applied together. To ignore 16B in order to follow 73C would not be correct. If you choose a bid that would not be given serious consideration using your actual methods but would be automatic using your imagined methods, and it happens to gain, perhaps by luck, then the TD should award an adjusted score. However if you follow 16B exactly, and apply 73C where there is a choice of calls using the partnership methods, then you have complied with the Law. You might gain from the UI. Tough, as long as you have carefully tried to avoid doing so. Change the Laws if you don't want that to happen.

The arguments that 16B does not say what it clearly does say are hogwash.