[lamford]

---

IMP pairs; lead J♥; table result 4♠=

East on this hand was our friend from a couple of other threads, the club's equivalent of the Secretary Bird. North-South were two rubber-bridge players, without a CC. It was round 1, and as the players were removing their cards from the board, East asked "Your basic system, please". North replied "strong NT, and 2/1". South added, "Thanks for telling me, pard, I thought we were just playing strong and 5". The auction proceeded as shown, and ten tricks proved routine. However SB was not happy. He asked, "How did you know that 1NT was forcing?" South replied, "I assumed it was in a 2/1 system; how else can you bid?". "Director", called SB.

"You had UI from your partner's response that your basic system was 2/1", continued SB. "The auction period begins when either partner withdraws their cards from the board (Law 17A) and your partner had taken out his cards when you responded to my question. You therefore had UI during the auction from your partner's reply to a question, and when you bid over 1NT you chose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. You only knew you were playing 2/1 from partner's reply, and if 1NT were not forcing, it would be automatic to pass it."

"I can see why rubber-bridge players don't play duplicate with dickheads like you around," replied South. "Surely we are entitled to know our basic system?"

"Not if it comes from UI", replied SB, "and rubber bridge players without convention cards that have undisclosed implicit understandings are not particularly welcome either. I have no qualms about pigging you over a technicality. Go and fleece your pigeons at rubber bridge."

The director arrived, and calmed matters a little. But how do you rule?

[pran]

Well,
I am not going to spend time on how to treat N/S here, but I should certainly issue a penalty on East for misbehaving (our famous Law 74).

If other directors prefer to kick potential (in the club) bridge players away, that is their business, I will do my best to motivate them to come back, again and again.

[campboy]

I think SB is wrong. Law 16A1d indicates that the relevant cutoff is when the player receiving the information took his cards from the board, not the start of the auction period.

While there may be some other law prohibiting the use of this piece of information, I couldn't find one. Law 73A is not such a law, since although the auction period has started, the auction has not (the latter begins when the first call is made, according to the definitions).

[blackshoe]

Can a Secretary Bird ever be wrong?

[aguahombre]

Aside from Pran covering it quite well, the real issue here is whether dick head is one word, two words, or hyphenated.

[gnasher]

 campboy, on 2012-January-14, 12:16, said:

I think SB is wrong. Law 16A1d indicates that the relevant cutoff is when the player receiving the information took his cards from the board, not the start of the auction period.

While there may be some other law prohibiting the use of this piece of information, I couldn't find one. Law 73A is not such a law, since although the auction period has started, the auction has not (the latter begins when the first call is made, according to the definitions).

South removes his cards from the board, examines his hand, and announces "I have six spades".
North now removes his cards from the board.
Does North have UI or AI?

[blackshoe]

Law 16B1 is silent about when a player's partner might convey UI, so the I conveyed in gnasher's example is certainly UI, per 16A1{d} and 16B1.

[barmar]

 campboy, on 2012-January-14, 12:16, said:

I think SB is wrong. Law 16A1d indicates that the relevant cutoff is when the player receiving the information took his cards from the board, not the start of the auction period.

SB said "your partner had taken out his cards when you responded to my question". So while his reference to the auction period may have been wrong, it's still the case that 16A1d applies (assuming he's correct about the order of events).

Partners are supposed to make agreements before either of them takes out their cards. The obvious intent of this is to avoid the possibility that one of them looks at their hand, realizes that they'd forgotten to agree on how to bid it (e.g. "are we playing sound weak 2's?").

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2012-January-14, 14:26, said:

Law 16B1 is silent about when a player's partner might convey UI, so the I conveyed in gnasher's example is certainly UI, per 16A1{d} and 16B1.

I don't understand why you think 16A1d makes it UI. North possessed this information before he took his cards out of the board, didn't he?

[barmar]

 gnasher, on 2012-January-14, 15:00, said:

I don't understand why you think 16A1d makes it UI. North possessed this information before he took his cards out of the board, didn't he?

South didn't, and he's the one who received the I.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2012-January-14, 14:52, said:

SB said "your partner had taken out his cards when you responded to my question". So while his reference to the auction period may have been wrong, it's still the case that 16A1d applies (assuming he's correct about the order of events).

Partners are supposed to make agreements before either of them takes out their cards. The obvious intent of this is to avoid the possibility that one of them looks at their hand, realizes that they'd forgotten to agree on how to bid it (e.g. "are we playing sound weak 2's?").

The auction begins when the first call is made (Definitions).
The auction period begins for a side when either partner withdraws his cards from the board (Law 17A).

I don't care if the laws lack some explicit statement to this effect other than Law 20G2: A partnership may not discuss their agreements in any way during the auction period unless such discussion is explicitly permitted. (An example of such permission could be to allow varying partnership agreements on defences to opponents' agreements in certain situations.)

[blackshoe]

South's extraneous comment is UI to North, because of the second clause of Law 16A1{d}. It is information whose use is precluded by Law 16B1. I suppose you can throw 16A3 in there as well.

[aguahombre]

I guess technically you are not spending time on how to treat N/S here, Pran.

[gnasher]

 barmar, on 2012-January-14, 15:12, said:

South didn't, and he's the one who received the I.

I think we're talking at cross purposes - South in my example is the one who gave the I. Needless to say, it would have been better if I'd called my players Bill and Fred.

[pran]

 aguahombre, on 2012-January-14, 15:23, said:

I guess technically you are not spending time on how to treat N/S here, Pran.

In order to do that I would need to know more about them.
I deliberately (judgement-) rule differently (apply different standards) on the players in Masters' league and on inexperienced players in club events.

My comment applied to what appeared to be a misunderstanding on exactly when the auction period started and the relation between Law 16A1d and other laws in the book.

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2012-January-14, 15:22, said:

South's extraneous comment is UI to North, because of the second clause of Law 16A1{d}. It is information whose use is precluded by Law 16B1. I suppose you can throw 16A3 in there as well.

16B1 prohibits the use of "extraneous information". "Extraneous information" is apparently defined in 16A3 as information not mentioned in 16A1 and 16A2.

Therefore 16A1 and 16A2 define the information covered by 16B1. Given that, you can't use 16B1 to define the information covered by 16A1.

[jallerton]

 lamford, on 2012-January-14, 06:45, said:

"I can see why rubber-bridge players don't play duplicate with dickheads like you around," replied South. "Surely we are entitled to know our basic system?"

"Not if it comes from UI", replied SB, "and rubber bridge players without convention cards that have undisclosed implicit understandings are not particularly welcome either. I have no qualms about pigging you over a technicality. Go and fleece your pigeons at rubber bridge."

The director arrived, and calmed matters a little. But how do you rule?

I hand out DPs to both pairs for the two rude comments above. This penalties are automatic in EBU events under a code known as "BB@B".

[barmar]

 gnasher, on 2012-January-14, 15:34, said:

I think we're talking at cross purposes - South in my example is the one who gave the I. Needless to say, it would have been better if I'd called my players Bill and Fred.

I didn't realize you were talking about your "I have 6 spades" example, I thought you were talking about the OP.

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2012-January-14, 15:00, said:

I don't understand why you think 16A1d makes it UI. North possessed this information before he took his cards out of the board, didn't he?

But the Laws preclude his use of this information under 16B1a. I think the laws are watertight on this one, in that there was UI during the auction, or auction period, it matters not, and SB gets his 11 IMPs.

I agree with the DP for both pairs.

[campboy]

 lamford, on 2012-January-14, 18:31, said:

But the Laws preclude his use of this information under 16B1a. I think the laws are watertight on this one, in that there was UI during the auction, or auction period, it matters not, and SB gets his 11 IMPs.

If law 16B1a precludes the use of this information, why does it matter whether anyone had removed their cards from the board? 16B1a does not distinguish between information received before and after the start of the auction period.