[nige1]

phil_20686, on 2010-November-26, 17:23, said:

Here is a ruling I heard about that seems somewhat similar, although I only heard about it 3 rd hand and am not completely sure of all the details. Essentially, after several rounds of bidding showing invitational values responder jumped to game, as is common in uncontested auctions they failed to use the stop card, but the opponent (not on lead) paused for several seconds over this, before passing. I.e., a definite BIT, but less time than the ten seconds one should use after the stop card is used. On lead with KQx in one side suit (Clubs), and Jxxxxx in another, he leads the lowest, this gets ruffed and a club is returned. Declarer drifts one off.
After the hand declarer asks "in these auctions, when the opposition fail to use the stop card, is it your partners habit to always wait, or does he sometimes pass in tempo" leader shrugs replying "you know how it goes", or words to that effect. Then he asks, if he doubles game unexpectedly what does that mean, lead "unusual lead" is the answer. The director is called.
It seems clear that UI has been created by NS's fail to follow proper procedure, is it right to Penalise EW? Other tables led a club or a diamond, about 50-50. How would you rule? At the table the director allowed the result to stand.
This seems analogous to the problem at hand.

The situations seem analogous. IMO the ruling is corrrect. When we play under EBU regulations...

• An opponent sometimes fails to announce. We draw attention to this in one way or another (question, stare, picking up system-card) -- to prompt the announcement, Technically, I suppose we should call the director, instead, but we don't bother.
• An opponent sometimes fails to display a stop-card or takes it away too soon. When my RHO does this, my partner usually faces his own stop-card for an appropriate time to avoid receiving unnecessary UI from me. Again, we should probably call the director but we don't.

If an opponent claimed this transmitted UI, we hope that the director would give a Gnasher-type ruling.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2010-November-26, 18:25, said:

You have a regulation that requires announcements. If players fail to make those announcements, they are the ones who should pay the piper, not the opponents. Is that not happening in England?

We also have Laws that constrain a player's actions when he's in receipt of extraneous information, and apparently a range of views about how a director should treat the information recevied in this situation. And we're playing a game which is more enjoyable when there are no concerns about UI and no requests for rulings.

If an opponent fails to folow proper procedure by announcing his notrump range, two solutions have been suggested:
(1) "If you need to know the range of a 1NT opening, ask. If you don't need to know, make your call in tempo". Hope that your partner doesn't consider himself constrained by the information transmitted. If it becomes necessary, argue that this information is not UI because it's the opponent's fault, or argue for a favourable ruling under Law 23.
(2) Always prompt the opponents to anounce their range. Then make your call.

Which of these seems better to you?

[pran]

gnasher, on 2010-November-27, 06:17, said:

We also have Laws that constrain a player's actions when he's in receipt of extraneous information, and apparently a range of views about how a director should treat the information recevied in this situation. And we're playing a game which is more enjoyable when there are no concerns about UI and no requests for rulings.

If an opponent fails to follow proper procedure by announcing his notrump range, two solutions have been suggested:
(1) "If you need to know the range of a 1NT opening, ask. If you don't need to know, make your call in tempo". Hope that your partner doesn't consider himself constrained by the information transmitted. If it becomes necessary, argue that this information is not UI because it's the opponent's fault, or argue for a favourable ruling under Law 23.
(2) Always prompt the opponents to anounce their range. Then make your call.

Which of these seems better to you?

There is no doubt that respectively asking and not asking both creates extraneous information unless the player always acts in exactly the same way.
However, I would hardly ever consider the extraneous information created from (1) to restrain the partner of the player asking or not asking in selecting his calls, simply because of the fact that the situation is mainly caused by opponents failing to observe correct procedures.

(2) would seem the logic answer to this question, but I am not happy about anybody asking for an announcment at each and every of the (say) five 1NT opening bids by the same side against the same opponents.

[mgoetze]

phil_20686, on 2010-November-26, 17:01, said:

Say I play a penalty dble of a weak nt, but 5m4M over a strong nt, then if they dont announce and dont ask partner knows that I have neither of these hands.

Unless, unbeknownst to partner, you happen to know the opponents and which NT range they play.

[mfa1010]

gnasher, on 2010-November-22, 11:00, said:

Quote

drawing attention to an irregularity by an opponent does not pass any information other than that you have noticed the irregularity.

Which law says that?

But what do the EBU regulations say will happen if a player fails to announce as he should? Do they really say nothing?

gnasher, on 2010-November-22, 04:39, said:

The question of whether UI was transmitted is impossible to answer, because we don't have sufficient information. If North would always look at East in this situation, there is no UI. If North would only look at East when holding a good hand, there is UI. East's failure to follow the rules doesn't change the meaning of Law 16.


The question of whether to adjust is a separate matter. Suppose that I determine that North's question does suggest a good hand. Then there is UI, so the 2♥ bid is illegal. However, it became illegal mainly as a result of East's failure to obey the rules. East certainly could have known that this might happen, so I adjust it back to 2♥ under Law 23.

Is that ruling legal?

Not sure. I don't agree that east "certainly could have known that this might happen" as the basis for using law 23. Could east "certainly have known" that NS were about to break the laws?
Anyway this is a not so desirable solution. Adjusting twice in order to get back at the starting point is very doubtful.
I prefer:

bluejak, on 2010-November-21, 17:47, said:

I do not believe there was any UI but posted it to see if anyone thought differently.

campboy, on 2010-November-22, 08:57, said:

Anyway, I think it simpler to rule on the basis that drawing attention to an irregularity by an opponent does not pass any information other than that you have noticed the irregularity. I do not see anything unusual in the manner by which attention was drawn.

Having different yardsticks about what constitutes UI in different situations is not so unusual:

1) If a player makes a skip bid but forgets the stop-card and next hand bids in normal tempo, then the TD should lean towards jugding no UI. Atleast under Danish regulations, but I assume that this is an international rule.

2) If a player behind screens takes more time than usual in 'highly unusual situations generated by unfamiliar conventions or treatments', then the TD is supposed to be 'sympathetic' to the player who was to contend with such a situation. Which I suppose translates to judging no UI if it is at all reasonable to do.
WBF code of practice, p.9
http://www.ecatsbrid...eofPractice.pdf

There are probably more examples.

For me it sounds right to judge no UI if in doubt in the thread situation. It is very likely that the breach of correct procedure by itself initiated the questioning. Also I don't give so much weight to the players' asking habbits as others seem to do. It is not necessary to have very strict habbits in order to avoid giving away information in practice.

[RMB1]

mfa1010, on 2010-November-28, 15:01, said:

But what do the EBU regulations say will happen if a player fails to announce as he should? Do they really say nothing?

Nothing specific. Failure to announce is treated the same as failure to alert and misexplanation:

• it may create misinformation and an assigned adjusted score;
  
• it can be subject to a procedural penalty/fine.

[jallerton]

The Orange Book makaes it clear that all 1NT openings (and also all 2 of a suit openings) must be either alerted or announced. To fail to alert or announce such a call before the next player has called is an infraction (misinformation). Law 9A3 says:

Quote

However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player's committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43).

When "North looked interrogatively at East", he was attempting to prevent an irregularity. It seems unlikely that this attempt to prevent an irregularity provided any information to South about the contents of North's hand.

[mfa1010]

RMB1, on 2010-November-28, 16:10, said:

Failure to announce is treated the same as failure to alert and misexplanation:

• it may create misinformation and an assigned adjusted score;
  
• it can be subject to a procedural penalty/fine.

Failure to alert is equivalent to making a positive statement to the opponents that the bid is not artificial (etc.). Such a statement could be misinformation.

But failure to announce seems to be the opposite: the complete absence of a statement that the rules require us to make. It may be a breach of law, but I don't see how it can be misinformation to say nothing. I suppose it's not like the opponents can freely assume some range absent an announcement and then get compensated if it turns out that they assumed wrongly.

[campboy]

Well, law 20F5a specifically says that failure to announce counts as "mistaken explanation". Of course, since there is no actual content to the mistaken explanation it will not (so far as I can see) disadvantage opponents, so there should be no reason to adjust the score.

[mfa1010]

campboy, on 2010-November-28, 17:16, said:

Well, law 20F5a specifically says that failure to announce counts as "mistaken explanation". Of course, since there is no actual content to the mistaken explanation it will not (so far as I can see) disadvantage opponents, so there should be no reason to adjust the score.

Ok, thanks. I wonder if anyone could explain to me if it has any real consequence that it "counts as mistaken explanation" or if it is all just hot air.

[blackshoe]

mfa1010, on 2010-November-28, 15:01, said:

1) If a player makes a skip bid but forgets the stop-card and next hand bids in normal tempo, then the TD should lean towards jugding no UI. Atleast under Danish regulations, but I assume that this is an international rule.

Rash asssumption. Danish regulations are Danish, English regulations are English, North American regulations are North American. That the first two are similar is probably nothing more than coincidence. Certainly North American regulations are different - the onus here is on the LHO of the skip bidder to maintain proper tempo (the required ten seconds) regardless whether the stop card or skip bid warning is used.

[jallerton]

mfa1010, on 2010-November-28, 17:37, said:

Ok, thanks. I wonder if anyone could explain to me if it has any real consequence that it "counts as mistaken explanation" or if it is all just hot air.

Well, if South judges that North has adopted Ed's suggested approach of only reminding East about the lack of announcement when North's action at that turn may be affected, then South does have UI. If South's actions are restricted by that UI, then North/South could become damaged by East's failure to comply with Law 20F5.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2010-November-28, 17:47, said:

Rash asssumption. Danish regulations are Danish, English regulations are English, North American regulations are North American. That the first two are similar is probably nothing more than coincidence. Certainly North American regulations are different - the onus here is on the LHO of the skip bidder to maintain proper tempo (the required ten seconds) regardless whether the stop card or skip bid warning is used.

probably nothing more than coincidence?????

The Norwegian translation of the Duplicate Bridge Laws is Norwegian, the Danish is Danish. That they are similar is certainly no coincidence.
Can't you imagine that the reason why our regulations are similar is simply the consequence of them being translated from the same source? (As probably is the fact also for many, if not most regulations)

[mfa1010]

blackshoe, on 2010-November-28, 17:47, said:

Rash asssumption. Danish regulations are Danish, English regulations are English, North American regulations are North American. That the first two are similar is probably nothing more than coincidence. Certainly North American regulations are different - the onus here is on the LHO of the skip bidder to maintain proper tempo (the required ten seconds) regardless whether the stop card or skip bid warning is used.

My assumption was based on the fact that we almost always copy international regulations when we make the Danish ones. ACBL could learn from that.

jallerton, on 2010-November-29, 00:18, said:

Well, if South judges that North has adopted Ed's suggested approach of only reminding East about the lack of announcement when North's action at that turn may be affected, then South does have UI. If South's actions are restricted by that UI, then North/South could become damaged by East's failure to comply with Law 20F5.

Yes, NS might be damaged as you describe it. But it seems to me to be a detour first to say that the failure to announce "counts as a mistaken explanation". We would not be using that to anything. We would be adjusting directly from the fact that the infraction damaged the opponents.

[WellSpyder]

mfa1010, on 2010-November-29, 03:38, said:

... it seems to me to be a detour first to say that the failure to announce "counts as a mistaken explanation"....

I think this phrase is probably included mainly with other announcements in mind besides the range of 1NT. For example, failing to announce a transfer would count as MI, since in the absence of an announcement the bid should be natural.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps I have misunderstood what Michael meant by "international rule". I thought he meant "a rule that applies everywhere" in much the same way that the laws apply everywhere. There aren't any such, of course, regulations being in the purview of, and limited to the jurisdiction of, the Regulating Authority. I note that the WBF is a Regulating Authority only for "its own world tournaments and events". Are WBF regulations the referent for "international regulations"?

[blackshoe]

WellSpyder, on 2010-November-29, 04:24, said:

I think this phrase is probably included mainly with other announcements in mind besides the range of 1NT. For example, failing to announce a transfer would count as MI, since in the absence of an announcement the bid should be natural.

I would infer from the absence of an announcement that either the call does not require an announcement*, or that the player forgot he's supposed to make an announcement, or that he wasn't paying attention, or that he's one of those who thinks announcements are "silly" and resists using them. Absent clues from his demeanor at the table, and unless I know him, I would have no idea which of these is most likely.

*This is not the same thing as "the call is natural". I suppose it may be possible to make this further inference, but I'm not at all sure of that.

[nige1]

WellSpyder, on 2010-November-29, 04:24, said:

I think this phrase is probably included mainly with other announcements in mind besides the range of 1NT. For example, failing to announce a transfer would count as MI, since in the absence of an announcement the bid should be natural.

blackshoe, on 2010-November-29, 07:53, said:

I would infer from the absence of an announcement that either the call does not require an announcement*, or that the player forgot he's supposed to make an announcement, or that he wasn't paying attention, or that he's one of those who thinks announcements are "silly" and resists using them. Absent clues from his demeanor at the table, and unless I know him, I would have no idea which of these is most likely.
*This is not the same thing as "the call is natural". I suppose it may be possible to make this further inference, but I'm not at all sure of that.

IMO, it is better to treat failure to announce a transfer as misexplanation than to try to read the player's mind.

Blackshoe raises an interesting question: how does a director treat a player who deliberately fails to comply with a law or regulation, because he opines that it is "silly"?

[RMB1]

nige1, on 2010-November-29, 08:39, said:

Blackshoe raises an interesting question: how does a director treat a player who deliberately fails to comply with a law or regulation, because he opines that it is "silly"?

Fine them for deliberate failure to comply. Repeated deliberate failure to comply should lead to increased fines and suspension.

Opining that the regulation is "silly" (if not done in a rude way) should be met with "Thank you for your opinion, I suggest you make it to the relevant regulating authority. Nevertheless, you implicitly accepted the regulations by entering the competition, so please follow them." (Avoiding "best behaviour" penalties by all parties.)

[pran]

nige1, on 2010-November-29, 08:39, said:

IMO, it is better to treat failure to announce a transfer as misexplanation than to try to read the player's mind.

Blackshoe raises an interesting question: how does a director treat a player who deliberately fails to comply with a law or regulation, because he opines that it is "silly"?

I believe Law 90B8 says all that is needed.