[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2016-April-13, 04:29, said:

Otherwise, sending the guy away is UI in/of itself.

Actions are not information, they're actions. Therefore, they cannot of themselves be unauthorized information.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-13, 08:56, said:

Actions are not information, they're actions. Therefore, they cannot of themselves be unauthorized information.

We routinely conflate the UI from an action with the UI transmitted by the action. For instance, it's common to refer to a BIT or a surprised reaction as UI. What do we gain by distinguishing whether something is UI from whether it causes UI?

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-13, 08:56, said:

Actions are not information, they're actions. Therefore, they cannot of themselves be unauthorized information.

You know better. If partner creates a situation where you are sent away from the table while a part of the auction is discussed, this gives you information about what you previously thought was your partnership agreement or non-agreement. Observation gives information on this planet. You can play with the exact wording, but the result is the same.

Edit: I didn't say, "You SHOULD know better", knowingly risking a comment about my being a mind reader.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2016-April-13, 09:19, said:

We routinely conflate the UI from an action with the UI transmitted by the action. For instance, it's common to refer to a BIT or a surprised reaction as UI. What do we gain by distinguishing whether something is UI from whether it causes UI?

Clarity.

aguahombre, on 2016-April-13, 09:21, said:

You know better. If partner creates a situation where you are sent away from the table while a part of the auction is discussed, this gives you information about what you previously thought was your partnership agreement or non-agreement. Observation gives information on this planet. You can play with the exact wording, but the result is the same.

Edit: I didn't say, "You SHOULD know better", knowingly risking a comment about my being a mind reader.

it is the information that's unauthorized, not the action that transmitted it.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-13, 11:46, said:

Clarity.

it is the information that's unauthorized, not the action that transmitted it.

A distinction without a difference in effect could be described by many terms; 'clarity' isn't one I would choose.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2016-April-13, 11:58, said:

A distinction without a difference in effect could be described by many terms; 'clarity' isn't one I would choose.

"Unnecessarily pedantic" is the phrase that comes to my mind.

[nige1]

campboy, on 2016-April-12, 23:43, said:

But this is only appropriate where there actually is an agreement that bidder's partner can't remember. A TD will not get bidder to say what he meant when there is no agreement.

Campboy makes a good point. No wonder, players are reluctant to explain their own calls, in partner's absence. Usually, however, when the player made the call, he thought there was an agreement. Perhaps, he knows they have no explicit agreement but he hopes that partner can deduce the meaning from related agreements and partnership philosophy. IMO this implicit agreement is disclosable. Of course, it's possible that the call is genuinely meaningless but simply an attempt to muddy the waters. Some jurisdictions frown on such random calls.

If directors routinely imposed this option, there might be a dramatic improvement in the memory of the caller's partner,

[campboy]

nige1, on 2016-April-13, 17:48, said:

Campboy makes a good point. No wonder, players are reluctant to explain their own calls, in partner's absence. Usually, however, when the player made the call, he thought there was an agreement. Perhaps, he knows they have no explicit agreement but he hopes that partner can deduce the meaning from related agreements and partnership philosophy. IMO this implicit agreement is disclosable. Of course, it's possible that the call is genuinely meaningless but simply an attempt to muddy the waters. Some jurisdictions frown on such random calls.

The player's hope does not need to be disclosed. In the situation you describe what needs to be disclosed is the related agreements and partnership philosophy. But it is quite possible that partner can remember (and properly disclose) all these things, and yet not be sure what bidder intended.

[campboy]

nige1, on 2016-April-13, 17:48, said:

Of course, it's possible that the call is genuinely meaningless but simply an attempt to muddy the waters. Some jurisdictions frown on such random calls.

This is not the normal reason for making a call about which there is genuinely no partnership agreement. What commonly happens, especially at matchpoints, is that a player has a choice between making an undiscussed call which could be interpreted in two or more ways (and it's a pure guess between them), one of which describes his hand, or making some other call which definitely doesn't describe his hand. He believes that he is going to get a poor score if he doesn't manage to describe his hand, so it is better to make this call and hope partner guesses right than to just give up.

[Zelandakh]

The other situation that happens very often is that you need to obtain more information about partner's hand but have no call that is agreed to be forcing. There is a call that you think/hope partner will take as forcing and make some descriptive call over so you decide to choose that and accept the bad result if they happen to pass it. Then there is the situation that Andy mentioned in the other thread - partner has made a nebulous call with more than one possible meaning and you think making a nebulous call yourself will cater to either possibility and thereby clear things up.

[aguahombre]

Zelandakh, on 2016-April-14, 05:41, said:

The other situation that happens very often is that you need to obtain more information about partner's hand but have no call that is agreed to be forcing. There is a call that you think/hope partner will take as forcing and make some descriptive call over so you decide to choose that and accept the bad result if they happen to pass it. Then there is the situation that Andy mentioned in the other thread - partner has made a nebulous call with more than one possible meaning and you think making a nebulous call yourself will cater to either possibility and thereby clear things up.

The point you start to make is right on, IMHO. However, Andy chose PASS. I wouldn't describe that as a nebulous call when it ends the auction.