[blml] L9A vs L73B1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Nigel]

[nigel guthrie]

Superficially, asking about the meaning of the unalerted opener, for the 
benefit of partner, is a "Kaplan question".

[Richard Hills quotes WBF Laws Committee minutes 1st September 1998]

"It is held illegal to ask a question in order that partner may be aware 
of the information in the reply."

[nigel]

No sane director would so rule, however, because you are drawing 
attention to a *prior* irregularity: Either the convention card is wrong 
or LHO has failed to alert. Presumably, though, you should call the 
director *before* asking?

[Richard also quotes Law 9A1]

"Unless prohibited by Law, any player may call attention to an
irregularity during the auction, whether or not it is his turn to
call."

[Richard Hills]

As a sane Director, I would rule the above WBF LC minute an official
interpretation of Law. I would consequently sanely rule that Nigel's
suggestion falls within the "unless prohibited by law" category, so
it is not permitted to immediately draw attention to this particular
irregularity of failure to alert.

[nige2]

We have asked UK national tournament directors whether it is OK to ask 
when your action is contingent on the answer. Apparently, it is OK and 
the a director will overlook the unauthorised information that may be 
generated if you subsequently take no action when you learn the actual 
meaning. In this case, arguably you are asking for your *own* benefit. 
It is coincidental that partner will benefit too.

In the general case, unless you ask about every call, a question will 
*always* create unauthorised information.  Convention cards aren't 
always clear or legible -- especially if, like us -- you have poor 
eyesight. It is my understanding that it is the *using* of UI rather 
than the *generating* of UI, on which the law frowns.

In Australia, is it really illegal to ask if partner may benefit too?  
If you keep mum (not asking and hence not taking appropriate action) 
this may well damage your side. OK.  You must not summon the director at 
the time. May you call the director to point out the infraction, 
however, at the end of the auction or at the end of the hand? In 
Australia, how should the director rule when you belatedly complain 
about the damage caused by opponent's failure to alert?

As a separate issue, IMO the WBFLC minute about "Pro questions" seems 
ill-conceived, superfluous, and adds no value to the game. The rules of 
a game should concentrate on *what* you do not *why* you do it. Few 
people have enough insight into their own motives to admit that they 
asked a question for partner's benefit. Fewer still would volunteer such 
self-incrimination. Without an admission, the director who accuses you 
of a Kaplan question is on thin ice. Another unnecessary law that 
rewards truth economists.

[nigel]
Some pairs seem to adopt a cunning* tactic of doubtful legality over
a "failure to alert" infraction. They ask if they want to trot out
their conventional defence to an artificial bid; otherwise, they just
make their normal call, without asking. Are any laws specifically
relevant to this ploy? Or is this yet another case of "profiting
legitimately from opponent's infraction"?

[Richard quotes Law 73B1]
"Partners shall not communicate ..... through questions asked or not
asked of the opponents ..... "

[and Law 73B2]

"The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange
information through prearranged methods of communication other than
those sanctioned by these Laws. A guilty partnership risks expulsion."

[nige2]
Thanks Richard. I agree that 73B1 does seem to cover my second question. 
Again, in my experience, it is hard to be confident of the motives of 
the questioner.