[blml] Can you create your own UI?

[Nigel]

[Ed Reppert]

A question was raised on the BBO forums. Here's the scenario: You're 
dealer. The auction goes 1S-(P)-P-(2C)-....P-(P)-2D-(3C).

You hesitated before passing in round 2. You know your partner is an
ethical player, so you can expect his 2D bid to be clear cut. Is this
information UI to you? (A poll in the BBO thread was split 50=50).
Reference was made to Law 73D1, in particular the last clause
"inferences from such variation may apporopriately be drawn only be
an opponent, and at his own risk," with the claim that this "clearly"
shows that you *are* constrained by UI here. It ain't clear to me. :-)

One further question: if you *are* constrained by UI, where does it
stop? Will partner be further constrained if you bid? Will it ever be
possible to arrive at a reasonable contract?

[Grattan Endicott]

+=+ This is a question that has lodged in my mind for over twenty years. 
It happened that the bidding went
1S - p - 2S - 3C
p* - p - 3S - p
4S all pass. Ten tricks.
(* ages ) The Director was not called. Perhaps he should have
been.

[nige1]

IMO....

Perhaps Grattan should have called the director. Certainly, players 
should not have to wait another twenty years for law-makers to clarify 
this issue. I agree with Tim West-Mead's argument:

TFLB L16A: After a player makes available to his partner extraneous 
information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of 
...unmistakable hesitation..., the partner may not choose from among 
logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been 
suggested over another by the extraneous information. 

This means that if partner chooses a suggested action then it must be 
the only popular logical alternative.

TFLB L73A1 mandates "Communication between partners during the auction 
and play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays 
themselves". This clearly states that You you may base your actions only 
on your hand and the calls and plays of others.

In this case, you must not base a call on the *unusual situation* that 
you have created by your tempo-break.
Pretty conclusive.

TFLB 73D1 ends with ".. inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in 
which a call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation 
of propriety, but inferences from such variation may appropriately be 
drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk." 

Thus, you must not a draw direct or indirect inference from a 
tempo-break unless by an opponent. Icing on the cake. Finally....

TFLB L73D1 starts "it is desirable, though not always required, for 
players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner."

Hence a tempo-break is not always an *infraction* of the law.

TFLB L73a2, however, tells us "Calls and plays should be made without 
special emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation 
or haste".

So a tempo-break is always a procedural *irregularity* and a potential 
source of unauthorised information.
In natural justice, it seems wrong that a player profit by his 
irregularity (although, admittedly, there are plenty of precedents among 
other  Bridge rules).

Anyway, Tim is right.  But that is not the end of the matter.

Players enjoy the simple challenges of the game of Bridge: bidding and 
play. They should not be forced to wrestle with super-sophisticated 
arguments created by unnecessary and ultra-complex rules. 

[A] Most players (and many directors) seem to find it hard to 
distinguish authorised from unauthorised information.

[B] Few players can perform the contortions of imagination needed to 
avoid using unauthorised information from clearly remembered events. For 
example, the above interpretation implies that an early item of 
unauthorised information can have an inhibiting effect on every 
subsequent action by either partner, in a hand. That way madness lies.

[C] Perhaps it could be an (unenforceable) *propriety* that player 
should not generate or use unauthorised information. When Bridge players 
were *Ladies and Gentlemen* the purpose of the proprieties was to remind 
them of expected behaviour :)

[D] A more realistic answer may be to crack down on (or possibly just to 
ignore) the unauthorised information itself.

[E] But if a director decides the hand should be continued after 
unauthorised information, then the penalty for creating it should be 
adequate to compensate the non-offenders for authorising the information 
to all.