[blml] L9A vs L73B1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Jerry Fusselman]

On 3/7/07, richard.hills wrote:

>
> For newbies to blml, an exploration of the October 2002 thread
> "the Kaplan question" in the blml archives might be enlightening.
>
> See:
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2002-October/date.html
>

Richard H and Konrad are still on record stating that calling
the director about the MI (of the unalerted 1C bid that is
alertable on the convention card and that affects the meanings
of your partnership's calls) is not permitted under the laws,
citing Law 9A1 and the 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."

They feel this way even though the information in the reply is
authorized. And they also believe that the quoted minutes
somehow forbids calling the director to clear up the MI
before proceeding with the auction.

Konrad says you must assume that 1C is natural and ask nothing
and call no one---even if you are not sure and you see a
conflict with the convention card. He said that you are not
allowed to give UI to partner.

I think that last idea is clearly wrong. Partners can't help
but give each other UI. If I take 30 seconds to select my call,
that is UI to my partner. If I call in perfect tempo, that is
also UI. Both cases are clearly I, and both are clearly U. Every
question causes UI, and every nonquestion does to. The tone of
your voice when you call the director transmits UI. Not all UI
is infractional---most is just extraneous.  Even when UI
demonstrably suggests nothing, it is still UI.

If the only questions that can be asked are the ones that cannot
possibly transmit UI, then no questions can be asked.

Anyway, on the other side of this issue seems to be just about
everyone else who responded in the thread. I said that, at least
in the ACBL, you had better protect yourself, and that calling the
director is probably the best way to do so. Here is the ACBL
regulation:

"Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their
opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be
expected to protect themselves."

The Orange Book has these similar regulations:

"3 A 3 It is expected that experienced players will protect
themselves in obvious misinformation cases. If such players
receive an explanation which is implausible, and they are able
to protect themselves by seeking further clarification without
putting their side's interests at risk (eg by transmitting
unauthorised information or waking the opposition up), failure
to do so may prejudice the redress to which they would otherwise
be entitled."

"5 H 1 A player's claim to have been damaged because the
opponents failed to alert or announce a call will fail if it is
judged that the player was aware of its likely meaning and if he
had the opportunity to ask without putting his side's interests
at risk."

I see from the Kaplan question thread that almost the same
Orange Book regulation was in effect in 2002. Where ever
these kinds of regulations govern, you are specifically called
upon to protect yourself and ask even if you are aware of an
unalerted bid's most likely meaning.

Probably Sven puts it much better:

"There is a common misunderstanding that Law 73B1 prohibits
asking questions when such asking can create UI. That is not
what L73B1 says, and it is not what is intended."

"An otherwise legal action is never illegal because "it can
create UI". What L73B1 prohibits is to communicate with partner
by other means than legal calls and plays (excluding the manners
in which such calls and plays are made)."

"Law 16 recognizes that extraneous information will exist in many
situations, for instance as the result of (legal) questions
asked. What is prohibited is not the creation of UI (e.g.
extraneous information) but the (illegal) use of such
information."

Nigel wrote, "In the original case, you do *not* know what
opponents methods are. Their card said 1C may show a doubleton.
The alert-failure contradicted that meaning. In such cases, in
the UK, you are enjoined to `protect yourself'."

Herman and Sven say asking for an explanation of 1C is somewhere
between fine and required.

Alain says to ask, or better yet, call the director when the CC
has different information and it affects a call you are
considering.

Eric: "Had the opponents fulfilled their disclosure obligations,
partner would have the information, and it would be ordinary AI.
Here it's the same I; should the fact that partner elicted it
rather than its having been volunteered make it U? The sequence
of events that "unauthorized" it started with an MI infraction
by the opponents; absent the infraction, it could not have
"transformed itself" into UI, and would be unquestionably
authorized. That seems a bit perverse."

Steve W: "In the ACBL, based on my personal experience, South
would be well-advised to ask. The chance of getting redress
later is remote."

Alain says, "... the fact that some rulings included the terms
"failed to protect oneself" is an unmistakable sign that you
*are* allowed to ask (requested, in fact) with the only purpose
of protecting yourself. IOW, "protecting yourself" is a legal
bridge reason."

"Now, I repeat, if it is illicit to let partner know (in a
neutral way) they failed to alert, *and* if it can happen that
you be denied of redress because you didn't ask (and, contrary
to some opinions expressed here, this also happens without
screens), this constitutes a lose-lose for the NOS, and a big
incentive not to explain (or not fully)."

But Richard Hills and Konrad are apparently unconvinced. Richard
even offers the Kaplan question thread of October 2002 to
bolster his position. But I don't think the thread does that. Obviously,
Richard wants us to focus especially on the arguments of David Burn
to see why the meaning of the unaltered 1C cannot be clarified by a
question or a director call. But I fail to see that in David Burn's
arguments.

See my posting today called "the Kaplan Question (precis)," where
I have assembled (I hope) relevant quotes from that very long
thread in 2002. In David Burn 1, we find "If your opponents have
misinformed your side, then there are ways in which you may
obtain redress at the end of the hand. There are also positions
in which it may be possible, by judicious questioning, to
rectify the situation at the table....He should not have been
asking about the queen of trumps. He should have been asking
what 5H meant."

David Burn explicitly said that neutral questions to rectify the
MI are lawful.

In David Burn 5, he says two questions about the underexplained 5H
are fine---but not the third question, which he calls "the
entirely illegal and misleading `does it deny the queen of
trumps?'"

And in David Burn 17, "If your properly asked questions do not
receive full and accurate answers, your remedy - and your only
remedy - is to seek redress for damage done." Again, neutral
questions to clear up MI can be fine.

And, oddly, Richard Hills 21 and 22 seem to me to undermine his
position today. In any case, I see no argument of David Burn's
that would ban clarifying the situation about 1C with a neutral
question, such as "What does 1C show?"

Richard and Konrad, have you changed your position?  Or perhaps you
can show the error on the other side?  Also, any chance that this
issue will be clarified in the next law book?