[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2014-March-12, 09:31, said:

pran, on 2014-March-12, 05:40, said:

Missing alert where alert is required (by Law or regulation) is itself misinformation.

Failing to alert is misinformation. Missing a properly made alert is inattention, not misinformation.

That was my fault. I phrased it incorrectly ("missing alert" instead of "missed alert"). I edited my post, and I think that Pran will now understand it the way Barmar did.

Rik

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-12, 10:42, said:

I'm not sure I would buy that missing an alert is a serious error within the meaning of the laws. First, I've seen too many alerts where the alert itself was not obvious and the alerter did not comply with the "ensure both opponents are aware of the alert" provision of the laws. Second, do you include in those who have committed an error by missing the alert the hard of hearing and the deaf? (That, btw, is why there's a visual component to an alert - notwithstanding that the visual component is rarely presented by the alerter).

Perhaps you didn't read the whole post. I wrote that I was going to judge who was at fault for North missing the alert: sloppy alerters or a sleeping North. And then:

Trinidad, on 2014-March-12, 05:17, said:

If I judge that EW were responsible for North missing the alert then nothing changes.

If I judge that it was North's fault that he missed the alert then I will subtract the part of the damage that was caused by North's error from the adjustment for NS. I consider it a SEWoG* after the infraction. EW still get the full adjustment.

____________

blackshoe, on 2014-March-12, 10:42, said:

I suppose if you judge that the alert was missed solely because the player was paying insufficient attention to the game you could call it an error, but I'm still not convinced it rises to "serious". Hm. I'll ask that question in a new thread, I think.

Subsequent infractions (note that I don't claim that not seeing an alert is an infraction), such as revokes or leads/bids out of turn, are generally considered SEWoGs. If you consider an alert that was properly made. The alerting opponent does not have any reason at all to think that the alert was not noticed. Then I think that not noticing the alert is an error, which -when it comes to the seriousness of the error- is equivalent to a revoke.

Rik

[aguahombre]

Not hearing/seeing the alert is after the infraction. But the infraction is the Alert of 3C, and not hearing/seeing the alert is related to the alert. Hence, can't use SEWog. Gotta use something else.

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2014-March-12, 14:53, said:

Not hearing/seeing the alert is after the infraction. But the infraction is the Alert of 3C, and not hearing/seeing the alert is related to the alert. Hence, can't use SEWog. Gotta use something else.

I don't agree.

Seeing or not seeing the alert is not related to the fact that the alert was not justified. You might reason that if there wouldn't have been a wrong alert, it couldn't have been missed, but that is flawed.

To give an analogous example: If an opponent bids a sacrifice after a BIT by his partner, then that is an infraction. If we drop a trick defending that sacrifice that is an error unrelated to the infraction. The fact that without the infraction we would have been dummy and wouldn't have been able to misdefend is irrelevant.

Rik

[aguahombre]

Trinidad, on 2014-March-12, 16:03, said:

I don't agree.

Seeing or not seeing the alert is not related to the fact that the alert was not justified. You might reason that if there wouldn't have been a wrong alert, it couldn't have been missed, but that is flawed.

To give an analogous example: If an opponent bids a sacrifice after a BIT by his partner, then that is an infraction. If we drop a trick defending that sacrifice that is an error unrelated to the infraction. The fact that without the infraction we would have been dummy and wouldn't have been able to misdefend is irrelevant.

Rik

Those are analogous?

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2014-March-12, 16:11, said:

Those are analogous?

If you...

Trinidad, on 2014-March-12, 16:03, said:

reason that if there wouldn't have been a wrong alert, it couldn't have been missed

... they are.

If you have any other reason why failing to see the alert should be related to the fact that the alert was unjustified, I am very curious to hear about it.

Rik

[mfa1010]

iviehoff, on 2014-March-12, 05:11, said:

I believe I already covered this point...

You did. But I respectfully don't agree with what you said.

I think we always have to assume that partner has full info and takes care of himself.
Otherwise we are using the UI that stems from what partner did or didn't do to get enlightened.

We can't think: "At the time partner doubled, he had only heard the announcement. He hadn't asked questions or looked in the CC. Therefore I can conclude xxx about his bidding."

Think screens. Or try this:
Bidding starts 2♦(alerted)-D-2♥-P-2♠-P-P to us.
After 2♦ partner read the relevant section of the CC and chose to double. When the bidding got to us, we also read the CC, it says 2♦=X. When we later start to think about reopening the bidding with our weak hand with long diamonds, RHO interrupts (and calls TD): "Oh I'm so sorry, the CC is absolutely wrong, it is that of a different partnership, we play 2♦=Y here." May we use the fact that partner read the wrong thing too, and therefore likely intended his D as a defense to convention X? NO, partner's reading in the CC is UI. We should act as if we don't know what partner did, said, heard etc.

[iviehoff]

I think this is just too counterintuitive to be the realistic approach. An announcement, the fact of which is AI, is made. When later this announcement is corrected, you are saying it will be your fault if you fail to assume that partner had the corrected information from the start. If that's going to be the basis of rulings, a lot of people who think in the manner of normal people will be very upset, but it just won't make sense to them.

I think that also, if you think it through, this philosophy will lead to you asking explanations even though your partner has just asked for them, to make sure that you are only using AI, precisely in case something later goes wrong. And I don't think this is desirable.

[mfa1010]

iviehoff, on 2014-March-13, 03:37, said:

I think this is just too counterintuitive to be the realistic approach. An announcement, the fact of which is AI, is made. When later this announcement is corrected, you are saying it will be your fault if you fail to assume that partner had the corrected information from the start. If that's going to be the basis of rulings, a lot of people who think in the manner of normal people will be very upset, but it just won't make sense to them.

What is intuitive is individual .

This is a complex (and theoretical) situation, and I would expect the Director to explain UI consequences when summoned, so noone is on their own about the legal issues.

To me it is intuitive that I can use the bids laying on the table and everything the opponents have said as if they have said it only to me. And use nothing else. Partner is percieved to be in his own isolated shelf where he takes care of his own business without me knowing when or how.

Try this: Partner pulled his X-card before the wrong transfer-announcement of the 2♦-bid was made. I think we could agree that it is UI that partner did this. But what is the consequence? After 3♦-p-p and getting the correction, I must now assume that partner had misunderstood the bidding (due to the announcement)? So even if the bids on the table plus the sum of the information from the opponents make it clear that partner's double in our system is takeout of diamonds, I must assume that partner meant it as showing diamonds for the lead? It would be illegal to bid as if it was a takeout double, since I can only know it is because partner pulled the X-card before the announcement? I think your view leads to that, and that would be counterintuitive to me.

Quote

I think that also, if you think it through, this philosophy will lead to you asking explanations even though your partner has just asked for them, to make sure that you are only using AI, precisely in case something later goes wrong. And I don't think this is desirable.

I don't need to ask again. Everything the opponents' have said is AI to me (and MI to me if it is wrong).

The UI I have is the fact that partner chose to ask plus what partner chose not to ask about. This UI I can't "errase" by asking again myself.

In general, even if the opponents' explanations are AI for me, their explanations often come with an UI aspect = what partner chose to ask or not ask about and got of information, and what partner therefore could be expected to think. This is only a problem when it gives us reason to expect that partner (due to MI or other) has misunderstood their system. If we ever sniff out that partner has misunderstood their system, UI will inevitably have been helping us (when there are no screens), because we can see what partner did to get enlightened.

[blackshoe]

I seem to be the only one here who thinks it's important to discuss the actual unauthorized information, rather than the action or inaction that (may have) provided that information.

A question is not UI. The fact that partner asked, or did not ask, a particular question is not UI. Inference from those facts may be UI, or it may not. It is the inference, not the action, that matters.

[mfa1010]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-13, 10:25, said:

I seem to be the only one here who thinks it's important to discuss the actual unauthorized information, rather than the action or inaction that (may have) provided that information.

A question is not UI. The fact that partner asked, or did not ask, a particular question is not UI. Inference from those facts may be UI, or it may not. It is the inference, not the action, that matters.

You have lost me.

Say we have a huddle. Then it is usually irrelevant if we call the huddle itself "UI" or the implications of the huddle "UI".

Why is the distinction relevant here? Or are you aiming at something else?

[blackshoe]

When you apply Law 16 in UI cases, it seems important to me to know what the "I" is that you're calling unauthorized. Unless you're in the ACBL, where rulings are made ex cathedra and directors rarely, if ever, are called on to explain or justify them (and would probably feel insulted if they were).

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-12, 10:42, said:

Second, do you include in those who have committed an error by missing the alert the hard of hearing and the deaf? (That, btw, is why there's a visual component to an alert - notwithstanding that the visual component is rarely presented by the alerter).

In my experience, players with hearing difficulty usually warn the opponents, and ask them to be diligent in including the visual component. Alerting regulations don't require this, and I think they would have a legitimate case if they didn't bother and missed an alert because an opponent failed to use the alert strip/card, but if you know that this is common it seems foolish to depend on it. If you're too proud to admit you're hard of hearing, you're screwed -- you'll have to admit it when you call the director, so you might as well mention it upfront and avoid problems.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2014-March-13, 12:46, said:

In my experience, players with hearing difficulty usually warn the opponents, and ask them to be diligent in including the visual component. Alerting regulations don't require this, and I think they would have a legitimate case if they didn't bother and missed an alert because an opponent failed to use the alert strip/card, but if you know that this is common it seems foolish to depend on it. If you're too proud to admit you're hard of hearing, you're screwed -- you'll have to admit it when you call the director, so you might as well mention it upfront and avoid problems.

I don't think I've ever seen or heard a hard of hearing opponent give that warning or make that request. When the question does come up, it's usually when the hard of hearing player realizes she's missed something, and not until then.

[mfa1010]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-13, 11:26, said:

When you apply Law 16 in UI cases, it seems important to me to know what the "I" is that you're calling unauthorized. Unless you're in the ACBL, where rulings are made ex cathedra and directors rarely, if ever, are called on to explain or justify them (and would probably feel insulted if they were).

Right. The "I" here is very real, since it made us conclude that partner has diamonds and not takeout, when he doubled 2♦ after 1N-p-2♦, in spite of the fact that our system says it is takeout given the correct meaning of 2♦ (= to play).

So what left is only to find out if this "I" was "A" or "U".

[iviehoff]

mfa1010, on 2014-March-13, 06:38, said:

Try this: Partner pulled his X-card before the wrong transfer-announcement of the 2♦-bid was made. I think we could agree that it is UI that partner did this. But what is the consequence?

You fail to mention the key points on which this case will turn.

If the announcement was slow, the late announcement was a purported correction of misinformation, the director should be called, and the fact that partner bid before is now AI and we are in the situation as I describe it.

If partner was fast to make his double, then that is his fault and I'm happy with me being forced to assume partner was correctly informed at the time of his bid, whatever stupid that might mean for me.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-13, 15:21, said:

I don't think I've ever seen or heard a hard of hearing opponent give that warning or make that request. When the question does come up, it's usually when the hard of hearing player realizes she's missed something, and not until then.

I'm not sure what it is, but it seems like I play in a much nicer universe than most of the rest of you. There have been numerous threads over the years where people refer to various obnoxious behaviors as "common", but in my experience they're aberrations; and here we have a vice versa.

I don't think I've ever had an opponent point out that they're hard of hearing after the fact.