Re: The Problem with Misinformation

On 26 May 2006 13:11:37 -0700, in rec.games.bridge you wrote:


anon wrote:
On 26 May 2006 04:44:56 -0700, "Wayne" <wjburrows@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


anon wrote:
On 25 May 2006 18:37:34 -0700, "Wayne" <wjburrows@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In crossing the road I might have an obligation to make a deduction for
those incapable of making that deduction.

Might? They can not know what they aren't told and they can not see.

Of course I would be helpful but I don't know my legal obligations. I
would be helpful in spite of any legal obligation in this situation.

As we write there is a similar controversy in the media that involved
some 40+ people walking past a dying man near the summit of Mt Everest
and few offering him any form of assistance.

Non sequitur. In the case we are discussing, the individual in
question is asking purely for information, not assistance.


In playing bridge I have no obligation to make a deduction for those
incapable of making that deduction.

True, but you have a duty to disclose that which is not deducible from
the information given if you and your partner have that understanding.


Yes but we are talking about information that is deducible from the
information given.

No, we aren't. See previous x^large number messages.

In the absence of an alert, they are entitled to deduce that the
agreement is standard.


You can tell me I know for this situation but if tautologies are
required in your explanation I have no idea what the criteria are for
when you expect a tautology and when you do not.

Tough patooties. That is the nature of the game. Knowing this, you
must decide for yourself where to draw the line, recognizing that if
you are deemed to be incorrect, you forfeit certain rights, including
the right to a good score in some cases. A perfect system, in my
opinion.

Because just as sure as you nor I can define what information is
tautological, neither of us can define the barest minimum of
information that satisfies the standard in all cases, either.


My complete agreement (and experience) defines the barest minimum for
an explanation.

Clarity trumps brevity. That is, if you want to protect yourself from
a charge of misleading the opponents. If you don't, that is your
choice. Seems like a bad risk-reward ration to me.


There is one standard: misinformation. Was the information given
accurate or was it inaccurate. If accurate we have no misinformation.
If inaccurate we have misinformation.

If incomplete, we have inaccuracy.

I do not have to include deductions from that information. I do not
have to give lessons in bridge. I do not have to give lessons in
English comprehension.

All true. But not relevant to the discussion.

Precisely relevant.

Incorrect.

If this is true as you say then the deduction of 0-10 is the opponents
responsibility as I have been saying. This is a logical deduction
based on bridge knowledge of what a passed hand contains and
comprehension of the English language.

Incorrect. A passed hand that has less than 8 (maybe 9) points does
not venture to the 2 level in the absence of a known fit. The opps
are entitled to deduce that, since that is common bridge knowledge.
Anything different from that requires disclosure.

You and I have a fundamental disagreement as to whether, and at what
level, expectation plays into the equation. That is a fair issue to
discuss in depth and I'm happy to do so.

I would think the standard should be that if the majority of players
in the event you are entered in would naturally think a given thing to
be true, then if it is in fact not true one is duty bound to disclose.

I am not sure that is the problem.

Although I think the obligation to disclose is equal for everyone.
There is no condition in the law that if you play "standard" you have a
lesser obligation to disclose.

This is not borne out in practice. Almost all alerting regulations
state that one must alert the unexpected or the unusual. There is no
way to interpret this other than some basic understanding of what is
"normal" must be understood or learned in order to properly disclose.


Of course there is a way. You must alert your 2C response to 1H. I
don't have to know the reason I just have to learn to alert.

Unless you know the reason you can not know that you have to alert.

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush. Here we go
'round the mulberry bush, so early in the mornin'......

We have a group of people locally that play some sort of canape 1D for
a long time they did not alert and one way or another caused havoc when
an opponent misdefended or misplayed or took some risky bid when they
turned up with a longer suit. Now mostly they have been educated to
alert. But I some still say "We have been told we must alert this".
There is no indication that they know the reason for the alert and as
long as they give an accurate explanation if asked then there will be
no problem.

Somebody had to make the determination that the bid was an alert. In
my view, that somebody is a proxy for the players. The players ceded
their authority for the determination of what bid to alert to their
proxy. But not their responsibility. If the individual that
explained what they needed to do was wrong, penalties that spring
forth from any violations are charged to the players, not to their
proxy.

I think a large part of the problem comes because we accept "natural"
as a full disclosure from players that mean "natural and standard".

Natural absolutely means natural and standard unless there is an
alert.

I think you may have forgotten the original discussion, but there was
absolutely no alert. South was given a chance to reprieve herself
when West (making a mistake?) asked about the bid in question:

Here is a quote from Paul's original post:

You pass as does LHO. Partner opens a limited 1H and you respond 2C.
Partner raises to 3C and everyone passes. She makes quite easily.
LHO, who asked about the 2C and was told that it is natural, calls the
director and complains that she didn't know it could be this weak.

I don't see any alert.

I don't see a 'no alert'.

Now you are just trolling again. Surely the onus is on Marston to be
forthcoming with that information should there have been an alert.

Are you saying that all this time you have been discussing a case that
was, shall we say, hypothetical, while I have been discussing the case
at bar?


I have been discussing the responsibility when answering a question.

I have mentioned this several times here is the clearest of those from
May 12

"As far as I am aware this is not an issue alerts.

I fully agree that a non-forcing weak 2/1 needs an alert.


The issue is what is required in an answer to a question. These are
two different things.

But the answer to the question must be colored by the existence or
nonexistence of an alert.

If the bidding goes


P P 1H P
2C ...


and there is no alert I would not expect a question about the 2C bid.
So I assume that there was an alert and then an explanation was sought.

Preposterous.

If there was no alert then there definitely has been a problem.

We agree!

In answering a question the standard for a response is: ..."

In
this case "natural" is inadequate as in fact would be "natural and
standard". Those players have the same obligation to disclose their
agreements in reply to a question as those that play some different
method. "natural and around 10+..." would come close to full
disclosure for a "standard" partnership. Adding "...and occasionally
he has made the bid quite a bit lighter with a distributional hand"
would be much better.

No argument from me here.

Too often we pick on the people that are different, those that play
less common methods. The laws make no distinction though. Although
some regulations might.

That they do.

For all the standard is "all information" from "agreement" and
"experience".

In rare cases "all information" is a succint answer like "natural".

Very rare. None that we've discussed, though.

Except this very case.

'Fraid not.

Why do you think that the point count information is not available to
your partnership? Are you really of the opinion that a range of "zero
to x" is functionally identical to "some semblance of power (that is,
HCP) which approaches a true opener"? Note that there are many ways
to say the same thing... I'm not picky about which one is employed.
But the expectation must be dashed if the expectation exists and is
false.


0-10 is available to my partnership but it is also implicitly included
in the explanation "natural" that does not further restrict the hand
type. That is in this case "natural" gives the same information as
"natural and 0-10".

Well, I don't think so.

What is the basis for this thought?

Because the opponents are entitled to rely upon the information you
provide. If you don't alert, they are entitled to KNOW that the bid
was standard. If you do alert and are asked about the bid, you are
obligated to indicate why you alerted. If you fail to indicate a
specific reason, they are entitled to discount that specific reason.

Here's an extension of this logic for your viewing pleasure. Let us
presuppose that there was an alert in this case. Let us presuppose
that the reason for the alert is that the point count range for the
bid is significantly outside of standard. Let us presuppose that the
explanation given to the ubiquitous question "Yes?" was "Natural." The
questioner is entitled to believe you. They do not need to say "But
if the only word you can use to describe that bid is that it is
natural, there was no need to alert." They are entitled to have their
question answered thoroughly. By not saying "0 to 11" along with
"natural" they are entitled to never once think that "0 to 11" is the
reason for the alert. Bridge is not a guessing game where you answer
a question with a 1/2 filled in crossword puzzle and hope that your
opponents are not good at disentangling the clues.

It does boggle the imagination as to how you can continue to cling to
this idea when there is not a soul that agrees with you.

I think if you examine the thread (and the one this came from) even
before the last few posts that there are others that agree. Paul
Marston springs to mind.

Well, of course, as he was the OP.

You have been amazingly even handed throughout this conversation and
for that I give you major props.

But do you see the circular logic here? Expectation is part of the
equation. You don't think it should be. But can you put it back in
the equation, even hypothetically if that is all you can bring
yourself to do? Once it is back in the equation you should be able to
see that if there is an expectation, and that expectation is different
from that which you know to be the case, you are duty bound to include
a complete disclaimer to that expectation.


Its not my job to judge what you will expect from my partnerships bids.

This is where we differ. Yes, it most assuredly is your job. In
fact, it is the foundation of the alerting system. The rules are
littered with descriptions indicating you should call attention to
unusual bids of any sort (at certain levels). How can you know what
is unusual if you do not judge what the opps will expect from your
partnership's bids?


I can learn to alert without explicitly learning what is standard.

Since alerting regulations are, by definition, zonal (if not
regional), I don't think this is true.

The issue in this thread is not about alerts though it is about
explanations. These are related things but different.

It is about the combination of the two.

I have said that I assume that 2C was alerted since the bidding
apparently went
P P 1H P;
2C ...

It wasn't.

That was not clearly stated. I have clearly stated that if there was
no alert then there definitely was a problem.

Shall we move on to other threads then, due to the fact that you now
agree wholeheartedly with everything I've said?

and then there was a question about 2C. If in fact there was no alert
then there was definitely misinformation.

Bingo!

If however it is as I assumed that there was an alert then the
player(s) assuming an alerted 2C is "standard" when it was alerted is
out of their mind even given the information "natural". I think there
is no excuse for not asking "why was it alerted?"

I might even be convinced to agree with you here, although in my
jurisdiction when something is alerted and a question is raised, the
first responsibility is to identify the reason for the alert. It
wounldn't be because it is natural, so there must be some other
reason. Hmmmmm.... I wonder what that could be?


Where is this written.

Law75C requires the same information whether or not a bid has been
alerted.

If you thought it required further information and had been alerted
wouldn't you ask a further question?

Not necessarily. There is no requirement for me to push my side into
a UI situation just because an opponent is being something other than
forthcoming. That is one of the reasons that the onus is on the
explainer and that the explainer needs to recognize this when
explaining. In baseball parlance, all ties go to the questioner.

I think it is just a form of
taking a double shot if you do not.

There is no requirement that I use tweezers to extract information
from an uncooperative opponent. If they choose to make their bed with
misinformation, after I have given them the opportunity to avoid it, I
have no obligation to save them from themselves.

I certainly wouldn't play based on my own assumption and if I did then
I would accept the problem was my own.

But you are entitled to rely on the information given.

Yes, this expectation changes from locale to locale. And, yes, this
gives an advantage of sorts to the locals. That is the nature of the
rules as they exist today.


No the rules (laws) are neutral about the locality - "all information"
whether it is locally standard or not in reply to a question. Alerting
regulations are more locally oriented.

You can not segregate alerting from explaining. One must be cognizant
of whether an alert was given and one must be cognizant of the reason
for the alert.


I can and I do.

An alert is a trigger that you might want to ask and seek information.

The explanation however is not dependent on the alert. Whether a bid
has been alerted or not the explainer is required to give the same
information.

This is not correct. As has been amply demonstrated in this
discussion, the mere fact that something is alertable is information
in and of itself. You might consider that to be redundant in the face
of a question. I do not. I consider it part of the information that
the questioner is entitled to when they go about deducing whatever
they want to deduce.

There seems to be a feeling that this obligation is
diminished for "natural" players (by which those who think it is
diminished mean "standard") and enhanced for "artificial" players.
This misconception is not borne out by the laws, in particular Law75C.

In the practical world, it is borne out by experience. Think of the
individuals that play standard as two who speak the same language.
Think of two individuals, one of which plays standard and the other of
which plays precision as two who speak a different language. When two
people who speak the same language explain something to each other,
certain human behaviours come into play which enable communication
without necessarily the same level of detail that the two individuals
who do not speak the same language have as a minimum threshold for
communication.

As stated above, without knowledge of what is the local standard, it
will be impossible to know when it is right to alert one's opponents.

Again, where is this written?

I am obliged to give "all information" in my explaination. When I
explain "natural" i think i am entitled to believe that you will assume
that I have given "all information". I do not believe you are entitled
to add something that I did not say and then claim based on your own
addition that my explanation was misinformation. It was not my
explanation but your own addition that was wrong.

This previous paragraph states my position as clear as it can be.

Does the description change when the bid was not alerted, but should
have been?


It may or it may not.

It must.

If there has been no alert and only an explanation of "natural" then
there has been
misinformation.

Bingo again.

If there has been an alert then the opponents have been warned that it
is not standard.

Agreed.

If there was no alert in the original case I wonder why the opponent
asked about 2C its quite an odd thing to do in an otherwise natural
auction.

In this day and age, it could have been anything from Drury to reverse
Drury to a fit showing bid. The opponents are under no obligation to
ask questions only when it is logical to do so. A whim is sufficient.

Jim
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Problem with Misinformation
    ... least 4-cards in the suit bid, and have a point-count range of ... I think this would need an alert. ... assume it was some standard range. ... Failing to disclose the non-standard is a violation of duty to disclose. ...
    (rec.games.bridge)
  • Re: The Problem with Misinformation
    ... bid can be zero to x rather than 8++ to x. ... The explanation under question is complete. ... Not if there wasn't an alert. ... specific reason, they are entitled to discount that specific reason. ...
    (rec.games.bridge)
  • Re: The Problem with Misinformation
    ... least 4-cards in the suit bid, and have a point-count range of ... I think this would need an alert. ... assume it was some standard range. ... suggests something non-standard. ...
    (rec.games.bridge)
  • Re: The Problem with Misinformation
    ... least 4-cards in the suit bid, and have a point-count range of zero ... appeals committee members to whom you present this argument. ... I think this would need an alert. ... assume it was some standard range. ...
    (rec.games.bridge)
  • Re: The Problem with Misinformation
    ... but you have a duty to disclose that which is not deducible from ... In the absence of an alert, they are entitled to deduce that the ... information that satisfies the standard in all cases, ... But the expectation must be dashed if the expectation exists and is ...
    (rec.games.bridge)