Known unknowns

Donald Rumsfeld (former United States Secretary of Defense) famously discussed the boundaries of knowledge and ignorance: There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. ...; and was, in my opinion, wrongly ridiculed. The discussion of various laws has reached the point where we can identify some "defined areas of doubt and uncertainty". These are some discussions I have contributed to.

Insufficient bids — what can LHO know?

We discussed at Brighton that we do not know what the offender's LHO is allowed to know before deciding whether to accept the insufficient bid. A colleague tried to get an answer to this question at Sanremo and got four different answers from members of the WBFLC. To continue a rant I delivered at Brighton, ...

IBLF: Aug 24 2010, 10:19 AM

Whatever the laws in general say or should say, Law 27 as it stands should be treated as a special case or should explicitly state what information should be available to which players during the process of operating the law. The law as it finally appeared in the "2007" Law Book is not operable in line with principles elsewhere in the laws, and no amount of subsequent "interpretation" by WBFLC has changed that.

It is wrong that the basis for a ruling (the meaning of the insufficient bid) is determined by the word of an offender, given away from the other players. It is wrong that the TD's judgement on which calls by offender will not silence partner is made available to the offender (but not other players) before the offender selects his call (above and beyond having Law 27B1b read to the offender). If the provisions of Law 27 are not substantially changed, then we need clear statements on how the law should operate and the exceptional way that information is made available to both sides during the operation of the law.

How do we adjust for two non-offending sides in Law 86D?

I rewrote this post as a blog entry, so I shall only quote the first line.

IBLF: Jul 20 2010, 11:26 PM

Time for me to emerge from the bushes on this topic. I don't think we know how to apply Law 86D.

When declarer becomes dummy is dummy still dummy?

IBLF: Sep 4 2010, 05:18 PM

South is supposed to be declarer, but East leads face-up, and South (also brain cramping) starts to put down her hand as dummy ---getting a few cards exposed.

1. Does North have a right to stop things, calling attention to the irregularity? He is supposed to be dummy, but is he yet?
2. Does the first card hitting the table from South constitute excercising the option to be dummy, whether intended or not?

I did not contribute to this thread but there seems to be a point when both players might be dummy and neither can draw attention to an irregulatiry. There is a more fundemental issue: dummy becomes dummy when the opening lead is faced, so even when the opening lead is out of turn dummy can not draw attention to that (or any other) irregularity. I think dummy should become dummy when his hand is spread, and should regain his rights as "not dummy" if declarer spreads his hand (Law 54A).

What does Law 21B2 mean for the players?

South has bid 2♥ and then corrected his earlier explanation (failure to alert). East changes his call because of the changed explanation and South changes his 2♥ bid. To find out the status of South's withdrawn 2♥ and the restrictions on North, we refer to Law 21B2.

IBLF: Sep 1 2010, 05:18 PM

I am completely surprised at the wording of Law 21B2.

When a player elects to change a call because of misinformation (...), his LHO may then in turn change any subsequent call he may have made, without other rectification unless at the end of the hand the Director judges his withdrawn call to have conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side in which case Law 16D applies.

So during the auction and play, 2♥ is not UI; but at the end of the hand, we now say 2♥ was UI (Law 16D) and see if RHO used UI (Law 16B) and adjust as if 2♥ had been UI.

What does the TD tell RHO? It is not illegal for you to use information from 2♥ but nevertheless if you do use information from 2♥ in a way that would be illegal if 2♥ were UI then I will adjust the score as if 2♥ had been unauthorised information.

How is this any different in practice than saying the information from the changed call is unauthorised?

Is there anywhere else in the laws that information becomes unauthorised at the end of the hand and we retrospectively apply Law 16B/D?

Irrelevant unauthorised information

I had got involved in a discussion about whether you can adjust the score when a player used an overheard remark to make a successful play on a board that was not the board that the overheard remark related to. I deleted my final post because I had got fed up with the discussion and my reaction was getting too personal and rehtorical. I know how I would rule, and I think my ruling would be lawful and what would be expected of me. The thread involved some interesting discussion of that is meant by "information". There was also discussion of "extraneous information" as opposed to "unauthorised information", which the laws do not seem to distinguish, but explains my use of UI/EI below.

This is what I deleted.

I must admit to being perplexed by this discussion. Law 16A says nothing about information being relevant, useful or useable. Law 16A3 says he may not base a call or play on (any) UI/EI.

I do not understand the problem. If the player knows the UI/EI is not relevant he does not use it. If the player knows the UI/EI is relevant he must not use it. If he thinks the UI/EI relates to a board he will never play but is not sure, he notifies the TD and the TD confirms that the UI/EI is irrelevant and allows play to continue.

I do not expect a player to be in a position of having UI/EI and deciding to use it on a board he knows it does not relate to. I expect to have been notified by the player before he use he bases a call or play on what he has heard.

If, subsequently, it is suggested that a player gained UI/EI that was irrelevant but he did base a call or play on the UI/EI, and he did not did notify the TD in advance, then Law 16A3/4 allows me to adjust on the board. There will always be some doubt as to the source and information that was overheard (especially as it seems to only be heard by one player), so as a TD, I would urge on the side of caution and not assume the UI/EI was necessarilly irrelevant. I would expect that the other players and organisers would expect the TD to adjust in such circumstances.

Do you think that Law 16A3 does not apply to irrelevant information that is not authorised?