Unauthorized Information

1. General Principles

What are we talking about?

Types of UI

The second type is intentional pre-arranged partnership communication (like the cigarette example). That's covered under Law 73B2. Obviously, such actions are a serious offence. For now, they are beyond the scope of this discussion. Similarly, intentional transmission of UI is mostly beyond the scope here; the intentional part is dealt with via disciplinary measures. When such a case arises, we start by assuming the transmission was accidental and deal with the case thusly. Then, if there is judged to be an intentional violation, that part is dealt with via disciplinary procedures.

The third type of UI is "incidental UI." That's UI picked up by some sort of accident, like looking at the wrong hand, hearing the loudmouth at the next table announce, "7NT is cold," or the like. Law 16B discusses this in some detail; we shall not. It is enough to know that the appropriate action to take when in possession of this sort of UI is to call the director. It's usually best to speak with him privately unless everyone at the table knows what you know (you've looked at the wrong hand, for example). He'll take it from there.

The Laws

Today, we won't discuss the exact wording of those laws, but we'll use lots of results from them.

AI vs. UI

Authorized Information:

• partner's legal calls and plays
• the opponents' calls and plays, legal, illegal, or withdrawn, unless they were withdrawn because our side committed an infraction
• the opponents mannerisms, remarks, tempo, and the like
• your systemic agreements
• your general bridge knowledge
• your knowledge of partner's proclivities, provided that this information is made available to the opponents
• information given to us by the opponents' system announcements, through convention cards, alerts, explanations, answers to questions, and the like
• your knowledge of the opponents' proclivities and capabilities
• your knowledge of partner's capabilities

Unauthorized Information:

• partner's tempo, expression, mannerisms, remarks, and other such behavior
• illegal calls or plays by partner
• withdrawn calls or plays by either side if our side is to blame for the problem, for example, leads out of turn or insufficient bids corrected to sufficient ones
• that partner has asked or chosen not to ask a question. That means that if he does not ask, one must assume that he knows what the call in question means. If it turns out that a surprising answer to your question was given, you must assume that partner knew that answer, even though you know he does not.
• calls overheard, cards seen, remarks overhead, and the like, at other tables
• partner's explanations of your calls. You may, however, be required to use this information later in the hand when it is appropriate to inform the opponents of partner's misexplanation. (See Law 75.) You may never use it to your advantage. Even if partner's explanation is correct, if you were under the misapprehension that it was not, you may not take advantage of that information.
• partner's alert or failure to alert

Redress and Punishment

What if you have UI? We'll discuss in detail what the thought process to use ought to be, but the general idea is not to take advantage of UI. Sometimes this causes a bridge problem for you. You are responsible for trying to get that problem right, but no one's perfect. To take advantage of UI accidentally or by making an incorrect judgment may cause the director to adjust your score, but it's not a crime. UI cases (other than the intentional ones mentioned abvoe) are not criminal cases; they are civil cases. That is, scores are adjusted in order to supply redress to players who were damaged by illegal use of UI. To get your score adjusted by a director is not an statement that you cheated. All it means is that you took an action which turned out to be illegal. Sometimes it takes more effort to figure this out than is available at the table. That happens. The score adjustment is made to restore fairness, not to accuse. So just as you don't want to be thought of as cheating when that happens, extend the same courtesy to your opponents. Most opponents do not try to take advantage of UI. Sometimes when they try not to, they get it wrong. When you think that might have happened, call the director nicely and explain gently that there may be a UI problem, so even if your opponent scrupulously tried to avoid using UI, maybe the director should judge that for the table.

Let's take a look at a simple example. All examples are from cases brought before the National Appeals Committee, so "simple" might be in the eyes of the beholder!

	1076 Q2 J4 Q109432
A32 10864 AKQ62 8		KQJ984 AK973 — AJ
	5 J5 1098753 K765

West	North	East	South
		2	Pass
2	Pass	2	Pass
4NT	Pass	5	Pass
5NT	Pass	6	Pass
6	Pass	7	All Pass

2

5

6

6

Without lots of detail, what could West have been thinking about before bidding 6? Obviously, to bid more. Maybe 6NT, but probably there were enough key cards and he was thinking of bidding the grand. When he finally wimped out and stopped in the small slam, it's not real tough for East to work out what had happened. To bid 7 is anything but "avoiding taking advantage" of the UI from partner's hesitation. The director and appeals committee, not surprisingly, rolled the contract back to 6.

Once in a while, someone will blatantly take advantage of UI. If an Appeals Commitee (AC) or director thinks he should have known better and that it was an easy case, they will assign a procedural penalty (PP) as a means of discipline. (In the example above, East was a fairly inexperienced player, so no one assumed he knew better.) If a player frequently takes unfair advantage of UI over a long period, eventually major disciplinary procedures will be taken. It is not for the individual players to discuss or provoke this. Let the powers that be take care of repeat offenders. Remember, most of the time, UI problems were just accidents or errors, not intentional cheating.

2. UI issues for the player

If You Have UI

You hold  AQJ74 K4 J 108542 as South. The bidding starts:

West	North	East	South
1	Pass	1	1NT
Pass	Pass	Dbl	?

The simple approach is good enough for most players most of the time. After today, however, you will hopefully be an expert on UI. You can follow a more complex procedure which will possibly constrain your actions more than the simple one, but will almost never cause your score to be adjusted. As a rule, that will be to your advantage; adjusted scores are chosen heavily favoring the non-offending side (NOS). Once in a while, you'll bend over backward when a lesser player might not know to and a Director won't adjust the score. Oh, well. At least you get to know you did the right thing. Yes, I have lost events by doing so. Such is life.

If an Opponent has UI

3. Ruling on UI Cases

1. Was there UI?
   If not (no UI), you're done, no adjustment.
2. Did it supply useful information?
   
   • Figure out what information was transmitted.
   • If it was nothing useful, you're done (no UI), no adjustment.
   • If it duplicated AI, you're done (no UI), no adjustment.
   • If you got here, there was useful UI and the hard work begins.
3. Figure out the logical alternatives.
   
   • if there was only one and the player took it, you're done, no adjustment.
   • otherwise, was the action the player with UI took (regardless of whether it was a logical alternative (LA) or not) suggested over at least one of the LAs? If not, you're done (no alternatives), no adjustment.
4. Figure out what would have happened and whether or not advantage was gained by the use of UI.
   
   • figure out how the hand would have continued had the player taken each of the LAs not suggested by the UI.
   • did any of them produce results which would be better for the other side? If not, you're done (no damage), no adjustment.
5. Adjust the Score
   Law 12 says how to do this. The AC chair should know how to do this. We'll discuss it a little later.
6. Was the infraction blatant, and ought the player to have known better?
   
   • if the player was not a life master, ignore this step
   • despite that, if he isn't an expert player, also ignore this step
   • if this isn't an important tournament (you judge) ignore this step
   • otherwise, if the situation was a slam-dunk and you think the offender should have known better, award a 1/4 board PP to help get him to adjust his behavior in the future
7. Appeals Without Merit Warnings
   These only happen at nationals. Consult the national appeals committee on them. Any other time, don't worry about "frivolous" appeals.

As a beginning AC member, using this checklist very much helps organize your thinking. You know what you are deciding and how it determines the overall result you choose. As an experienced AC member, I highly encourage use of this checklist, too. It saves time. Unless the case is totally obvious, ACs can go on forever. Resolving the key issues one by one forces the AC to stay on track and make progress towards a decision. Despite being organized, some ACs can take a long time, because sometimes it is hard to answer some of the questions in the checklist. But it's almost always faster to get where you are going if you follow a map than to wander around until you realize you are there.

The devil's in the details. Let's look at the checklist step-by-step.

Step 1: Was there UI?

Most of the time, there will be disagreement between the sides about how long the pause was. Usually, the disagreement will be enormous; one side will say 2 seconds, and the other will say a quarter century. They aren't really lying; they believe it. Time goes a lot faster when you are concentrating on a serious bridge problem. Time goes a lot slower when you are concentrating on an opponent's hesitation. If you are lucky enough to have both sides agree that there was a real hesitation beyond normal tempo, great. If not, three clues are useful.

The director was there long before you were. He will have information that is fresher, so if he thought there was a hesitation, there probably was.

A second clue is the player's hand who was alleged to have taken 25 years to bid. Consider the problem he faced from his perspective. Was it trivial? Did he do a normal thing? If so, and if you judge that it would be easy from his perspective, maybe his claim that he acted in tempo is believable. Most of the time, he had a problem, and it's obvious from his hand that he had a problem. If so, it probably took him a while to solve it.

Finally, look at his partner's action. Was it normal? Or was it odd? Was there something obvious he might have done had there been no hesitation? Or did he do something that suggested that perhaps there was a tank by partner?

None of these clues are perfect, but most of the time one of them will give away whether or not there was a real hesitation or not. Sometimes you'll have to guess.

	98 83 AJ5 KQ10986
KQ64 AKQ105 K10 J7		10532 J962 Q2 542
	AJ7 74 987643 A3

West	North	East	South
		Pass	Pass
1	2	Pass	2
2	3	Pass	Pass
Dbl	Pass	3	All Pass

3

3

One approach that has been used a lot and doesn't help at all is to have the players demonstrate how long the hesitation was. Forget it. That is just a bad idea. I did a study in high school where I used a timer and asked the rest of the class to tell me how long an interval lasted. I gave them 4 seconds, 10 seconds, and a minute. Most estimates were not within a factor of two. Without using a watch or other methods, people cannot judge how long short amounts of time are. They just can't. Given that at the same time they are thinking about solving bridge problems, any numerical claims about hesitation lengths you are given should be taken with a large grain of salt. And experiments later won't tell you anything you didn't already know.

Another common source of UI is the alert procedure. Partner opens 2NT and you bid 3, normal Stayman. Partner alerts. Great. He thinks we are playing Puppet Stayman. You have UI. Or alternatively, you are playing Puppet and he forgets to alert 3. Did he forget to alert or did he forget the agreement? Answer: 99% of the time he forgot the agreement. That's being generous. It's more like 100%. If you are judging the presence of UI from alert problems in an AC, you'll almost always be told, "he never forgets his agreements, but he often forgets to alert." Ignore that claim. Again, the person saying it isn't lying. He truly believes what he's saying. He's just wrong.

Misexplanations (MIs) are very similar to alert problems. Dealing with MI cases is the topic of another seminar, but it's important to remember that whenever there has been a MI, it's almost certain that there has also been UI. Any AC handling a MI case must deal with the UI issue from the MI or state why they decided UI was not relevant.

Step 2: Was the UI useful?

Some guidelines have been developed about what UI has been transmitted. They are not perfect, but they are distilled from many AC members' experience, so they are worth considering.

As a rule, if a player thinks for a long time and makes a nonforcing call, he has extra values. Once in a while, he'll be offshape, but most of the time, he has extras and was looking for a way to show them.

If a player thinks for a long time and picks a final contract, he is probably considering alternate contracts. They may be higher contracts, but usually they are different contracts. It's not too hard to figure out which those were. Four of a major or 3NT? Game or partscore? It's usually pretty obvious if you think about it for a little while. Partner answered aces to Blackwood and the player thought for 15 seconds and signed off. He's wimping out, off only one ace, not double checking to make sure he didn't miscount. Once in a while, he'll be off three aces and is way too high, but those cases don't go to committee; the other side is already pretty happy with down two or three.

On the other hand, there are two cases in which it is rare that UI is transmitted. If the partnership is in a forcing pass situation, and a player thinks for a long time and passes, the pass pretty much duplicates the hesitation's meaning. He didn't know what to do. That's why he passed, which means, "I don't know what to do." One caveat: if a pair uses this argument in a situation in which it is not at all obvious that the pass is forcing, check three things. Would the player who passed really have passed if he didn't think the pass was forcing? If passing would have been idiotic if pass was not forcing, at least he thinks it is. Would he have had a problem if the pass was forcing or would pass have been obvious? If so, he probably didn't think pass was forcing. Get system notes. If they can't supply them, unless there is strong evidence other than the partnership's say-so, assume pass was not forcing, and the slow pass showed extra values via UI.

The other common case in which a slow call does not normally provide UI is when the hesitator chooses an invitational call. Was he thinking of bidding more or bidding less? There's no way to tell. Moreover, he found a legal way to show his uncertainty: he invited partner. So UI duplicated AI and the hesitator's partner is free to act as he pleases. (As long as it's not to go screaming around the room waving his arms madly, of course.)

Step 3: Figure out the Logical Alternatives

Once in a while, everyone would do something different or no one would feel even slightly confident about what to do. Not to worry. Then treat every reasonable action as an LA. If there are a lot of them, start with the top five or so. For purposes of score correction, one must follow a more specific procedure, but to discover the LAs, just picking the ones that come to mind reasonably quickly will usually do.

Step 4: Was the action taken demonstrably suggested by the UI?

One thing that can be a little confusing, however, is what do you do if the player actually chose an action you didn't think was a LA? By the NLC's definition, in a strict sense, his choice has to be an LA, but one player in a million isn't enough to make an action an LA. So he hasn't chosen from among logical alternatives, so Law 16 doesn't apply. Huh? What do we do? Here's where we fall back on Law 73. It says a player "must carefully avoid taking advantage" of UI. If he took a wild action that seems to be suggested by the UI, adjust the score anyway, even though his action wasn't a LA. As a rule, be more inclined to adjust the score if a player chooses a non-LA in a UI situation than if he chooses a LA. His strange action suggests that he was influenced by UI. If the UI suggested that it would be more likely to work out than normal, that's taking advantage. So you must adjust.

	106 J9653 KJ1054 2
QJ92 A104 — Q109854		3 Q2 AQ63 AKJ763
	AK8754 K87 9872 —

West	North	East	South
		1	1
2	Pass	3	Pass
5	Pass	6	All Pass

5

2

3

What can be inferred from the slow game bid? Was West thinking about splintering or making some slam try? Or was he thinking about inviting game via 4? Can East tell? Probably not; it looks like a complete guess as to what partner is doing. So, no action is demonstrably suggested by the hesitation; therefore, there is no UI, and the 6 bid is allowed.

Step 5: Did the infraction damage the NOS?

There is one complicating factor. The NOS's bad result (or less good one) must be a direct result of the OS's infraction. If it is not, then there is no adjustment. For example, if the OS illegally got to a slam which was slated to go down, but the NOS revoked and let them make it, the NOS's good result is a consequence of their revoke, not of the OS's infraction. The cause of the bad result is said to be "subsequent" to the infraction, in contract to its being "consequent" of the infraction.

How bad does the NOS's error after an infraction have to be to stop them from getting redress? Pretty bad. Egregiously bad. A normal careless error is not sufficient. Even a major error, one out of character for the player who made it, is not sufficient. A real howler, however, is enough. Also, if a player takes a wild stab at a huge result, figuring that he'll get his score adjusted anyway if it fails, that's enough to break the chain of causality between an infraction and a result, but it has to be a really crazy shot. Any somewhat normal action won't endanger the NOS's equity.

Other bridge organizations have a harsher standard than the ACBL in this regard. Again, if you are on an AC outside of the ACBL, and this is an issue, ask about the local standards.

	942 QJ7 32 J9854
AJ8 32 A865 AQ107		K3 98 KQJ97 K632
	Q10765 AK10654 104 —

West	North	East	South
		1	2
Dbl	3	Pass	3
Pass	3	Pass	Pass
3NT	All Pass

2

3

3

3

3

3

Step 6: How do you adjust the score?

For the NOS, consider all the possible results which are likely. "Likely" is again a vague term, but if a small set of results is substantially more likely than the others, pick those. If one result is twice as likely as the others, that's the likely result. Let's say we decide that a contract should have been played in which declarer has to guess two queens. Intuitively, you'd think getting one of two guesses right is the likely result (unless I were declarer, in which case, the only likely result is getting none right!), and you'd be right. So in the example, we have only one likely result, so we assign it to the NOS. If there were more than one likely result, the NOS gets the one most favorable to them. Let's say declarer had to guess only one queen. Each possibility is 50%, so each is likely. The NOS gets the result which is better for them. In cases which are borderline, a useful guideline is that any result which will happen more than 1/3 of the time is likely. But if no such action is that likely, you still have to pick a set that stands out from the rest. Remember, that's not just the most likely action, but all the likely actions. Then you choose the best for the NOS.

For the OS, you need to consider all the results that are at all probable. That's roughly any action that's about 10%. That's a rough guideline—if your judgment says it's not going to happen, ignore the math and reject that possibility. For example, my getting both queens right—that's just not going to happen, so you can ignore that possibility. From among the list of results which are at all probable, you pick the worst for the OS. In our example where declarer had to guess two queens, any combination of guessing and misguessing is at all probable, so the OS gets the worst one. Note that the two scores don't have to match. They will most of the time, but not all the time. Don't worry if they don't. Yeah, that can cause a problem in a knockout match. That's the director's problem. You make the ruling; let him figure out who won.

All in all, the score adjustment procedure is intended to give the NOS an equitable score, roughly what they would have had without the opponent's law infraction. If there are choices, they get the benefit of any reasonable doubt. The OS gets no better than that; they sometimes get a worse score than normal. The reason for that is to make choosing to use UI a risky option. If the worst that could happen was a return to normal, using UI would be the smart thing to do. The laws make it not so; often UI-users will get a worse score than if they had just done the right thing in the first place.

Matchpoints, N/S vul.

	AQ108 92 KQJ87 A8
762 Q6 95 J96542		J AJ10853 1062 1073
	K9543 K74 A43 KQ

West	North	East	South
	1NT	2	Dbl
2	Dbl	3	Dbl
All Pass

2

3

Let's go step-by-step.

• Was there UI? Yes. East had UI from partner's alert and explanation.
• Did it supply useful information? Yes. East knew his partner thought he had spades. He didn't. From East's perspective, West's spade bid is probably based on that information.
• What are the logical alternatives? Passing 2 is surely a LA; absent the UI, there's no reason to expect that partner's spades aren't better than East's hearts.
• Was the NOS damaged by the infraction? Surely, yes. 2x goes for a big number. Was the awful defense to 3x the primary cause for the NOS's bad result? No! Even if they take all seven of their tricks, +500 isn't anything like the equity they had in 2x, so it was the illegal 3 bid which damaged N/S, not their pathetic defense.
• How do we adjust the score? E/W have to play 2x. What are the possible results in 2x? It's awfully hard for North to figure out to lead a trump; the K will get led just about all the time. South has a decision. He will probably duck. North continues with the J, and South should overtake. Best play is to shift to the K, catering to North's having A10xx, but much of the time, South will play a low trump, and North will win the Q. North will probably not continue trumps. He'll either "cash" a diamond, or shift to a heart. If he shifts to a heart, declarer will either finesse or not. If he finesses, South will win, draw trumps, and N/S will take all the tricks. If he wins, he'll ruff a diamond and take two tricks. So the possible results are down 6, 7, and 8. Are these results at all probable? Surely down 6 and down 7 can happen. Any defenders who can manage to take only four tricks in hearts with those cards can manage to fail to find the good defense to take 12 tricks. Down 7 is par, many roads will lead there. How about down 8? I think declarer, when offered a chance at -1400, will grab it. His only chance at any matchpoints is to hope N/S can make a vulnerable slam; there's no difference between -1100 and -1400, so risking -1700 to get -1100 is foolish. Since declarer would have to make a pretty severe error to go down 8, and since it's not a sure thing he'll have a chance to make that decision, I think down 8 is not at all probable. So the ruling for the OS is down 7, -1700, because it's the worst of the results at all probable. Which are the likely results? We know N/S are not good defenders, and it looks like it'll be quite hard to get the 12 tricks they deserve; one of the defenders would have to make either a good or a strange play. Either could happen, but it's not real likely. Most of the time, they'd get 11 tricks. So the OS gets +1400 for 2x down six.

Steps 7 and 8: PPs and AWMW

3

3

If you are on the national appeals committee, you have to think about AWMWs. Otherwise, even though you are upset that some moron (technical definition: other bridge player) wasted your time, that's just too bad. The AC chair may file a recorder form with the player's home district or unit, but beyond that, if it was that obvious, you didn't waste much time, so get over it. Everyone's likely upset enough about the case. Telling someone that he was an idiot for even considering his case is unlikely to improve matters.

Finally

Be reasonable. Accidentally transmitting UI is no crime. It's not even against the laws of bridge. It happens. If an opponent is in that situation, assume he's trying to avoid using it just as you would. If you have strong evidence that he didn't succeed, call the director nicely and have him figure out what to do. If it turns out that he took an action suggested by UI, assume that he made an error, not that he is a scoundrel. Even if you already know he is a scoundrel.

If you are on an AC, try to stay focussed. Random discussion will extend the length of the hearing and they are already too long. Try to use the checklist or one like it. If that's too formal for your taste, at least try to figure out the key issues and focus on the ones which are not clear.

Above all, it's only a game. Try to avoid hard feelings even if you think you are being jobbed. Probably your opponent is feeling stuck too and won't appreciate getting yelled at. Sometimes you encounter a real scoundrel who will take any unfair advantage. Get your redress and laugh it off. You wouldn't spend the rest of your life worrying about that sort of person (lawyers and politicians, ignore this paragraph), so don't spend your bridge life worrying about them. They'll get theirs. Try to break even and don't worry about more than that.