Unauthorised information on RealBridge with screens?
Playing on realbridge with screens and self-alerting.
North opens 1NT (15-17), east bids 2D (not alerted), south passes, West bids 2H.
North asks West what the 2D bid meant, saying that it wasn't alerted. West says that it shows the majors (this is consistent with the convention card).
Is the fact that East didn't self-alert the 2D bid now authorised or unauthorised information to West?
Comments
It's authorised, because it came from North, not from East.
So does it follow that W can now assume that their partner has misbid (which is one possible explanation for not self-alerting a conventional bid) without running the risk of fielding it.
In addition, can one not ask what a bid means without providing authorised information of an increased possiblity of a misbid (possibly not explained or not alerted). Better to look at the convention card if available.
What part of Law 16A1 (the categories of authorised information) does this come under? I can't see any that fit.
Note: I'm not necessarily saying it's unauthorised information, just that it isn't authorised (there are other options).
@JeremyChild said:
It arises from the legal procedures of the regulations and does not come from the player's partner. What category of information do you think applies to it?
Providing partner hasn't contributed to it, such as by looking surprised by the opponent's comment, then the player can make an assumption at their own risk. Yes, it's better not to ask if you think your opponents might be having a misunderstanding and you don't need to know.
But sometimes (often?) you do. We are required to protect ourselves (WB 8.40.5), but doing so may cause UI issues for our side (I'm not just talking about screens here).
How is that fair on a pair that has done nothing wrong?
For thoughts on a better system, see:
[https://www.bridgewebs.com/cgi-bin/bwor/bw.cgi?pid=docs_On doing away with alerting.htm&wd=1&param=pdf&club=exeter]
Given that screens are involved (and online, so that the players can't hear questions from the other side of the screen), North can get around this problem by asking something like "can you tell me more about East's 2D bid?" which doesn't tip off West as to whether or not East alerted. (This can't be done without screens because the wording of the question would be unauthorised information to partner --. but it doesn't matter if partner can't hear the question.)
Since you are mentioning it, let's quote WB 8.40.5 to show that it doesn't say what you state:
The requirement for players to protect themselves
It is only experienced players who are expected to protect themselves. 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 (e.g. by transmitting unauthorised information or waking the opposition up), failure to do so may prejudice the redress to which they would otherwise be entitled.