Unauthorized Information?

[Free]

1. Did you get unauthorized information?

No, since you might play different defenses against weak or strong NT. It should be prealerted, but if they didn't do it, then you can hardly speak of UI.

 

2. If yes, did you take advantage of the UI?

The only thing you might know is what handtypes partner doesn't have (like playing DONT opposite strong and CAPP opposite weak, you know p might have 4+♣ and 4+higher). This is hardly taking advantage...

 

3. Is it a clear double without the UI?

Probably, you're a maximum pass.

 

4. Is pass a logical alternative at this form of scoring?

Depends on your agreements, but opposite a weak NT I guess it's losing bridge to pass.

[barmar]

2. If yes, did you take advantage of the UI?

The only thing you might know is what handtypes partner doesn't have (like playing DONT opposite strong and CAPP opposite weak, you know p might have 4+♣ and 4+higher). This is hardly taking advantage...

How do you know this? Both DONT and CAPP have ways of showing this.

 

The point of the topic is that most pairs have different strength requirements for competing over weak and strong NT. Over a strong NT they'll usually compete with almost any shapely hand, either to preempt the opponents or to suggest a save, since it's rare that you can make very much. But over a weak NT, many good pairs will only compete with close to opening strength, since it's quite possible that your side can compete for the partscore, and can often make game.

 

So when partner asks the range and then passes, you may have UI that he has a hand that might have competed over a strong NT, but not over weak NT, i.e. probably a weak 2-suiter. If you have a balanced hand of moderate strength, you probably have a fit in something, and close to half the strength in the deck (because RHO didn't invite), which makes reopening more attractive.

 

As others have said, if partner is in the habit of always asking the range, then there isn't any UI. But if he only asks when it affects his decision of whether to bid or not, you can have problems.

[kenberg]

It seems to me folks are overthinking this. West can 14 hcps. East would probably pass with a balanced 10 count and maybe with a balanced 11 count. 14 on your left, 10 on your right, 10 in your hand. North can have a balanced 6 count. Everyone who thinks North has a balanced 6 count after he asks his question, please raise their hands. If you know from the question but not from the auction that North cannot have a balanced 6 count it appears to me that you have UI. If nothing else, this changes the odds on the advisability of entering the auction since some hands have been ruled out.

 

I like to think of myself as someone who trusts his fellow man. If I was West in this auction, if South doubled, and if North showed up with a hand adequate to set me two tricks, my faith would be tested. I may be dumb but I'm not stupid.

 

Ken

[kfgauss]

1. I really hope not. In the ACBL I assume there would be no UI since there was a failure to announce -- calling attention to an irregularity should never be construed as giving UI.

 

Unfortunately (if this was not in the ACBL) there probably was UI transmitted. I'm one of those people who likes to think I always ask (maybe, as Frances suggests, I don't really always ask, but if not I'll try to work on that). Is there something I should do to provide evidence that I ask lots of questions? Should I write "I ask lots of questions" on my convention card?

 

2. If you're trying to imply something stronger than simply the confluence of 1 & 4, then no (ie there isn't evidence that this player acted unethically and purposefully took advantage of the UI). If not, then yes, given my answers to 1 & 4.

 

3. I don't think so. I don't defend against weak NT all the time, but either side being vul makes it at best unclear I would think (and if none vul, well, then I'll think about it some more). In any case, I don't know what my bid would have been. (I do agree with Richard that it's hard to decide how clear a bid is -- or even what to bid -- if one is provided with the entire scenario. That said, it's irritating to have to do these things in multiple steps and people may lose interest, so I understand doing it this way.)

 

4. Yes, given my answer to 3.

 

Andy

[nilbes]

there is something i dont understand here about the UI, please tell me if i am wrong but why does my partner ask the range of nt if he is not going to bid? isn't this a kind of UI then for me? when i play bridge i only ask opps questions during the bidding if i am going to bid myself or else i wait till bidding is finished and before my lead i ask the range or whatever....

so for me i think there is UI, that my hand is biddable in any situation is another matter i would have prefered my partner had passed and i had given my bid which i would have done anyway

[kfgauss]

there is something i dont understand here about the UI, please tell me if i am wrong but why does my partner ask the range of nt if he is not going to bid? isn't this a kind of UI then for me? when i play bridge i only ask opps questions during the bidding if i am going to bid myself or else i wait till bidding is finished and before my lead i ask the range or whatever....

so for me i think there is UI, that my hand is biddable in any situation is another matter i would have prefered my partner had passed and i had given my bid which i would have done anyway

What if whether you bid depends on their methods (as was perhaps the case for partner here)? Then you run the risk of providing UI if you ask (and you run much worse risks if you don't ask).

 

I advocate asking lots of questions. Some people dislike this because then the opponents get to explain their methods to each other, but I find it slightly distasteful to gain from this sort of thing, and also it happens quite infrequently in good competition.

 

I don't ask about blackwood bids and such until after the auction as it'd just be a waste of time, and when the opponents are having a long constructive auction I may not to ask (though I do online as there's really no waste of time then and in fact it probably saves time since I'm not asking afterwards), but any situation where I might possibly bid, I tend to and try to ask.

 

Andy

[pclayton]

Slippery slope here.....

 

Of all the things the ACBL does, one that I don't mind is the NT range announcement. It doesn't outright solve the problem, but it should provide the defenders with some protection with having to 'ask' about a NT range.

 

Certainly there are hands that we will overcall a strong NT, but not a weak NT, and v.v.. And there are those problem hands that partner really doesn't care about and DOESNT ask about the NT range. I ask you all: when pard does OR doesn't inquire about the range, which statement, or lack thereof, gives you more UI?

 

If the Opponents didn't announce the NT range (no idea what you do on the right side of the pond), and I was playing in say, Ohio, I don't think any UI is transmitted, and South is entitled to use his bridge judgement.

 

If the NT range was announced, and North hitched, I don't think South has a call and that pass is a LA.

[pigpenz]

I have a question say one opens weak nt unannounced, opps asks and other opp says weak 12-14...now other opps says pard what do we play against weak nt direct and balanced.

 

Is that legal?

 

 

Now the reason I ask that is sometimes people in BBO ACBL games people come up with these obtuse openings unannounced strong clubs, short clubs, short diamonds etc.

If they throw one at you without you knowing what they are doing seems to me you should still have the opportunity to say partner lest play blah blah against it.

[mikeh]

I am not sure that I can add much to this thread.. so why am I posting? Probably an inflated sense of the value of my opinion :lol:

 

I think that I have UI, even if I am in ACBLand (where I am most of the time). As has been pointed out, few players always ask. For myself, I almost always ask about opps' carding and leads when I am declarer and the lead has been made: but almost is not always. If I see no play problem (and in my contracts, there usually is a play problem, but that is another story), i often don't bother.

 

The same mindset comes in here, even if partner is a frequent asker.

 

This whole situation is a mess. If you always ask, then you slow down the game and risk offending people. If you seldom ask: you ask only when you think you might bid, then you definitely give UI every time you learn something that causes you to pass instead of bidding.

 

Here, I think that passing is a LA: you are red, and -100 against their +90 is awful: and of course -200 is the kiss of death. Had partner passed with no expression of interest (or disinterest) would 8 out of 10 players of good quality reopen? I wouldn't, altho I would really want to.

 

BTW, I think that this was a fair way to post. Roland certainly knows how to post when he wishes to test, through postings, whether an action was or was not a LA in the absence of hestitation. That allows second-guessing of the committee. The way this is posted tests us as if we were the committee: after all, the committee rules when possessed of all the information.

 

Which is why committees have such a difficult time of it. In order to determine whether UI influenced the result they have to 'disabuse their minds' of the UI and determine what would have happened. Few humans are capable of such mental gymnastics, and thus we get a lot of what is called in NA 'monday morning quarterbacking'.

 

So keep up the good work, Roland: maybe fending off criticisms of your postings will detract you from the almighty struggle for control of Hans 0 ;)

[Walddk]

If the Opponents didn't announce the NT range (no idea what you do on the right side of the pond ....

No, we do not announce the NT range. We display a convention card of course, and weak notrump is pretty common here.

 

In my opinion there is no reason to ask about the range when you can look for yourself - unless you intend to wake your partner of course. That is UI for sure, and he is obviously not allowed to take advantage.

 

Finally, Phil, thanks for pointing out that we are on the right side of the pond, and MikeH therefore on the wrong side :lol:

 

Roland

[goose]

I dont think any advantage was necessarily taken, but when your position is

prejudiced by an innocent question by partner i think 'active ethics' should apply. No matter if you were 100% sure you would bid, you have to pass.

[kenberg]

I agree with everything by mikeh, including "the whole thing is a mess". The game does have to keep moving. Perhaps the following would help (f2f bridge): Always always pick up the opponent's convention card early on. It doesn't have to be before you get your cards. If you are the dealer you can sort your cards, bid, and then grab their card. If you always do this, whether they are in the auction or whether they are not, whether they announce a range or whether they don't, and if you make a reasonable imitation of actually scanning it over, this should allow you to get the essence when you need it without tipping off partner and withour slowing down the game. I readily confess to not doing this. If I have no plans to enter the auction I sit back and listen, hopefully keeping an even tempo, but not scanning their card. I intend to play ethically, but I can also be lazy. A little more effort on my part could eliminate unintended conveyance of information (or the appearance of it).

 

With the players who keep their convention cards on their lap this could get a little delicate but we do what we can.

 

Ken

[Finch]

I agree with everything by mikeh, including "the whole thing is a mess". The game does have to keep moving. Perhaps the following would help (f2f bridge): Always always pick up the opponent's convention card early on.

In the EBU you are obliged to find out your opponents basic system and NT range at the start of the round.

 

Funnily enough, that's actually one of the few regulations that the majority of people I play against actually follow!

[Trinidad]

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sk83ha1094d74ck1084]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

Matchpoints. You are South, East is dealer and passes and so do you. LHO opens 1NT, and your partner asks East about the range. "11-14" is the reply whereupon your partner passes.

 

East does too and now you reopen with a double, all pass. The contract goes 2 down resulting in a very good score for NS. Please answer these questions:

 

1. Did you get unauthorized information?

2. If yes, did you take advantage of the UI?

3. Is it a clear double without the UI?

4. Is pass a logical alternative at this form of scoring?

 

Roland

1. Did you get unauthorized information?

 

If the North player doesn't ask often, there is UI.

 

2. If yes, did you take advantage of the UI?

 

That depends on what UI was transmitted. And that, in turn, depends on the NS agreements.

 

As an example, many play an aggressive style DONT vs strong NT and a constructive style Cappelletti vs weak NT. The UI would be that North has a distributional hand without the values (read HCPs) to enter the bidding or that North has a minor suit that he doesn't want to bid at the three level.

 

If NS have these (or similar) agreements, I would conclude that South did the ethical thing: Both pass and double are Logical Alternatives. But the UI ("North doesn't have the points for an overcall vs a weak NT") would suggest that pass works better. Thus, South has to choose Dbl.

 

Of course, NS may have different agreements. Then different UI was transmitted and a different conclusion might be reached.

 

3. Is it a clear double without the UI?

 

No. Both Pass and Dbl are LA's

 

4. Is pass a logical alternative at this form of scoring?

 

Yes.

 

Rik

 

Roland

[Free]

2. If yes, did you take advantage of the UI?

The only thing you might know is what handtypes partner doesn't have (like playing DONT opposite strong and CAPP opposite weak, you know p might have 4+♣ and 4+higher).  This is hardly taking advantage...

How do you know this? Both DONT and CAPP have ways of showing this.

 

The point of the topic is that most pairs have different strength requirements for competing over weak and strong NT. Over a strong NT they'll usually compete with almost any shapely hand, either to preempt the opponents or to suggest a save, since it's rare that you can make very much. But over a weak NT, many good pairs will only compete with close to opening strength, since it's quite possible that your side can compete for the partscore, and can often make game.

 

So when partner asks the range and then passes, you may have UI that he has a hand that might have competed over a strong NT, but not over weak NT, i.e. probably a weak 2-suiter. If you have a balanced hand of moderate strength, you probably have a fit in something, and close to half the strength in the deck (because RHO didn't invite), which makes reopening more attractive.

 

As others have said, if partner is in the habit of always asking the range, then there isn't any UI. But if he only asks when it affects his decision of whether to bid or not, you can have problems.

CAPP can't show a 4-2-3-4 or 4-1-3-5, DONT can... DONT is made to intervene as much as possible, even sacrificing the Dbl for singlesuiters, even playing in the wrong contract from time to time. So it's quite logical that DONT can show a lot more hand types than 'constructive' CAPP.

[mycroft]

If you are a believer in 'only we play 1NT white at MPs', then this is a great hand and something has to be done. I think I would have gone for bidding rather than doubling, but that's me and my system. Yes, -100 vs -90 is bad, but -100 vs -120 is very good, and one of the nasty things about a weak NT is that when it makes 2, frequently the rest of the room makes one (because it goes 1x-1y; 1NT there and the lead's better).

 

Of course, another of the nasty things about weak 1NT is that the best scores come from -500 into nothing, so bidding is not without risk... However, the bad scores for a weak 1NT come when they miss the 4-4 major fit, which doesn't look likely with this hand either (okay, if it's spades, the suit's lying perfectly for them).

 

On the other other hand, Weasel vs Weak NT works - which is why my scores improved 2%/night when Announcements came in. For that matter, Weasel vs Strong NT works - ask the Barrington Bridge Club or Kate Buckman's, both of which made a club rule that there is no bridge reason for needing to know if 1NT is 15-17, 16-18 or 15-18, and asking is deemed to provide UI (before Announce all 1NT ranges came in).

 

How would I rule? No idea. I don't have to worry, because I work in the ACBL, and if the weak NTers fail to do their job (or the strong NTers, for that matter), that's their problem, not their opponents' or mine, and any UI that gets passed from partner requiring the regs be followed is basically tough luck.

 

Michael.

[helene_t]

Aren't weak 1NT alertable in Denmark? If it was not alerted, you have UI, regardsless of it shuld have been alerted or not.

 

I think to reopen or not has everything do do with agreement and nothing with judgement. You agree with partner what a double would mean in this situation and if it's a maximum (semi)-bal passed hand, then pass is not a LA. But of course, if you have no agreement we're back to judgement.

 

As for Richard's comment, it's true of course that you get a biased result if you poll peers of the player in this way. But maybe we should consider usself peers of the director rather than peers of the player. Anyway, Richard, I think you should frase such comments in a more polite way, and without block capitals.

 

Just my two cents (two Euro cents is two and a half US cent, though).

[Walddk]

Aren't weak 1NT alertable in Denmark?

No it's not and I see no reason why it should be.

 

Roland

[helene_t]

I have a question say one opens weak nt unannounced, opps asks and other opp says weak 12-14...now other opps says pard what do we play against weak nt direct and balanced.

 

Is that legal?

Nope. Do your best to defend against this unannounced agreement. If you feel damaged, call the director. (You might call the director as soon as you notice that they don't have a CC).

[Fluffy]

If the Opponents didn't announce the NT range (no idea what you do on the right side of the pond ....

No, we do not announce the NT range. We display a convention card of course, and weak notrump is pretty common here.

 

In my opinion there is no reason to ask about the range when you can look for yourself - unless you intend to wake your partner of course. That is UI for sure, and he is obviously not allowed to take advantage.

 

Finally, Phil, thanks for pointing out that we are on the right side of the pond, and MikeH therefore on the wrong side :D

 

Roland

Mmm, here we have some beatiguful cc, wich are 60% fully blank on the first day, while on the next ones 95% are blank. We don't need to ask about range because everyone plays 15-17 or 16-18. If someone plays weak he should normally alert.

 

Then on your scenario things are different, you aren't used of asking at all, then I guess it changes things. To me asking about range is just a simple question that carries no UI at all. We are talking about a simple question, not about 5 minutes of thiking.

 

If you consider both an UI do you rule exactly the same for both who reopen? I will doubt it, althou maybe the rules say you should.