ACBL TD ruling

[csdenmark]

Steelwheel I assume I have no problems to read your intensions for this post. I have stated you were right claiming an alert was needed and it was harmful to you it was missing and you would be right claiming score correction.

 

What I also said, some others agreed to my position, you ought at least to have the knowledge to be suspicious of the meaning and therefore you are to be blamed for ignoring or lack of knowledge.

 

I have advocated you waste your bids for nothing - for that you don't need to listen but I think you will privately.

[csdenmark]

OK, I should have just said "please explain" but I just wanted to check that it was natural before proceeding.

Click alert button - no words needed. Thats the simple way speeding up the game avoiding problems.

[the hog]

I can't comment on ACBL rulings, but I can make a comment on the term "self alerting". We have this concept in Oz as well, and certain callas are deemed to be self alerting. One of those is the cue bid, which even takes the following form (1C) 16+ 2C. 2C is deemed here to be self alerting and thus requires no showing of the alert card.

 

Yes, I agree that this is not a good policy as frequently this bid has some sort of conventional meaning which the opposition are entitled to know.

[barmar]

I also find awm's story about the unalerted DONT bid disturbing. ACBL's regulation about protecting yourself by asking about calls that are likely to be conventional is:

[blockquote]Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves.[/blockquote]

 

Notice that this makes explicit mention of the experience level of the non-offending player. A novice playing in his first regional tournament should NOT be expected to realize that many NT overcalls are conventional.

 

Conversely, I suspect the experience of most big club players is that when the opponents overcall in the suits they bid artificially, it's usually natural. Thus, their experience and expertise would not suggest to them that the opponents failed to alert in the auction that started this thread.

 

And to whoever posted that players should protect themselves after an opening 2♦ bid, I respectfully disagree, at least with respect to ACBL territory. While there certainly are many players who play Flannery or Mexican (Multi and Wilkosz are not allowed in GCC events), the vast majority of American players play it as a weak 2. Unless you're looking at 6+♦ in your hand, you'd have little reason to expect otherwise. But if you only ask in those cases where your holding makes you suspicious, you have UI problems. So you have to be consistent in whether you ask, and since this is not a bid that's likely to be artificial, I don't think anyone is expected to ask every time it's not alerted.

[helene_t]

I have to admit that there have been times (plenty of them in fact) that a combination of my hand, the auction, and my table presence have strongly suggested that the opponents did not know what they were doing. In such cases I generally ask some questions (as opposed to just assuming that the alert/lack of alert/convention card/explanation was accurate and later calling the TD if I turned out to be right and perceived damage as a result).

 

Not only does this approach feel like good sportsmanship to me, it is in the best interest of my score to behave this way (because otherwise a TD might rule "you should have known enough to ask").

This creates a lot of problems. First, opps who play some convention which they can't remember themselves get reminded of their agreement when you ask them. Second, your partner receives UI from you through your (failure to) asking about the meaning of a non-alerted call. Third, it could become a slippery slope: one may wonder if one can ever trust opps to alert alertable calls.

 

It appears to me that you do the right thing given the circumstances, but imho the laws should protect you against having to cause UI.

[the hog]

One point that hasn't, (I don't think), been mentioned yet is the UI that can result from asking about a specific bid.

Eg Xs come under the ambit of self alerting bids in Oz as well. Take the following situation.

 

1S (2H) 2S (X)

If opener is required to ask about the nature of this and then makes say a 3S bid, UI has been passed.

 

Back to the OZ situation, many players actually alert these self alerting bids to try and be helpful, especially if playing an inexperienced pair, and that then causes further complications if the RD happens to be called. Self alerting is NOT a good rule.

[kenberg]

I don't want to beat too many horses to death so I'll stop after this one but:

 

1. Yes, UI is definitely a problem if you ask about a non-alerted call. Even if everything is on the up and up it gives the appearance of impropriety.

 

2. About this idea that folks playing in a regional should know that 2D might be conventional (DONT or whatever). How about saying that folks playing in a regional event should know their basic defenses over strong club openings, at least enough to know whether 2D was natural or Michaels or whatever, and should know that if artificial then it is (as most agree that it is) alertable.

 

3. As to assessing whether the player is experienced enough to know that maybe it's artificial: I am not an expert. I am not a beginner. I think I would rather be ruled against than to have someone say that they are ruling in my favor because they think I am too stupid to understand what was going on. I have no problem with rulings in 0-300 games that allow for inexperience. That's the point of a 0-300 game. But if a guy shows up in an unlimited regional event then he should be treated like everyone else in that event. Sympathetically, sure, if he didn't understand. But it shouldn't change the ruling.

 

Anyway, I am exhausted of opinions on this.

[blackshoe]

When a venue (club, bbo, whatever) publishes regulations, it seems to me incumbent on players to be aware what those regulations are. That said, I recognize that most players don't say to the themselves "I should look at the alert regulations" and then go do so. Aside from that, the regs are in some ways hard to understand. I wouldn't penalize a player for not knowing a particular bid is alertable, for a first offense. I would explain to him the rule and expect him to follow it in future. If he doesn't, that's time enough to start penalizing.

 

The ACBL alert regulation's definition of "cuebid" is "A bid in a suit which an opponent has either bid naturally or in which he has shown four or more cards." A Precision 1 ♦ response to 1 ♣ is not natural, and does not show four or more cards in any suit. Therefore, next bidder's 2 ♦ is not a cuebid within the meaning of the alert regulation. This conflicts with what "everybody knows", of course, since "everybody knows" that a cuebid is a bid of a suit an opponent has bid. I can only commend "everybody" to something Robert Heinlein said: "If 'everybody knows' such and such, then it ain't so." :)

 

Given that 2♦ here is not a cuebid, the general rule "cuebids are not alertable" does not apply. However, 2♦, if it shows both majors, is conventional, and "most conventions are alertable". This one isn't in the short list of those that aren't. Ergo, this 2 ♦ bid is alertable.

 

BTW, it is not Michaels. First, the full name of the convention is 'Michaels cuebid", and as I've just demonstrated, this bid is not a cuebid. Second, Michaels, as originally defined, at least, applies to a cuebid of a natural bid, which 1 ♦ here is not. So while a Michaels cuebid may not be alertable (it isn't under ACBL regulations) that too is irrelevant in this case.

 

I agree, in principle at least, with Fred that a player should not, in effect, lose his right to redress because he failed to ask about an unalerted bid. However, the ACBL General Conditions of Contest say this:

 

4. Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves. ...

6. Adjustments for violations are not automatic. There must have been damage, and an adjustment will be made only when the Alert violation was a direct cause of the damage. Note also that an opponent who actually knows or suspects what is happening, even though not properly informed, may not be entitled to redress if he or she chooses to proceed without clarifying the situation.

 

It seems that a semi-automatic "you should have known" is not what the regs require, so even if this is generally what ACBL TDs do, it seems not in accord with the rules. Peerhaps we need a test case appealed to the National Authority. :)

 

I would not make assumptions about what the 2♦ bidder thought - I would ask him. At least, I would if I was making the ruling at the table.

 

It is true that no alert is required if the pair have no agreement - and that usually the TD would rule no damage - but that's not what we're discussing here.

 

Speaking of discussing rulings in forums like this - it's a fine way to vent, and players may be mollified by the idea that others agree they got a bad ruling, but it will not fix the problem of TDs giving incorrect rulings. The way to do that is by the established appeal or reporting procedure.

[blackshoe]

It appears to me that you do the right thing given the circumstances, but imho the laws should protect you against having to cause UI.

There's a small problem with that. Provision of UI is not, in itself, an infraction of law. Players have a right to ask questions for a reason: they are entitled to know the full extent of any partnership agreements or understandings their opponents may have. There is no way, at least in current law, to protect a player from the fact that asking questions may generate UI. If the law said, for example, that asking questions cannot generate UI, then a dishonest player in receipt of UI can use it with impunity. And if an honest player accidently used UI, his opponents would be denied redress. We don't want that either.

 

My take on how to minimize UI from asking questions: follow, wherever possible, the procedure in Law 20F. In brief, ask for a full explanation of the entire auction, not pinpointing any particular bid unless you need more information after the full explanation. In the case of alerts, always ask. I don't like the second one much, but I can't see another way to minimize UI. When asking about alerts, use the neutral "Please explain" specified in the alert regulation. Do not ask leading questions, such as "is that weak?" "Michaels?" or the like. Lastly, remember that while you can minimize UI, you can't eliminate it. Not without putting each of the four players in an isolation booth, restrict communication between players of opposite sides so that only one player of each side is privy to the communication, and restrict communication between players of the same side so that they only have access to partner's calls and plays. I suppose bridge at world championship level may come to that some day, but at the level of everyday bridge, I hope not - it would kill the game.

[Codo]

It appears to me that you do the right thing given the circumstances, but imho the laws should protect you against having to cause UI.

There's a small problem with that. Provision of UI is not, in itself, an infraction of law. Players have a right to ask questions for a reason: they are entitled to know the full extent of any partnership agreements or understandings their opponents may have. There is no way, at least in current law, to protect a player from the fact that asking questions may generate UI.

So, why don´t you use your power and change the laws?

 

I know, that you cannot descirbe the alert rules in one sentence, but wouldn´t it be a good rule, if any bid that transports "secret" informations, which my pd will understand, but my opponents won´t, is alertable?

In this case you do not need to aks after a not alerted 2 ♦ opening in the US. It is a weak two in diamond. You don´t need to ask about the NT bid in a competetive auction, because it is natural. And you don´t need to aks about the 2 Diamond bids after 1 Club pass 1 Diamond or after 1 NT because they are natural.

If these bids had not been natural, the TD will take away any damage which came from the failure to alert.

 

With the laws the way you have them, one problem is:

North: 2♦ East: Having 6 Diamonds: "Explain please" and passes after the explanation, because they play negative double, South passes and West looks at f.e. Qxxx,Kxxx,x,Kxxx.

To double is surely more actractive now, because he now "knows", that East has the penalty double. So what shall he do? X and explain later, that he allways double with this shape (maybe he does, but who sets the frontier)? Who can check this? The TD has to belive him or not. Or give West QJTxx,KQxx,x, AKx. Without an information, he has to choose between 2 Spade and X. With the UI he maybe has to explain the TD why he did not bid his suit but doubled first.

 

I agree, that any player must protect himself. But the responsibility for the pair which failed to alert must be much higher then for the non offending side.

[blackshoe]

So, why don´t you use your power and change the laws?

Huh? Did somebody die and leave me in charge? :o

 

I have no power to change the laws, and anyway, we're not talking about laws here, but regulations. I have no power to change those either. Every Sponsoring Organization is permitted to make whatever regulations it likes, so long as they don't conflict with the laws. That's why alerting regulations and convention restrictions differ from place to place.

 

It may not be the best possible situation, but it's the one we've got. :)

[paulg]

It is interesting to contract the ACBL and EBU approaches to this problem:

 

First the ACBL:

ACBL Conditions of Contest

ALERTS

...

4. Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves.

5. When an Alert is given, ASK!, do not ASSUME.

And the EBU:

3 A 3 It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious misinformation cases. 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 (eg by transmitting unauthorised information or waking the opposition up), failure to do so may prejudice the redress to which they would otherwise be entitled.

 

3 E 1 A player has the right to ask questions at his turn, but should be aware that exercising this right has consequences. It suggests that the player’s action at the current turn depends on the answer to the question. In particular, if a player asks a question and then passes, he has shown an interest in taking some other action had the player received a different answer. Asking about a call which has not been alerted may cause more problems than asking about an alerted call. If, therefore, at a player’s turn to call, he does not need to have a call explained, it is in his interests to defer all questions until either he is about to make the opening lead or his partner’s lead is face-down on the table.

 

The principal difference in approach appears to be it is recognised in England that asking questions provides UI and hence you are advised not to ask if it would prejudice your own rights.

 

The difference in approach to asking about alerted calls is born out by my limited experiences when playing in the US. People ask far more questions during the auction than they do in the UK.

 

Paul

[csdenmark]

It is interesting to contract the ACBL and EBU approaches to this problem:

 

First the ACBL:

ACBL Conditions of Contest

ALERTS

...

4. Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves.

5. When an Alert is given, ASK!, do not ASSUME.

And the EBU:

3 A 3 It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious misinformation cases. 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 (eg by transmitting unauthorised information or waking the opposition up), failure to do so may prejudice the redress to which they would otherwise be entitled.

 

3 E 1 A player has the right to ask questions at his turn, but should be aware that exercising this right has consequences. It suggests that the player’s action at the current turn depends on the answer to the question. In particular, if a player asks a question and then passes, he has shown an interest in taking some other action had the player received a different answer. Asking about a call which has not been alerted may cause more problems than asking about an alerted call. If, therefore, at a player’s turn to call, he does not need to have a call explained, it is in his interests to defer all questions until either he is about to make the opening lead or his partner’s lead is face-down on the table.

 

The principal difference in approach appears to be it is recognised in England that asking questions provides UI and hence you are advised not to ask if it would prejudice your own rights.

 

The difference in approach to asking about alerted calls is born out by my limited experiences when playing in the US. People ask far more questions during the auction than they do in the UK.

 

Paul

It suggests that the player’s action at the current turn depends on the answer to the question. In particular, if a player asks a question and then passes, he has shown an interest in taking some other action had the player received a different answer

No he has not - he has shown interest in clarification and nothing else. I try to use this also to draw the attention to opps. that their handling is not solid.

 

It is the first phrase about selfprotection which is important. Whether you can ignore and then put the blame on TD. Looks like such is at least assumed to be poor sportmanship - thats what I have advocated and what some seems to blame me for.

[badderzboy]

It is interesting to contract the ACBL and EBU approaches to this problem:

 

First the ACBL:

ACBL Conditions of Contest

ALERTS

...

4. Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves.

5. When an Alert is given, ASK!, do not ASSUME.

And the EBU:

3 A 3 It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious misinformation cases. 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 (eg by transmitting unauthorised information or waking the opposition up), failure to do so may prejudice the redress to which they would otherwise be entitled.

 

3 E 1 A player has the right to ask questions at his turn, but should be aware that exercising this right has consequences. It suggests that the player’s action at the current turn depends on the answer to the question. In particular, if a player asks a question and then passes, he has shown an interest in taking some other action had the player received a different answer. Asking about a call which has not been alerted may cause more problems than asking about an alerted call. If, therefore, at a player’s turn to call, he does not need to have a call explained, it is in his interests to defer all questions until either he is about to make the opening lead or his partner’s lead is face-down on the table.

 

The principal difference in approach appears to be it is recognised in England that asking questions provides UI and hence you are advised not to ask if it would prejudice your own rights.

 

The difference in approach to asking about alerted calls is born out by my limited experiences when playing in the US. People ask far more questions during the auction than they do in the UK.

 

Paul

It suggests that the player’s action at the current turn depends on the answer to the question. In particular, if a player asks a question and then passes, he has shown an interest in taking some other action had the player received a different answer

No he has not - he has shown interest in clarification and nothing else. I try to use this also to draw the attention to opps. that their handling is not solid.

 

It is the first phrase about selfprotection which is important. Whether you can ignore and then put the blame on TD. Looks like such is at least assumed to be poor sportmanship - thats what I have advocated and what some seems to blame me for.

Sorry Claus,

 

Bobbins if u ask and pass u pass UI.

 

I don't know a TD who would believe u either.

 

The 'french' defence to 1NT or weak 2s is a figment of our imaginition.

 

Yes you may ask at any point in the auction but u are not allowed to ask to assist partner too so why ask if u have no interest.

 

U can ask b4 the opening lead if u really want to know.

 

Why do u want to help your opponents for gawds sake (saying that online I offer a redeal in the case of a real screwup)

 

Steve

[the hog]

"No he has not - he has shown interest in clarification and nothing else. I try to use this also to draw the attention to opps. that their handling is not solid."

 

No Claus, there is a strong intimation that you have a reason for asking the question. If you asked about say a 2D bid and then passed and your pd led a D from a doubtful holding the director would be called immediately.

[Finch]

From the descriptions written here, the EBU 3 A 3 regulation ("protecting yourself") seems to be used much less in England than the equivalent one is in the US. No English TD would say that you should have asked about a 2D overcall of 1NT because it's "often artificial".

 

The sort of thing this regulation protects against is when the auction goes, say, 2C (alerted) P 2D (not alerted) and fourth hand says he couldn't bid his 7-card diamond suit because 2D wasn't alerted and hence it must have been natural. 1S from partner, 2S overcall not alerted and you don't raise spades because you "assume" 2S must have been natural as no alert.

 

It would not be applied when an auction where there is a normal, sensible meaning for the call in its unalerted form (even if that meaning is relatively rarely used).

[helene_t]

No he has not - he has shown interest in clarification and nothing else. I try to use this also to draw the attention to opps. that their handling is not solid.

It is quite rude (yes, I commit this crime myself occasionaly but I work hard to un-learn that habit) to make unsolicited negative comments on opps (lack of) agreements, bidding and play. So if you motivation for asking about the meaning of a non-alerted bid is to draw the opps' attention to the fact that a natural (hence non-alerted) meaning of the bid is not optimal, you can probably better wisper this motivation in the ears of the TD to avoid offending opps.

 

Oops now I did it again - made an unsolicited negative comment on someone's behaviour. It will never happen again :huh:

 

Also, I've seen this happen several times: a beginner fails to alert some call which looks as if it should have been alerted. One of the opponents asks something like "shouldn't you alert this?" Then the beginner and/or his partner gets confused and a cacophonium of UI goes over the table in all directions. Sometimes this can cause a misunderstanding, sometimes it can prevent a misunderstanding. Often it will remain unlear what - if any - the consequence was. But in any case I hate those situations. So I teach my students to try to avoid asking questions about unalerted calls. Study the CC before the match and clarify any non-alertable agreements that may call for a special defense (in practice there will almost never be such clarifications to make).

 

Of course, I'm not suggesting that you ask suggestive questions. But even a neutral question could alter the way an inexperienced opp interprets his partners call.

[csdenmark]

"No he has not - he has shown interest in clarification and nothing else. I try to use this also to draw the attention to opps. that their handling is not solid."

 

No Claus, there is a strong intimation that you have a reason for asking the question. If you asked about say a 2D bid and then passed and your pd led a D from a doubtful holding the director would be called immediately.

Ron but also for Helene.

 

I have stated earlier that nobody comes along me bidding 2♦ without explanation. I tried to exemplify that referring to poles and Wilkosz. Then some think I am talking about a convention but I only mentioned the convention because earlier some has suggested racial discrimination referring to poles. All too many seems to be obsessed by something preventing a real debate clarifying the intensions. Text-study instead of studying the meaning looks often to me to what is happening here.

 

It is not rude to draw opps.' attention to what is good practice in a simple manner. If it is rude to be helpful nowadays I admit I am a bit old fashioned. The hard way is the one preferred from thread starter here.

[kenberg]

"No he has not - he has shown interest in clarification and nothing else. I try to use this also to draw the attention to opps. that their handling is not solid."

 

If I were to ask, politely of course, "Are you aware that the above is self-contradictory?" would you consider me rude? I try to follow the general rule of not taking offense when none is intended, but when someone purportedly asks a question to get clarification but is in reality making a statement that my handling is not solid, I assume that indeed the offense was intended. Oh yes, they were just trying to be helpful. Sure.

 

And yes, I intend the above to be critical. At least I am up front about it.

 

I know that I said I was finished with this thread but I have always thought one of Dante's circles in Hell should be reserved for those who make condescending statements cast in the form of innocuous questions.

[csdenmark]

"No he has not - he has shown interest in clarification and nothing else. I try to use this also to draw the attention to opps. that their handling is not solid."

 

If I were to ask, politely of course, "Are you aware that the above is self-contradictory?"  would you consider me rude? I try to follow the general rule of not taking offense when none is intended, but when someone purportedly asks a question to get clarification but is in reality making a statement that my handling is not solid, I assume that indeed the offense was intended. Oh yes, they were just trying to be helpful. Sure.

 

And yes, I intend the above to be critical. At least I am up front about it.

 

I know that I said I was finished with this thread but I have always thought one of Dante's circles in Hell should be reserved for those who make condescending statements cast in the form of innocuous questions.

Certainly it is critical but not necessary to the pair in question. It is based on a general distrust of solid behavior by the majority and therefore I try to be helpful. I think I have good reasons for a general distrust.

[david_c]

Going back to the original hand, I think the TD should adjust the score if there was damage. But at the same time I'd be interested to hear what people think about this counter-argument:

 

Most people would expect a 2♦ bid to be natural.

However, the 2♦ bidder intended it as showing the majors, and (from the fact that he did not alert) did not seem to think this was unusual.

Thus it seems likely that the 2♦ bidder is an inexperienced player, who does not realise that the Precision auction 1♣:1♦ is treated differently to the natural auction 1♣:1♦.

In other words, he has decided that 2♦ shows the majors based on an incorrect analogy with the natural auction, not because of an agreement with partner.

So the correct explanation of 2♦ is actually "no agreement".

So the opponents have not been misinformed.

 

Rubbish? But why?

 

I would also point out that since the player seems not to realise that the Precision auction is any different to the natural one, there is no way that they would realise that an agreement to play 2♦ as showing the majors is alertable. Strictly speaking this is irrelevant to the ruling ("ignorance is no excuse"), but I think we should bear it in mind.

[helene_t]

Claus: Ken and I are just trying to explain that "trying to be helpful" is generally not appreciated. Of course, a lot of poor opps really need your helpfulness and should appreciate it (sigh), but chances are that most of them don't appreciate it.

 

Take this advice the way it's meant. We're just trying to be helpful :huh:

[SteelWheel]

What actually happened (not on the hand, but with respect to my following up on this both through the forums, and an email to the appropriate parties):

 

I've been advised that I was 100% right in my contention that 2♦ was alertable, and that had we not already received a good score on the board, redress would have been available. Furthermore, the issues raised by my inquiry have been deemed to be of such great interest that Gweny has been advised, and this entire matter is being brought to the attention of all BBO ACBL TDs, for future reference in similar situations.

 

All in all, not a bad outcome for a player who is "not solid", who has "wasted his strongest weapon", a "lame duck", who is "risk free to interfere against", is "unfamiliar with Wilkosz" (a very important thing to be aware of in an ACBL GCC event, to be sure), "has much homework to do", "not a good strong club player", "not ready to accept responsibility", and who "wastes his bids for nothing".....wouldn't you say? :huh:

[csdenmark]

Claus: Ken and I are just trying to explain that "trying to be helpful" is generally not appreciated. Of course, a lot of poor opps really need your helpfulness and should appreciate it (sigh), but chances are that most of them don't appreciate it.

 

Take this advice the way it's meant. We're just trying to be helpful :huh:

Sorry Helene - I appreciate your nice tone but your advise I will not adopt.

 

I don't care whether my advise is appreciated or not. What I care is it will no longer be needed.

[SteelWheel]

Most people would expect a 2♦ bid to be natural.

However, the 2♦ bidder intended it as showing the majors, and (from the fact that he did not alert) did not seem to think this was unusual.

Thus it seems likely that the 2♦ bidder is an inexperienced player, who does not realise that the Precision auction 1♣:1♦ is treated differently to the natural auction 1♣:1♦.

In other words, he has decided that 2♦ shows the majors based on an incorrect analogy with the natural auction, not because of an agreement with partner.

So the correct explanation of 2♦ is actually "no agreement".

So the opponents have not been misinformed.

 

This is not merely an incorrect analogy, but also an incorrect anology to an entirely different auction. A Michaels cue-bid is an immediate bid by a player of his RHO's opening bid, at his first turn to act, showing two other suits (sometimes both known, sometimes only one known suit). It is NOT a bid by advancer/4th hand of his RHO's last bid suit, intended to show the other two suits.

 

Actually, in most of my regular partnerships, we have no problem when the auction goes (1X)--P--(1Y)--? The common understanding is that a bid of 2X or 2Y is an offer to play in that suit; this is in fact the generally accepted treatment in (real) "expert" bridge circles. Or, to put it another way, if the opponents show one suit, we show two suits--if they show two suits, we show one suit (sounds like a Dr. Seuss rhyme, doesn't it? :huh: ).

 

Apparently, some on here feel it is my responsibility to immediately interrogate my RHO about his methods, as a means of "giving lessons", or to attempt to determine whether or not I am dealing with a "solid opponent". I'm a simple soul; I assumed that the 2♦ call was "bridge", indicating a desire to play a contract in ♦. Using the intervention as a means of teaching my opponents the flaws in their methods, or the potentiality of transmitting UI to my partner, never occurred to me as being the right course of action.