UI?

[quantumed]

I encountered this sequence a few days ago, 1♠ - P - 3♣! - ? . 3♣ was alerted by not explained yet, it looked like some form of spade raise. I was holding a hand that wanted club lead, but I need to know the exact meaning of 3♣ before doubling, because in my agreement with partner if 3♣ shows something like mixed raise in spades my double would be t/o. So I asked about the meaning, explained as 4♠ 7-9, so I passed. Opponents ended up in 4♠.

 

This happened online and was a friendly match so it didn't matter. But what if this is f2f without screen? Since we are taught not to ask unless we wanted to act, my action clearly implied I wanted a club lead. I can't find anything illegal with my action, but I am sure my parnter (and my opponents) would be feeling uneasy if he's holding equally attractive holdings in club and another suit. Can something be done about it, or is this a loophole in the law?

[Stephen Tu]

Since we are taught not to ask unless we wanted to act

 

Well, that's silly. The obvious solution is to either always ask, or at least sometimes randomly ask when you have nothing in clubs. Then no inference can be obtained.

[Lobowolf]

I think the ethically safest thing to do is always ask. If you only ask when it matters, partner is probably ethically (and legally) prohibited from leading a club, if there's a logical alternative.

[quantumed]

Since we are taught not to ask unless we wanted to act

 

Well, that's silly. The obvious solution is to either always ask, or at least sometimes randomly ask when you have nothing in clubs. Then no inference can be obtained.

Why is that silly? In f2f bridge without screen sometimes you don't want to remind opponents of their agreements.

[Stephen Tu]

The opponent's explanations are UI to each other. If after the board finishes you see that their explanation has woken the other up to a misunderstanding, and that the opp has broken the rules by taking action that is suggested by the UI, you can call the director & get an adjustment. So consistently asking shouldn't hurt your side.

[quantumed]

The opponent's explanations are UI to each other. If after the board finishes you see that their explanation has woken the other up to a misunderstanding, and that the opp has broken the rules by taking action that is suggested by the UI, you can call the director & get an adjustment. So consistently asking shouldn't hurt your side.

Well that's true in theory but sometimes you can't always spot a UI with evidence, as it's not always obvious, and when they "woke up" their knowledge of the system might help them revert back to the right track. Say, someone stops relay and jump to 3NT, can't say much about it.

[Stephen Tu]

Depends on who you are playing. I would hope most experienced players playing a complicated relay system would also be ethical and take their lumps when an explanation reveals they have misbid instead of trying to unethically wriggle out. In my experience the wrigglers are usually less experienced players who were never taught any better that they aren't allowed to try to escape, aren't playing something ultra-complicated (usu just an obvious mixup on a gadget), and their wriggle is very obvious, easy to call the director and get the obvious ruling.

 

Certainly I always make the logical alternative bid I know is probably suicide if I get woken up & feel ethically constrained.

[jdonn]

The opponent's explanations are UI to each other. If after the board finishes you see that their explanation has woken the other up to a misunderstanding, and that the opp has broken the rules by taking action that is suggested by the UI, you can call the director & get an adjustment. So consistently asking shouldn't hurt your side.

In a perfect world, that is true. However in practice if they thought 3♣ was a weak jump shift, then when you asked it was explained as a raise, how can you ever prove they took advantage? The same argument can be made the other way, you can only ask about the bid when you want to know (and thus avoid slowing down the game), and it's your partner who will be legally unable to take advantage. This is the way I have always preferred. However nothing is "wrong", as long as everyone is clear about avoiding alternatives suggested by UI etc.

[ArtK78]

This is a very interesting question.

 

If one follows the policy of asking about every call that is alerted, the result will be that the auction period will be lengthened considerably.

 

To avoid this, most players do not ask questions about alerts unless they need to know the meaning of a bid in order to determine whether they should be taking an action other than pass.

 

The downside of this practice is that the fact that a question was asked implies that the questioner was considering taking an action other than pass. Strictly speaking, that is unauthorized information. However, the alert system itself contemplates that the player following an alerted call is entitled to ask about the meaning of a bid without any penalty (assuming that the question posed or the manner that the question is posed does not convey any unauthorized information). Conversely, the player following in rotation an alerted call is under no obligation to ask about the alerted call. And there is certainly no penalty for asking or not asking a question about the alerted call.

 

So, assuming that the questioner does not ask any question or form any question in a manner that passes information rather than just request information, I would say that the mere asking of a question cannot constitute UI. It is a consequence of the alert system, not a result of any impropriety on the part of the questionning side.

 

Similarly, the failure to ask a question cannot constitute UI.

 

The partner of the questioner (or non-questioner) should act ethically and go out of his way not to take any inference from the fact that his partner asked a question (or did not ask a question).

 

My post is focusing on what I believe to be the issue raised by the original poster. Others have raised the issue of how the answer to the question asked may alert the partner of the answerer to some misunderstanding. That is an entirely different issue. The answer to an inquiry about an alerted call is clearly UI to the partner of the answerer. There really is not anything else to say about that.

[Lobowolf]

The downside of this practice is that the fact that a question was asked implies that the questioner was considering taking an action other than pass. Strictly speaking, that is unauthorized information. However, the alert system itself contemplates that the player following an alerted call is entitled to ask about the meaning of a bid without any penalty.

Given that asking constitutes UI, the partner of the asker has to be constrained. That's not penalzing the asking side for asking; it's preventing them from benefiting by asking. If the leader has logical alternatives, if your "asking practices" suggest an action...

[Stephen Tu]

However in practice if they thought 3♣ was a weak jump shift, then when you asked it was explained as a raise, how can you ever prove they took advantage?

 

?? It would pretty obvious on this one if they tried, no? Opener rebids spades on his 5 bagger thinking it was a raise, responder tries to rebid his long weak clubs even though passing opposite long spades was a LA, etc., if they end up in clubs you will get the adjustment.

 

I prefer to be able to know my opps methods, I try to always ask if I don't know, then my partner has no UI to deal with.

[Stephen Tu]

If one follows the policy of asking about every call that is alerted, the result will be that the auction period will be lengthened considerably.

 

I don't think so, not in the ACBL at least. Most common treatments are unalertable and common alerts are announcements, so how many times do you have to ask, really? Only if you are up against some Precision pair or something & you aren't going to have to ask about say the 1c opener all the time, just their funky later round alerts.

[SoTired]

Can't be. If one player alerts and the next player says, "Explain" and the alerter then explains the alert, this constrains the partner of the person who said, "Explain"???? Nonsense.

 

Too many lawyers

[paulg]

I have always thought that the EBU states this well.

3 E 1 A player has the right to ask questions at his turn, but should be aware that exercising this right has consequences. If a player shows unusual interest in one or more calls of the auction, then this is unauthorised information to partner. Partner must carefully avoid taking advantage, which may constrain the actions partner is permitted to take during the remainder of the auction or when on lead during the play. (Law 16B, 73C). Asking about a call of 3NT or below which has not been alerted may cause more problems than asking about an alerted call, as may asking repeated or leading questions. Asking about alerted calls in a (potentially) competitive auction is less likely to have adverse consequences, although it is not risk free.

 

If, therefore, at a player’s turn to call, he does not need to have a call explained, it may be 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.

 

This is far more better, imo, that the ACBL's CoC: "When an Alert is given, ASK!, do not ASSUME".

 

Paul

[Lobowolf]

Can't be. If one player alerts and the next player says, "Explain" and the alerter then explains the alert, this constrains the partner of the person who said, "Explain"???? Nonsense.

 

Too many lawyers

This is an oversimplification of the problem. How about...

 

24 board match...

 

Before the match, in a general system discussion, N/S say among other things, "We play a modified Bergen...we'll alert it."

 

5 of the first 10 boards, south alerts one of north's bids, and east bids without asking.

 

On the 11th board, the action goes, well, as the given action (1♠ - 3♣), but for the first time, east asks and is told that 3♣ shows single raise values and a 4-card suit (typical Bergen raise). The E/W agreement is that for Bergen situations, a double of an artificial bid is takeout if the bid shows a weak hand, but lead directing if it shows at least a limit raise.

 

After finding out it's weak, east passes. South bids 4♠. West now leads a club from among reasonable choices, and finds partner with a good club holding. In fact, only a club lead beats 4♠.

 

N/S aren't entitled to redress? Nonsense.

 

There are only too many lawyers until you need one.

[Lobowolf]

?? It would pretty obvious on this one if they tried, no? Opener rebids spades on his 5 bagger thinking it was a raise, responder tries to rebid his long weak clubs even though passing opposite long spades was a LA, etc., if they end up in clubs you will get the adjustment.

More likely problematic situation:

 

N bids 3C

S alerts

E/W ask and are told it's a weak jump shift

N frowns ever so slightly

E passes

S takes some more time to think about it, then says, "Gee, ya know, I forgot. It's actually a Bergen raise."

E calls the director

The director asks if S has bid yet, and everyone says "No."

The director asks if E would like to change his bid, and E says "No."

The director says "ok, you did the right thing to call me" and leaves.

S bids 3S

 

W leads to 3S, a 5-4 fit, instead of E leading to 3C, a 3-1 fit.

[Stephen Tu]

That situation I can live with, if North's "ever so slight" frown isn't especially blatant so that I'm sure South noticed it (if I'm sure I'll get the director to scold them). There's no guarantee that South wouldn't have taken his time and thought more and come up with the right answer had I not asked.

 

I think I can beat most of my opponents without needing them to play their 3-1 fits, random tops aren't that interesting to me anyway. I don't care to play events where opps can't remember basic agreements like this one.

 

And I can't remember really the last time an opponent woke up because of this and changed their explanation. Usually they stick to their guns, saying it out loud to the opp confirms it in their mind, and they do play their 3-1 fit. Or if the auction continues sometimes the partner of the alerter blatantly does something catering to the UI (I think maybe 75% of players just don't know their duties in such a situation, they really ought to include ethics & proprieties in beginner classes) and I get the adjustment.

[jdonn]

You are right my example was quite bad. The truth is I just find it a rather annoying thing to do, as well as one that will fall apart in practice as people start not-asking about bids they already "know" the meaning of. There are also cases where they can still take advantage undetected, such as the strength of a Bergen raise if their hand is close to the border. Also as pointed out above, I am not a fan of giving them opportunity to use black magic to figure their bids out.

 

I would put it another way. If this is what was intended, then instead of the procedure being to say "alert" when strange bids come up and only explain them if asked, the procedure would be to simply explain strange bids as they come up without being asked.

[Guest Jlall]

I think we are overlooking the more obvious "It's annoying and time consuming to ask about every alert, especially the 99 % the alert is not relevant toyour bid." People on the forums seem to not care about those things though :P

 

Also, Stephen I really think you are being naive if you think that asking them about their bids is not going to help them, and if it does we can call the director. In this auction, opener might say "invitational jump shift" when it was in fact a weak jump shift, but they had a maximum weak jump shift and can say they used their judgement to upgrade, etc. They can then bid their hand like a minimum rather than a maximum in subsequent auction and get away with it "Are you calling me a liar?!" Or, they might have thought they were playing reverse bergen, and been giving a limit raise. But, oh right, with this partner it is a GF raise, and they play a special system of responses over that which they now remember! And again, they can just say they chose to GF and you have no recourse.

 

Another problem with "always ask" is how do you prove that you always ask? What if you actually have clubs and ask what 3C is then pass, and your partner finds a nice club lead. The opponents call the director and you say...but I always ask! Good luck with that one, you are going to lose even if you are not lying (since that is what people ALWAYS say and they are pretty much always lying). I suppose the obvious way to overt this is to write on your card or notes "We always ask when you alert." That's great, but who is going to police you when you don't ask, or forget to ask? What if you wanted to cheat by not asking when you have clubs, you could probably easily get away with it. What if you are more likely to "forget" to ask when you have yarb (which is probably true). You are now inadvertantly giving UI.

 

Another problem with always ask then call the director if they've benefitted from it is again the social dynamics of the game. If you are constantly asking the opps about their bids then calling the director when you think there may have been a foul, then often basically telling the opps they are lying or might be (because they will), you will not get along with many people. Again, this may not matter to you but I think that is easier to say on the forums than in real life.

 

The problem with "randomly" asking is obviously that there could be patterns to your randomness, and how do you weight it vs the times you are asking for real, and if you are really going to come up with some key based on some random thing then that's a lot of work and again cannot really be policed.

 

I see no problem with asking only when the information is relevant and then partner not taking advantage of the UI if you end up passing. This is the most efficient method by far, creates less situations for them to have and use UI, creates less situations for director calls, etc.

[Lobowolf]

I see no problem with asking only when the information is relevant and then partner not taking advantage of the UI if you end up passing. This is the most efficient method by far, creates less situations for them to have and use UI, creates less situations for director calls, etc.

Creating interesting probability calculations...

 

Should I ask? Let's see...30% of people play normal Bergen, so I'll get to make a lead directing double, but 70% don't, so on the 95% of that 70% of the time that he has a logical alternative, I'll have barred him ethically from leading a club, but he was probably only going to do that 33% of the time anyway...

[Stephen Tu]

I think we are overlooking the more obvious "It's annoying and time consuming to ask about every alert, especially the 99 % the alert is not relevant to your bid."

 

I think you are grossly exaggerating the time consuming aspect of this. Something like 95% of my opps are playing SA or 2/1 variants and have very few alertable bids other than various jump shifts which are fairly low frequency, and bids like 1nt-2s, 2nt-3s that are very low frequency, and inverted minors. The high frequency stuff is all either announcements or non-alertable (vanilla transfers, neg doubles etc.) So my "always ask" doesn't lead to me having time trouble at all. The only time I used to get in time trouble was when I was playing with my former partner who was the slowest player on earth in play & defense, triple-checking his thought process all the time, it wasn't because of me asking about the opp's bids!

 

The only time I find myself asking a ton of questions about the auction is the rare times I get out to nationals and happen to run into Fantoni-Nunes, and those guys are probably used to it!

 

Also, Stephen I really think you are being naive if you think that asking them about their bids is not going to help them, and if it does we can call the director. In this auction, opener might say "invitational jump shift" when it was in fact a weak jump shift, but they had a maximum weak jump shift and can say they used their judgement to upgrade, etc. They can then bid their hand like a minimum rather than a maximum in subsequent auction and get away with it "Are you calling me a liar?!" Or, they might have thought they were playing reverse bergen, and been giving a limit raise. But, oh right, with this partner it is a GF raise, and they play a special system of responses over that which they now remember! And again, they can just say they chose to GF and you have no recourse.

 

Here you are exaggerating both the extent and effectiveness of such cheating. Most opps are honest, there are a chunk that just don't know any better, and there are a small handful of cheats. Opener says "inv jump shift" when it was weak. He bids game or not, which makes or not. You really think someone with a real inv jump shift is ever going to bid slam over partner's game bid? The end result just doesn't really change with any appreciable frequency in these borderline cases. The times the result would actually change is when the discrepancy between the explanation and the bid is HUGE, and then the wriggles will be obvious.

 

OK with the LR case now they figure out not to pass their partner's 3M bid which showed extras, treat their LR hand as GF instead of respecting their partner's signoff if they are cheaters. But they aren't completely off the hook yet, partner may bid on after their 4M signoff, and go down, since they had a GF didn't they? It's not like I can ever remember an opponent taking advantage of this particular loophole anyway, 90+% are using jacoby 2nt as the GF raise, only me and my partners around here are using these GF mod-Bergen jump shifts & we aren't forgetting :P.

 

Another problem with "always ask" is how do you prove that you always ask? What if you actually have clubs and ask what 3C is then pass, and your partner finds a nice club lead. The opponents call the director and you say...but I always ask! Good luck with that one, you are going to lose even if you are not lying (since that is what people ALWAYS say and they are pretty much always lying).

Never lost any ruling that way. Never even had a director call in this situation as far as I can recall. And I don't think I will lose if this comes up. One is allowed to ask about alertable bids, and director can confirm with my partners that I also ask with nothing in clubs, so what can the opps really complain about?

 

If you are constantly asking the opps about their bids then calling the director when you think there may have been a foul, then often basically telling the opps they are lying or might be (because they will), you will not get along with many people.

 

Hasn't been a problem. As I said above, alerting frequency isn't high to begin with. And, most people give correct explanations most of the time. And, many opps don't end up breaking the rules by taking advantage of the UI so there is no need to get the director involved.

[Guest Jlall]

I think you are grossly exaggerating the time consuming aspect of this.

Ok, I think you are underestimating it but fair enough.

 

The only time I used to get in time trouble was when I was playing with my former partner who was the slowest player on earth in play & defense, triple-checking his thought process all the time, it wasn't because of me asking about the opp's bids!

 

I think you know that "we are not ever in time trouble" does not mean that you are not wasting time asking these questions. If you are a reasonable person you will start to play faster if you are ever behind pace. You might think things through less, especially in cases where it rarely matters what you do. Your opps might speed up a little. The goal should be to have as much time as you need in any given hand. Things like asking about every alert, post morteming the hands, analyzing the last hand before bidding to the next one, not claiming efficiently, etc all slow the game down a lot. It can still be played in a timely manner, but everyone would have more time and less pressure if every alert was not questioned.

 

I also think that the higher the level of the game you are playing in, the slower the play is. Once you get to the spingold or whatever, it is just brutally slow. There are also a lot more alerts. Can you imagine how annoying you are if the opponents are having some kind of auction with 20 alerts, maybe a relay auction or a strong club auction, and you have already passed 5 times and you are asking about EVERY bid. Do you really think this is not wasting time? It is just so much easier to wait till the auction is over and ask for an explanation of everything.

 

Anyways my point is not that you are in time trouble, it is that you will force yourself and your opponents to have to play faster to avoid being in time trouble. This is not really a reasonable thing in my opinion, even if you are within your rights. I think the fact that we play in different games generally is the cause of our disagreement about how time consuming asking about every alert would be (and I am not trying to sound condescending, sorry if I do).

 

Here you are exaggerating both the extent and effectiveness of such cheating. Most opps are honest, there are a chunk that just don't know any better, and there are a small handful of cheats.

 

Wow, I mean I just could not disagree more. I think this aspect of bridge is really underestimated and is so sickeningly prevalent in all levels of the game. I play almost every single day and I just see this ***** over and over and over again.

 

First, to clarify some of what I said earlier with my examples of ways they can get you, in the actual auction if the opponents have a slam auction after the weak jump shift is alerted as invitational, the max WJS hand will not cooperate, whereas without the definition he would have thought he had a max and would have cooperated. If partner invites game he will reject rather than accept.

 

To clarify the bergen vs FR auction, think of it in these terms. With partner A you play reverse bergen. So 1S p 3C p 3D is just a game try. With Partner B you play 3C as your FR, 3D shows extras with shortness, and next step would ask for shortness with others showing shortness. I play both of these. So if partner game tried, and i had a minimum, I would bid 3S. But, since there was an explanation that my bid was a GF, I remember to bid 3H shortness ask, and not to bid 3S which would show short clubs and a hand too strong to splinter. Disaster averted. I will say that I believe very strongly that ALMOST EVERYONE in this situation would take advantage of it. Like seriously, 9 out of 10 people.

 

But, we are getting off track with these specific examples. Obviously you are going to say that each of them is unlikely to occur, which I agree. But my point is if you are going to ask every single time, you must ask in both the scenarios where they can take advantage of it and get away with it, and in the scenarios where that is unlikely. You don't get to choose.

 

Also, by asking what the alert is you open yourself up to far more table action than usual. They can answer something with varying degrees of confidence so their partner knows how they are going to safety play the auction if they're unsure, or better yet give 2 possible explanations for the bid and guage partner's body language in response to each, or just let partner know which 2 possibilities their subsequent auction will be catering to. Heck they can just give an answer then look at their partner in the eyes and know whether it's wrong or right.

 

I don't know what else to say other than I really really disagree that most people are honest in these situations/don't cheat. And I think you are really overestimating your chances to win any kind of ruling or appeal in situations like this. The opps are going to say "no that's not what happened" and you are going to lose and be forced to file a recorders form (which will do nothing). IMO you cannot take on these battles every time, because you will keep losing and get a reputation, and because they happen so often that you just can't fight every battle like this. You would do much better to just accept that and not open yourself up to being screwed by these tactics anymore than usual. I really think that by asking about every single alert you are opening yourself up to this kind of stuff more than usual.

 

Never lost any ruling that way. Never even had a director call in this situation as far as I can recall. And I don't think I will lose if this comes up. One is allowed to ask about alertable bids, and director can confirm with my partners that I also ask with nothing in clubs, so what can the opps really complain about?

 

Seriously? This is one battle you CAN win! Just the other way. I have won this kind of ruling twice when the opps ask about a bid and then pass and their partner leads it. That is really shady, and if they told me that they always ask I would just say I do not believe you and it is really self serving to say you do something as unusual as always ask. In this situation I think the burden of proof is on you. This is a pretty common director ruling, maybe someone else can share their experiences with this one.

[peachy]

I think we are overlooking the more obvious "It's annoying and time consuming to ask about every alert, especially the 99 % the alert is not relevant toyour bid." People on the forums seem to not care about those things though :P

 

Also, Stephen I really think you are being naive if you think that asking them about their bids is not going to help them, and if it does we can call the director. In this auction, opener might say "invitational jump shift" when it was in fact a weak jump shift, but they had a maximum weak jump shift and can say they used their judgement to upgrade, etc. They can then bid their hand like a minimum rather than a maximum in subsequent auction and get away with it "Are you calling me a liar?!" Or, they might have thought they were playing reverse bergen, and been giving a limit raise. But, oh right, with this partner it is a GF raise, and they play a special system of responses over that which they now remember! And again, they can just say they chose to GF and you have no recourse.

 

Another problem with "always ask" is how do you prove that you always ask? What if you actually have clubs and ask what 3C is then pass, and your partner finds a nice club lead. The opponents call the director and you say...but I always ask! Good luck with that one, you are going to lose even if you are not lying (since that is what people ALWAYS say and they are pretty much always lying). I suppose the obvious way to overt this is to write on your card or notes "We always ask when you alert." That's great, but who is going to police you when you don't ask, or forget to ask? What if you wanted to cheat by not asking when you have clubs, you could probably easily get away with it. What if you are more likely to "forget" to ask when you have yarb (which is probably true). You are now inadvertantly giving UI.

 

Another problem with always ask then call the director if they've benefitted from it is again the social dynamics of the game. If you are constantly asking the opps about their bids then calling the director when you think there may have been a foul, then often basically telling the opps they are lying or might be (because they will), you will not get along with many people. Again, this may not matter to you but I think that is easier to say on the forums than in real life.

 

The problem with "randomly" asking is obviously that there could be patterns to your randomness, and how do you weight it vs the times you are asking for real, and if you are really going to come up with some key based on some random thing then that's a lot of work and again cannot really be policed.

 

I see no problem with asking only when the information is relevant and then partner not taking advantage of the UI if you end up passing. This is the most efficient method by far, creates less situations for them to have and use UI, creates less situations for director calls, etc.

There will always be people who choose to invent something to cover up, or to blatantly lie. There is not much one can do, except hope that the majority are honest people. Shenanigans like jlall described do happen but just keep the face and name in mind and one day they will be caught in their own lies. So I wouldn't worry about that too much. Let the liars simmer in their own juices and they will face justice one day. Real men [and women] tell the truth and take their lumps from forgets etc. without resorting to shady stories.

[quantumed]

I won't say most people will cheat blatantly in scenarios where they forget system and then hear partner explain their bid, but sometimes when you already "know" something it's hard to just ignore it. It's in your sub-conciousness and it affects you in a subtle way that may not appear to you at all.

 

Back to the original topic. So what is my parnter to do if he has equal (or similar) holdings in club and diamond? Say if club is the only lead to set the contract. In theory, 50% of the time we should get 50 and 50% we get -420. But now is he obliged to always choose a diamond instead? Because if he chooses club there will be uneasy feelings all around whether he takes the UI or not. But if he is obliged to lead diamond this does not seem fair to us. Only because opponents make a conventional call now we have to forgo our 50% chance to set the contract? That just sounds weird.

[Trinidad]

Bold statement from me:

 

In this particular case you MUST ask for the meaning of 3♣. (*) Not asking is an infraction.

 

Explanation:

The use of a Bergen raise involves the STOP procedure. The purpose of the STOP procedure is to prevent you from giving your partner UI when you have a bidding problem. The idea is that you always act as if you have a bidding problem, even if you don't. That means that you show (fake) interest in what is going on. If you want to be somewhat convincing in your faking, you need to know what the auction means. Therefore, you need to ask (or look on their CC, etc.).

 

If you don't ask about an alerted bid when the STOP procedure is used, you make it pretty obvious to partner that you don't care what the bid means. Therefore, not asking (or looking at the CC) conveys the same UI as an immediate pass.

 

As to the time it takes for the asking and answering: You were already forced to count to 10 (because of the STOP). You might as well use these 10 seconds for something useful. In practice, it takes 5 seconds to complete the following conversation:

 

"Alert!"

- "Yes?"

"Bergen, four card support and about seven to ten points."

- "Thank you."

 

 

(Compare this to the time it takes to finish the following:

"Alert!"

Thinking ... Can I ask now without giving UI to partner? ...May be I shouldn't. ... But I need to know to be able to bid. (8 seconds have gone by.)

- "Yes?"

"Excuse me?"

- "Well ... err... what does 3♣ mean?"

"Oh sorry, that's a Bergen raise, four card support and about seven to ten points."

- "Thank you.")

 

Rik

 

(*) My bold statement obviously depends on whether the STOP procedure is used. For the few competitions without a STOP procedure, the general idea of my statement remains the same, but I wouldn't be as absolute about it. (Let's change the word 'MUST' into 'probably should' and you'll get the idea. :o)