UI?

[jdonn]

You know, I gotta wonder why you're crapping all over Stephen when it's his partner who (maybe) broke the rules.

Because you hadn't joined in yet?

 

What rule did his partner break? There is no UI, he asks every time! Except for when he doesn't.

 

If you must know, he is one of the best posters going. Most would think that just because you used a long example or tried to use logic against them you were 'crapping all over them', but he is too smart for that and one of the best people to have discussions like this with.

[Guest Jlall]

Yes agree that Stephen is an excellent poster, don't think anyone was attacking him.

[paulg]

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.

I assume that Stephen Tu is suggesting that you ask when

• 
   
  
• You need to know.
   
  
• Randomly at other times.
   
  

There are 2 practical problems with this.

• 
   
  
• People find it hard to to ask randomly
   
  
• When you don't ask, your disinterest is still unauthorised information.
   
  

In theory, there is another ethical approach: ask only when you don't know (i.e when the call comes up for the first time; and is not explained in the appropriate place on opponent's system card). In practice, unfortunately, it is hard to do this consistently; and scrabbling with opponent's system card gives just as much unauthorised information as asking.

 

Hence, IMO, the only practical ethical solutions are to ask always or never.

The only ethical approach is to play with a partner who will not take advantage of any UI created by you asking a question that needs to be asked.

 

Paul

[nige1]

Hence, IMO, the only practical ethical solutions are to ask always or never.

The only ethical approach is to play with a partner who will not take advantage of any UI created by you asking a question that needs to be asked.

IMO, selective asking is not a practical ethical solution. If you ask selectively, you impart unauthorised information. In practice, this damages partnership prospects by restricting an ethical partner's options.

[Trinidad]

Trinidad, there is a requirement to pause and appear to think after skip bids.  But there is no requirement to *ask* after alerted bids.  Pausing without asking is legal.

 

But Stephen, How can you make the appearance of thinking about an auction if you show everybody that you don't care what the auction means?

 

I don't think Al Pacino can act that out convincingly.

 

As I said before, you don't have to ask, but you need to give the appearance that you know what the auction means. That means that looking at the CC is fine. It also means that you don't have to ask when the auction has occured three times already.

 

But when I come across a case where a player after a STOP-Alert doesn't ask, doesn't look at the convention card and clearly doesn't know what the auction means then he may take 15 seconds to pass, as a director I will decide that he passed the UI that he was not interested in bidding. (And to be even clearer: Passing UI is in itself not an infraction, but it does come with consequences.)

 

Rik

[peachy]

Passing UI is in itself not an infraction, but it does come with consequences.

 

Rik

The legal terms really can be confusing sometimes. I think it is an irregularity to pass UI but it is not illegal. It is the use of the UI and failure to avoid taking advantage of it that are the infractions = illegal.

[mr1303]

From another point of view:

 

You hold [hv=s=sqxxhxdaxxckqjxxx]133|100|[/hv] The idea is that this is a hand that would be happy making a lead directional double of 3C (or bidding 3C over 2S) but not bidding at the 4 level.

 

You are in 4th chair, and the bidding goes 1S P 3C (alert) to you. Assume for the moment that double of a Bergen mixed raise is for take-out of spades, but lead directional for most other meanings of 3C. At this point, you do not know what 3C means. You do not have a position that you always ask about alerted calls.

 

What should you do?

 

There are a number of options as I see it.

 

1) Double without asking what 3C is

2) Ask what 3C is. If it turns out to be a mixed raise, pass and accept that partner will not be able to lead a club for UI reasons.

3) Ask what 3C is. If it turns out to be a mixed raise, double anyway and accept the bad score you'll get when partner bids hearts.

4) Ask what 3C is. If it turns out to be a mixed raise, bid 4C and accept the bad score you'll get when dummy hits with not very much and you are too high.

 

Any thoughts?

[Guest Jlall]

I have always done number 2.

[david_c]

There are a number of options as I see it.

 

1) Double without asking what 3C is

2) Ask what 3C is. If it turns out to be a mixed raise, pass and accept that partner will not be able to lead a club for UI reasons.

3) Ask what 3C is. If it turns out to be a mixed raise, double anyway and accept the bad score you'll get when partner bids hearts.

4) Ask what 3C is. If it turns out to be a mixed raise, bid 4C and accept the bad score you'll get when dummy hits with not very much and you are too high.

 

Any thoughts?

I am sure that (2) is the "right" thing to do.

 

(I certainly would not recommend (1). Note that not asking also passes UI, at least in theory, and if you do it deliberately to avoid hearing the "wrong" answer that could be ruled as illegal communication with partner.)

 

But obviously this sucks. Personally I think the most sensible idea is not to have this agreement in the first place. You might think that it is theoretically best to have different methods depending on the strength of 3♣. But we have seen that this agreement is unplayable because you can't help giving UI. You can complain about the regulations if you like (and I think there is a valid complaint here), but complaining doesn't get you any IMPs. Better to work around it. Play double as take-out over any artificial raise.

[nige1]

You would be happy making a lead directional double of 3C (or bidding 3C over 2S) but not bidding at the 4 level.  You are in 4th chair, and the bidding goes 1S P 3C (alert) to you. Assume for the moment that double of a Bergen mixed raise is for take-out of spades, but lead directional for most other meanings of 3C. At this point, you do not know what 3C means. You do not have a position that you always ask about alerted calls. What should you do? There are a number of options as I see it.

 

1) Double without asking what 3C is

2) Ask what 3C is. If it turns out to be a mixed raise, pass and accept that partner will not be able to lead a club for UI reasons.

3) Ask what 3C is. If it turns out to be a mixed raise, double anyway and accept the bad score you'll get when partner bids hearts.

4) Ask what 3C is. If it turns out to be a mixed raise, bid 4C and accept the bad score you'll get when dummy hits with not very much and you are too high.

 

Any thoughts?

An illustration of why "Always ask" is a practical strategy. Failing that, I suppose you could try:

1. Assuming that you've agreed with partner that double is lead-directing unless their system-card specifies Bergen...
   
2. During your 10 seconds, unobtrusively peruse opponent's system-card, if you have not already done so.
   
3. Unless Bergen is specified, double.
   
4. After perusing opponent's (identical) system-card, partner interprets your double as lead-directing (because that is your agreement over a non-Bergen 3♣).
   
5. Partner alerts your double and, if asked, explains it as lead-directing.
   
6. If LHO became declarer, then, before leading, your partner asks for an explanation of the Auction to avoid any nasty surprises
   

This kludge won't always work for a variety of reasons e.g.

• Players don't always complete their system cards.
  
• Even looking at a system card can impart unauthorised information.
  
• Also, if it turns out that 3♣ is Bergen, after all, then your chances of redress are diminished by your failure to protect yourself -- A daft rule but that is another matter :)
  

[Rossoneri]

But obviously this sucks. Personally I think the most sensible idea is not to have this agreement in the first place. You might think that it is theoretically best to have different methods depending on the strength of 3♣. But we have seen that this agreement is unplayable because you can't help giving UI. You can complain about the regulations if you like (and I think there is a valid complaint here), but complaining doesn't get you any IMPs. Better to work around it. Play double as take-out over any artificial raise.

I would tend to agree with this actually. Though I don't have a good enough idea of your system to know whether this is actually viable. Maybe you could try it and see how it goes?

[gnasher]

I am sure that (2) is the "right" thing to do.

I am equally sure that the right thing to do is

(5) When an opponent alerts on the first or second round of the auction, always either ask or ostentatiously look at the convention card.

 

But obviously this sucks. Personally I think the most sensible idea is not to have this agreement in the first place. You might think that it is theoretically best to have different methods depending on the strength of 3♣. But we have seen that this agreement is unplayable because you can't help giving UI.

*You* may be unable to help giving UI, but I have no difficulty in avoiding it.