UI through inaction

[CSGibson]

Question for you: Opponents open 2 diamonds in first seat, which is alerted. Partner passes without even feigning interest in the alert. RHO bids 2 spades, and you ask about the alert (turns out it's Flannery). You have a marginal opening hand, 2-2-4-5, with AJ8xx in clubs.

 

At this point you could safely deduce that partner didn't have a hand that would act over 2 diamonds no matter what it was, since you know partner doesn't know what their 2 diamonds means, and that the opponents are probably playing a bit of a misfit, but the deduction is through UI transmitted by partner not asking about the alert. What are my obligations here?

[Oof Arted]

:(

 

just intersted to know where in the Laws it says 'You MUST ask the meaning of an Alert'

 

:P

[hotShot]

I think you are wrong here. If partner asks a question, he creates an UI.

The worst thing to do is ask about a bid and pass. This creates the UI that you would have bid over a different meaning. A players is therefor discouraged to ask about a bid at this point of the auction, if he doesn't intend to bid. You can ask about the bid later.

 

Following the lawful procedure, can't be UI.

[Gerben42]

Perhaps partner knew what opponents were playing so didn't need to ask. I guess I would Dbl for T/O. I assume 2NT would be natural (it would be if 2♦ is weak both majors), but I'm not sure because I never meet this stronger variation of 2♦ showing majors at the table.

[Trinidad]

I think you are wrong here. If partner asks a question, he creates an UI.

The worst thing to do is ask about a bid and pass. This creates the UI that you would have bid over a different meaning. A players is therefor discouraged to ask about a bid at this point of the auction, if he doesn't intend to bid. You can ask about the bid later.

 

Following the lawful procedure, can't be UI.

It can never be incorrect procedure to ask about an alerted bid (provided that you ask properly). After all, the alert means: "This bid has an odd meaning, feel free to ask about it".

 

Actually, "the worst thing you can do" (your words) is to only ask about an alert when you are interested in its meaning. Then you give partner UI that you are interested in the meaning when you ask AND that you are not interested when you don't ask.

 

The suggested procedure is to ask often about an alerted bid (with AND without interest in bidding). By following that procedure you prevent giving partner UI by asking and passing. After all, partner cannot deduce whether you were interested in bidding, since you could have asked with a Yarborough as well as with a hand that would have acted over an other meaning.

 

And CSGibson is entirely correct that in this there is UI that partner wasn't interested in bidding, regardless of the meaning of 2♦. (Assuming that partner didn't know the meaning of 2♦ in some other way, e.g. by looking at the convention card).

 

To make the case a little clearer, let's assume that the STOP procedure was in use. That means that you are supposed to act as if you have a bidding problem. How can you have a bidding problem if you are not even interested in what 2♦ means?

 

Therefore, the player has to ask about the meaning of 2♦ (or look at the convention card) unless it is pretty clear that he already knows what 2♦ means (e.g. because they quickly discussed their defense against Flannery at the start of the round).

 

Not asking about the alerted bid is the advanced equivalent of pulling a pass card and holding it above the table while counting to 10.

 

Rik

[P_Marlowe]

:(

 

just intersted to know where in the Laws it says 'You MUST ask the meaning of an Alert'

 

:P

The law does not require it, but it is good practice.

 

If you always ask, unless it is clear, that you know

the reason of the alert, because you asked earlier,

than you dont transmit UI.

If you dont ask any time, not asking transmits UI

as does asking, ... unless you choose to ask randomly

in cases you are not interested, but this is hard to do.

 

What to do? Dont know, but bidding seems ok, you know,

that 2S will end the auction, i.e. you are basically in the

(pre-)balancing seat, and it is highly likely that they have

a 8 card fit

I would choose the bid, which showes both minors, i.e.

either X or 2NT, your guess is as good as mine, which bid

does.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[hotShot]

If you should always ask after opps alert, the laws would say so.

 

As TD I would find it unlikely that you ask about every alert. Just think about Jacoby transfer, do you really ask every time? What if opps transfered last board?

Do you never look at opps CC? Do you ask about bids even if you know the meaning?

Someone claiming that he asks all the time is usually in fact only asking very often.

What should a TD do, if he notices you were not asking after an alert? Should he award you with a procedural penalty for lying to the TD? "Always" is a requirement that is very hard to fulfill.

 

The laws are specific about not breaking tempo unless you have a bridge reason (e.g. when you hold a singleton). If you ask about opps alert, you should have a bridge reason to do so. If you will pass regardless of opps explanation, you can ask about opps bidding at the end of the auction. This way your question won't influence the bidding and if it's your lead the influence to the play is minimal too.

[helene_t]

If opps had a cc, partner probably knew they were playing Flannery.

 

If they didn't, you may have UI and of course you shouldn't deliberately make use of it, but if you take some action that wouldn't have been absurd without the UI, you should be fine. I haven't seen this explicitly in the laws but it can't be right if opps can benefit from inflicting ethical problems on you by failing to have a cc.

[gnasher]

Trinidad and P_Marlowe have both explained why it's sensible to ask even if you're not interested in bidding, especially in a competitive auction. I routinely ask about alerted bids on the first two rounds of the auction.

 

At least one national bridge organisation has contributed to the erroneous belief that one should ask only when thinking of bidding, and that asking automatically creates UI. This is from the English Bridge Union's regulations:

 

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.

Players sometimes say “I always ask whether I intend to bid or not”. This is not recommended.

I think this last sentence in particular is very poor advice. Fortunately, however, it is only advice, and can safely be ignored.

[gnasher]

If you should always ask after opps alert, the laws would say so.

They do, in a way:

Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked [my emphasis] of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them.

As I understand it, after an opponent opens 2♦, alerted, your policy is to ask what it means if you're thinking of bidding, and to not ask if you aren't. Thus your failure to ask a question communicates to your partner the fact that you aren't thinking of bidding.

 

My policy is to ask, or look at the convention card, regardless of whether I'm thinking of bidding, unless I already know the meaning. Therefore my question communicates nothing to my partner.

 

As TD I would find it unlikely that you ask about every alert.

As a player with no particular reputation for dishonesty, if I told a TD that I always asked about a particular category of alerted call, I would expect to be believed. If necessary, however, I could simply point to a previous board on which I had asked a question without having any interest in bidding.

 

Just think about Jacoby transfer, do you really ask every time?

I do, if I'm playing in a jurisdiction where it's alerted rather than announced.

 

What if opps transfered last board? Do you never look at opps CC? Do you ask about bids even if you know the meaning?

If you already know the answer because it's happened before, or if you can see it on the opponents convention card, there is no need to ask. In those circumstances, failing to ask doesn't convey any unauthorised information.

 

The laws are specific about not breaking tempo unless you have a bridge reason (e.g. when you hold a singleton).

The Laws are specific about not varying tempo or manner. If you sometimes ask about an alerted 2♦ opening and sometimes don't, you are varying your tempo. If you always ask about an alerted 2♦ opening, you are maintaining a uniform tempo.

[OleBerg]

If you check Law 73C, you will se that among the things that can carry UI is:

 

"...gesture, mannerism...haste"

 

So if you can gather from partners attitude, that he has a minimum, you are obliged not to use that information. This in turn means, that out of several logical alternatives, you are not allowed to make the bid/(play) that the UI points towards.

 

I still have to see a ruling though, that said a player couldn't pass. I would like to hear if anyone has examples.

 

And mostly for Gnasher (or anyone who knows): Can you tell me where there is an on-line copy of the laws, that it is possible to copy/paste? Thanks in advance.

[RMB1]

Can you tell me where there is an on-line copy of the laws, that it is possible to copy/paste? Thanks in advance.

There is a PDF copy available from the EBU L&E 2007 Laws page.

 

Robin

[hotShot]

Or take a HTML Version from the WBF-Hompepage.

[gnasher]

Or take a HTML Version from the WBF-Hompepage.

Those appear to be the 1997 Laws, which are no longer applicable.

 

The WBF provides a PDF version of the 2007 Laws here:

 

http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/Law...awsComplete.pdf

[CSGibson]

Perhaps partner knew what opponents were playing so didn't need to ask.

Partner did not know. That is not an assumption, that is a fact, just like it was stated in the OP.

 

To answer Helene, the opps did not have a convention card within view, but did have one available if partner asked for it.

[Oof Arted]

If you should always ask after opps alert, the laws would say so.

They do, in a way:

Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked [my emphasis] of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them.

As I understand it, after an opponent opens 2♦, alerted, your policy is to ask what it means if you're thinking of bidding, and to not ask if you aren't. Thus your failure to ask a question communicates to your partner the fact that you aren't thinking of bidding.

 

My policy is to ask, or look at the convention card, regardless of whether I'm thinking of bidding, unless I already know the meaning. Therefore my question communicates nothing to my partner.

 

As TD I would find it unlikely that you ask about every alert.

As a player with no particular reputation for dishonesty, if I told a TD that I always asked about a particular category of alerted call, I would expect to be believed. If necessary, however, I could simply point to a previous board on which I had asked a question without having any interest in bidding.

 

Just think about Jacoby transfer, do you really ask every time?

I do, if I'm playing in a jurisdiction where it's alerted rather than announced.

 

What if opps transfered last board? Do you never look at opps CC? Do you ask about bids even if you know the meaning?

If you already know the answer because it's happened before, or if you can see it on the opponents convention card, there is no need to ask. In those circumstances, failing to ask doesn't convey any unauthorised information.

 

The laws are specific about not breaking tempo unless you have a bridge reason (e.g. when you hold a singleton).

The Laws are specific about not varying tempo or manner. If you sometimes ask about an alerted 2♦ opening and sometimes don't, you are varying your tempo. If you always ask about an alerted 2♦ opening, you are maintaining a uniform tempo.

;)

 

The Laws still DO NOT say though shalt always ask the meaning of an alert

 

:)

Edited May 22, 2009 by Oof Arted

[gnasher]

The Laws still DO NOT say though shalt always ask the meaning of an alert

No one said they do, explicitly. To my non-expert eye, Law 73B seems to implicitly prohibit the strategy of asking when you have something to think about and not when you don't, but I'm prepared to believe that it means something other than what it appears to mean.

 

However, we're getting off the point. Regardless of legality, if you ask only when you have something to think about, the act of passing without asking conveys the information that you have nothing to think about. That information is "extraneous" and therefore constrains your partner's actions.

 

The Laws don't (so far as I know) say that you can't show your cards to your LHO during the auction. However, that doesn't make it sensible, and nor is it sensible to willfully follow a strategy which gives your partner unauthorised information.

[mycroft]

I still play Victor Mitchell's "Nuttin Defence" with some partners to some systems.

 

It works, not optimally, but well enough to beat having to remember an improvised defence developed at the table. It also can throw off the system freaks, who are prepared for all kinds of crazy defences, but not to "pretend they're playing SA". It certainly throws off those system freaks who depend on the opponents to ask to keep their "we're on the same track" comfort level up.

 

Having said that, yes, clear not caring does pass UI. In situations where that would pass significant UI, one should, yes, always ask(*). I'm not sure this is the case - the number of hands that partner could have that weren't interested in bidding over Flannery, Mini-Roman, Precision, or Mexican 2D are pretty high. If you live in Multi-land, it's a different story, I guess - but from what I've heard, an Alerted 2D over there is almost always some form of Multi, and nobody's heard of Flannery, Mini-Roman, Precision, or Mexican 2D...

 

(*) With one partner I played One-Under-Splinter doubles, and non-lead-directing doubles of suits we're known to control (if it's anything *but* a splinter). 2D-2H-p-4D is an "always ask" - pass shows interest in Diamonds unless it's a splinter, in which case it shows interest in Spades (over Clubs). There is effectively one hand where "pass no matter what" or "double no matter what" exists - and that UI is Significant.

[Lobowolf]

The Laws still DO NOT say though shalt always ask the meaning of an alert

That's because there's not a requirement to ask the meaning of an alert (although it's "desirable" to maintain an "unvarying manner" (73(D)(1)).

 

But there IS a requirement not to take advantage of unauthorized information. Proper communication (i.e. authorized information) is derived only from the calls and plays. (73(A)).

 

IMO, it's like a break in tempo. The question isn't whether you're allowed to hesitate (you are); it's what partner does with the information he learns when you do.

[Oof Arted]

Trinidad and P_Marlowe have both explained why it's sensible to ask even if you're not interested in bidding, especially in a competitive auction.  I routinely ask about alerted bids on the first two rounds of the auction.

 

At least one national bridge organisation has contributed to the erroneous belief that one should ask only when thinking of bidding, and that asking automatically creates UI.  This is from the English Bridge Union's regulations:

 

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.

Players sometimes say “I always ask whether I intend to bid or not”. This is not recommended.

I think this last sentence in particular is very poor advice. Fortunately, however, it is only advice, and can safely be ignored.

;)

 

You may think our OB regulations are bad advice; however that is how it is in Blighty.

 

As a TD I would never blame anyone for NOT asking ; Unless their NOT asking has damaged themselves

 

i.e. If you do not ask the meaning of a bid and ASSUME wrongly the meaning and later on damage yourself then TOUGH' you had your chance to ask; Not necessarily ask at the time that is because you have always got the right to ask for explanation later

 

Now if as the person who started this thread is saying 'HE assumed by his partners pass that x y z pertained that is down to him and if he is wrong again tough;

 

If however his partner has done something similar before then we ARE now in the situation of possible UI

 

:(

[bill1157]

Maybe the answer is to have partner announce the meaning of your bid every time it is alertable, as they now do with the 1NT range and transfers.

 

Bill

[Trinidad]

Maybe the answer is to have partner announce the meaning of your bid every time it is alertable, as they now do with the 1NT range and transfers.

 

Bill

I think that is a good idea. However, I think it is an even better idea to give the opponents the right to get the information from the convention card.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

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.

Players sometimes say “I always ask whether I intend to bid or not”. This is not recommended.

I think this last sentence in particular is very poor advice. Fortunately, however, it is only advice, and can safely be ignored.

:(

 

You may think our OB regulations are bad advice; however that is how it is in Blighty.

That may be so, but Law 80 B2f states:

The Tournament Organizer’s powers and duties include:

f) to announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws

If the OB would actually dictate this, I would think that it is clearly in conflict with Law 73B1. Since they are only giving it as an advice, it is merely 'bad advice' and should be ignored.

 

Rik

[NickRW]

If you live in Multi-land, it's a different story, I guess - but from what I've heard, an Alerted 2D over there is almost always some form of Multi, and nobody's heard of Flannery, Mini-Roman, Precision, or Mexican 2D...

That's slightly harsh. In the last 12 months with different partners I've played a 2♦ opener as a) multi, b ) precision, c) "normal" weak 2, d) Acol 2 and I've played against Ekren.

 

:)

 

Nick

[barmar]

The Laws still DO NOT say though shalt always ask the meaning of an alert

No one said they do, explicitly. To my non-expert eye, Law 73B seems to implicitly prohibit the strategy of asking when you have something to think about and not when you don't, but I'm prepared to believe that it means something other than what it appears to mean.

In general, the Laws don't prohibit, explcicitly or implicitly, transmission of UI. For instance, although they say you should try to maintain an even tempo, you're allowed to go into the tank if you have a difficult decision. The real prohibition is on your partner not to take advantage of the UI.

 

Back to the case at hand, it's a good idea to be consistent about how you ask about alerts. But if you're not, it just means that partner must bend over backwards not to take advantage of any particular ask or not-ask.