UI from question of alert two bid

[RMB1]

Another appeal where I was consulted about the ruling.

[hv=d=e&v=e&n=sa8ha965dqj84cq109&w=sq2hq1032da106ck762&e=sk65hkj874dk72c53&s=sj109743hd953caj84]399|300|Scoring: IMPs

W . N . E . S

. . . . . P 2♠/A

Q/P P 3♥ P

P . P

 

2♠ was alerted

West asked then passed

2♠ = ♠+other 5-4, 5-9 HCP

 

3H= NS +140[/hv]

TD was called at the end of the auction. West said she asked about 2♠ because she had forgotten to look at the opponent's convention card.

 

TD ruled there was no (useful) unauthorised information from the question or the unauthorised information does not suggest 3♥ over Pass. Score stands.

 

AC disagreed and ruled 2♠= NS-110.

[aguahombre]

What am I missing?

 

Alert

Please explain

Answer

Pass

 

Where is the irregularity?

[jillybean]

I think the question clearly suggests bidding , without this information pass is a logical alternative.

[peachy]

What irregularity or what UI was there when a player at his turn asks the meaning of an alerted call? Why West was even asked why she asked about the call, is beyond me. I'm afraid the AC went bonkers.

[vigfus]

If this is the whole truth about what happend at the table, then the TD is right, and AC wrong.

[blackshoe]

I would think the AC is obligated to show what the UI is and what it demonstrably suggests before ruling the score be adjusted. I am not at all surprised, though, if they did not. :lol: :)

[Pict]

It's (probably?) UK and there has been a long time thing about questions potentially giving UI.

 

It is bizarre in these simple cases to have a problem, and I cannot fault Aguahombre's logic.

 

If we want to allow various systems and insist on alerting and disclosure, it seems past understanding that the opponent can't ask.

 

...'He wouldn't ask with a Yarborough...' so what.

[paulg]

In a historical context, many British players felt that the best defence to a weak 1NT was to ask the notrump range when holding 12-14 points and then pass. Partner invariably did the right thing when balancing.

 

This AC seems to feel that this defence has been used here with a minimum takeout double and the fact that East has bid with a debatable hand supports their 'feeling'.

 

I guess you had to be there, at least the AC can ask East why he bid, and find out the standard of the players.

 

But my inclination before the start of the process is that an alert of 2♠ is unusual these days, given announcements of weak and strong twos, and that many would ask regardless.

[gnasher]

I would think the AC is obligated to show what the UI is and what it demonstrably suggests before ruling the score be adjusted.

Is West more likely to ask about an alerted 2♠ opening when he has an 11-count than when he has a 5-count?

 

Is a 3♥ call more likely to be succesful opposite an 11-count than opposite a 5-count?

 

If the answers to those questions are both "yes", then (a) there is UI, and (b) the UI demonstrably suggests bidding over passing. You may think that this suggestion is weak, but so far as I can see the Laws say nothing about how strongly the UI should suggest an action. The only requirement of Law 16B1 is that the suggestion should exist.

 

If silly rules lead to a silly ruling, blame the rules, not the people who are obliged to enforce them.

[aguahombre]

any rules which disallow asking about an alerted call are truly from another planet

[blackshoe]

If silly rules lead to a silly ruling, blame the rules, not the people who are obliged to enforce them.

Responding only to this, all I will say is that I expressed an opinion. I did not blame anyone for anything.

[gnasher]

any rules which disallow asking about an alerted call are truly from another planet

I've searched the thread carefully for the post that led to this comment, but I can't find it. Who said that the rules disallow asking about an alerted call?

[aguahombre]

sorry...i should have said rules which allow penalizing the question about an alerted call. The reference was to YOUR post.

 

If someone from the British in-crowd has specific knowledge about THIS pair's choices of when to ask about an alerted bid, then they should have posted that.

Otherwise, there is nothing in the post to indicate this should ever have gone to a committee.

 

And Don't bother picking on the word "penalize". Because that is what apparently happened.

[gwnn]

I think the 3♥ bid was from another planet along with said rules. Jdonn wrote a nice post a while back, very weird bids that work out fine point to possible UI issues. Suppose East can tell from West's tone of voice if he's just asking randomly or asking because he has a weak no trump. We would need a lot of surveillance to establish this, but the 3♥ balance was so weird that it's quite likely that something has been used, most likely subconsciously.

[helene_t]

I sometimes ask about alerted two-openings with random weak hands, just to make sure my p doesn't get any UI when I ask and happen to have a good hand. We don't know if W does that also or whether the question is informative.

 

What's next? Do we get an AC case where W failed to ask, and opps now question E's decision to pass, which may be suggested by W's failure to ask?

 

Anyway, I agree with AH. Absent evidence to the contrary, asking about an alerted call is normal and does not carry UI.

[bluejak]

Is West more likely to ask about an alerted 2♠ opening when he has an 11-count than when he has a 5-count?

Definitely. I have been playing competitive bridge in England for 45 years and I know from experience that this is a fact.

 

At least, assuming the query was from England, which seems likely.

 

:)

 

any rules which disallow asking about an alerted call are truly from another planet

Which is why there are no such rules here.

 

:)

 

sorry...i should have said rules which allow penalizing the question about an alerted call.

 

. . . . . .

 

And Don't bother picking on the word "penalize".  Because that is what apparently happened.

Oh, we do not penalise, we merely apply the UI Laws.

 

Any suggestion that we suspend the UI Laws just because people want to ask questions is also completely bonkers. Either we allow people to gain an advantage from their partners' action apart from the calls and plays, or we do not. My vote is for the latter: gaining unfair advantage from partner's questions is just not the way I want the game to be played and is illegal.

 

:D

 

Anyway, I agree with AH. Absent evidence to the contrary, asking about an alerted call is normal and does not carry UI.

There is evidence to the contrary. My 45 years' experience of tournament bridge means that I can tell an opponent's strength of hand from his questions or absence of question in many cases. If I can, so can his partner. Furthermore, the worries raised and advice given by an L&EC of before my time was based on similar evidence.

[aguahombre]

Even though probably deserved, I prefer something other than "AH" :)

[Mbodell]

I hate the fact that asking about an alerted bid here penalizes partner. I have one partner who would always ask, as he always asks about alerted skip bids (his reasoning is if he is supposed to take 10 seconds and is supposed to act like he has something to think about then he better ask about the auction because most of the time when he really has something to think about he'll be asking).

 

So I really don't think we should be saying West asking in this type of skip bid is creating UI. I'd be very inclined to rule no problem. However, the 3♥ bid unfavorable at IMPs is pretty crazy on this hand. A mediocre 10 count with KJ-fifth and K-3rd in the LHO's suit? Not inclined to go for a number at the 3 level. So East's bidding needs some explaining, and I'd want to know why he bid. His hand is bizarre enough that I'd think ruling it back to 2♠ is warranted even though I hate the UI on the alert.

[blackshoe]

My 45 years' experience of tournament bridge means that I can tell an opponent's strength of hand from his questions or absence of question in many cases. If I can, so can his partner.

If his partner also has 45 years' experience, yes. if not...

[655321]

It sounds as though you had to be there (like we were not but the appeals committee was).

 

Maybe EW really were playing the Weasel convention, so East bid 3♥ knowing that his partner had a hand almost worth bidding over 2♠, and West passed 3♥ because she had already bid her hand. Or maybe EW were completely honest, West always asks about alerted bids, East bid 3♥ because he didn't know it is a bad bid, and West didn't raise because East is a passed hand.

 

The appeals committee would have a better chance of finding out the reasons for EW actions by talking to EW. I don't think we can tell from reading the original post.

[gnasher]

I always ask about alerted first-round bids. In West's situation, I would have said to the director "I always ask about alerted first-round bids."

 

It seems unlikely that West's knowledge of the rules is sufficient for him to understand the benefits of always asking, but not sufficient for him to understand the benefits of mentioning that fact.

[mjj29]

I always ask about alerted first-round bids. In West's situation, I would have said to the director "I always ask about alerted first-round bids."

I always look at convention cards so that I don't have to ask about alerted first round bids.

 

Well, if they are available. If they aren't, then I think the side asking questions get a bit more leeway...

[RMB1]

Two posters have assumed the OP was from "(probably) UK" and "England, which seems likely". All this after I dutifully put "Swiss Teams, England" in the topic description. :D

[gnasher]

I always look at convention cards so that I don't have to ask about alerted first round bids.

Yes, I do that too. I was trying to avoid complicating the situation, since several posters are already having difficulty with the concepts involved.

 

Well, if they are available. If they aren't, then I think the side asking questions get a bit more leeway...

If you:

(a) always look at the convention card if present

(b) In the absence of a convention card, ask with a good hand and pass with a bad hand

 

your actions in (b) still convey UI. The fact that it's not entirely your fault doesn't make it not UI, and doesn't excuse you of your responsibilities under Law 16. The law as written doesn't offer you any leeway.

Edited April 19, 2010 by gnasher

[gwnn]

Two posters have assumed the OP was from "(probably) UK" and "England, which seems likely". All this after I dutifully put "Swiss Teams, England" in the topic description. :D

Maybe some people thought it was in Switzerland (: