UI from question of alert two bid

[Codo]

In Germany we are forbidden to ask always, despite the fact that in the clubs there are seldom ccs and no announcements.

 

So, we may have to ask with a good hand, and surprisingly to me this work with no (not much) UI. The "normal" UI you get from the body language is a much bigger problem then the problem that you have to ask with some hands.

 

But this hand has no reason to ask anyway. There is simply no meaning (Acoloish, twosuiter, weak, both minors, whatever) where you want to bid.

 

So, as there are surely LAs to bidding 3 ♥ (to put it midly), I understood the ruling of 2 ♠ =.

[Cyberyeti]

W deserved what they got (the adjustment), what explanation of 2♠ would have induced them to do anything other than pass ?

 

If the answer is none, then why ask ?

 

If partner bids, they can ask then.

 

Bidding 3♥ is not ridiculous opposite a partner who hasn't asked, but pass is clearly a LA, and the question suggests values, so adjustment correct.

[mjj29]

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

(:D 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.

Well, I'd probably ask most or all of the time. Yes, in really blatent cases (not commenting on the OP) I'll adjust, but when it's marginal I'm more inclined to rule against the pair without convention cards.

[helene_t]

In Germany we are forbidden to ask always, despite the fact that in the clubs there are seldom ccs and no announcements.

Really? If opps have no CC (despite the fact, I suppose, that they are obliged to have one), I would think it would be OK always to ask, even if the regulations say you must not.

[Pict]

Since this is England, the (perhaps) 99% cases for the meaning of the 2♠ would be announced not alerted, so we know we are dealing with something unusual.

 

In real time is it really completely clear for West to delay asking - until say the auction has gone 2S-P-P-X, P. Are you sure that asking questions to decide if and how your Lebensohl agreements work in this sequence, and whether their strength makes your hand a try or GF, and what you do about a weak 4 hearts and a strong minor - that you are at no risk of giving UI?

 

The Laws say that you can use information from the lawful procedures of the game. Yes there is a caveat about questions, but I think it would be strange to convert that caveat to a blanket assumption of UI communicated by any question.

 

Let's say I have observed that partner mostly asks in this position with four plus points (I don't play with people who actually cheat by asking only with a 12-14 no-trump). Will you say that I can't bid 3♥ because I know he has a few points, which I know anyway from the auction?

[gnasher]

Let's say I have observed that partner mostly asks in this position with four plus points (I don't play with people who actually cheat by asking only with a 12-14 no-trump). Will you say that I can't bid 3♥ because I know he has a few points, which I know anyway from the auction?

If you know from the auction that his point count is 4+, and his question tells you that he has 4+, you have no useful UI and you can do what you want.

 

If, on the other hand, you know from the auction that his point count is 3+, and his question tells you that he has 4+, then his average expected strength is slightly higher, that slightly suggests 3♥ over pass, and you may not bid 3♥.

[dburn]

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...

Here is a way in which you can tell someone's strength from his actions at the table: if he asks a question, he is strong enough to consider bidding; if he does not, he is not.

 

This is not only legal in England, it is compulsory. It is also absurd - why do we have a regulation that in effect forces players to give information to their opponents while placing constraints on their partners? If I knew, I would tell you, but I don't, so I can't.

[gnasher]

This is not only legal in England, it is compulsory.

Where does it say that? I know that this approach is encouraged by advice in the Yellow Book and by peer pressure, but I don't know of a regulation that enforces it.

 

It is also absurd

Agree with Burn.

[bluejak]

This is not only legal in England, it is compulsory.

Where does it say that? I know that this approach is encouraged by advice in the Yellow Book and by peer pressure, but I don't know of a regulation that enforces it.

It is not. Certain advice is given in the Orange book, but is widely misquoted, including [surprisingly] by people responsible for writing it.

[gnasher]

This is not only legal in England, it is compulsory.

Where does it say that? I know that this approach is encouraged by advice in the Yellow Book and by peer pressure, but I don't know of a regulation that enforces it.

It is not. Certain advice is given in the Orange book, but is widely misquoted, including [surprisingly] by people responsible for writing it.

Are you saying that the Orange Book's advice doesn't encourage this approach? If so, what is the intention (and the effect) of the advice below?

 

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.

Edited April 19, 2010 by gnasher

[bluejak]

The Orange book, faced with a specific deep-rooted and long-standing abuse, has recommended an approach that is better.

 

But it never says "You may not ask" but is continually quoted as saying so.

[helene_t]

I think the reason why it is not recommended to ask if your action will not depend on the answer, is that you slow down the game and you allow opps to exchange UI about how they interpret each other's calls.

 

Obviously you get your cake and eat it, too, if you just look at their CC and don't ask anything.

 

Dunno if I agree that 3♥ was such an extraordinary bid that there is a strong suggestion that it must have been based on UI. It may be a bad bid but it's a bid plenty of intermediate players would make. So it will depend on East's skill level and style.

[campboy]

Personally I do not believe that it is legal to always ask, since I do not believe that I am permitted to ask if I already know the answer.

 

Otoh, I will always ask about an alerted opening bid unless I believe I know what opponents play. However, I accept that a TD is unlikely to rule on that basis (at least in England).

 

It is certainly true that many people will not ask without some values. As far as we know, the only available evidence as to whether or not West falls into that category is the fact that his partner bid 3♥ here :D, which suggests that he does.

[gnasher]

Otoh, I will always ask about an alerted opening bid unless I believe I know what opponents play. However, I accept that a TD is unlikely to rule on that basis (at least in England).

You mean that you think the TD would rule on the assumption that you don't do what you say you do? Why would he do that?

 

If I told a TD that I always ask about a particular category of call, I'd expect to be believed.

[gnasher]

The Orange book, faced with a specific deep-rooted and long-standing abuse, has recommended an approach that is better.

 

But it never says "You may not ask" but is continually quoted as saying so.

So when I said "I know that this approach is encouraged by advice in the Yellow Book and by peer pressure, but I don't know of a regulation that enforces it.", and you replied "It is not", you were, in fact, agreeing with me?

[bluejak]

Sorry, typing too fast. My "It is not" referred to dburn's comment, not yours. Mea culpa.

[campboy]

Otoh, I will always ask about an alerted opening bid unless I believe I know what opponents play. However, I accept that a TD is unlikely to rule on that basis (at least in England).

You mean that you think the TD would rule on the assumption that you don't do what you say you do? Why would he do that?

In the EBU, I don't think he has much choice. OB3E1 states categorically that "if a player asks a question and the passes, he has shown an interest in taking some other action had the player received a different answer." The TD may be of the personal opinion that in my case this is not true, but it is still a regulation.

[gnasher]

In the EBU, I don't think he has much choice. OB3E1 states categorically that "if a player asks a question and the passes, he has shown an interest in taking some other action had the player received a different answer." The TD may be of the personal opinion that in my case this is not true, but it is still a regulation.

Are you using an EBU computer, and therefore looking at an out-of-date copy of the Orange Book? So far as I can tell, this is the current version of OB3E1:

 

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.

[Pict]

So finally we see a sensible statement about asking questions in general.

 

And in this instance, the player has good reason generally (the alert) and a specific reason in not having examined the oppos card.

 

The TD seems to have dealt with this. Are there other factors we have not been made aware of? Did we as 6... says have to be there. Was the AC 'there'.

[gnasher]

So finally we see a sensible statement about asking questions in general.

I don't know about "finally". Most of what I quoted is just a paraphrasing of Laws which have existed in much the same form since 1997 or earlier.

 

And I don't know about "sensible" either. The best way to avoid UI problems is to be consistent about how you behave in a given situation. That applies to asking questions just as much as it does to tempo.

 

And in this instance, the player has good reason generally (the alert) and a specific reason in not having examined the oppos card.

What on earth does that have to do with anything? Regardless of whether West had good reason for his question, if he sometimes asks and sometimes doesn't, depending partly upon the contents of his hand, the question conveys UI.

 

West isn't being penalised for asking a question. In fact, West isn't being penalised for anything. East is being penalised for making an illegal call.

[campboy]

Are you using an EBU computer, and therefore looking at an out-of-date copy of the Orange Book?

:lol: I was looking in my paper copy. Glad to see this has been changed.

[Pict]

Largely the OP and a large part of the posts talk about West, including your 'self serving' statements about always asking and therfore being immune from criticism.

 

So suddenly to turn on East as the culprit is interesting. He knows partner has 11 points - he is Bluejak?

 

Does Gnasher cave in to 5-9 two-suiters?

 

Edit: this refers to Gnashers lengthy quote with comments before CampBoy's latest offer.

[peachy]

gnasher quoted a paragraph from the Orange book.

It starts by saying: (copied from that paragraph)

 

If a player shows unusual interest in one or more calls of the auction

[emphasis is mine]

 

 

My problem is: When an opening bid is alerted, and the player next in turn asks what the bid means, is this considered *unusual interest* in EBU? I would consider it usual interest to inquire about an alerted call. Had the call been not alerted, then it would be "unusual" in most cases.

[gnasher]

My problem is:  When an opening bid is alerted, and the player next in turn asks what the bid means, is this considered *unusual interest* in EBU?  I would consider it usual interest to inquire about an alerted call.  Had the call been not alerted, then it would be "unusual" in most cases.

If you always ask, there is nothing "unusual" about your interest. If you usually don't ask but sometimes do, your interest is "unusual". That's not a question of interpretation or regulation - it's just common sense and English.

[peachy]

My problem is:  When an opening bid is alerted, and the player next in turn asks what the bid means, is this considered *unusual interest* in EBU?  I would consider it usual interest to inquire about an alerted call.   Had the call been not alerted, then it would be "unusual" in most cases.

If you always ask, there is nothing "unusual" about your interest. If you usually don't ask but sometimes do, your interest is "unusual". That's not a question of interpretation or regulation - it's just common sense and English.

I believe you know how this regulation is interpreted in England. I did not know.

 

I will try to adjust my understanding to get it through my head that "unusual" in EBU means "unusual" for the player in question instead of "unusual" in general. Without your clarifying what it means, I understood from just reading the sentence that *unusual interest" would be something like many questions, surprised or quizzical looks, tones of voice or other such extras that would make the level of interest *not usual*. Asking in itself IMO cannot be unusual, but as said, my opinion does not count.

 

Never thought my common sense would be in question...but perhaps I need to revisit that one :P