UI from question of alert two bid

[gnasher]

I believe you know how this regulation is interpreted in England.

Actually I only know how I think it should be interpreted in England.

[bluejak]

It is not just a question of how this player does something, but the general approach. Alerted bids are asked about much more in NABCs than in England, especially under earlier alerting regulations. Maybe it is the fault of those regulations, maybe anything, but whatever the reason it is perfectly normal for players not to ask about alerted calls. A lot of posts especially form North America over the years have assumed that players will normally ask about alerted calls. Well, here they don't.

[blackshoe]

The last item in the introduction to the current ACBL Alert regulation says

When an Alert is given, ASK, do not ASSUME.

That, IMO, is why folks over here ask so often.

[JanM]

The last item in the introduction to the current ACBL Alert regulation says

When an Alert is given, ASK, do not ASSUME.

That, IMO, is why folks over here ask so often.

There is also the fact that asking some of the time when you won't bid whatever the answer avoids the problem of giving your partner UI by asking questions. Surely that is a good thing.

[blackshoe]

Yes, but... "mitigate", surely, rather than "avoids entirely".

[bluejak]

Also there is the fact that it is not true. While North American players ask more often when a call is alerted, they still do not consistently ask.

[JanM]

Also there is the fact that it is not true. While North American players ask more often when a call is alerted, they still do not consistently ask.

Some of us try to ask randomly when we aren't interested so that a question doesn't carry UI. Of course it's impossible to avoid all UI, but having a rule that you may not ask unless you are interested in bidding results, IMO, in vastly more UI than having a rule that you may ask whether or not you have interest in bidding.

[jdonn]

UI is not the only issue, you know. Asking all the time slows the game down, and even more importantly allows opponents to work out misunderstandings in ways that might be impossible to prove.

[Pict]

UI is not the only issue, you know. Asking all the time slows the game down, and even more importantly allows opponents to work out misunderstandings in ways that might be impossible to prove.

I think that in the EBU zone Jdonn's point is the real reason most people rarely ask in the auction. It is not fear of arbitrary Direction, but the much more likely prompt to the opponents.

 

It is certainly the reason that I don't ask. Occasionally you see opponents slightly miffed and surprised that their alerts go unnoticed.

 

Nonetheless, I think it wrong that a player can't ask after an alert, and if quesioned say:

 

'He alerted and I wanted to know.'

 

Rather than any improbable and at least unverifiable statements such as 'I always ask'.

[bluejak]

Nonetheless, I think it wrong that a player can't ask after an alert, and if quesioned say:

 

'He alerted and I wanted to know.'

Of course he can!

[Pict]

Nonetheless, I think it wrong that a player can't ask after an alert, and if quesioned say:

 

'He alerted and I wanted to know.'

Of course he can!

You guessed, of course, that 'with impunity' was implied. Partnership game.

 

Then I doubt that you would say 'of course he can'. Then I would say that's a pity and we would be full circle.

[nige1]

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.

IMO:

• Unless you always ask or never ask, your question may impart unauthorised information to partner. Hence the ACBL position is also untenable.
  
• A similar can of worms has been opened by the regulation that you may ask partner "having none?" when he shows out. For example, do you always ask this question, even when you know from your own hand and a count of the suit that your partner can have no more cards in the suit?
  
• Simpler rules would reduce these problems.
  

[Trinidad]

IMO:

• 
   
  
• Unless you always ask or never ask, your question may impart unauthorised information to partner. Hence the ACBL position is also untenable.
   
  

That is a common misunderstanding.

 

Asking often will do the trick in 99.999% of the cases. It carries no UI when the question is asked, since it is expected.

 

And when no question is asked there may be a variety of reasons:

1) You have seen the bid on the CC and know what it means.

2) You are far in the auction and have not shown any interest in getting in there. Typical examples:

Opponents bid fourth suit forcing after your side has been passing throughout.

Opponents are in a relay auction.

3) Opponents seem to be unsure of their methods. You do not want to give them UI.

 

I have played under both regimes ("Asking gives UI and places limitations on partner" and "Asking often about alerts doesn't carry UI"). The "asking gives UI" line comes with many more problems than the "ask often" line.

 

Rik

[nige1]

IMO: Unless you always ask or never ask, your question may impart unauthorised information to partner. Hence the ACBL position is also untenable.

That is a common misunderstanding.

 

Asking often will do the trick in 99.999% of the cases. It carries no UI when the question is asked, since it is expected.

 

And when no question is asked there may be a variety of reasons:

1) You have seen the bid on the CC and know what it means.

2) You are far in the auction and have not shown any interest in getting in there. Typical examples:

Opponents bid fourth suit forcing after your side has been passing throughout.

Opponents are in a relay auction.

3) Opponents seem to be unsure of their methods. You do not want to give them UI.

I have played under both regimes ("Asking gives UI and places limitations on partner" and "Asking often about alerts doesn't carry UI"). The "asking gives UI" line comes with many more problems than the "ask often" line.

If you ask most of the time then, when you refrain from asking, you indicate to your partner that you don't need to know yet. As Rik explains, he won't always know why; but a possible reason is that you have a poor hand: sometimes, from context, that is the only likely explanation.

 

That is the theory. The practice is worse. It is human nature for some players to refrain form asking with a poor hand. And sometimes their partners take advantage of this unauthorised information. Some players are ignorant of the law. Some are careless. Some use UI unconsciously. Some because they are incapable of the mental gymnastics and masochism necessary to choose a contra-indicated logical alternative.

 

Unless players always or never ask, it is hard for the director to tell whether such UI is transmitted or used. The director could try observing the asking pattern of a suspect pair, for several sessions; but this seems a lot of hassle.

 

IMO, the rules should be simplified to create fewer UI opportunities.

[Pict]

Unless players always or never ask, it is hard for the director to tell whether such UI is transmitted or used. The director could try observing the asking pattern of a suspect pair, for several sessions; but this seems a lot of hassle.

Nigel

 

We are talking her about the first round of the auction.

 

Opponents are playing Precision (let's keep it simple, not some other more complex variant). Does your partner ask when they open 1C. Do you know when he might or might not when they open 2C. Do you know when he might or might not when they open 2D.

 

I don't believe you are getting UI from questions about the opponents opening bid any more often than your partner is Law 25 changing his bids, because I don't believe your partner is asking much about their openers.

 

And I don't believe anybody always or even often asks on the first round of bidding about alerted bids.

[nige1]

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.

Unless players always or never ask, it is hard for the director to tell whether such UI is transmitted or used. The director could try observing the asking pattern of a suspect pair, for several sessions; but this seems a lot of hassle.

Nigel We are talking here about the first round of the auction.

Opponents are playing Precision (let's keep it simple, not some other more complex variant).  Does your partner ask when they open 1C.  Do you know when he might or might not when they open 2C.  Do you know when he might or might not when they open 2D.

I don't believe you are getting UI from questions about the opponents opening bid any more often than your partner is Law 25 changing his bids, because I don't believe your partner is asking much about their openers.

And I don't believe anybody always or even often asks on the first round of bidding about alerted bids.

I don't think we should make an exception for the first round of bidding. IMO, however, if you rarely ask about alerted first-round bids, then, when you do ask, you may convey unauthorised information to partner.

 

It is hard to understand why probable use of such unauthorised information doesn't occasion adverse rulings in America.

[VixTD]

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.

If I were called to your table to give a ruling I expect I would believe you but I might well still not "rule on that basis".

 

I am constantly getting into tussles with opponents for two mannerisms in which I am unvarying: (1) I pause before playing to trick one as declarer or third hand, and (2) I pause after skip bids.

 

I am one of very few players who do this, and so I often prompt accusations of "hesitating". However, since (1) is good practice recommended by all good bridge books and teachers, and is moreover sanctioned by the regulations (OB7F), and (2) is a requirement of the regulations (OB7C), I expect no charges to stick.

 

What you are doing is not defended by the regulations (OB3E1), so I don't think you can ask with impunity, even if you (claim you) always ask.

 

I don't doubt for a moment that you are telling the truth, but have a thought for the poor director. Am I supposed to believe everything every player tells me about their habits? I have seen enough players who swear on a stack of bibles that they "always" do something or other, (and they may even believe it themselves), but it turns out they don't. Am I supposed to rule in favour of players I know and trust personally, but against a stranger?

 

Your solution of always asking in certain situations, (or others' of asking randomly) may have merit, but until this is sanctioned in the regulations I think Campboy is right.

[Free]

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

I disagree if you put it as simply as that. Say you have a relay auction and after 4 rounds your RHO suddenly asks "what does 3♦ mean?", you respond "5=4=2=2 distribution" and RHO passes, then it's a clear case of UI imo.

 

Asking about the meaning of a preemptive opening hardly causes UI imo, since you want to have a clue about what's going on, so you'll be prepared just in case partner has something to say. Also, because a weak two is handled pretty much the same as 5♠-4 other, the question rather suggests you have something to bid in case the 2♠ opening doesn't show ♠ (like one of the minors, you could Dbl for the lead).

 

I'd let the result stand.

[Pict]

Nigel

 

The software didn't seem to let me use your last complex quote, so I quote:

 

'I don't think we should make an exception for the first round of bidding. IMO, however, if you rarely ask about alerted first-round bids, then, when you do ask, you may convey unauthorised information to partner.

 

It is hard to understand why probable use of such unauthorised information doesn't occasion adverse rulings in America.'

 

You refrained from answering my points, which is perhaps normal on forums.

 

Anyway this is (for me) a bit like the long discussion we had on claims. I have been able to satisfy myself that in relation to alerts and UI in the UK at least, irrational and immaterial considerations are likely to be deployed. In your case that may reflect an admirable desire for simplification. In the case of other contributors I don't know what it reflects. In any case, as for claims, I forewarned.

[655321]

I always ask about alerted first-round bids.

 

And I don't believe anybody always or even often asks on the first round of bidding about alerted bids.

 

And I wonder whether the fact that gnasher has not posted for a week or so has emboldened you to make this typically passive aggressive attack on his integrity.

[nige1]

Nigel We are talking her about the first round of the auction.

1. 
    
    
   
2. Opponents are playing Precision (let's keep it simple, not some other more complex variant). 
   
   1. 
       
       
      
   2. Does your partner ask when they open 1C. 
       
      
   3. Do you know when he might or might not when they open 2C. 
       
      
   4. Do you know when he might or might not when they open 2D.
       
      

 

[*] I don't believe you are getting UI from questions about the opponents opening bid any more often than your partner is Law 25 changing his bids, because I don't believe your partner is asking much about their openers.

 

[*] And I don't believe anybody always or even often asks on the first round of bidding about alerted bids.

 

You refrained from answering my points, which is perhaps normal on forums.

Answers to Pict's questions ...

1. Assuming that opponents have a systems card, my partner won't ask about any of those bids.
   
2. I don't get UI from such questions because partner doesn't ask until the end of the auction. But opponents do sometimes ask about alerted first-round calls and that does give UI, perhaps 10-20% of the time. Not much I admit but, if used, such a percentage can be decisive.
   
3. Of course, I agree that most players give UI by asking sporadically. And, unfortunately, some players use that UI, perhaps unconsciously.
   

[Pict]

Your argument would imply that your partner is rarely able to consider a non-obvious double of their contract in these auctions, because he can't ask questions. And if you think it is OK for him to ask before making the final pass, then half the time he is not able to consider doubling.

 

I simply think we reach an absurd position if a player can't ask unless he is fairly confident of bidding immediately after the answer. Others, including you, clearly differ. So be it.

[Trinidad]

The discussion about whether asking or not gives UI is pretty moot in this particular case.

 

After all, in this situation (Pass-2♠(A)-??) asking (or looking at the CC) is pretty much mandatory. It is a STOP situation and you are supposed to act as if you have a bidding problem. How on earth can you have a bidding problem if you aren't even interested in the meaning of 2♠?

 

Not asking (or looking at the CC) and waiting 10 seconds is equivalent to immediately taking out a pass card and hold it above the table while counting to 10.