It's 100% obvious!

[jeremy69]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=s7hj632d865ckq965]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

 

West North East South

No No   1S   x  

2H(A)  3C   3S  No 

No  4H All pass

 

North bids 3C without asking about the alert

South asks about the alert of 2H at her next turn and is told that it shows a sound raise to 2S, typically 7-9 with a 3 card raise.

North now bids 4H. This makes 10 tricks (It's either 10 or 11 depending on how you defend). 3S would make 9 tricks.

All players at the table are of a good standard.

EW call the director. The director rules that North is in receipt of UI but the question does not indicate anything about either values or hearts. He confides to EW that the people he consulted were not unanimous about this. EW appeal.

How do you rule in appeal?

[gordontd]

It's hard to see how the question could do other than indicate an interest in hearts. I wonder what answer to the question could have been given that would have led South to bid rather than passing.

 

I also find it hard to see how North now thinks he's worth bidding game in hearts when, before his partner's question and pass, he was content to play in a part-score in clubs. Maybe he'll produce an argument that 3C showed values and he was "always going to bid 4H on the next round", but I'll need some convincing.

[mink]

I can imagine that North made his bid disregarding South's question and would have made it without the question, too. However, the question did both indicate ♥ and strength, and pass is a LA for sure. Contract has to be changed to 3S.

 

Karl

[gwnn]

I am not a big law guru (not even a small guru) but often I see players ask about opps' calls for the benefit of their partner, this often happens in a partnership where the stronger player is aware of opps' system. Is such a practice legal?

[PeterE]

It is improper to ask a question solely for partner’s benefit.

 

btw: count me for 3♠ ... and let's think about a PP re blantant use of UI.

[gwnn]

oh :) well then doesn't this law apply here? I guess it's next to impossible to prove that, what would you do as Director if South told you "me? for partner's benefit? I wouldn't lift even 1 finger for that idiot, lol" ?

[campboy]

btw: count me for 3♠ ... and let's think about a PP re blantant use of UI.

QFT

[pooltuna]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=s7hj632d865ckq965]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

West North East South

No No 1S x

2H(A) 3C 3S No

No 4H All pass

 

North bids 3C without asking about the alert

South asks about the alert of 2H at her next turn and is told that it shows a sound raise to 2S, typically 7-9 with a 3 card raise.

North now bids 4H. This makes 10 tricks (It's either 10 or 11 depending on how you defend). 3S would make 9 tricks.

All players at the table are of a good standard.

EW call the director. The director rules that North is in receipt of UI but the question does not indicate anything about either values or hearts. He confides to EW that the people he consulted were not unanimous about this. EW appeal.

How do you rule in appeal?

Lucky result, 4♥ stands.

[pran]

I am not a big law guru (not even a small guru) but often I see players ask about opps' calls for the benefit of their partner, this often happens in a partnership where the stronger player is aware of opps' system. Is such a practice legal?

NO!

Law 20G1: It is improper to ask a question solely for partner’s benefit.

 

PS.: Only now did I notice that PeterE had already answered the question.

[aguahombre]

It's hard to see how the question could do other than indicate an interest in hearts. I wonder what answer to the question could have been given that would have led South to bid rather than passing.

 

I also find it hard to see how North now thinks he's worth bidding game in hearts when, before his partner's question and pass, he was content to play in a part-score in clubs. Maybe he'll produce an argument that 3C showed values and he was "always going to bid 4H on the next round", but I'll need some convincing.

If on the AC, this would be exactly my contribution. If I were the director, I would state it as Mink did, below Gordon's quote.

 

Naw, I wouldn't be that diplomatic in either situation.

[peachy]

This may be a little OT, but the curious aspect of this situation is the following. In some places, asking about the alerted 2H bid could be interpreted as "interest in hearts", whether the question was made at the time the bid was made or at the next round. If he asked at the time, wouldn't he be between a rock and a hard place - If he at his first opportunity asked and bid clubs, it would show interest in hearts as well as clubs, and if he asked and passed, it would show interest in hearts? All in all, I think it is best to ask at the time the bid is made, but I am willing to give the 3C bidder the benefit of the doubt. The rules in EBU say (unless I am wrong and I well could be) that you don't ask unless it affects the choice of call you were making at that time.

[dburn]

This may be a little OT, but the curious aspect of this situation is the following. In some places, asking about the alerted 2H bid could be interpreted as "interest in hearts", whether the question was made at the time the bid was made or at the next round. If he asked at the time, wouldn't he be between a rock and a hard place - If he at his first opportunity asked and bid clubs, it would show interest in hearts as well as clubs, and if he asked and passed, it would show interest in hearts? All in all, I think it is best to ask at the time the bid is made, but I am willing to give the 3C bidder the benefit of the doubt. The rules in EBU say (unless I am wrong and I well could be) that you don't ask unless it affects the choice of call you were making at that time.

The 3♣ bidder wasn't the one who asked about 2♥. His partner asked about it at her earliest legal opportunity - that is, when the auction had come back to her with 3♠ on her right.

[karlson]

I think it's crazy if doubler can't ask without it suggesting something about hearts. It's a live auction where all 4 hands are bidding, I think everyone should always ask about alerted calls. What if 2♥ showed clubs and 3♣ would be a cuebid by our agreements (and partner knew the opponents' system from looking at the card or something). What if I can infer the opponents are having an accident from the explanation and from my hand, that would be useful information to have.

 

Now if the argument is that the 3♣ bidder didn't ask last time, so he probably wasn't going to ask this time, so the question was the only thing that would wake him up and he'd never think to bid 4♥ otherwise, then I don't know what the ruling should be, and I'm glad we have people that probably do know. But to me the argument that the doubler's question transmits UI about heart strength is ludicrous.

[jdeegan]

:) Bizarre bidding, not the least by South who made a TO double with 6 HCP, but he did have the ♥'s he promised. I don't see where the "director" found any UI. South has a right to find out what LHO's alerted 2♥ bid meant. Odd for a passed hand, North, to bid 4♥ after passing initially, but he could have the hand for it - 4-6, 4-5 or 5-6 in ♥ and ♣ plus a few working high cards, but not enough to open the bidding second seat.

 

It's hard to say not seeing North's hand, but imo E-W are probably the lowest of the low, lawyering to try to get a good score rather than playing bridge. It's just a game, folks.

[jeremy69]

Bizarre bidding, not the least by South who made a TO double with 6 HCP

I think you have misread the auction. North had the 6 count and South a. made the take out double and b. asked the question. The hand given bid 3C followed by 4H.

[jdonn]

The entire alert system creates no-win situations for the other side in places like this. If either player asks then his partner is forever constrained from bidding hearts. If no one asks then no one knows what's going on. If you ask about every alerted bid every time the director would still have to believe it, you'd be slowing the game down, and in that case why have alerts anyway instead of just announcing the meaning of all alertable bids?

 

The only solution I can think of other than screens (which are far from perfect) is to play on a computer. I still think we are headed there down the road at high levels, with this being one of many reasons.

[bluejak]

You have a game which works in most situations, with a few problems. Why spoil the game for millions because of those very few problems? I do not see why we must have computer use instead of live bridge because there are occasional difficulties. No doubt there will be other problems with computers.

 

As to the hand, there seems to me in several answers no clear division between whether the UI suggests strength, or hearts, or strength in hearts, or strength and hearts. I think this failure to distinguish leads to muddled thinking about the hand.

 

The pro question, which has been illegal for some time and now is clarified in the Laws, is not relevant in the particular partnership.

 

The facts as stated by Jeremy are not completely in accord with what happened at the time. I am not quite sure whether he has changed them deliberately because he thinks it aids the problem, or whether he is mistaken.

[Vampyr]

The only solution I can think of other than screens (which are far from perfect) is to play on a computer. I still think we are headed there down the road at high levels, with this being one of many reasons.

But would there, in that case, be any players at high levels?

[jdonn]

You have a game which works in most situations, with a few problems.  Why spoil the game for millions because of those very few problems?  I do not see why we must have computer use instead of live bridge because there are occasional difficulties.  No doubt there will be other problems with computers.

As always you have taken to grossly exagerate any claim you disagree with. Do millions play at high levels?

[jdonn]

The only solution I can think of other than screens (which are far from perfect) is to play on a computer. I still think we are headed there down the road at high levels, with this being one of many reasons.

But would there, in that case, be any players at high levels?

Oh no, something different that we aren't used to, no one can ever adapt to change!

 

I mean who would ever want to play in a game that is MUCH faster, has almost no UI problems, no revokes, no bids out of turn, no leads out of turn, no quitted tricks turned the wrong way, explanations recorded to see at any time, clear records of the tempo taken before all actions, doesn't force dummy to sit at the table, and has a bunch of other advantages? Insanity!

 

I mean your comment is so lol. Have you noticed how many people enjoy playing bridge on a computer these days, which was unheard of not long ago?

[bluejak]

You have a game which works in most situations, with a few problems.  Why spoil the game for millions because of those very few problems?  I do not see why we must have computer use instead of live bridge because there are occasional difficulties.  No doubt there will be other problems with computers.

As always you have taken to grossly exagerate any claim you disagree with. Do millions play at high levels?

Of course I exaggerate when commenting on your posts because your style of posts lends itself to such. Most people want minor changes: you want to change the world.

 

No, millions do not play at a high level, but they follow what high level players do, so what is done at high level affects millions.

[jdeegan]

Bizarre bidding, not the least by South who made a TO double with 6 HCP

I think you have misread the auction. North had the 6 count and South a. made the take out double and b. asked the question. The hand given bid 3C followed by 4H.

:lol: Thanks for the correction. Now the auction makes a little more sense. The 4♥ bid is very, very aggressive, but I still don't see why the TO doubler's question for clarification about the alert of the 2♥ bid transmits UI. After all, he is going to be on lead vs a ♠ contract. I agree with jdonn that both opponents have to be able to ask clarifying questions without prejudicing the auction.

 

The 4♥ bidder may have:

(1) needed a board due to the state of the match

(2) read something in the OPPONENT's mannerisms - a smug 3♠ bid

(3) illegally read something in the way pard asked about the alert

(4) received a vision from the bridge gods

 

It sounds to me like E-W got frustrated when N-S overcame their preempt. Possibly N-S DID do a job with the asking about the alert being the equivalent of a very slow pass, but what are you going to do? It was NOT a slow pass, and imho that has to be that. You cannot enforce a system that once in a while punishes the innocent.

[jukmoi]

I would allways ask as North about 2H unless I knew the meaning. Also when I have no intention entering the action. Any other method leads to unauthorized information in some cases.

 

Here North might have doubled 2H with intention of competing with 3♣ over eventual 2♠.

[ggwhiz]

PP? UI?????

 

There has been an alert and it's my turn to call. Regardless of when the call was alerted, am I not entitled to know what it means? Geesh!

 

Especially when it was artificial.

 

I can see a problem if you asked something like "Does that bid show hearts?" but something like "Please explain the alert" is simply excercising my rights and most players I know already showed hearts when they doubled 1♠.

 

Do we really need a law that prohibits me from asking about an alert after pard failed to do so?

[jallerton]

Dealer: West Vul: N/S Scoring: MP

♠ 7 ♥ J632 ♦ 865 ♣ KQ965

 

West  North  East  South

No      No        1S      x

2H(A) 3C        3S    No

No      4H  All pass

 

North bids 3C without asking about the alert

South asks about the alert of 2H at her next turn and is told that it shows a sound raise to 2S, typically 7-9 with a 3 card raise.

North now bids 4H. This makes 10 tricks (It's either 10 or 11 depending on how you defend). 3S would make 9 tricks.

All players at the table are of a good standard.

EW call the director. The director rules that North is in receipt of UI but the question does not indicate anything about either values or hearts. He confides to EW that the people he consulted were not unanimous about this. EW appeal.

How do you rule in appeal?

The first thing to note is that is it not approriate for the AC to retain the deposit. The TD has informed E/W that there was a case for ruling the other way, so an appeal cannot really be regarded as frivolous.

 

I cannot say how I would rule without knowing more information.

 

Did the TD ask North why he bid 4♥? If so, what was the reply? If not, the AC should ask this question.

 

Depending on the reply, the AC should then cross-examine North to establish why it is such a good idea to make a vulnerable save against the opponents' partscore. Alternatively, if North considered his hand strong enough to bid game opposite a minimum take-out double, the AC would confirm the meaning of 3♣ (presumably NF) and then ask why North had not made an alternative call on the previous round if he considered this hand to be worth a game force.