It's 100% obvious!

[campboy]

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.

This is nonsense of course. There is no real difference in law between a slow pass that suggests a particular choice of action and a question which suggests a particular choice of action.

 

Law 16B1a is the relevant law.

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by [...] a question, [...] or by unmistakable hesitation [...] the partner may not [...]

 

It does not much matter whether South passed slowly or asked about the 2♥ call, save that asking particularly suggests interest in hearts whereas a slow pass does not suggest anything so specific.

 

I would not bat an eyelid, of course, if North had asked in this auction; that would be practically expected and does not give any meaningful UI. But after North doesn't ask, for South to ask now rather than at the end of the auction is pretty unusual.

 

The last sentence of your post is a sentiment which is not shared by the writers of the lawbook. It is a general principle in bridge law (see, for example, law 23) that the possibility of innocence is not enough; you must protect the non-offending side by adjusting the score if there is a reasonable possibility of guilt. There are many situations where the law requires an adjusted score where the player "could have known" that his actions were likely to damage opponents, even though he might not have known.

 

Following this principle, and being seen to do so, does not merely protect those who are known to be innocent from those who merely may be, it also protects you from being sued for slander. It is very important that an adjusted score should not be an accusation of deliberate wrongdoing.

[jeremy69]

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.

 

The deposit was not retained.

North said that a. 4H was obvious b. he had bid 3C for the lead in case he defended 4S c. with only one spade 4H figured to be the right thing to do

 

3C was agreed to be NF

[jdeegan]

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.

This is nonsense of course. There is no real difference in law between a slow pass that suggests a particular choice of action and a question which suggests a particular choice of action.

 

Law 16B1a is the relevant law.

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by [...] a question, [...] or by unmistakable hesitation [...] the partner may not [...]

 

It does not much matter whether South passed slowly or asked about the 2♥ call, save that asking particularly suggests interest in hearts whereas a slow pass does not suggest anything so specific.

 

I would not bat an eyelid, of course, if North had asked in this auction; that would be practically expected and does not give any meaningful UI. But after North doesn't ask, for South to ask now rather than at the end of the auction is pretty unusual.

 

The last sentence of your post is a sentiment which is not shared by the writers of the lawbook. It is a general principle in bridge law (see, for example, law 23) that the possibility of innocence is not enough; you must protect the non-offending side by adjusting the score if there is a reasonable possibility of guilt. There are many situations where the law requires an adjusted score where the player "could have known" that his actions were likely to damage opponents, even though he might not have known.

 

Following this principle, and being seen to do so, does not merely protect those who are known to be innocent from those who merely may be, it also protects you from being sued for slander. It is very important that an adjusted score should not be an accusation of deliberate wrongdoing.

:D Well, we are back to the same basic question: "Did N-S do a 'job' on their opponents?" I think TO doubler's question is beyond reproach. His partner evidently knows the meaning of the 2♥ bid (or doesn't care), but the poor fellow who asks needs to find out if he is up against a ♠ preempt or a ♥ suit on his left and 6 or 7♠ on his right, or is it a really weak 2♠ raise with 4 pieces. Really good reasons to ask his question. But, then he passes. Is this like a slow pass (to bid 4♣ or not)?

 

I am beginning to think it is. It's like if 2♥ meant 4♠ and a weak hand, I would have bid 4♣. Consequently, his partner needs to bend over backward to avoid bidding what a slow pass suggests, namely 4♣. Bidding 4♥ vul is really off the wall. Was he thinking that his pard had a 4♣ bid, but didn't have a fourth ♣? If that is the actual holding, then that's too much coincidence for me.

 

Finally, you cannot say that someone who fails to bend over backwards to avoid a specific indicated call is innocent.

[ggwhiz]

It does not much matter whether South passed slowly or asked about the 2♥ call, save that asking particularly suggests interest in hearts

 

The double of 1♠ already showed interest in hearts so I consider that aspect of possible UI should not apply here.

 

Did a properly framed question such as "what's the alert?" reveal strength? I see no evidence of north doing anything but taking a shot since south may have been simply considering a 4♣ bid depending on the explanation of the alert.

 

We have no info that suggests the inquiry was anything but asking in a situation with a "need to know" component.

[jallerton]

The deposit was not retained.

North said that a. 4H was obvious b. he had bid 3C for the lead in case he defended 4S c. with only one spade 4H figured to be the right thing to do

 

3C was agreed to be NF

In that case, I'll ask North to give me a few example South hands opposite which 4♥ is the right thing to do.

 

I might also ask South why he asked about the 2♥ bid, to try to establish whether this particular South is in the "always ask about alerted calls" category or the "only ask when thinking of bidding" category.

[StevenG]

I'm getting more and more puzzled by this.

 

As North, I have 6 points, West seems to have 7-9, that leaves 25-27 between the other two hands. East has an opening hand, South has a double of an opening hand. Later events have shown East's hand to be minimal(ish). We know (I assume) that South has four hearts, but a hand that chooses to double rather than overcall in hearts. Surely all the hands are so constrained by the AI that any vague inferences from a perfectly natural question must be non-existent.

 

South's question. I don't recall seeing South's hand anywhere on the thread, so it is difficult to know why the question was asked. However if it was me as South, I would know that I have an opening hand, partner has made a bid which, whilst non-forcing, is potentially reasonably strong, and the opponents are competing with an artificial bid, the meaning of which I have no idea about. (I will say here that I have NEVER seen that 2♥ bid before.) Am I really supposed to be able to work through all possible meanings of the 2♥ bid, including meanings I have never seen and could not possibly imagine, and infer that I will pass every single one of these hypothetical meanings? All in tempo? Or should I just ask about the alerted bid and find out what it means? After all I have no idea what is going on. Isn't that what alerts are for?

 

As North, I would know that South has no idea what is going on, and would find it impossible to ascribe any meaning to the question other than "South doesn't know what's going on".

 

As an aside, Jeffrey says

In that case, I'll ask North to give me a few example South hands opposite which 4♥ is the right thing to do.

I think that is rather ambitious. I doubt very much whether many non-experts construct hands opposite. I'm certainly not capable of doing so. All I can do is use my experience to evaluate my hand in general terms against what I know from the auction, use what tools I have, LTC, LTT, and decide how many tricks I am likely to make in offence or defence.

 

I find the 4♥ bid difficult to fathom at the vulnerability, but I find the 3♣ equally baffling, and that occurred before the alleged UI. When polling, must we not only poll people who believe that 3♣ is the right bid?

 

(I am aware that we are told all players at the table are of a good standard, so perhaps I am underestimating North/South's experience.)

[jdeegan]

♣ :P This bridge hand and situation is starting to bug me. Were I on the appeals committee, I would want to know South's hand. If he has about 16 working HCP and 2-4-4-3 or 3-4-4-2 distribution, then I would be very suspicious that E-W had been had by a wired pair of no great sophistication.

 

I think this illustrates the essential problem with Law 16B1a, it puts all the onus on North to "bend over backwards" (oddly enough, the same phrase Oswald Jacoby and Paul Hodge used when they taught me bridge ethics 40+ years ago). The real problem is that both parties are usually involved in this kind of UI cheating, so the sole focus on North that derives from current regulations is not sufficient.

 

Personally, with the aforementioned heavy double with less than 4 ♣'s, I would be thinking that an in tempo pass was my best bid and make it so as not to prejudice partner's action. Dast I say it, but it is child's play to cheat the existing system just by barring partner from taking an unwanted push with a well-timed hesitation. Hard to catch this one since the offender can do it with an ethical and unwitting partner and only when he is in contention.

 

"Bend over backward" was originally given as a way for honest players to be more ethical, not as a basis for a code of law. Imo, the only thing that is feasible is to identify cheating, and admonish or discipline these players. Restoring equity to the opponents in every single situation on the basis of the facts of a single bridge hand simply cannot be done.

 

Remember, its only a game. Games have to be fun.

[shyams]

Even though partner's question does generate UI for North, this is also mixed with AI from all bids so far (mainly South's original double). I realise the OP states "All players at the table are of a good standard" i.e. they definitely have superior skills than mine.

 

If I were North, I would expect partner to hold 4c♥ suit almost all the time. I know a TO X is possible with fewer but I'm not required to assume it as a factor in my decisions. What did partner's question tell me extra that I (as North) cannot deduce by myself?

* That he has 4-card heart? I "knew" that already

* That he has extras? With this auction, I can safely expect it, can't I? Opps are most likely holding a 9-card fit. Yet, the 3♠ bidder did not bid game. Ergo, partner is strong or shapely or both.

* That he has extras? Why should asking about 2♥ automatically imply that?

* That 4♥ will make? I don't need to expect it.

---- As North, I could be regretting my 3♣ bid and wanting to make amends. Am I allowed?

---- My distorted understanding of LOTT would lead me to believe 3♠ makes (9-card fit --> "go to 3-level"). Therefore I may be thinking of a push to 4♥. Which opp will realistically double me? If opps are familiar to me, I'd know whether to expect a double... and if I expect to go undoubled, I get a top for -100 vs -140.

 

There are many factors to consider. I like jallerton's approach of asking many questions before ruling (not suggesting the AC didn't ask).

 

Having said that, I agree with StevenG's point that many (incl. me) would not be capable of constructing hands. A simple-enough thought would pass thru my head that if I find partner with ♣A to go with his 4c♥, I have a great contract. In summary, there are many situations where (had I bid 3♣ originally) I would seriously consider bidding 4♥ using only the AI. It then follows that the case is definitely not as "cut-and-dried" as some responses suggest

[blackshoe]

Couple of comments:

 

Even when you have AI that tells you the same thing as the UI tells you, you're still constrained by the UI.

 

LOTT suggests you should bid to the 3 level with 9 trumps. It doesn't guarantee you'll make 9 tricks. So I don't think you should base a decision about whether to bid 4♥ solely on the assumption that because opps have 9 trumps they're going to make 3♠.

[nige1]

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?

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.

I tend to agree with GordonTD but I imagine that, in some jursdictions, it's OK to rule 4♥= if South always asks or always asks about a call that isn't explained on the system-card.

[Codo]

Even when you have AI that tells you the same thing as the UI tells you, you're still constrained by the UI.

I see the theoretical possibility, but do you have a practical case for this view?

 

 

For the case: I am still surprised of the views of the professional TDs.

 

Like soome others, I do not see the UI either.

Partner doubled 1 Spade and it should come as a surprise to me that Partner has 4 hearts? I did not get the message: Partner I have 4 hearts by his double, but by his question about an surprising and alerted bid?

 

And even if partner held just 3 hearts, he can still bid 5 clubs after the bidding had gone so far, so 4 heart can work in ayn way.

 

Or do you claim that partner had shown not hearts, but extras by his question? So I guess you suggest to ask just with extras. Every time you do not ask, partner knows that you have a normal/weak take out, but he can be sure that you have more then just full values after your question. This sounds horrible to me. Maybe we should alert questions in this case too. :ph34r:

[blackshoe]

The principle (that when you have UI, you are constrained by it even if you have AI that tells you the same thing) has been mentioned many times in this forum and its predecessor. I'm notoriously bad at thinking up (or remembering historical) examples, so sorry, but I don't have what you're asking.

 

In the case of a TO double implying partner has four hearts, and a later question also implying that he has four hearts, Law 73C says

When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner… he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information.

Note that this law doesn't say anything about AI mitigating the requirement. The other relevant Law is 16C3:

When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the director when play ends. The director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12c) if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender.

The emphasis is mine. This law tells the TD to adjust the score if a player takes an action suggested by UI, and again doesn't say anything about AI mitigating things. What may mitigate things is the phrase I emphasized, which tells us that if there is no logical alternative to the action taken, there has been no infraction. That is the only case in which UI does not trump AI (assuming it is AI that leads to the "no logical alternative" conclusion).

 

Note that in most peoples' systems, if RHO bids over partner's TO double, we are not compelled to bid. This means that pass is an LA in such an auction, unless we are so strong as to override that. So given a usual hand for such an auction — maybe 8 or 9 points and 4 lousy hearts, pass is an LA, and if we have UI suggesting bidding on, we must pass. If we had an opening hand (seem to be a lot of those in this deal) then maybe pass is not an LA, and bidding hearts may be okay. I don't think that's the case in the hand in this thread though (OTOH, I haven't actually looked at it today, so I have no idea what the actual hand is :) ).

[jallerton]

As an aside, Jeffrey says

In that case, I'll ask North to give me a few example South hands opposite which 4♥ is the right thing to do.

I think that is rather ambitious. I doubt very much whether many non-experts construct hands opposite. I'm certainly not capable of doing so. All I can do is use my experience to evaluate my hand in general terms against what I know from the auction, use what tools I have, LTC, LTT, and decide how many tricks I am likely to make in offence or defence.

If I asked you why you made a particular call, you would be able to explain to me in terms of whatever tools you use; that's absolutely fine and then I would then be able to understand your reasoning.

 

The actual North player has told the AC that 4♥ was 100% obvious. This is not at all obvious to you or to me, so we need to understand why 4♥ was obvious to him. Similarly why did 4♥ "feel like the right thing to do"?

 

If I were North, I would expect partner to hold 4c♥ suit almost all the time. I know a TO X is possible with fewer but I'm not required to assume it as a factor in my decisions. What did partner's question tell me extra that I (as North) cannot deduce by myself?

* That he has 4-card heart? I "knew" that already

 

If I were North, I expect partner would like to hold 4c♥ suit almost all the time. In practice, double is the best call on many hands with 3 hearts, so I would only expect partner to hold 4+ hearts say 70% of the time.

 

---- My distorted understanding of LOTT would lead me to believe 3♠ makes (9-card fit --> "go to 3-level"). Therefore I may be thinking of a push to 4♥. Which opp will realistically double me? If opps are familiar to me, I'd know whether to expect a double... and if I expect to go undoubled, I get a top for -100 vs -140.

 

Both opponents know that their partner has implied some defence and that you have produced an unconvincing, limited auction. We are told that this is a good standard game, so I would expect both opponents to appreciate the need to double for one off at MP Pairs to protect their +140.

 

Even if you do escape a double, you may still concede 200 by going 2 off in 4♥ or 5♣ undoubled. That is the number of expected tricks if you swear by the "total number of tricks" theory without adjustments for potential double fits/pure hands.

[hotShot]

It is not so unusual that someone "knows" that something is right but can't say why he knows.

Look at the Poincaré conjecture, it took about 100 years to explain why it was right.

 

Fortunately Bridge problems are simpler.

North said that a. 4H was obvious

I will try to give a few reasons why 4♥ is an obvious bid.

 

Have you ever made a T/O double in 2nd seat with 4 cards in openers suit?

 

What kind of hand would you have to make a 2nd seat T/O double with 3 cards in openers suit and does this happen very often?

 

When South makes his T/O dbl of a suit where North holds a singleton, North knows that EW are more likely have a 10+ card ♠ fit than just a 9-card fit. That is why he decided to bid for the lead

b. he had bid 3C for the lead in case he defended 4S

instead of showing ♥ support.

The fact that 3♣ is NF

3C was agreed to be NF

is irrelevant since North can be almost sure that EW will bid again.

 

The fact that opps settle for 3♠ is surprising to North, but now he has the chance to show the possible ♥ fit too. If EW don't try game with a (9) 10+ card fit, this suggests weakness on their side and extras in the South hand. It makes North ♠ shortness more valuable. As mentioned above if South should not happen to have 4♥ cards, there has to be a ♣fit.

 

c. with only one spade 4H figured to be the right thing to do

[OleBerg]

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.

[jdeegan]

:P The starter of the thread was kind enough to send me a description of doubler's hand. To wit: 3-4-4-2 distribution, 12 HCP and AQ10x in ♥.

 

This is not a hand that a cheater would hesitate with. He/she was, evidently, a little concerned that the ♥ suit might be behind him/her. People who play artifical bids like 2♥ put something of a burden on the opponents and should be ready to accept the consequences of the opponents' asking about them.

 

It appears to me that every card has to be right for 4♥ to make. I doubt if 4♥ is a great spot under most circumstances. It could have been -500 or -800 doubled with a different lie of the cards. E-W just got fixed on this one.

 

To me, the fact that they complained and wanted an adjusted score is disgusting. The game has taken a serious anal turn with all this stupid lawyering.

[campboy]

To me, the fact that they complained and wanted an adjusted score is disgusting. The game has taken a serious anal turn with all this stupid lawyering.

It is completely inappropriate to condemn a pair for calling the director when it appears that an opponent may have acted illegally.

 

Incidentally, I do not think that the hand you give is surprising at all. It is a takeout double which has much better hearts than it might have -- which is exactly what the question suggested.

[jallerton]

I don't think South's actual hand is particularly important for the purposes of the ruling* and I approve of the original poster not showing all four hands when presenting the original problem; at the table North only knew of his own hand and of the table action and auction to date.

 

What is important is knowing what inferences, if any, North drew from South's questions. It does not matter if South's hand happened to be inconsistent with what the UI might suggest. North is legally obliged to "carefully avoid taking any advantage " of the UI/must not choose from amongst logical alternatives one demonstrably suggested by it.

 

* though for the record, I believe it was close to ♠xxx ♥AQ10x ♦AJ ♣J10xx rather than the shape you suggest.

[RMB1]

I suspect that North did not think anything was suggested by South's question and I suspect that he was not aware that the EBU would treat such questions as passing UI.

 

North was also reluctant to ask questions about opponents' alerted calls: later in the event he doubled an alerted 2♥ response to 1NT without enquiring about the alert.

[jeremy69]

though for the record, I believe it was close to ♠xxx ♥AQ10x ♦AJ ♣J10xx rather than the shape you suggest.

 

Jeffrey is quite right about the exact hand. My fault.

[jdeegan]

:lol: Now we have a bridge hand where North needed to ask about the 2♥ bid right then, and then probably should have bid 4♣, but didn't. 4♥ looks to be about 50%. 5♣ doubled is down one, and 4♠ does appear to make since the heart is onside (and/or a stiff heart).

 

One could, conceivably, adjust the score to 3♠ making 4, but it seems unwise to intervene in this comedy. North's "illegal" bid gave E-W the option to bid a makable game. Hands like this are difficult for even the best players to judge, and I won't criticize E-W as bridge players (esp. since I don't even know what their hands were). However, letting the opponents play 4♥ undoubled at IMPs in this vul is really taking an extreme position. Bidding 4♠ is cheap insurance. We have all come out on the wrong end of hands like this, but imo. they are a big part of the fun.

[jeremy69]

However, letting the opponents play 4♥ undoubled at IMPs in this vul is really taking an extreme position

 

It might be but this was a pairs event. 3♠ would have made nine tricks.

[gordontd]

I suspect that North did not think anything was suggested by South's question and I suspect that he was not aware that the EBU would treat such questions as passing UI.

 

North was also reluctant to ask questions about opponents' alerted calls

This is a surprising combination of behaviours: usually those who are reluctant to ask about opponents' alerted calls are those who think that asking might be treated as passing UI.

[bluejak]

:P Perhaps I might add a few things since I was the TD.

 

First, I think this comment misleading:

 

All players at the table are of a good standard.

North and South are excellent players. West is not known to us, but is a Norwegian professional playing with a client. We can safely assume he is first class. However, East, the client, is certainly a notably poorer player than the other three.

 

Second, I do not think this is accurate:

 

The director rules that North is in receipt of UI but the question does not indicate anything about either values or hearts.

The TD ruled that it did not suggest bidding 4♥ over passing, and may easily have said that it did not indicate values. But I did not say nor believe that it does not suggest hearts: I just thought then and think now that this is irrelevant.

 

Third, I am surprised by this:

 

He confides to EW that the people he consulted were not unanimous about this.

Sure, I might easily have said this, though I do not remember doing so. If there is any reason for doubt in a ruling I see no reason to hide it. However, I would tell both sides, not confide it to one side.

 

It's hard to see how the question could do other than indicate an interest in hearts.

Rightly or wrongly, neither I nor the people I consulted with thought that was what the question indicated, and we are surprised Gordon thinks this is the only reason. We believed that East was merely curious.

 

When the AC made their decision they asked me to explain to East the dangers of asking. I did: she misunderstood me: when she got a bad board the next day in a position where it was necessary to ask I got blamed.

 

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" ?

I think it fairly safe to assume that clients do not ask questions to protect their pro partners.

 

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.

Games are played to a set of rules, and because of the nature of bridge, with its strange communication between partners, UI is a problem. To ask for a ruling when UI has been passed [or apparently has been passed] between partners is very reasonable.

 

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

Yes, he did, also why he bid 3♣. He said he bid 3♣ to get the correct lead against 4♠ which seemed a likely contract. Once they stopped in 3♠ he considered 4♥ obvious since they were limited. He understood that if partner was minimum she would have hearts.

 

Finally, you cannot say that someone who fails to bend over backwards to avoid a specific indicated call is innocent.

I can, if the player concerned considers there is no real alternative.

 

I might also ask South why he asked about the 2♥ bid, to try to establish whether this particular South is in the "always ask about alerted calls" category or the "only ask when thinking of bidding" category.

I think she just wanted to know.

[jeremy69]

West is not known to us, but is a Norwegian professional playing with a client. We can safely assume he is first class. However, East, the client, is certainly a notably poorer player than the other three.

 

Ok. Let me express it as East is experienced and has won a number of national titles including the Gold Cup and Crockford's. West may not have been known to you but was to others at the table and has played in, for example, the TGR league on occasion this season. In any event alleged quality is less important in this circumstance than prior experience of these positions which all players had in abundance.

 

Sure, I might easily have said this, though I do not remember doing so. If there is any reason for doubt in a ruling I see no reason to hide it. However, I would tell both sides, not confide it to one side.

 

You may well have said it to both sides but not at the same time and your manner was as if you hadn't or weren't going to but it was just an aside and mentioned only to indicate that there was some doubt about the ruling.

 

I think it fairly safe to assume that clients do not ask questions to protect their pro partners.

 

 

That would not be my experience and indeed during the weekend I had been the recipient of a professional telling me that he had to ask on occasion to do precisely this because some opponents were poor at explanation and whilst he understood what was going on his punter did not.

 

I think she just wanted to know.

 

Possibly but she is experienced enough to know of the potential problems that might result from this and also experienced enough to know that 2H good raise is hardly the rarest of methods amongst the players we all will have known.

 

We believed that East was merely curious.

 

Your naivete does you credit.