It's 100% obvious!

[bluejak]

To continue!

 

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".

Roughly what we thought.

 

The player who bid 4♥ was West. Several of the replies assume he was North! :)

 

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?

Just apply the UI Laws. The AI affects what is an LA. Perhaps a silly example will make it clear.

 

You are wondering whether to bid 4♠ or 3NT. However, the auction suggests 3NT but it is a close decision. Partner whispers to his kibitzer "Obviously this is a no-trump hand" but unfortunately it is audible to the table. Since 4♠ is an LA you must choose it, even though the AI suggests 3NT.

 

Alternatively, you are wondering whether to bid 4♠ or 3NT. However, you realise that the auction means 3NT must be much better. Partner whispers to his kibitzer "Obviously this is a no-trump hand" but unfortunately it is audible to the table. Since 4♠ is not an LA because of the AI you may choose 3NT.

 

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.

But is it not true that it is greater than 70% when it is a minimum double?

 

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.

Maybe. But you are ascribing behaviour to someone not known to us who normally plays in another jurisdiction. As a person he was ... Let us say a little different from most English players. So far we have had this thread reasonably without naming the players so I shall not do so, but when we get there it would be interesting to hear jvage's or pran's opinion of the player [assuming he is Norwegian, as I was told].

[bluejak]

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.

That is your opinion. It may not be other people's, and I think it better to state the facts correctly even if you think a particular fact is irrelevant.

 

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.

This is confusing. If one side was told and not the other, how did this become known? When was my manner such that I was telling one side not the other?

 

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 am surprised that you think clients protect their pro partners in this way, but certainly giving an example of the reverse, ie a pro protecting his client partner, is hardly convincing. Of course pros try to protect their clients.

 

We believed that East was merely curious.

Your naivete does you credit.

Either that or perhaps I am just correct.

[shyams]

The OP shows this as a decision to be made by North. The posts and responses so far have assumed North has the shown hand and South asked the UI-generating question. Though it is possible that the hand was rotated for convenience (or any other reason) by jeremy while posting the original here, some of bluejak's comments suggest that he has mixed up directions.

 

So what was it? Is this correct:

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.

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

 

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".

Roughly what we thought.

 

The player who bid 4♥ was West. Several of the replies assume he was North! :)

This also suggests the confusion of who is seated where. To reiterate, I think the OP shows that North bid 4♥

[campboy]

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.

Ok, now I have enough information to work out who both players are :)

 

The player who bid 4♥ was West. Several of the replies assume he was North!

We didn't assume; the first post said he was North.

[jeremy69]

That is your opinion. It may not be other people's, and I think it better to state the facts correctly even if you think a particular fact is irrelevant.

 

 

It is indeed my opinion and the point of sites like this is that people can express their opinion(subject, of course, to your approval!). In the context of the event all four players were very much above average and yes it maybe the case that one was not so much above as othe others(perhaps) but it was my opinion that this was not only irrelevant but confusing.

 

This is confusing. If one side was told and not the other, how did this become known?

 

In the blindingly obvious way. You remarked on this to me when one side was not present. I repeated it here. It maybe you also said this to the other side. I was not there if and when you did this but again I don't think it to be of any importance.

 

Either that or perhaps I am just correct.

 

I suppose it is possible.

 

I am surprised that you think clients protect their pro partners in this way, but certainly giving an example of the reverse, ie a pro protecting his client partner, is hardly convincing. Of course pros try to protect their clients.

 

Pros protect clients in the way I have described. (Some) Clients believe this is the right thing to do. Some do it so partner will better understand their problem. all reprehensible, of course but the way of thr real world.

 

So far we have had this thread reasonably without naming the players so I shall not do so, but when we get there it would be interesting to hear jvage's or pran's opinion of the player [assuming he is Norwegian, as I was told].

 

Anyone who must know can probably work it out from the list of names on the EBU results site(not many Norwegian names there!) however this problem is about the right thing to do not the opportunity to slag off one or more players. After all if we named names then JDeegan would know he was making his comment "imo E-W are probably the lowest of the low, lawyering to try to get a good score rather than playing bridge." about me. Hopefully my shoulders are broad enough to take it and htere is the consolation that I can go no lower. :)

 

The OP shows this as a decision to be made by North.

 

No he doesn't although I accept that the spacing in the auction leaves much to be desired WEst passed on Round 1, bid 3C on Round 2 and bid 4H on Round 3

[campboy]

The OP shows this as a decision to be made by North.

 

No he doesn't although I accept that the spacing in the auction leaves much to be desired WEst passed on Round 1, bid 3C on Round 2 and bid 4H on Round 3

It may be that the original auction diagram was inadvertent, but it quite clearly says that West dealt, there were two passes and then East opened 1♠.

[jeremy69]

I shall need to get lessons on putting in an auction!

[bluejak]

The OP shows this as a decision to be made by North.

No he doesn't although I accept that the spacing in the auction leaves much to be desired WEst passed on Round 1, bid 3C on Round 2 and bid 4H on Round 3

It may be that the original auction diagram was inadvertent, but it quite clearly says that West dealt, there were two passes and then East opened 1♠.

... also the hand diagram shows the relevant hand as West. This is what confused me.

 

That is your opinion. It may not be other people's, and I think it better to state the facts correctly even if you think a particular fact is irrelevant.

It is indeed my opinion and the point of sites like this is that people can express their opinion(subject, of course, to your approval!). In the context of the event all four players were very much above average and yes it maybe the case that one was not so much above as othe others(perhaps) but it was my opinion that this was not only irrelevant but confusing.

Of course you may give an opinion, but mis-stating facts because you think them irrelevant is hardly the same as giving an opinion.

 

I am surprised that you think clients protect their pro partners in this way, but certainly giving an example of the reverse, ie a pro protecting his client partner, is hardly convincing. Of course pros try to protect their clients.

Pros protect clients in the way I have described. (Some) Clients believe this is the right thing to do. Some do it so partner will better understand their problem. all reprehensible, of course but the way of thr real world.

No-one is arguing that pros protect their clients. But I said clients do not protect their pros in the same way and you disagreed, saying pros protect their clients. I then repeated that clients do not protect their pros in this way, and again you disagreed, saying pros protect their clients. Please read it.

[PeterAlan]

(From jeremy69 @ Jun 7 2010, 04:45 PM)

The OP shows this as a decision to be made by North. 

 

 

No he doesn't although I accept that the spacing in the auction leaves much to be desired WEst passed on Round 1, bid 3C on Round 2 and bid 4H on Round 3

 

Can we clear this one up? Actually, Jeremy, the text of the OP also explicitly says it was N who bid 3C and N who bid 4H, which agrees with the auction set out. Since I can identify the hand, and the hand records show the hand in the OP as held by N, let's work on the basis that your OP was correct, and that bluejack's and your subsequent references to E-W as the pair in question arose from a later erroneous transposition.

 

PeterAlan

[shyams]

Can you please clarify the directions again?

 

The 1st post reads: N/S Vul, Dealer West, Auction

West North East South

No No 1S x

2H(A) 3C 3S No

No 4H All pass

And goes on to add: "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."

 

I don't care about spacings etc. But from this, it is 100% clear that the VUL side bid 4♥. And this side can only be N/S.

 

It does not matter if the actual appeal form had E/W Vul, Dealer South (i.e. the OS was actually sitting E/W). The OP has everything turned 90 degrees and that changes nothing. It's really confusing when suddenly the two law experts swing all directions in their minds and all subsequent replies...

[gwnn]

opener, doubler, transferer, lead director.

[PeterAlan]

... also the hand diagram shows the relevant hand as West.  This is what confused me.

We're talking about Hand 22 here, aren't we bluejack? My copy clearly shows the hand in the OP as held by N (NB: the spots are marginally different). I've got the standard handprint available to all competitors - are you looking at something else?

 

PeterAlan

[PeterAlan]

And FWIW, assuming I'm right about the hand, E-W were vulnerable, not N/S, E dealt, and will have opened 1S without preceding passes by W or N.

 

PeterAlan

[jdeegan]

:blink: :) :lol: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

George Santayana...1905 :lol: :lol: :lol:

[jeremy69]

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

George Santayana...1905

 

He was famous for Black Magic woman wasn't he? :blink:

[jeremy69]

Of course you may give an opinion, but mis-stating facts because you think them irrelevant is hardly the same as giving an opinion.

 

Thank you. I mist-stated no facts here. I gave my opinion of ability in the context. I understand you don't agree but arguing about this does not move us forward.

 

Please read it.

 

I did and responded. I'll try again. Some pros ask to protect their clients. You think this irrelevant or non responsive. Some clients also behave the same way not to protect their pro of course but to make it clearer to the pro what is going on.

 

 

The essential part about the auction(it occurred at pairs) which is causing angst in the last few posts is that after an opening of 1S and a take out double the next hand bid 2H (alerted). No question was asked and the 4th hand bid 3C.

Opener now bid 3S. Take out doubler asked about the meaning of 2H and passed as did the next hand. The 3C bidder now tried 4H. This made. The lawyering scuzzbags now called the TD and got given a ruling which they appealed. What would you do as an appeal member? State if it makes any difference what the vulnerability was or if there were any passes before the 1S opening.

[nige1]

IMO

• A player who wins the Gold Cup and Crockfords is of good standard.
  
• If Jeremy69 posted the wrong dealer and vulnerablility, that changes the case. Nevertheless ...
  
• GordonTD's arguments apply to the revised facts. Although, at favourable vulnerability, there's a better case for 4♥.
  
• The unauthorised information suggests the 4♥ bid. To understand this, imagine a doubler who regrets the double, holding a flat minimum.
  
• It is less important what the doubler actually holds. It matters more what the UI suggests.
  
• Pass (not suggested) would be less successful.
  
• A poll (among experts in a Bridge Magazine or even among posters here) would confirm that Pass is a logical alternative.
  
• If you call the director about a putative infraction, that doesn't make you a "scuzzbag".
  
• Under EBU regulations, the committee should rule 3♠= and consider a PP against the 4♥ bidder.
  
• The committee should confirm with the director that their judgement is lawful (even if he still thinks it is wrong).
  

[gordontd]

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.

I don't think the words you quote mean that I think this is the only reason. I wonder if you think East would have followed a similar path of asking and passing had her shape been 2344?

 

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.

Maybe. But you are ascribing behaviour to someone not known to us who normally plays in another jurisdiction. As a person he was ... Let us say a little different from most English players.

I don't think I was ascribing behaviour to anyone - I was commenting on the behaviour ascribed to him by someone else. He's not unknown to me, and I can't think what you think is "a little different" about him that is relevant to him not asking questions, or to his awareness of the EBU's approach to UI & asking questions.

 

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.

So the question doesn't suggest bidding 4♥ over passing, whether or not it suggests hearts?

[dburn]

If it is considered that the question "what did 2♥ mean?" suggests that the asker has some stronger holding in hearts than was suggested by the original takeout double, then there is UI and 4♥ might not be allowed (but see below).

 

If on the other hand it is considered that the question does not suggest anything at all, but was merely idle curiosity on the part of someone who at her turn to call wanted to know what an opponent's alerted bid meant, then there is no UI and 4♥ must be allowed.

 

I do not understand the argument that "the question may have suggested hearts, but this was not relevant" unless what is meant is that even if the question did suggest hearts, a player who bid 3♣ at his first turn really had no logical alternative to 4♥ at his second. That is a matter of bridge judgement; and if the TD and the AC were convinced by the player in question, by their own view of the matter or by a poll of other players that there was no LA to 4♥, I do not consider that their judgement was wrong (although I would not necessarily find no LA to 4♥ myself).

 

It remains, I need hardly say, my irrevocable conviction that no question about an alerted call should be held to create UI. And furthermore, I think that Carthage ought to be destroyed.

[gnasher]

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

Perhaps he should work at overcomng this reluctance: think how much trouble would have been saved if he had just done the obvious and asked before bidding 3♣.

[jallerton]

State if it makes any difference what the vulnerability was or if there were any passes before the 1S opening.

 

The vulnerability certainly makes a difference. As I implied earlier, I consider competing to 4♥ vulnerable to be very unwise against opponents who understand the concept of a pairs double.

 

Mind you as it now transpires that North is not well known to some of the English TDs, maybe North did not himself appreciate that East and West were of "good standard" and hence did not share my expectancy that 4♥ would be doubled.

 

The following hand appears on the EBU website:

 

Board 22

Dealer E

EW Game

[hv=d=e&v=e&n=s7hj875d763ckq964&w=sqj8h43dkq9842c52&e=sak10432hk62d105ca8&s=s965haq109dajcj1073]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

from which I deduce that the 4♥ bidder was not vulnerable. Now considering only the AI, saving for one off against 3♠ makes a lot more sense, although I would still be concerned as North that partner would not be able to give preference to clubs at the 4-level. If the UI is considered to suggest hearts then of course this concern about partner having to revert to clubs at the 5-level becomes less relevant.

[bluejak]

... also the hand diagram shows the relevant hand as West.  This is what confused me.

We're talking about Hand 22 here, aren't we bluejack? My copy clearly shows the hand in the OP as held by N (NB: the spots are marginally different). I've got the standard handprint available to all competitors - are you looking at something else?

I was looking at the opening post.

 

I did and responded. I'll try again. Some pros ask to protect their clients. You think this irrelevant or non responsive. Some clients also behave the same way not to protect their pro of course but to make it clearer to the pro what is going on.

It was suggested the asker might have asked for the benefit of her partner. I gave a view that clients do not ask for the benefit of the pros. Three times now you have disagreed with this by saying that your experience is that pros ask for the benefit of their clients.

 

Now, if you do not agree with me that clients do not ask for the benefit of their pros, fine, feel free to say so. But explaining I am wrong by quoting a different position hardly helps. Whether pros ask for the benefit of their clients is hardly relevant in this case where the client asked the question, is it?

[dburn]

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

Perhaps he should work at overcomng this reluctance: think how much trouble would have been saved if he had just done the obvious and asked before bidding 3♣.

Why should he do that? He knew what 2♥ meant, after all. Surely you are not suggesting that he should ask a question in order to protect his sponsor?

 

Even if he had, it is not clear to me how much trouble would have been saved. After all, he would have bid in exactly the same fashion, and so would the opening bidder, and the doubler would have asked the same question, and...

[peachy]

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

Perhaps he should work at overcomng this reluctance: think how much trouble would have been saved if he had just done the obvious and asked before bidding 3♣.

IMO, it is unfortunate that "asking about an alerted call at one's first legal opportunity to ask" is interpreted as "creating UI". Conversely, that "not asking at one's legal opportunity to ask" is also "creating UI". I still don't understand: When is one allowed to exercise one's legal right to ask WITHOUT creating UI, in EBU?

 

This is truly a question out of curiosity, it does not affect me because I don't play in EBU events or clubs. Well, perhaps one day if some found money finds me to take the trip, I might.

[ggwhiz]

It remains, I need hardly say, my irrevocable conviction that no question about an alerted call should be held to create UI. And furthermore, I think that Carthage ought to be destroyed.

 

Agree completely, especially about Carthage.

 

If a call is alerted as artificial, you are entitled to an explanation, period.