Ruling?

[pran]

Of course no UI is passed by a player who always asks about alerted bids.

 

The L&EC of the day decided that players did not always ask about alerted bids and based their regulation on that.

 

My experience having played in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Eire, France, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Italy, Cyprus, South Africa, the ACBL and Australia [and no doubt somewhere I have forgotten] is that in no jurisdiction do players always ask about alerted bids.

 

However, it does seem to be the case that players ask less about alerted bids in England and Wales [probably based on the old alerting regulations] and thus regulations that assume that players do not ask about alerted bids are more reasonable in England and Wales than elsewhere.

Of course information is always passed by asking questions. Whether such information is unauthorized (UI) or authorized is a matter of judgment in each case.

 

UI may arise from the question itself, the fact that it was asked, the manner in which it was asked and undoubtedly in many other ways. Even the fact that a player did not ask about an alerted call conveys information, it may be UI or AI.

[WellSpyder]

Of course information is always passed by asking questions. Whether such information is unauthorized (UI) or authorized is a matter of judgment in each case.

 

UI may arise from the question itself, the fact that it was asked, the manner in which it was asked and undoubtedly in many other ways. Even the fact that a player did not ask about an alerted call conveys information, it may be UI or AI.

This does not seem right to me. There is no information conveyed if an alerted call is ALWAYS asked about, and there is no information conveyed if an alerted call is NEVER asked about. If neither of these is the case, then there will always be information conveyed when the bid is asked about and equally when it is not asked about. And surely such information is always UI in both cases? That does not mean that it necessarily causes a problem, though.

[blackshoe]

Of course information is always passed by asking questions. Whether such information is unauthorized (UI) or authorized is a matter of judgment in each case.

 

UI may arise from the question itself, the fact that it was asked, the manner in which it was asked and undoubtedly in many other ways. Even the fact that a player did not ask about an alerted call conveys information, it may be UI or AI.

Any information arising from an alert, failure to alert, question asked, question not asked, or the like, is extraneous, and its use is unauthorized. So the question is not whether it's authorized or unauthorized, but whether it implies something about the hand held by its originator.

[gnasher]

Any information arising from an alert, failure to alert, question asked, question not asked, or the like, is extraneous

Unless your partner already knows that you will always ask about a particular category of action, in which case he posessed this information "before he took his hand from the board", and the information is not extraneous under Law 16A3.

 

Edit: I realise that this is spliiting hairs. For the purpose or ruling on UI, it doesn't matter whether the question conveys no extraneous information, or conveys extraneous information none of which relates to the asker's hand.

Edited August 12, 2010 by gnasher

[gnasher]

Then why is the EBU L&EC not encouraging people to routinely ask about alerts?

 

(Or is the EBU L&EC doing that but are the players not catching on?)

The EBU L&EC actively discourages such an approach:

 

Players sometimes say “I always ask whether I intend to bid or not”. This is not recommended.

I have no idea why.

[StevenG]

Unless your partner already knows that you will always ask about a particular category of action, in which case he posessed this information "before he took his hand from the board", and the information is not extraneous under Law 16A3.

I expect my partner to ask if she doesn't understand the bid and not to ask if she does. That is dependent on whether we are familiar with the opponents' system.

 

If and only if the opponents are playing an unfamiliar system, it wouuld be easier if could ask about any alerted bid during the auction, since in this case the act of not asking, and thereby showing no interest, probably passes more UI than the act of asking.

[gnasher]

Unless your partner already knows that you will always ask about a particular category of action, in which case he posessed this information "before he took his hand from the board", and the information is not extraneous under Law 16A3.

I expect my partner to ask if she doesn't understand the bid and not to ask if she does. That is dependent on whether we are familiar with the opponents' system.

I'm sure you do. Is that intended to refute my interpretation of the laws, or is it merely an observation that because of your partner's approach you would never be in the situation I describe?

 

Incidentally, I don't understand how anyone can ever know for certain what an opponent's bid means, unless it's already come up in the current session, or it's visible on their convention card. My opponents don't promise to play the same methods on Tuesday as they did on Monday.

[StevenG]

Unless your partner already knows that you will always ask about a particular category of action, in which case he posessed this information "before he took his hand from the board", and the information is not extraneous under Law 16A3.

I expect my partner to ask if she doesn't understand the bid and not to ask if she does. That is dependent on whether we are familiar with the opponents' system.

I'm sure you do. Is that intended to refute my interpretation of the laws, or is it merely an observation that because of your partner's approach you would never be in the situation I describe?

 

Incidentally, I don't understand how anyone can ever know for certain what an opponent's bid means, unless it's already come up in the current session, or it's visible on their convention card. My opponents don't promise to play the same methods on Tuesday as they did on Monday.

It's meant to imply only that, if we are unfamiliar with the opponents' system, the UI that partner asked about a bid should not convey any information.

 

As for people changing their system, that's very rare in my world (which, I'm well aware, is not your world, but is probably rather more typical of most EBU members).

[gnasher]

The EBU L&EC actively discourages such an approach:

 

Players sometimes say “I always ask whether I intend to bid or not”. This is not recommended.

I have no idea why.

In fact, I'm not even sure what isn't being recommended. Is the recommendation against always asking, or against saying that you always ask?

[Trinidad]

Incidentally, I don't understand how anyone can ever know for certain what an opponent's bid means, unless it's already come up in the current session, or it's visible on their convention card.  My opponents don't promise to play the same methods on Tuesday as they did on Monday.

I agree.

 

Personally, I don't understand people who don't ask about alerted bids. Also when I am not interested in bidding, in the end I will want to know what the auction means anyway (unless I will be dummy). And in case I will end up defending I can start envisioning a defense (maybe so much that I can confidently double their final contract). So how can I not want to ask?

 

There are basically three situations where I don't ask:

 

o When I know what the bid means from the convention card. This is typical for opening bids. If the opponents open 1♣ showing any 16+ hand, you can be pretty sure that I know that from the convention card. I don't start playing unless I know what basic system the opps are playing.

 

o When I play against opponents who don't seem to know what they are doing. In that case my question would give unethical opponents a chance to use the explanation to their advantage. And, at least as important, it would give ethical opponents a genuine UI problem, which I would like to avoid when possible. I don't want to take their fair chance to land on their feet away from them.

 

o When the opponents are in a relay sequence and it seems that we will get a few more rounds before they decide which slam to bid.

 

In all other situations, I just ask.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

The EBU L&EC actively discourages such an approach:

 

Players sometimes say “I always ask whether I intend to bid or not”. This is not recommended.

I have no idea why.

In fact, I'm not even sure what isn't being recommended. Is the recommendation against always asking, or against saying that you always ask?

Aha!!

 

It is not recommended to say it sometimes. :)

 

Rik

[bluejak]

The basis of the EBU's view, as I understand it [and it was formulated years before I got onto the L&EC] is that people do not routinely ask about alerted bids in general.

 

What happens if they suggest people do? Instead of 10% of players routinely ask, 20% do, which does not help, since you never know whether this player is part of the 20%.

 

Of course, there is the magic wand approach, whereby people believe that if the EBU suggests people routinely ask everyone will immediately and without reference to their hand routinely ask. It does not happen that way: any change in approach happens very slowly.

 

Personally, I don't understand people who don't ask about alerted bids. Also when I am not interested in bidding, in the end I will want to know what the auction means anyway (unless I will be dummy). And in case I will end up defending I can start envisioning a defense (maybe so much that I can confidently double their final contract). So how can I not want to ask?

In many ways, this is the crux of the problem. The L&EC's view, supported by my personal experience in many jurisdictions, is that in general people do not always ask. The view of a very large number of posters referring to this problem on RGB, BLML, letters to the L&EC and on this forum, IBLF, is that the regulation is silly if people always ask.

 

Maybe it is, but starting with the wrong premise often leads to a different conclusion.

[Trinidad]

Maybe you shouldn't generalize.

 

The bridge population -in general- consists of aunt Mildreds and uncle Georges. I fully agree with you that most George and Mildreds will rarely ask about alerted bids. These folks do not understand the bridge laws and their TD doesn't have the energy to keep up with the Orange book. But the TD knows very well what: "Does 2♣ really show clubs?" means. Therefore there is no need to say anything for the bridge players -in general- in the Orange book.

 

But there is also a subpopulation of bridge players (I admit: relatively small) who play competitive bridge at a decent level. These people do want to understand the opponents' bidding and they will ask relatively often. They are able to understand the bridge laws and will also understand that they avoid UI if they routinely ask about alerted bids, certainly when it is pointed out to them. This group is also more likely to adopt new rules, certainly if they understand the rational behind them. This group may be small (10-30%, depending on the jurisdiction), but it consists of the players who actually read the Orange, White and other colored books.

 

Why not leave it up to the TD to decide whether he is dealing with George and Mildred in a George and Mildred setting (club level where the TD knows every one) or with Andy in a top tournament?

 

Rik

[bluejak]

When the Committee of the day sees a specific abuse which they believe is worryingly large, I think the approach 'let's leave it to the TD' is flawed in two different ways.

 

First, since it was at that time a growing problem, leaving it to the TD was not working.

 

Second, punishing people who do things wrong is certainly one solution. But it seems a reasonable alternative to provide strong advice to stop the problem happening.