Easy peasy - UI

[bluejak]

I do not have the hands, I am afraid. West opened 1NT. This should be announced if natural, alerted otherwise. North looked interrogatively at East, who eventually said "Oh, 12 to 14". North passed, East passed, and South bid 2♥ on the worst 2♥ bid ever seen. Naturally it made when 1NT also makes on the likely spade lead.

 

Do you adjust?

[AndreSteff]

It is very likely that I would not adjust:

• It depends on the type of player North is: does he always ask after the meaning of announced/alerted calls?
  
• EW started this problem, so NS deserve the benefit of the doubt
  

 

So investigation: Yes, adjustment: Not very likely

[Cascade]

I do not have the hands, I am afraid. West opened 1NT. This should be announced if natural, alerted otherwise. North looked interrogatively at East, who eventually said "Oh, 12 to 14". North passed, East passed, and South bid 2♥ on the worst 2♥ bid ever seen. Naturally it made when 1NT also makes on the likely spade lead.

 

Do you adjust?

 

I am not convinced that there has been any UI. There may have been but there may not have been. Some might make the stareful interrogation just because the proper procedure was not followed. Such interrogation would not convey any useful information.

 

4th seat against 1NT at MPs I have been known to bid on some fairly filthy hands on the theory that partner was likely to be making a bad lead anyway. At IMPs I am more cautious.

 

So not only the 2♥ hand but the scoring might and more information about the nature of the question and questioner might influence a decision here.

 

East certainly contributed to the problem by his failure to comply with the announcing regulations. Nevertheless I would need to be convinced that north was not taking advantage of the situation to create UI. That is I would need to feel comfortable that north would behave in the same way with a yarborough and the actual hand.

[WellSpyder]

It is very likely that I would not adjust:

• It depends on the type of player North is: does he always ask after the meaning of announced/alerted calls?
  
• EW started this problem, so NS deserve the benefit of the doubt
  

 

So investigation: Yes, adjustment: Not very likely

I agree. In most cases, the only information conveyed is that N has noticed that E has not followed the correct procedure, and this does not suggest one LA over another.

[paulg]

I only play two EBU tournaments without screens - the Spring Foursomes and the Brighton Swiss Teams - so I often forget when and where to announce. In the former players generally do not care: in the latter I often receive long stares of the type David describes; people are usually consistent in their contempt irrespective of their point count.

[Phil]

Sorry if I am speaking out of turn here in a EBU setting, but I think this is blatant UI.

 

I pick up an 8 count. No real reason to inquire AFAICT.

 

I pick up a 14 count and there is a Union Jack hanging outside. I think I will be very interested in the range of NT.

 

In the US where I (sometimes) carry ex-presidents around, I am less worried about the announcement either way.

[JoAnneM]

What would the protection have been if the question had not been asked?

[nige1]

I do not have the hands, I am afraid. West opened 1NT. This should be announced if natural, alerted otherwise. North looked interrogatively at East, who eventually said "Oh, 12 to 14". North passed, East passed, and South bid 2♥ on the worst 2♥ bid ever seen. Naturally it made when 1NT also makes on the likely spade lead. Do you adjust

North's behaviour seems impeccable. North correctly drew attention to a breach of procedural regulations in a straight-forward way without any additional nuance of meaning. That is not UI. In theory, perhaps, rather than give East a hard stare, he should call the director; but in practice, that would be over the top. A strict director might admonish East for his failure to make a timely announcement but North-South appear to have done nothing wrong.

[JoAnneM]

Several of my partners and I play DONT over strong NT's and CAPP over weak NT's, so it is important right off that we know what the bid range is. So even if as 2nd bidder I don't have any of those possible bids is it more proper for me to ask the range or wait for partner to do it. Either way, without the alert, we are giving possible UI, but 4th seat may or may not have a bid depending on the range.

 

I suppose the best thing is to know the range before the bidding starts but that is putting the responsibility on us, not the opening bidder and responder.

[Zelandakh]

Phil and Joanne, I think you are missing the point here that in an EBU setting all 1NT openings are either announced or alerted. Thus North is not asking a question but simply waiting for East to fulfill their requirement.

[Phil]

Phil and Joanne, I think you are missing the point here that in an EBU setting all 1NT openings are either announced or alerted. Thus North is not asking a question but simply waiting for East to fulfill their requirement.

 

Just like the left side of the pond.

[mycroft]

interrogative look with contempt = bad. My partner can't see on that side, so as long as you don't make any noise, you could be performing Hamlet's "Alas, poor Yorick" in full Wellesian interpretation, and he would totally ignore you. I have been known to say to people "If you are interested in an explanation, you may wish to ask that. He can't see you." I would prefer to not embarrass either my partner or my opponent, but sometimes, it's what has to be done.

 

"Range, please?" = seems fine. Strangely enough, I always ask when I'm not told, whether I need to or not, but I'm doing that out of the goodness of my own heart.

 

As far as I am concerned, any UI caused has been caused (or at least allowed) by East's failure to follow regulations.

I, too, play a system where I may choose to call over a strong NT and pass over a weak NT (or make different calls depending on strong vs weak). If you don't say, I have to ask.

 

As far as I'm concerned - if you're calling because of UI transmitted because of a question caused by your failure to follow simple procedure (whether it's "stupid" or not), don't expect much sympathy from me. Even if *this* North doesn't Always Ask.

[campboy]

It is nice to know that if I want to discourage competition over partner's 1NT opening I can simply fail to announce it and then summon the director if it goes pass, pass, bid.

[suprgrover]

I would think that this is a situation where I would expect a wide variety of players to Always Ask. East is supposed to clue North into the notrump range 1005 of the time, so one could argue that not asking runs the risk of transmitting UI to partner.

[dburn]

Not only do you not have the hands, but you don't have the form of scoring and you don't have the vulnerability. Doubtless you are attempting to make some point or other, but whatever it is, it has nothing to do with bridge.

[RMB1]

dburn, I think this is the point bluejak is try to make:

Does looking pointedly at an opponent, who has failed to announce/alert, transmit UI?

If so, is it (useful) UI that could suggest 2♥ over Pass?

[bluejak]

Perhaps dburn would like to explain what difference the form of scoring makes?

 

Perhaps dburn would like to explain what difference the vulnerability makes?

[Chris L]

I assume the point of the original post was to discover whether members of this forum think that a new variant of the so-called "French defence to 1NT" works when there is a breach of the announcing regulations. If North is merely playing policeman, maybe he should leave that to the TD (or wait until the end of the hand). But he has a real problem if he has (say) a hand that wants to get involved over a weak NT but not over a strong one. Whether he asks, looks (with or without a dollop of contempt) or just sits there hoping that East will remember his obligations sooner rather than later, if he eventually passes when told "15-17" and South then acts on a less than classic hand for whatever defence they play, no doubt EW will cry "foul" and seek an adjustment. My inclination would be to adjust where South's bid is particularly gross but not otherwise - or, in marginal cases, if it is thought that the rules should be applied uniformly, impose a procedural penalty on EW which deprives them of the benefit of the adjustment.

[mfa1010]

My inclination would be to adjust where South's bid is particularly gross but not otherwise - or, in marginal cases, if it is thought that the rules should be applied uniformly, impose a procedural penalty on EW which deprives them of the benefit of the adjustment.

I think either of those two solutions are unwarranted by the bridge laws.

[shyams]

I think the question posed in the OP is highly subjective.

 

As dburn pointed out, not only the hands but even the vul / form of scoring has not been given.

 

The key words in the OP appear to be

1. "North looked interrogatively"

2. "worst 2♥ bid ever seen"

... i.e. subjective assessments. The answer would depend on vul, scoring, opp calibre, etc.

 

How is the info in the OP sufficient to answer the "Do you adjust?" question.

[bluejak]

It is a very simple question, and only someone with a very suspicious approach would try to complicate it. If you cannot be bothered to answer it because it is too simple, no matter, don't bother.

[pran]

It is a very simple question, and only someone with a very suspicious approach would try to complicate it. If you cannot be bothered to answer it because it is too simple, no matter, don't bother.

 

Challenging statement.

Simple question.

Obvious answer: East started this complication. No UI from North demonstrated. Why adjust?

[bluejak]

That is what I advised the person who asked me the question. I do not believe there was any UI but posted it to see if anyone thought differently.

[Chris L]

I think either of those two solutions are unwarranted by the bridge laws.

 

I'm not sure they are, since my previous post assumed that a "request", however framed, for the missing announcement was capable of transmitting UI to partner and that UI suggests bidding (or doubling) rather than passing. South will know whether his partner is a fully paid-up member of the "Always Ask" club. If he is, then he would be foolish to make the worst 2♥ bid ever seen. And a procedural penalty on EW is certainly warranted whether or not UI has been transmitted.

[gnasher]

Do you adjust?

 

I do not believe there was any UI but posted it to see if anyone thought differently.

 

The question of whether UI was transmitted is impossible to answer, because we don't have sufficient information. If North would always look at East in this situation, there is no UI. If North would only look at East when holding a good hand, there is UI. East's failure to follow the rules doesn't change the meaning of Law 16.

 

 

The question of whether to adjust is a separate matter. Suppose that I determine that North's question does suggest a good hand. Then there is UI, so the 2♥ bid is illegal. However, it became illegal mainly as a result of East's failure to obey the rules. East certainly could have known that this might happen, so I adjust it back to 2♥ under Law 23.

 

Is that ruling legal?