we are all intelligent people here, aren't we?

[blackshoe]

Cue bids aren't alerted. The alert regulation says only one thing specific about control bids: it defines what they are (and they are not cue bids). Since the alert regulation says artificial bids (or conventions) require an alert except for 4 specific exceptions, of which control bids is not one, control bids require an alert.

 

The question on this hand is whether the probability that 3♠ is a control bid is GBK. If it's not, the 3♠ bid should probably have been alerted, even absent a discussion and explicit agreement.

[mrdct]

Cue bids aren't alerted. The alert regulation says only one thing specific about control bids: it defines what they are (and they are not cue bids). Since the alert regulation says artificial bids (or conventions) require an alert except for 4 specific exceptions, of which control bids is not one, control bids require an alert.

 

The question on this hand is whether the probability that 3♠ is a control bid is GBK. If it's not, the 3♠ bid should probably have been alerted, even absent a discussion and explicit agreement.

From the ACBL Alert Definitions:

 

Cuebid: A bid in a suit which an opponent has either bid naturally or in which he has shown four or more cards.

 

Control bid: A bid, not intended as a place to play, which denotes a control (usually first or second round). The control need not be in the denomination named. These bids are usually used to investigate slam.

 

Similar to blackshoe, I'm of the view that whatever its potential meanings, 3♠ should've been alerted as it's highly unlikely to have been intended as natural once ♥ had been agreed.

[Cascade]

I sympathize with Kathryn but the more I direct and see petty disputes develop the more I agree with David.

 

There are other problems with these questions. Having played relay systems for many years it is a pain to play against players who ask about every bid when they have no intention of doing anything other than pass. Usually afterwards they then claim that our side was slow.

 

In David's ideal world when there is UI and consequent damage we will get a favourable adjustment. In the real world this doesn't always happen. And frankly in most situations I would rather have a normal result without the (unnecessary) UI than someone's judgement after the UI. In many places the adjustment can be a split ruling. To this is even worse. I would rather get the best of it or the worst of it without the UI and the director's intervention than one of these average judgement rulings. This is one reason why I believe that those who use UI in these sorts of situations should not only receive unfavourable adjustments but they should also be penalized.

 

There is a misguided notion out there that a player has an absolute unconditional right to ask any question.

 

In fact some have even worse ideas of their responsibilities. At a recent tournament my teammates played against a player who commented that a question should have been used to direct the best lead.

 

Players will do much better to ask their questions at better times and to ask less specific questions - "can you explain the auction?" or similar seems very sensible. Such practices will reduce the UI obtained by partner not to mention enhance a player's reputation as a respected opponent.

[JLOGIC]

IMO just answer and then if they lead a spade and it was a non-automatic spade lead call the director. The precedent is that you will win because the spade leader had UI and leading something else is a logical alternative. IMO don't get involved with giving them unsolicited advice about anything including the laws or how to play.

 

Most of the time in this situation they are both clueless and the opening leader will just make their normal lead, and there is no problem.

[billw55]

Is it feasible to suspect that the question may suggest a save if 3♠ shows shortness?

[barmar]

Cue bids aren't alerted. The alert regulation says only one thing specific about control bids: it defines what they are (and they are not cue bids). Since the alert regulation says artificial bids (or conventions) require an alert except for 4 specific exceptions, of which control bids is not one, control bids require an alert.

 

The question on this hand is whether the probability that 3♠ is a control bid is GBK. If it's not, the 3♠ bid should probably have been alerted, even absent a discussion and explicit agreement.

I didn't say "control bids aren't required to be alerted", I said "control bids aren't alerted". Despite what the alert regulation says, I have never heard anyone alert a control bid, never heard of a director call because of not alerting them, and never heard of anyone getting penalized for not alerting them. So I believe they are de facto not alerted.

 

Once you've agreed on a major suit and are in a game force, it's "just bridge" that slam exploration involves showing controls.

[blackshoe]

I didn't say "control bids aren't required to be alerted", I said "control bids aren't alerted". Despite what the alert regulation says, I have never heard anyone alert a control bid, never heard of a director call because of not alerting them, and never heard of anyone getting penalized for not alerting them. So I believe they are de facto not alerted.

 

I know what you said. In context, if you had meant "It's supposed to be alerted, but no one ever does" you should have said that. In context, when you didn't, I took your meaning as "no alert is required".

 

That said, I alert them. I suppose I'm a minority of one.

[daveharty]

...control bids require an alert.

Maybe that is true in this particular case, but I would qualify it by saying most control bids require a delayed alert, since most take place above the level of 3NT and at the opener's rebid or later in the auction. (I have no idea what the actual percentage of control bids that take place above 3NT is, but at the club/sectional level I would guess it's north of 90%.)

[jillybean]

I see how I was at fault here and I'm better to keep quiet and let the directors do their job.

How about a similar, not uncommon scenario where the auction has ended and before the player on lead has made their lead face down, their partner starts to ask a question.

Is it acceptable to interrupt and try to prevent any potential UI at this point? Can declarer or dummy intervene?

[WellSpyder]

How about a similar, not uncommon scenario where the auction has ended and before the player on lead has made their lead face down, their partner starts to ask a question.

Is it acceptable to interrupt and try to prevent any potential UI at this point? Can declarer or dummy intervene?

I certainly hope so, since I would do this! Well, maybe I wouldn't interrupt, but I would certainly say I was postponing any explanation until after the lead had been made.

 

The difference should be clear if you look at Law 20F1 quoted earlier: during the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction. The scenario you are now postulating involves a player asking when it is not his own turn to call, so you are trying to prevent an irregularity, not just trying to prevent UI.

[Cascade]

I see how I was at fault here and I'm better to keep quiet and let the directors do their job.

How about a similar, not uncommon scenario where the auction has ended and before the player on lead has made their lead face down, their partner starts to ask a question.

Is it acceptable to interrupt and try to prevent any potential UI at this point? Can declarer or dummy intervene?

 

This one is a clear infraction. I typically just refuse to answer or interupt usually saying it is not your turn to ask questions. I suppose technically one should call the director.

[jillybean]

I certainly hope so, since I would do this! Well, maybe I wouldn't interrupt, but I would certainly say I was postponing any explanation until after the lead had been made.

 

The difference should be clear if you look at Law 20F1 quoted earlier: during the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction. The scenario you are now postulating involves a player asking when it is not his own turn to call, so you are trying to prevent an irregularity, not just trying to prevent UI.

 

Why not interrupt? It's too late once the question is asked, you are left wondering how the player on lead will interpret the UI and hoping the director gets it right if a call is needed.

 

Does a player become dummy at the end of the auction or after the opening lead?

[mycroft]

My answer as prospective declarer is "I'll explain after the lead." If a similar question now comes from the leader, I will call the TD, and after explaining what happened, answer the question when she tells me to. If a lead-that-seems-suggested by the UI hits the table, I call the TD as well and explain ("Hello. I'm sure there's no problem, but ... Just wanted to make sure we all know." "Everyone" knows that means "How did you find that lead?", but in case it is actually the no-LA lead,...)

 

Most often, the question from the wrong side is innocent - she thinks she's on lead.

 

In the original case, I would do the same thing (answer at the correct time, i.e. now), and if I got a feeling that communication was made and received, I would call the TD, again "just in case there's a problem." But I trust the TDs I play under (mostly, anyway) to do the "you know, this is a bad habit/can't win/puts your partner under some really nasty obligations" dance, so I don't have to.

 

The ones that ask before the last pass, when it's a) clear that they aren't coming in, and b) partner's going to be on lead, rub me the wrong way. They're certainly legally allowed to do that, but why not do it *after* the lead? ("Partner doesn't lead face down." "Okay, ask before playing after dummy. You still have all your rights.")

[JLOGIC]

The ones that ask before the last pass, when it's a) clear that they aren't coming in, and b) partner's going to be on lead, rub me the wrong way. They're certainly legally allowed to do that

 

Are they allowed to do that? I was under the impression that you could not ask randomly (ie, if it won't affect your bid), and thus asking at that point in time implies the answer will affect your bid, and that you are not allowed to ask intentionally misleading questions. I have no idea if this is true or not.

 

But again, usually it doesn't matter and I think all of these director calls or lecturing the opps will just lead to unpleasantness, and slow down the game, and generally will be for no purpose. If someone asks out of turn about a specific artificial bid, and then their partner makes an unusual lead of that suit, then go ahead and call the director, but the other 95 % of the time who cares? I feel like the forums often forget that bridge is a social game, it's not all about everyone following correct protocol all the time even if there is no damage. Have some fun and do your best to make sure that others have a good time also!

[blackshoe]

Maybe that is true in this particular case, but I would qualify it by saying most control bids require a delayed alert, since most take place above the level of 3NT and at the opener's rebid or later in the auction. (I have no idea what the actual percentage of control bids that take place above 3NT is, but at the club/sectional level I would guess it's north of 90%.)

 

Fair enough, although a delayed alert is still an alert.

[blackshoe]

Why not interrupt? It's too late once the question is asked, you are left wondering how the player on lead will interpret the UI and hoping the director gets it right if a call is needed.

 

Does a player become dummy at the end of the auction or after the opening lead?

 

Laws Chapter 1, Definitions: Dummy: 1) Declarer’s partner. He becomes dummy when the opening lead is faced.

 

My answer as prospective declarer is "I'll explain after the lead." If a similar question now comes from the leader, I will call the TD, and after explaining what happened, answer the question when she tells me to. If a lead-that-seems-suggested by the UI hits the table, I call the TD as well and explain ("Hello. I'm sure there's no problem, but ... Just wanted to make sure we all know." "Everyone" knows that means "How did you find that lead?", but in case it is actually the no-LA lead,...)

 

Most often, the question from the wrong side is innocent - she thinks she's on lead.

 

In the original case, I would do the same thing (answer at the correct time, i.e. now), and if I got a feeling that communication was made and received, I would call the TD, again "just in case there's a problem." But I trust the TDs I play under (mostly, anyway) to do the "you know, this is a bad habit/can't win/puts your partner under some really nasty obligations" dance, so I don't have to.

 

The ones that ask before the last pass, when it's a) clear that they aren't coming in, and b) partner's going to be on lead, rub me the wrong way. They're certainly legally allowed to do that, but why not do it *after* the lead? ("Partner doesn't lead face down." "Okay, ask before playing after dummy. You still have all your rights.")

Are they allowed to do that? I was under the impression that you could not ask randomly (ie, if it won't affect your bid), and thus asking at that point in time implies the answer will affect your bid, and that you are not allowed to ask intentionally misleading questions. I have no idea if this is true or not.

 

But again, usually it doesn't matter and I think all of these director calls or lecturing the opps will just lead to unpleasantness, and slow down the game, and generally will be for no purpose. If someone asks out of turn about a specific artificial bid, and then their partner makes an unusual lead of that suit, then go ahead and call the director, but the other 95 % of the time who cares? I feel like the forums often forget that bridge is a social game, it's not all about everyone following correct protocol all the time even if there is no damage. Have some fun and do your best to make sure that others have a good time also!

 

These are the relevant laws. There's more to 20F1 and 20F2, but nothing really relevant to this question.

Law 20F1: During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction.

Law 20F2: After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at his own turn to play may request an explanation of the opposing auction.

Law 20F3: Under F1 and F2 above, a player may ask concerning a single call, but Law 16B1 may apply.

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

Law 73B1: Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them.

Law 73D2: A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of a remark or a gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure.

Law 16B1 deals with UI from partner. For purposes of Law 73 a question is included in "remark or gesture".

 

Regarding the wording of the laws, the Introduction to the Laws has this to say:

Established usage has been retained in regard to “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong), “does” (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that the violation be penalized), “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized), “shall” do (a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not), “must” do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again “must not” is the strongest prohibition, “shall not” is strong but “may not” is stronger — just short of “must not.”

So the prohibitions in the quoted parts of Law 73, particularly the second one, are pretty serious.

 

I have to confess that the most frequent response I get to "please explain your auction" (which is the way I was taught to ask questions) begins "well, partner opened 1♣, and then I bid..." :blink: The second most frequent is "huh?" The third most frequent is "Director!" Once, the director arrived and asked me "which call were you interested in?" :o

 

I would not suggest that anyone ever lecture their opponents about anything to do with the game. That's what the director's for, and at least if you call the TD you won't have to deal with an escalating argument.

 

BTW the proper procedure in the case of potential UI from an inappropriately timed question is the same as the procedure in the case of potential UI from a break in tempo: you attempt to establish agreement that UI may have been passed, and if the opponents disagree, they are supposed to call the TD. Then, if you think you may have been damaged by use of UI, you call the TD after the hand is over.

 

Yes, bridge is supposed to be fun, and if in your judgement a TD call is unnecessary, just don't call attention to their irregularity. B-)

[Cascade]

Are they allowed to do that? I was under the impression that you could not ask randomly (ie, if it won't affect your bid), and thus asking at that point in time implies the answer will affect your bid, and that you are not allowed to ask intentionally misleading questions. I have no idea if this is true or not.

 

But again, usually it doesn't matter and I think all of these director calls or lecturing the opps will just lead to unpleasantness, and slow down the game, and generally will be for no purpose. If someone asks out of turn about a specific artificial bid, and then their partner makes an unusual lead of that suit, then go ahead and call the director, but the other 95 % of the time who cares? I feel like the forums often forget that bridge is a social game, it's not all about everyone following correct protocol all the time even if there is no damage. Have some fun and do your best to make sure that others have a good time also!

 

Yes they are allowed.

 

The problem is that some people repeatedly do things like this and it is not much fun playing against them.

[Cascade]

Law 73B1: Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them.

Law 73D2: A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of a remark or a gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure.

...

 

So the prohibitions in the quoted parts of Law 73, particularly the second one, are pretty serious.

 

Nevertheless I am a little surprised by the use of "shall not" and "may not" in these laws. I would have thought that the strongest possible message would be given regarding these matters.

[barmar]

Are they allowed to do that? I was under the impression that you could not ask randomly (ie, if it won't affect your bid), and thus asking at that point in time implies the answer will affect your bid, and that you are not allowed to ask intentionally misleading questions. I have no idea if this is true or not.

You're not allowed to mislead the opponents or ask solely for partner's benefit. But other than that, you're allowed to ask.

 

The question of whether you can ask if it won't affect your bid comes up often. The conundrum that this raises is that the fact that you DON'T ask may pass UI that you have a hand that's unaffected by what the opponent has. So any "rule" for when you ask potentially raises UI issues.

 

But the only way out of this trap is to ask always or never (even if you need to know); the former would be annoying, while the latter is clearly not intended (the Laws specifically say that you're allowed to ask). So we live with the small amount of UI as the compromise. And the result of this is that accepted recommendation not to ask if you don't need to know.

[Trinidad]

And the result of this is that accepted recommendation not to ask if you don't need to know.

That depends on your location.

 

In most places, the accepted recommendation is to ask when you need to know and to ask frequently (i.e. less than always) when you don´t need to know. On top of that, it is considered "not done" to pass an alerted skip bid without asking, since it implies that you are not interested in bidding regardless of the meaning.

 

Rik

[JLOGIC]

You're not allowed to mislead the opponents or ask solely for partner's benefit. But other than that, you're allowed to ask.

 

 

Ergo I would submit that asking in passout seat when you are only allowed to ask if the explanation will influence your bid when you never intend to bid as misleading to the opps. Or is that false? Technically speaking of course. My understanding is you are not allowed to ask in passout if the answer will not influence your bid (aka, if you will never bid). Is this true or false? If true, asking when you will never bid is misleading to your opps.

[Cyberyeti]

Ergo I would submit that asking in passout seat when you are only allowed to ask if the explanation will influence your bid when you never intend to bid as misleading to the opps. Or is that false? Technically speaking of course. My understanding is you are not allowed to ask in passout if the answer will not influence your bid (aka, if you will never bid). Is this true or false? If true, asking when you will never bid is misleading to your opps.

I think this should be the case but suspect it isn't.

 

I played against a good player in a national event in an auction where spades were bid and alerted twice by my partner on the way to 3N by me. The player on my right asked about both alerted bids, and his partner led a spade so I wheeled the man in. Turned out the spade lead was completely natural and the asker had 8x. He apparently ALWAYS asks about any alerted bid at his turn. I hate this practice as it can create UI problems for the other side where none need to exist in circumstances where a bid is obviously conventional (or beyond 3N) but it's not precisely clear what it is, but apparently it's completely legal.

 

I suspect you can do the same thing if you always ask about the auction before partner leads.

[Trinidad]

You may hate the practice of always asking alerted bids, but it is the recommended practice in many places. The UI problems that it creates are minor (certainly when compared to the UI problems it prevents) since the first -and most revealing- UI already went over the table in the form of the alert.

 

I will not make any call, unless I know what the opponents' auction means. (This doesn't necessarily mean that I will ask all the time. Often I will know it from the convention card or because the auction has come up before.) That is my rule and there are only two exceptions:

- I will not ask if the opponents are in an artificial relay sequence and it seems clear that we don't want to be in the auction. In principle I would ask, since I might want to make a lead directing double at some point, but asking each round would be consuming too much time. If I then do want to make a lead directing double, I will ask and I will give my partner a ton of UI. I will take my loss. I consider this a favor to my opponents. (This, BTW, is a typical situation where I will ask when I am in the pass out seat. My partner will ask anyway before he leads, but it may just be possible that I want to do something other than pass. By asking at that point I will not give the UI that I was going to pass regardless of the meaning of the auction.)

- If I think that the opponents are clueless, I won't ask if it doesn't effect my bidding. I will give them every opportunity to get the auction right or wrong without UI.

 

Rik

[EricK]

It doesn't strike me as fair that when a pair who plays a "frequent alert" system is up against a pair who plays a system which is basically natural, the former gets the whole auction time to think about the hand, and plan the defence etc, whereas the latter, if they don't ask about alerted bids as they go along, have to wait until the end, and have to try to assimilate all the information from the auction in one go.

[mycroft]

Thanks blackshoe for the recital of laws, but there was one missed:

Law 41B:Before the opening lead is faced, the leaders partner and the presumed declarer (but not the presumed dummy) each may require a review of the auction or request an explanation of an opponents call (see Law 20F2 and 20F3). Declarer or either defender may, at his first turn to play a card, require a review of the auction; this right expires when he plays a card. The defenders (subject to Law 16) and the declarer retain the right to request explanations throughout the play period, each at his own turn to play.(footnotes omitted)

 

As it's the one that allows "questions, partner?" "yeah, what was..." I figured it should be there (and in fact, when I went through your list, I twigged for a second saying "oh, so we can't actually ask before the lead is faced? I wonder how we managed to codify that illegality...")

 

So, to shorten Justin's query:

• You are allowed to ask at your turn to call, even if you're going to pass it out no matter what.
  
• questions asked pass UI to partner.
  
• in the passout (and presumed declarer's RHO) seat, the UI from questions about a particular call are obvious -
  
• and that by waiting until the clarification period (between the last pass and the faced opening lead) or one's play to T1, the UI won't influence the opening lead.
  
• Partner's "magically" finding the lead of the suit asked about by passout *is* going to trigger a TD call, and now you've put partner's brilliant lead-finding skills into the hands of the TD's "LA judgement". This one's pretty much no-win.
  

 

To shorten even more (in the ACBL, at least): you're allowed to ask at your turn to call. There are times when it's much safer to ask at a different time. Before passing the auction out to partner's opening lead is #1 on that list (unless, of course, you would do something given an expected explanation of the call - in that case, partner's restricted if you end up passing, but oh well).