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

[mycroft]

As far as misleading the opponents, players may not "attempt to mislead". They may attempt - in fact, it is "desire[able]" for them - to keep an unvarying manner.

 

If a player "always asks about alerted calls", then that's what he does - and varying that due to circumstances is more of a violation than not varying it. The player is not attempting to mislead - he always asks, so he asks here too. It's not his fault if you assume that his habit means something it would for lots of other people.

 

If they always ask about Alerted calls in my strong club auctions, I get a bit peeved, but you know, it is their right. With luck, the explanations don't confuse them more than not having them :-)

 

(If a player always asks about all calls, it's going to be suggested to him that maybe he should develop a better habit...)

[Cascade]

Always asking can cause a time problem.

 

And while it might mask a UI I would bet that with most partner's I could tell when they were interested and when not even if they always asked after just a few sessions. And I don't think this is one of my strengths players who are more astute in these matters could probably read their partner much sooner that I could.

[CSGibson]

Frankly, in the ACBL at least, playing a frequent alert system is a significant advantage if you are playing opponents who don't ask about every call. Either an opponent is at high risk at transmitting UI by asking about system calls when they might matter, or they risk a lead directing X without asking, which might be a significant disadvantage to their side either by being re-wrapped, or because one of the opponents has shown shortness in the suit and this X will help them evaluate HCP distribution with no upside to the doubler. Because of the burden that frequent alert systems place on the opponents, I would be very tolerant of opponents who always ask about alerts when playing against such systems in non-screen environments.

 

This, by the way, is my opinion despite playing a frequent alert system (or perhaps because of my experience in such a system).

[JLOGIC]

"Always ask" seems like a good solution in theory but something that would significantly slow down the game and be annoying for little theoretical gain. Exactly like waiting at least 10 seconds over a skip.

 

BTW, I can just imagine it going 2N p 3S alert, someone asking, and then passing, and having reasonable spades and their partner leading a spade vs 3N with a LA. They say "but I always ask" and that is considered self serving and ignored without evidence. I think always askers should write it down on their card that they always ask to protect themselves. That also allows us to police them when they do NOT ask. I have seen many time people who say "but I always ask" not ask. The problem is, it is unclear what the UI is when this happens if any, or if their partner will be barred from doing anything because of it, but obviously it is a big issue.

[Trinidad]

And while it might mask a UI I would bet that with most partner's I could tell when they were interested and when not even if they always asked after just a few sessions. And I don't think this is one of my strengths players who are more astute in these matters could probably read their partner much sooner that I could.

I know that there are players who don't care about the meaning of opponents' bidding. I, however, like to know what is going on in the auction. During the auction, I start to visualize the possible distributions around the table. I add the HCP in my hand to the points that the "declarer to be" has shown. I visualize who could have what honors and check how they are placed relative to mine. If I have thought things over during the auction I have an easier time defending.

 

Therefore, it is easy for me to act as if I am interested in the answer, even if I am not contemplating a bid. This simply is because I actually am interested.

 

Rik

[barmar]

If the opponents are playing a relay system, you're still probably better off waiting until the end. They'll often give you a complete picture like "Partner showed 5 spades, 4 hearts, with the club ace and 2 other controls." If you ask along the way, the intermediate bids often have multiple possible meanings, so you're best off waiting until later bids have narrowed things down.

[gnasher]

If the opponents are playing a relay system, you're still probably better off waiting until the end. They'll often give you a complete picture like "Partner showed 5 spades, 4 hearts, with the club ace and 2 other controls." If you ask along the way, the intermediate bids often have multiple possible meanings, so you're best off waiting until later bids have narrowed things down.

 

Except that often this isn't the complete picture. Most such methods allow the relayer to do something other than relay. To understand the auction properly, you have to know what was shown at each stage, and what else the relayer could have done at each stage.

[barmar]

I'm not sure I've ever heard an explanation of a relay go into more detail than "He's asking for more information about my hand." I think most of the alternatives are just natural bids. The inference that he wants more information before setting trumps is available to both sides.

[gnasher]

Consider these two made-up examples:

 

1♠-2♣       5 spades / relay

2♠-2NT     11-15, exacly 5 spades, exactly 4 cards in a red suit / relay (but could sign off in 3NT instead)

3♣-3NT     4 diamonds / signoff

 

1♠-2♣       5 spades / relay

2♠-2NT     5+ spades, 4+ diamonds / relay

3♣-3NT     11-15, exactly 5-4 / signoff

 

In the former case we know that responder would have done something different opposite a four-card heart suit. If you only ask what opener has shown, you're not getting all the information to which you're entitled.

[Trinidad]

I fully agree with gnasher.

 

In the cases of relays, I ask afterwards, but I do want to know what each individual bid showed. Once the opponents understand this, this can be very quick: They point to the bidding card and explain each individual bid:

- 11-15, 5+ spades

- heart side suit

- 5=4=3=1

- MIN

- 3 controls (♣K doesn't count)

- AKQ or no spade control

- heart control and diamond control (therefore, no control in spades), no control in clubs, so he has ♦A and ♥K or the ♦K and ♥A

- With that knowledge I decided to bid...

 

And in my experience relay pairs are very good at full disclosure.

 

Another thing that you do need to take into account is that relayers sometimes intentionally ask for more information than they need. They do this to mask the reason for their sign-off.

 

Rik

[barmar]

In the former case we know that responder would have done something different opposite a four-card heart suit. If you only ask what opener has shown, you're not getting all the information to which you're entitled.

It's so obvious that I'd hardly feel cheated out of full disclosure if an opponent failed to mention it. And as Rik said, relayers often ask even when they don't need to know, so the best you could say is that he probably has a 4-card heart suit. Maybe they need to ask the first question just so they can ask a later question (the first relay clarifies shape, and later relays show controls). So what the relayer has "shown" probably depends on whether he's looking for game or slam, which doesn't become apparent until late in the auction.

[gnasher]

Barmar, I think you've missed my point, or maybe I've misunderstood your recommended approach.

 

As I understand it, if you faced the relay sequence 1♠-2♣;2♠-2NT;3♣-3NT;pass, you would ask "What has opener shown?", and hear "11-15, exactly five spades and exactly four diamonds." Therefore you would have no idea whether you faced my first auction or my second, and you would know nothing about responder's hand except that he wanted to play in 3NT.

 

I, on the other hand, would ask the meaning of each bid. If my opponents had had the first auction, I would be able to infer that responder had four hearts, or lacked a sufficient diamond stop, or wanted to conceal something from me. The ambiguity makes the inference less valuable, but it doesn't make it valueless.

[barmar]

You're right, I missed that nuance. Knowing that one response was ambiguous about hearts vs. diamonds, and then the relayer asked for discrimination, makes a difference.

 

I'm still not sure I'd need to know these details as the auction is progressing versus getting all the details at the end.

[Trinidad]

You're right, I missed that nuance. Knowing that one response was ambiguous about hearts vs. diamonds, and then the relayer asked for discrimination, makes a difference.

 

I'm still not sure I'd need to know these details as the auction is progressing versus getting all the details at the end.

In principle I need to know. I might want to make a lead directing double. However, explaining "along the way" takes a lot more time than explaining at the end. That is why I make an exception for relay systems and I will ask at the end (but before my final pass, just in case). That means that I give up on the possibility to make a good lead directing double without giving UI.

 

When I play against "Natural with gadgets" I ask in the middle of the auction when a bid is alerted. That way I can follow the rest of the auction right away. (As an example I want to know whether 2♣ is new minor forcing, checkback Stayman or x-y NT. Then I will understand what non alerted continuations mean: sign offs, invitations or forces.)

 

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

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.

A misunderstanding of what I was getting at.

 

An obviously conventional bid is alerted. You are not going to bid whatever it means or at any point later in the auction. If the bid was made asking for a stop, and you ask, and the bidder's partner says it was showing one, UI has been created where none needed to exist.

[blackshoe]

Are you saying there's an obligation on players to avoid situations in which their opponents may give UI to each other?

[barmar]

No obligation, but isn't it more fun to play the game without having to worry about such things?

 

Director calls are interruptions of the real play of the game. If you can avoid them without impacting the play, that's something to be preferred.

[Cyberyeti]

Are you saying there's an obligation on players to avoid situations in which their opponents may give UI to each other?

There is no obligation, but I find that when this sort of UI happens, particularly when the hand asking was obviously going to pass throughout, it poisons the atmosphere at the table as the side who got ruled against tend to feel that their opponents were deliberately trawling for UI and I prefer to play my bridge in a more friendly (but highly competitive) manner.

[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.

A misunderstanding of what I was getting at.

 

An obviously conventional bid is alerted. You are not going to bid whatever it means or at any point later in the auction. If the bid was made asking for a stop, and you ask, and the bidder's partner says it was showing one, UI has been created where none needed to exist.

There was no misunderstanding.

 

Of course, there always is the possibility that opponents are giving each other UI. But this only occurs when something is already wrong (i.e. they have a disagreement about the meaning of the bid). (Though, technically speaking, hearing that your partner is on the same wavelength as you also is UI, but you know what I mean.)

 

If you would normally never ask, but only ask when you need to know, you generate UI in a situation where everything -up to then- went right.

 

When I have to chose between ruining a good situation and ruining a situation that was already bad to begin with, I would certainly chose to keep the good situation good.

 

On top of that, I normally assume that I am playing against opponents who know what they are doing. I have already mentioned earlier that I make an exception for situations where I know that my opponents are clueless.

 

I am not going to take into account the off chance that opponents -who normally know what they are doing- now suddenly have a bidding misunderstanding and, therefore, now might get a UI problem because I used my right to ask a question.

 

I also accept that when I am that opponent and my partner and I have a misunderstanding that we will have a UI problem. I don't see that this UI problem is caused by the opponents asking. It is caused by our misunderstanding and we, and no one else, are responsible for the mess that it created. This includes any "poisoning of the atmosphere at the table".

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

I also accept that when I am that opponent and my partner and I have a misunderstanding that we will have a UI problem. I don't see that this UI problem is caused by the opponents asking. It is caused by our misunderstanding and we, and no one else, are responsible for the mess that it created. This includes any "poisoning of the atmosphere at the table".

 

This. IMO any player who cannot accept that his side is responsible here needs re-education.

[Cyberyeti]

This. IMO any player who cannot accept that his side is responsible here needs re-education.

If the other side didn't ask when they didn't need to know, say 3♠ gets alerted (where both its possible meanings are alertable, I'm not talking about where one is and one isn't), 3N gets bid (or something else) and the bidding misunderstanding emerges in the questions on the opening lead, there is no UI. This is what I'm getting at by the UI being created by the question.

[gnasher]

If the other side didn't ask when they didn't need to know, say 3♠ gets alerted (where both its possible meanings are alertable, I'm not talking about where one is and one isn't), 3N gets bid (or something else) and the bidding misunderstanding emerges in the questions on the opening lead, there is no UI. This is what I'm getting at by the UI being created by the question.

I think, we all understand your argument. Where some of us disagree with you is on the question of responsibility for the UI.

 

You speak of the UI being created by the question. It isn't (or at least the UI problem isn't). The UI problem is created by a combination of the question and the opponents' misunderstanding. If the opponents knew their system, there would be no UI problem.

 

Even if I'm not considering action at this point, I want to be able to ask the question for reasons that are unrelated to the possibility of a misunderstanding:

- I don't want to give my partner UI, on this deal or on other deals where the auction goes the same way.

- I don't want to give the opponents information to which they're not entitled, on this deal or on other deals where the auction goes the same way.

- I want to be prepared for the possibility of later action.

- I want to be able to use the available time to think about the meaning of the auction, possible actions by my side later in the auction, the lead, and the defence.

 

You seem to be arguing that I should disadvantage myself in order to protect my opponents from the consequences of their misunderstanding, and that if I don't the opponents will have cause for complaint. I, on the other hand, think that if the opponents want to avoid the UI the solution is in their hands: they should learn their system.

[Trinidad]

If the other side didn't ask when they didn't need to know, say 3♠ gets alerted (where both its possible meanings are alertable, I'm not talking about where one is and one isn't), 3N gets bid (or something else) and the bidding misunderstanding emerges in the questions on the opening lead, there is no UI. This is what I'm getting at by the UI being created by the question.

In your scenario, you want to prevent the transmission from UI. That is obviously a worthy goal. But there is only effective UI in the case where the pair has a misunderstanding about 3♠. In other words, there only is transmission of effective UI when the situation was already rotten. But if you can prevent the transmission of UI in a case like that, you are preventing a rotten situation becoming worse. That would be a good thing. On the other hand, misunderstandings are relatively rare, so you would not benefit often, but every time you would, it would be good.

 

Unfortunately, your idea that one shouldn't ask unless one needs to know, comes with a side effect that is much worse than the disease it is curing. Now, UI is transmitted in a situation that was perfectly fine: a player needs to know and asks the question. His partner now knows that he needed to know and that is UI. Now suddenly, a side that hasn't done anything wrong, but just tried to play sensible bridge, is limited in its options by the UI laws. This wouldn't have happened if the asker would always (often) ask.

 

So you have to allow one of these two evil situations:

 

A. Transmit UI in a situation that was already messed up (remember that messed up situations are rare) and limit the possibilities for the pair that messed things up.

B. Transmit UI in a situation that was fine and limit the possibilities of non offenders who are trying to play sensible bridge.

 

You cannot prevent both.

 

What would you choose? I sympathize with your aim, but I am not willing to limit an innocent pair in its options, just to keep all options open for pairs who already made a mess on the board.

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

You seem to be arguing that I should disadvantage myself in order to protect my opponents from the consequences of their misunderstanding, and that if I don't the opponents will have cause for complaint. I, on the other hand, think that if the opponents want to avoid the UI the solution is in their hands: they should learn their system.

 

But he might be talking only about asking solely to create UI because you are pretty sure they are having a misunderstanding.

[Cyberyeti]

But he might be talking only about asking solely to create UI because you are pretty sure they are having a misunderstanding.

There's an element of this, but also with some exceptions, most of the people that I've come across that do it then produce some laughable director calls to follow in an attempt to trawl for a result "to protect teammates". I tend to find the asking when you don't need to know happens most often when a long auction is bid with some thought, and that adds to the feeling of trawling for UI.

 

Also in answer to Gnasher and Trinidad, VERY few people actually ask ALL the time, hence there is some UI created when they do, it's just slightly different to the UI that's created by people who ask less often.