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

[aguahombre]

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

Or asking to break their concentration and create chaos?

[Trinidad]

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.

Asking all the time is not necessary. All that is needed is asking often. It is hard to say how often, but let's say that it is almost all the time for alertable bids that cannot be found on (or deduced from) the convention card and that haven't occured before against this pair.

 

In the bridge club where I play everybody plays Multi. This is an alertable bid. However, since everybody plays it and since it is prominently shown on the convention cards, there is obviously no need to ask. Similarly, about half of the pairs play a 1♣ opening as showing 2+ (this is alertable). The other half plays it as showing 3+ (which is not alertable). Exactly one pair plays a strong club system (also alertable). Again, there is no need to ask: My partner and I will have read the opening bids from the convention cards. We both know what pair plays strong club and the alert, as well as the look on the convention card will tell us how many clubs the opponents are promising. As a result, not asking doesn't transmit useful UI.

 

But if they overcall partner's 1♣ opening with 2♦ (alerted), I will ask what it means since there are a couple of popular meanings (e.g. weak jump overcall in a major, both majors, natural weak jump overcall, rounded suits, ...). My action may very well depend on the meaning of the bid. If I pass without asking, I will tell my partner that I have no interest at all in bidding, whatever they may have: "Partner, I am broke." I don't want my partner to know that, therefore, I ask. In such a case I always ask, unless the situation has come up before in the round (and then I will usually ask something like "Same thing?", since it may depend on seat or vulnerability or whatever).

 

This doesn't create any problems, as long as the opponents know what they are doing. I would not expect my opponents to be confused in the first round of the auction. If they are, then that is entirely their problem. But I realize that I have the luxury of playing at a relatively strong club, with essentially only fixed partnerships playing. Another consequence is that it doesn't take players a lot of time to explain their bid: They don't need to think about the meaning and they can explain clearly.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

Or asking to break their concentration and create chaos?

Sure. Since when does "Please explain?" create chaos?

 

Think about it:

- Partner makes a bid.

- You realize that it is alertable, so you alert.

- Your RHO asks for the meaning.

- You explain, now you start to think about what to do with partner's bid.

 

It isn't your turn to do anything. How can your concentration be broken?

 

I can come up with a situation where it can happen that your concentration is broken, but players who want to prevent transmitting UI will not get there:

 

1♠-Pass-2♣*-Pass *Alerted, but not asked: GF relay

2♥(A)-Pass-2♠(A)-Pass

2NT(A)-Pass-3♣(A)-Pass

3♥(A)-Pass-...3♠(A)-Pass

4♥(A)-Pass-......4♠(A)-Pass

5♦(A)-..

 

"Can you tell me what you guys are doing?"

 

This will break your concentration and is obviously not necessary. But those people who ask to prevent their partner from getting UI will not pull stunts like this.

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

Sigh

[gnasher]

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.

The post that provoked this discussion was:

 

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 don't quite understand how we got from that practice, which I consider both acceptable and sensible, to asking questions in the hope of creating a UI problem.

[jillybean]

Ànd here is the latest "I'm allowed to ask questions aren't I?" example

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sat96ht95dj5caq54&w=s74hak742dt63ckt7&n=sj853h8dak9874cj6&e=skq2hqj63dq2c9832&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=pp2dp*p2hp3hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

* before the pass, East asks, 2♦ is weak is it?

[aguahombre]

Good example of a player shooting himself in the foot twice on the same hand.

[mycroft]

"what's 2♦" is another of my pet peeves.

 

[Note: ACBL-centric rant.]

 

The *only* non-Alertable meaning of 2♦ is "natural and preemptive." ANY OTHER MEANING, including "natural and strong", requires an Alert.

 

Having said that, there *are* enough people who "forget" to Alert things like Flannery that it's worth checking (albeit, much fewer than "forget" to Announce a Transfer), so I can't blame them. But when they just *happen to have* a minimum-or-barely-subminimum opener, or an off-shape double, and what they actually do is 'ask-and-pass', it rubs me much the wrong way; especially if fourth-hand gets it right.

 

I have to admit, I get into serious bio-sophistry mode when someone asks, whether the question is "weak?" or "what's 2♦?" or whatever. "Natural, non-forcing and preemptive. At this vulnerability our agreements on suit strength are [...] and we almost certainly do not have a 4-card Major." All with this innocent smile on my face, as if they had actually wanted full disclosure, rather than to tell partner that they have a decent, but not good-enough-to-act, hand.

[barmar]

I really think you're being paranoid about questions like "Is that weak?" Most of the people who ask like that simply don't know any better, they're not trying to pass any UI to partner. And while I've never encountered anyone who forgot to alert an artificial 2♦, I suspect lots of players know that these bids exist and they feel the need to ask just in case. Most of them tend to be poor players, who are never sure about anything.

 

But here's an example where I felt the need to ask:

[hv=pc=n&w=sha76dk93caj97532&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=p1c2dpp]133|200[/hv]

South had passed, I had a minimum opener, and North made what sounds like a weak bid, partner couldn't find a bid -- where are all the points and why didn't anyone show spades? But they were also one of the worst pairs at the club, so when I asked South about North's bid, she wasn't even sure (I probably could have predicted this, and shouldn't have wasted my time). It turned out that North had simply misbid with her 17 count (I've occasionally done the same thing -- you think you heard a major bid, and need to bid on the 2 level to overcall -- although with her 4351 shape she really should have doubled no matter what I bid).

[ArcLight]

Just a general observation, it sounds like many of you are expecting frequent cheating. I don't play face to face, so I have little experience with what goes on at a club. If cheating (lead directing questions) is that frequent, it sounds unpleasant. I think the director needs to be made aware of their ethics.

 

However, its equally unpleasant to be accused of being unethical just because you want to know the meaning of the auction. In the first example, I would interpret 3♠ as a control bid, and slam interest, and not ask a question.

But why is it so terrible if the opps ask questions if they really aren't sure?

It sounds like in order to protect themselves, the opps should frequently ask in the pass out seat "Please Explain the auction".

 

I try to figure out the hidden hands, and would like to know what I am entitled to before I lead, and not have someone accuse me of cheating.

 

It goes both ways, you can say "everything and every pause" is UI, to prevent unethical play. But you also penalize those who are not unethical, and this is probably the vast majority of the players. Are club games really better if played in this atmosphere?

I can see more serious events, but not casual club games. If someone asks some "dumb" questions, and you sense they are inexperienced/not that good/not trying to cheat, you might casually and in a friendly way explain the issue to them after the session.

[jillybean]

I really think you're being paranoid about questions like "Is that weak?" Most of the people who ask like that simply don't know any better, they're not trying to pass any UI to partner. And while I've never encountered anyone who forgot to alert an artificial 2♦, I suspect lots of players know that these bids exist and they feel the need to ask just in case. Most of them tend to be poor players, who are never sure about anything.

 

But here's an example where I felt the need to ask:

[hv=pc=n&w=sha76dk93caj97532&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=p1c2dpp]133|200[/hv]

South had passed, I had a minimum opener, and North made what sounds like a weak bid, partner couldn't find a bid -- where are all the points and why didn't anyone show spades? But they were also one of the worst pairs at the club, so when I asked South about North's bid, she wasn't even sure (I probably could have predicted this, and shouldn't have wasted my time). It turned out that North had simply misbid with her 17 count (I've occasionally done the same thing -- you think you heard a major bid, and need to bid on the 2 level to overcall -- although with her 4351 shape she really should have doubled no matter what I bid).

I agree most people asking these questions simply don't know any better, their partners would say "I will always bid again" and they will both get very upset

if you called the director as they are always allowed to ask questions. Are you saying that I should ignore it when this happens because most players are unaware of the laws and implications of their questions?

 

I also agree that your question was unnecessary but I don't see the relevance here, you were in pass out seat.

Had your partner lead a ♦ and had it been advantageous there may have been a director call :)

[ArcLight]

>>I agree most people asking these questions simply don't know any better, their partners would say "I will always bid again" and they will both get very upset

if you called the director as they are always allowed to ask questions. Are you saying that I should ignore it when this happens because most players are unaware of the laws and implications of their questions?

 

>>I also agree that your question was unnecessary but I don't see the relevance here, you were in pass out seat.

Had your partner lead a ♦ and had it been advantageous there may have been a director call

 

 

This doesnt sound like a fun environment :(

 

It sounds to me that if I were playing against you, I would be forced to always ask for an explanation, to protect myself and pard. This does slow the game down, but what is the alternative? If any question is treated with suspicion, and there is a risk to the asker that the director may make some arbitrary ruling against them, there is no alternative.

Same for the card play and bidding, take 10 seconds betwene each bid or card play. :blink:

[Cyberyeti]

"what's 2♦" is another of my pet peeves.

 

[Note: ACBL-centric rant.]

 

The *only* non-Alertable meaning of 2♦ is "natural and preemptive." ANY OTHER MEANING, including "natural and strong", requires an Alert.

 

Having said that, there *are* enough people who "forget" to Alert things like Flannery that it's worth checking (albeit, much fewer than "forget" to Announce a Transfer), so I can't blame them. But when they just *happen to have* a minimum-or-barely-subminimum opener, or an off-shape double, and what they actually do is 'ask-and-pass', it rubs me much the wrong way; especially if fourth-hand gets it right.

 

I have to admit, I get into serious bio-sophistry mode when someone asks, whether the question is "weak?" or "what's 2♦?" or whatever. "Natural, non-forcing and preemptive. At this vulnerability our agreements on suit strength are [...] and we almost certainly do not have a 4-card Major." All with this innocent smile on my face, as if they had actually wanted full disclosure, rather than to tell partner that they have a decent, but not good-enough-to-act, hand.

Yup, announcements take care of natural weak and natural strong in the EBU.

 

"Is that club natural" is my pet peeve, often answered with "Why how many have you got ?"

[mycroft]

Actually, ArcLight, the issues are fairly rare. There are situations where there's UI, and there are situations where it could be a problem, and they get dealt with when they happen.

 

But there are certain people who you get a funny feeling about after the 8th or 9th "innocuous" thing, and there are certain situations that are massive red flags (we've seen three big ones here - "what's <this probably artificial bid>?" in the passout seat with partner on lead; 2♦ "is that weak?", 1♣ "is that natural?" (similarly, after a 4+ 1♥, "how many hearts does that promise?" - especially when the card's right in front of you, double-especially if I'm pretty certain I caught you looking first)). When the asker *just happens to have* the obvious hand ("I want this suit led, pard", "I have a [decent hand if I pass/minimum if I bid]", "yes, but fewer than you have, obviously" respectively), it gets worse. When partner seems to get it, and also makes a "judgement call" that turns out right, it gets worse yet.

 

Of *course* people don't (usually) do this on purpose, and of *course*, their partners always carefully avoid using the UI. But when NT Announcements came in and we switched from Alerting our 12-14 NT to Announcing it, our score went up half- to three-quarters- of a board overnight. *I* didn't get any better...

 

It's really frustrating when there is insufficient education on these matters; it's really frustrating when attempts *at* education (not by me at the table! I mean in general) get hit with either excuses or MEGO; it's also really frustrating when pointing it out gets seen as "massively litigious".

 

In answer to "being accused of being unethical", specifically - there's a reason when I call for UI, that I preface my story with "I'm sure there's no problem, this is just odd". Oh, sure, sometimes, it's just social grease (aka BS), but most of the time, it's really true (okay, sometimes it's only once the opponents realise that I'm paying attention, and the TD has explained how the restrictions work, that it's really true that there's no problem. But there's still no problem).

 

Situations where the UI is obvious, and the transmission is almost always avoidable, get my goat, though.

[mycroft]

Having said all of that, I think the best "education" I ever saw was:

 

- Arguably the best player in the city was playing, semi-regularly for a few months, with Player X.

- Player X was well known for trying everything in the book (and some things that weren't) to get whatever advantage he could. He'd keep doing said thing until it was pointed out to him that it was imProper, officially (but, well, variant thing-A wasn't off the books yet).

- it turned out that when he played straight, his partner was "best player in the city". When he added that little extra to the game, his partner suddenly couldn't make the right judgement if his life depended on it.

- it took a few weeks, and several of their opponents figured it out (and even thanked him for it - he, of course, admitted nothing even then), but Player X figured out that the only way to win with this partner was to lay off the crap.

 

He then moved away; I don't know if the education stuck. But it was sure fun to watch. The silent version, I guess, of the "Why didn't you take the queen and set the slam?" "I thought you had it" story.

[EricK]

Ànd here is the latest "I'm allowed to ask questions aren't I?" example

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sat96ht95dj5caq54&w=s74hak742dt63ckt7&n=sj853h8dak9874cj6&e=skq2hqj63dq2c9832&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=pp2dp*p2hp3hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

* before the pass, East asks, 2♦ is weak is it?

Hasn't East got exactly what West would expect with or without the question? West has 10 points, South is a passed hand, North opened a weak 2.

[jillybean]

Hasn't East got exactly what West would expect with or without the question? West has 10 points, South is a passed hand, North opened a weak 2.

The question and answer certainly removes any doubt but I don't see why this is relevant. Easts question remains ill-timed at best.

[Trinidad]

The question and answer certainly removes any doubt but I don't see why this is relevant. Easts question remains ill-timed at best.

Quite the contrary. In this situation, a question is almost mandatory (though I would agree with you that the way it was phrased was unfortunate).

 

I assume that the Stop procedure was in use. This means that East is supposed to act as if he has a bidding problem, whether he has one or not.

 

How can East act as if he has a bidding problem when he is not even interested in the meaning of the auction up to then?!?

 

We all know how beginners respond to the stop procedure: They take the pass card out of the bidding box and count to 10. Then they put the pass card down. This obviously defies the idea behind the stop procedure.

 

Intermediate players don't pull out the pass card and count to 10. They just sit and wait and do nothing for 10 seconds and then they pass. They don't realise that this makes it just as obvious to every one at the table that they have an obvious pass as the beginners do when they pull the pass card from the box and count to 10.

 

Not asking when you should is the intermediate player's equivalent to pulling a pass card and counting loud to 10.

 

Rik

[jillybean]

Do players ever use the stop card when opening 2x, I have never seen it.

[blackshoe]

Some do, yes.

 

99% of club players would be happy if the skip bid procedure just went away. Until they get bit.

[Trinidad]

Do players ever use the stop card when opening 2x, I have never seen it.

In that case, this whole discussion doesn't make sense. Why discuss ethics with people who consciously ignore the most basic rules?

 

At least this makes clear what the answer to the question in the thread title should be: "It seems not."

 

Where I play, not using the stop card is as rare as revoking: It only happens when people have their brain turned off. I wouldn't want to play in a place where people never follow basic rules of the game.

 

Rik

[EricK]

The question and answer certainly removes any doubt but I don't see why this is relevant. Easts question remains ill-timed at best.

Surely if there is any doubt from West's point of view whether he should reopen it is about whether partner's marked 10 or so points are mainly in ♦ or mainly outside. Does the question clear this up?

[gnasher]

Jilly, there's a perfectly good procedure for dealing with this situation. You call the director, explain what happened, and tell the director that in your opinion West's question gave East unauthorised information, the unauthorised information suggests 2♥ over pass, and pass is a logical alternative. Then you let the director do his job.

 

There's no need to get involved in a discussion of East's motives for asking the question - the laws don't care, and nor should you.

[Vampyr]

Quite the contrary. In this situation, a question is almost mandatory (though I would agree with you that the way it was phrased was unfortunate).

 

I assume that the Stop procedure was in use. This means that East is supposed to act as if he has a bidding problem, whether he has one or not.

 

How can East act as if he has a bidding problem when he is not even interested in the meaning of the auction up to then?!?

 

 

This is a very good point.

 

A close friend of mine says that in situations such as this (especially when a bid has been alerted and partner probably knows that you don't probably don't know what it means), failing to ask transmits UI. The Laws say otherwise on this matter.

 

 

Do players ever use the stop card when opening 2x, I have never seen it.

 

 

Trinidad's most recent post has said it all.

[Cthulhu D]

Actually innocent question, but why is asking what 2D means UI? I guess it might be different system regulations but I get a plethora of 2 level optioning options ranging from standard (weak 2D) to archaic (strong 2D), or bizarre (2D as a weak 2 in hearts, a weak or GF two suiter in the black suits, some sort of 22+ strong balanced hand or a GF single suiter in hearts). My general practice is to check their convention card, but my partner almost always asks even with no intention of bidding.

 

Checking their convention card seems to convey just as much UI as asking really, but I kinda need that knowledge to bid and defend. I'd guess I'd always ask 'what's 2D mean?' but I don't think that's the issue here.

 

Edit: Oh, is the problem not asking at the first opportunity, but instead in the pass out seat? I think that's against the rules here (not sure, I think I lose the right to ask 'what does 2D mean' but i can still ask 'explain the auction plz'), so that makes sense as an issue.