MI, but was there damage?

[barmar]

The response to the question is UI to responder's partner.

It's clear (to me) that the question (and most of this thread) was specifically referring to UI between the asker and his partner.

[blackshoe]

It's clear to me too.

 

The law suggests that one should ask about the entire auction, and that if one does not do that, instead asking about a specific call, then one might convey UI to partner in doing so. Alert regulations and what David calls "custom and practice" suggest that when a call is alerted, one should ask what it means. The position of the laws and the position of alert regulations are not necessarily in conflict — the latter don't discuss UI implications at all. However, the dichotomy is a bit confusing. It can lead even experienced directors down a wrong path: I once asked for an explanation of opponents auction (sans alerts); they called the director, and the first thing she asked me was "which call are you interested in?" Of course, I replied "all of them!" Opps balked: "I don't have to explain 3♥" was one objection, (because, I think, it was natural and "standard"). In the end, I didn't get the explanation I had requested. :(

 

Suppose you have an auction in which the last call was alerted. Does asking for an explanation of the entire auction obviate UI problems? I'm assuming here that you don't necessarily always ask about alerted calls, but even if you do it seems likely you're primarily interested in the alerted call.

 

Regarding "time wasting" in asking questions, it seems to me that most of any "wasted" time comes down to the responder to the question not knowing her obligations, or dragging her feet in meeting them. As far as I'm concerned, as the asker, that's not my problem. I'm entitled to an answer. In fact, I'm entitled to "Full Disclosure", so opponents had better be ready to give it quickly and completely, or they are the ones "wasting time".

[bluejak]

I think you misunderstood me. I didn't suggest that one should ask about unalerted actions. Why would I? The idea is to behave the same whether I am thinking of bidding or not. I do that by asking the same questions as I would ask if I were considering action.

 

If the opponents bid 1♥ - 1 ♠ - 2♠ without any alerts, I don't ask any questions. If they have the same auction but 2♠ is alerted, I ask what it means. That does not cost any time at all, because if I didn't ask about it at that point I (or my partner) would certainly ask about it before the start of play. If it takes 10 seconds now, it would have taken the same 10 seconds at the end of the auction.

If you are going to bid, you often need to know details of unalerted bids: for example, are the opponents playing 4- or 5-card majors? If you ask about every bid they make, fine: if you only ask about alerted bids, there again there are UI problems when you ask about an unalerted bid.

 

Remember we are not talking about perfect people but actual bridge players. You personally may always ask perfect questions and get perfect answers, but this does not happen with normal bridge players. In general, asking questions slows things down.

 

Now, if you ask at the end of the auction, you find you do not need to ask so much and the answers are more meaningful. Suppose someone makes a transfer and completion in a jurisdiction where both are alerted. To ask after each bid takes more time than questions at the end of the auction.

 

The problem with all these impractical suggestions which sound good in theory is twofold: first, they don't work the way people assume they will, and second, even if the proposer does them, the great majority will not.

 

So let us just continue with normal bridge played by normal people with normal habits and sort out problems that occur.

[gnasher]

If you are going to bid, you often need to know details of unalerted bids: for example, are the opponents playing 4- or 5-card majors? If you ask about every bid they make, fine: if you only ask about alerted bids, there again there are UI problems when you ask about an unalerted bid.

Compare these two:

(1) Ask about alerted bids only if you need to know immediately; ask about unalerted bids only if you need to know immediately.

(2) Always ask about alerted bids; ask about unalerted bids only if you need to know immediately.

In terms of preventing UI, neither is perfect, but (2) is obviously better than (1), because it sometimes gains and never loses.

 

In any case, the number of times that I have to ask about unalerted bids is quite small. I usually already know my opponents' basic system already.

 

Remember we are not talking about perfect people but actual bridge players. You personally may always ask perfect questions and get perfect answers, but this does not happen with normal bridge players. In general, asking questions slows things down.

 

Now, if you ask at the end of the auction, you find you do not need to ask so much and the answers are more meaningful. Suppose someone makes a transfer and completion in a jurisdiction where both are alerted. To ask after each bid takes more time than questions at the end of the auction.

 

(1)

2♥ (alert)

Pass

2♠ (alert)

[Remainder of the auction]

"What was 2♥?"

"A transfer to spades."

"What was 2♠?"

"It was his normal action, but it denied four spades."

 

(2)

2♥ (alert)

"What's 2♥?"

"A transfer to spades."

Pass

2♠ (alert)

"What's 2♠?"

"It's his normal action, but it denies four spades."

[Remainder of the auction]

 

Why does (2) use up more time than (1)?

 

The problem with all these impractical suggestions which sound good in theory is twofold: first, they don't work the way people assume they will, and second, even if the proposer does them, the great majority will not.

 

So let us just continue with normal bridge played by normal people with normal habits and sort out problems that occur.

You may consider it impractical, but it works for me (not exactly the strategy of asking about all alerted bids, but something similar).

 

I don't see why it's relevant whether other people adopt the same approach. I'm not trying to force anyone to do the same as me. Whilst I prefer my opponents not to scatter UI all over the place, I'm not suggesting that we should prevent their doing so. I'm merely stating the uncontroversial fact that the best way to avoid giving UI is to be consistent about what questions you ask and when you ask them. I also think that it's quite wrong for the EBU's L&EC to discourage this approach.

Edited December 26, 2012 by gnasher

[Vampyr]

Try this thought experiment:

 

On board 1, LHO opened 1NT. The range was not announced. Partner passed without asking the range. He had a balanced 8-count.

 

On board 5, LHO opened 1NT. The range was not announced. Partner passed without asking the range. He had a 3-count.

 

On board 9, it goes 1NT-pass-pass to me. 1NT was not announced. Partner asked the meaning, and was told that it was 15-17. I have a hand where I might double or I might pass. I deduce from partner's question that he was considering action, or he would have acted over a 12-14 notrump. Because of that, I double.

 

Did I receive UI? Have I broken the rules?

 

When my opponents commit an irregularity it places an obligation on me? eg If they do not announce their 1NT range, I must always ask? I do not think that this is fair, and I think that I should always be entitled to information that should have been announced.

[gnasher]

When my opponents commit an irregularity it places an obligation on me? eg If they do not announce their 1NT range, I must always ask?

No, when did I say that?

 

I do not think that this is fair, and I think that I should always be entitled to information that should have been announced.

You are entitled to it - you're entitled to know everything relevant about the opponents' system. But you're not entitled to use UI, and you are obliged to obey the rules about UI.

 

I've already suggested two legal ways to avoid being disadvantaged in this situation. You'll find them in post no 30. One of them involves asking routinely, but the other does not.

Edited December 27, 2012 by gnasher

[bluejak]

Always drawing attention to irregularities - certain types, anyway - does not give UI to partner.

[gnasher]

Always drawing attention to irregularities - certain types, anyway - does not give UI to partner.

Yes, of course, but I don't think that's what Stefanie is arguing. As I understand it, she wants to be able to *sometimes* draw attention to this irregularity and sometimes not, and still be deemed not to have given UI.

[Vampyr]

I've already suggested two legal ways to avoid being disadvantaged in this situation. You'll find them in post no 30. One of them involves asking routinely, but the other does not.

 

Yes, but the latter suggestion requires a great deal of competence on the part of the director, which is never a guarantee. Adjusting under L23 would not even occur to a volunteer playing director. Of course, if I had a properly filled-out convention card at my disposal, the problem would disappear. Except for people playing variable NT, but these people would probably be more careful about announcing.

 

This situation reminds me of the one in another thread -- where the opponents bid, say, 2M-2NT, and I am not entitled to ask about the response scheme to the 2NT enquiry. My own opponents have access to my methods, because my card is properly completed; theirs is not, or is absent, and I must suffer.

 

I recently played in a match where each player in one of the pairs thought that the other had brought the convention cards. I played against their other pair after the first stanza, but I don't believe that in the course of 32 boards, with a break in the middle, they put something together. I find myself more and more tempted, when my opponents do not have convention cards, to make mine unavailable too -- preferably by putting them under my arse, ACBL-style.

[Vampyr]

Yes, of course, but I don't think that's what Stefanie is arguing. As I understand it, she wants to be able to *sometimes* draw attention to this irregularity and sometimes not, and still be deemed not to have given UI.

 

I do really resent the opponents' irregularity placing a burden on me. And... when this sort of failure to announce occurs (thankfully infrequently), I tend to feel too annoyed to ask if I don't, at this point, care. I suppose that that is my problem, but it may be common.

[aguahombre]

-- preferably by putting them under my arse, ACBL-style.

We in the ACBL seem to have a lot more available space in that location than other players of the world.

[Fluffy]

So is it legal to sistematically ask for all of the opponents alerts?, that might improve my performance with my partner who never ever asks any questions to opponents.

[gnasher]

So is it legal to sistematically ask for all of the opponents alerts?, that might improve my performance with my partner who never ever asks any questions to opponents.

 

It's legal to always ask, as long as you're doing it for your own benefit. It's not legal to ask a question solely in order to help partner.

[Fluffy]

Yeah I know the rules, but if I do it sistematically to avoid UI and also to help partner what is it?

[barmar]

Yeah I know the rules, but if I do it sistematically to avoid UI and also to help partner what is it?

As long as it's not solely for partner's benefit, I think you're OK.

 

Although I suppose a SB could argue that "to avoid UI" is also just for partner's benefit. The laws say that transmitting UI is not necessarily an infraction, but using it is. So by avoiding transmitting UI, you're saving partner from having the problem of having to ignore it. How is this different from asking a question because you think partner doesn't know well enough to ask himself?