UI from a question?

[Cascade]

...directors, called when I have asked this neutral general question would not ask me to announce to the table "which bid are you interested in?"

 

Just answer "all of them".

[Cascade]

So W is presumed to sit for 10 sec after the skip bid, pretending that he has something to think about, but if he uses the time to ask a question about an alerted bid, then he transmits UI, because it now seems like he does have something to think about?

 

If this case merits an adjustment, something has surely gone wrong somewhere.

 

I am not sure what skip bid regulations you are referring to but some, at least, say that the 10s does not include the question and answer. For example the NZ regulation is

 

"Before a Player makes a bid that skips one or more levels, a Stop Card should be placed

face up on the table to LHO, before making the (skip) bid. After allowing for any alert that

may be required and any questions by LHO to be answered, the person who made the bid

waits for approximately 10 seconds (but less at one’s own discretion) before removing the

Stop Card and LHO may bid." (my emphasis)

[Cascade]

In practice, West asks because he is considering saving. Theoretically if he always asks he conveys no UI, Why he would then choose to pass when he learns that North has a good 4-card raise is beyond me, but that is what is likely to have happened. East thought he was only worth 3H on the previous round, but now thinks it is right to save in 5H? Come on, this smacks of illegal communication under 73B2. I would hope that we would be adjusting in every jurisdiction.

 

I am unconvinced by this logic. On the previous round east had less information. You are saying that because of the potential unauthorised information or illegal communication. However east also had less authorised information. The opponent has not bid game and west has not doubled. The eight or nine tricks east was hoping partner could take in 3♥ are now a profitable save in 5♥ against a possible vulnerable game. Further raising to 3♥ enhances the information that is available after 4♠. In particular partner's actions are based on the knowledge that east has some values and a heart fit which would not be the case if partner passed over 4♠ without the 3♥ raise.

[blackshoe]

Just answer "all of them".

I did. B-)

[Trinidad]

I am not sure what skip bid regulations you are referring to but some, at least, say that the 10s does not include the question and answer. For example the NZ regulation is

 

"Before a Player makes a bid that skips one or more levels, a Stop Card should be placed

face up on the table to LHO, before making the (skip) bid. After allowing for any alert that

may be required and any questions by LHO to be answered, the person who made the bid

waits for approximately 10 seconds (but less at one’s own discretion) before removing the

Stop Card and LHO may bid." (my emphasis)

This was not what MFA1010 was referring to.

 

The way I understand him, he was talking about the fact that somebody who sees his RHO pull the STOP card has to act as if he is trying to solve a problem, regardless of his hand. The STOP regulation is not about 10 seconds. It is about showing active interest in the auction, whether you have a huge problem or the easiest bid ever.

 

What do you do if you have a problem?

- You make sure that you know what the auction means.

- You think.

 

So, what do you do when you have the easiest bid ever? ... You act as if you have a problem, so (copy, paste):

- You make sure that you know what the auction means.

- You think.

 

In short, if West doesn't ask (or look at the CC, or know from previous experience what 2NT meant) and the passes after 10 seconds, then he makes the same mistake that you see some beginning tournament player make (pull the pass card, keep it in the air for 10 seconds and then place it on the table): He shows everybody at the table that he is not interested. He is going to pass.

 

So, West has to ask about the auction, to follow a regulation that prevents the exchange of UI.

 

Therefore, West is correct and anybody who passes in this situation without asking is violating the STOP regulation.

 

Rik

[gnasher]

Suppose that it goes like this:

[hv=pc=n&w=sq2hat964dq32cq62&e=sa6hkj52djt64c743&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=pp1s2h2n(Alerted)3h4sppp]266|200[/hv]

West properly pauses before passing 4♠, but neither East not West asks the meaning of 2NT.

 

In Denmark and the Netherlands, would the director adjust the score to 5♥x -4 ?

[Trinidad]

Suppose that it goes like this:

[hv=pc=n&w=sq2hat964dq32cq62&e=sa6hkj52djt64c743&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=pp1s2h2n(Alerted)3h4sppp]266|200[/hv]

West properly pauses before passing 4♠, but neither East not West asks the meaning of 2NT.

 

In Denmark and the Netherlands, would the director adjust the score to 5♥x -4 ?

If* I would be called, I would ask West what 2NT means. If he doesn't know, he will get a warning. After that, I will poll some people and see whether 5♥ by East is an LA. I doubt that. (I haven't claimed anywhere that the EW bidding was brilliant, did I?) If it turns out 5♥ is an LA, I will adjust.

 

I, obviously, object to your phrase: "West properly pauses before passing 4♠." After all, if West merely paused, there was nothing proper about it.

 

One final note: I know of very few people in the Netherlands who would overcall 2♥ with that West hand at adverse vulnerability. I know many who will say that overcalls like that mean the end of the partnership is near.

 

Rik

 

* This is a big "if". I doubt that many players will call the TD. But if a NS player asks for a ruling, I am certainly going to investigate and if the conditions are met I will adjust. And I am pretty sure that our national AC will not overturn that decision.

 

Edited to add footnote.

[mfa1010]

Suppose that it goes like this:

[hv=pc=n&w=sq2hat964dq32cq62&e=sa6hkj52djt64c743&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=pp1s2h2n(Alerted)3h4sppp]266|200[/hv]

West properly pauses before passing 4♠, but neither East not West asks the meaning of 2NT.

 

In Denmark and the Netherlands, would the director adjust the score to 5♥x -4 ?

 

No I hope not. I think anybody could be ready for the asylum if they were adjusted in England after asking, flew to Denmark and were adjusted here again when they stopped asking, as they were basically told to in England.

 

I think these question-cases shouldn't be handled too aggressively. As Rik is also saying, experienced players are pretty good at handling questions. They don't give a lot away in situations like this. If an experienced player asked as W if I were S, I wouldn't expect W to have a borderline hand for 5♥ just for that reason. The UI is much-much less clear than had there been a huddle.

 

I don't think we should work from an assumption that a pair is unaware that questions could give UI and ignorant about doing anything to randomize and limit the transmission.

 

I like akwoo's point of giving latitude and not effectively putting up a barrier to full disclosure. The alerting side shouldn't be getting an advantage through having alertable bids. The other side should be able to play the game in practice.

 

But first of all I don't think W's question (or silence) here is reliable as UI.

[gnasher]

I think these question-cases shouldn't be handled too aggressively. As Rik is also saying, experienced players are pretty good at handling questions. They don't give a lot away in situations like this. If an experienced player asked as W if I were S, I wouldn't expect W to have a borderline hand for 5♥ just for that reason.

If that's true, not asking conveys the UI that West has a borderline hand. That's just as bad as asking when you have a problem but not when you don't.

 

There really is only one good solution to this problem: always ask.

 

The UI is much-much less clear than had there been a huddle.

I agree with that in general, but not in England. Unfortunately, the rules and practice in England have created a culture where many people think that you should ask only if you're considering bidding. When such a person does ask, it conveys UI.

[WellSpyder]

Unfortunately, the rules and practice in England have created a culture where many people think that you should ask only if you're considering bidding. When such a person does ask, it conveys UI.

I think you have a point about the effect of the culture in England in general. But I think Trinidad and mfa1010 have explained clearly why the fact that this particular auction is a stop bid auction means that the problem doesn't exist on this occasion.

 

TD to West: "Why did you ask about 2NT?"

West to TD: "Because I wanted to give the impression to the rest of the table that I had something to think about."

North/South to TD: "So West is helping East decide what to do!"

TD to table: "The only UI here is that West understands the stop procedures."

[gnasher]

I think you have a point about the effect of the culture in England in general. But I think Trinidad and mfa1010 have explained clearly why the fact that this particular auction is a stop bid auction means that the problem doesn't exist on this occasion.

 

TD to West: "Why did you ask about 2NT?"

West to TD: "Because I wanted to give the impression to the rest of the table that I had something to think about."

North/South to TD: "So West is helping East decide what to do!"

TD to table: "The only UI here is that West understands the stop procedures."

No, Trinidad and mfa1010 have explained why the problem may not exist on this occasion. Here is another possible conversation:

 

TD to West: "Why did you ask about 2NT?"

West to TD: "I was thinking about bidding 5♥."

TD to West: "If you hadn't been thinking about 5♥, would you have asked"

West to TD: "No, of course not."

[lamford]

No, Trinidad and mfa1010 have explained why the problem may not exist on this occasion. Here is another possible conversation:

 

TD to West: "Why did you ask about 2NT?"

West to TD: "I was thinking about bidding 5♥."

TD to West: "If you hadn't been thinking about 5♥, would you have asked"

West to TD: "No, of course not."

You can add:

 

TD to East: "Why did you bid 5H?"

West to TD: "It seeemed like my partner was thinking of doing something, and I had normal ODR".

TD to West: "If your partner hadn't asked about 2NT would you have bid 5H"

West to TD: "No, of course not."

[lamford]

I am unconvinced by this logic. On the previous round East had less information.

I am unconvinced by this logic. On the previous round West had less information. West chose not to save in 5H. What is particularly unusual about the East hand that makes the latter want to do so? Nothing; I would bet my bottom dollar that he picked up on the level of interest that West showed in the auction, by question or just by general manner. Both UI.

[lamford]

4♠ can be defeated with a club ruff but few found that defence.

Jeez, what event was this? The Scottish equivalent of the National Newcomer's Pairs? West appears to have a routine club lead against 4S, and it ought to be trivial to find the club ruff. Even if West cashes a top heart first, the switch to a club looks obvious. EW should have been getting a bad board for the phantom. Not that it is relevant to a ruling.

[Trinidad]

No, Trinidad and mfa1010 have explained why the problem may not exist on this occasion. Here is another possible conversation:

 

TD to West: "Why did you ask about 2NT?"

West to TD: "I was thinking about bidding 5♥."

TD to West: "If you hadn't been thinking about 5♥, would you have asked"

West to TD: "No, of course not."

 

 

You can add:

 

TD to East: "Why did you bid 5H?"

West to TD: "It seeemed like my partner was thinking of doing something, and I had normal ODR".

TD to West: "If your partner hadn't asked about 2NT would you have bid 5H"

West to TD: "No, of course not."

 

These are problems that you both have that were created by the EBU.

 

This particular case was somewhat special since this was a STOP situation and West had to act as if he was interested.

 

But suppose that it wasn't a STOP situation, and West would have just asked about an alerted bid "voluntarily". Why would you think that anything abnormal is happening when West asks? It should be completely normal for players to ask about alerted bids. That is why we alert, don't we? So, we should encourage players to ask often about alerted bids, particularly in sensitive situations (e.g. competitive auctions). Because then UI is avoided.

 

I cannot understand that an NBO would discourage players from asking questions and make a policy of "asking a question means you give UI". Of course, asking a question can give UI (I once had an opponent asking "Was your 2♣ opening natural?". She was furious when her (one time) partner didn't lead clubs at his first opportunity. It's over 10 years ago, but my partner, her partner and I can still laugh about that incident.). But the fact that a question can give UI doesn't mean it will give UI by definition.

 

It only does that if it is forbidden to ask, unless you need to know (EBU policy?!) or if the case is pretty blatant (like my example).

 

Rik

[mfa1010]

You can add:

 

TD to East: "Why did you bid 5H?"

West to TD: "It seeemed like my partner was thinking of doing something, and I had normal ODR".

TD to West: "If your partner hadn't asked about 2NT would you have bid 5H"

West to TD: "No, of course not."

 

Speculation, Your Honour! :)

 

I think these question-cases shouldn't be handled too aggressively. As Rik is also saying, experienced players are pretty good at handling questions. They don't give a lot away in situations like this. If an experienced player asked as W if I were S, I wouldn't expect W to have a borderline hand for 5♥ just for that reason.

If that's true, not asking conveys the UI that West has a borderline hand. That's just as bad as asking when you have a problem but not when you don't.

 

No, I think it is posible to have a neutral approach to this, so neither of the options asking/not asking really says anything.

 

There really is only one good solution to this problem: always ask.

 

I think this is (fortunately) not so. Alerted bids come in many guises. Uncontested auctions, competitve auctions, bids we know what means anyway (here stayman is alertable for instance), bids by familiar opponents or by unknown opponents, bids where we think know our opponents' system and bids where we don't, etc etc. The reason for asking varies a great deal. We may also be more inclined to ask about a forceful alert than a small knock.

 

The point is, that we don't need to ask always at all to make us unpredictable in practice.

 

I agree with that in general, but not in England. Unfortunately, the rules and practice in England have created a culture where many people think that you should ask only if you're considering bidding. When such a person does ask, it conveys UI.

 

Sounds quite problematic.

[nige1]

Therefore, West is correct and anybody who passes in this situation without asking is violating the STOP regulation.

Often, when I read an IBLF forum, I learn something horrifying.

[hv=pc=n&w=sq2hat964dq32cq62&e=sa6hkj52djt64c743&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=pp1s2h2n(Alerted)3h4sppp]266|200| Suppose that it goes like this: West properly pauses before passing 4♠, but neither East not West asks the meaning of 2NT. In Denmark and the Netherlands, would the director adjust the score to 5♥x -4 ?[/hv]

Excellent example. EW were nonvul in the OP but EW vul makes gnasher's point better.

There really is only one good solution to this problem: always ask.

A better solution might be for the laws to stipulate that partner must announce the meaning without waiting for a question. (Saving time and reducing unintentional UI),

Jeez, what event was this? The Scottish equivalent of the National Newcomer's Pairs? West appears to have a routine club lead against 4S, and it ought to be trivial to find the club ruff. Even if West cashes a top heart first, the switch to a club looks obvious. EW should have been getting a bad board for the phantom. Not that it is relevant to a ruling.

OW. :( No Travellers/frequencies were published but I reported what I was told.

[hv=pc=n&s=sKt973hK8d84cakj8&w=s82hat964dkq932c6&n=sAqj5h73dJ7ct9752&e=s64hQj52dAt65cQ43&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=pp1s2h2n(4-card%20raise%20to%203+)3h4sp(Asks meaning%20of%202N%3F)p5hXppp]399|300|

 

And what if this had been the full deal?

:)[/hv]

[Fluffy]

I don't think anyone has ever been adjusted in my country for asking a question, this thread will probably look like science fiction to directors here. Always ask must be great in England, here I have seen countless of times players making a support double and then supporting again because partner hasn't alerted.

[gnasher]

I think this is (fortunately) not so. Alerted bids come in many guises. Uncontested auctions, competitve auctions, bids we know what means anyway (here stayman is alertable for instance), bids by familiar opponents or by unknown opponents, bids where we think know our opponents' system and bids where we don't, etc etc. The reason for asking varies a great deal. We may also be more inclined to ask about a forceful alert than a small knock.

Yes, of course. I meant "always ask if it's a situation where you might need to know".

 

Regarding the idea of varying the emphasis of the alert depending on how unusual it is, that does rely on the players being on the same wavelength. The ACBL used to formalise this by having two categories of alert, normal "alerts" and "special alerts". I thought that this was quite a good idea.

[Trinidad]

Yes, of course. I meant "always ask if it's a situation where you might need to know".

That is the way I see it. And that is what I do (and is normal at decent level here).

 

I would think that a STOP situation is a situation where by definition you might need to know. Either you might need to know or you have to act as if you might need to know.

 

But I think that the same is true for most competitive situations.

 

This was a case where both sides were bidding AND there was a STOP. If "might need to know" doesn't apply here, where would it apply?

 

Rik

[gnasher]

These are problems that you both have that were created by the EBU.

I don't have this problem. I make a point of asking the meaning in all such situations. The advice in the EBU regulations is only advice, and bad advice is best ignored.

 

But suppose that it wasn't a STOP situation, and West would have just asked about an alerted bid "voluntarily". Why would you think that anything abnormal is happening when West asks? It should be completely normal for players to ask about alerted bids. That is why we alert, don't we? So, we should encourage players to ask often about alerted bids, particularly in sensitive situations (e.g. competitive auctions). Because then UI is avoided.

 

I cannot understand that an NBO would discourage players from asking questions and make a policy of "asking a question means you give UI".

Nor me. Just to be clear, I don't agree with the EBU's approach to this. In fact, I think it's awful.

 

Of course, asking a question can give UI (I once had an opponent asking "Was your 2♣ opening natural?". She was furious when her (one time) partner didn't lead clubs at his first opportunity. It's over 10 years ago, but my partner, her partner and I can still laugh about that incident.). But the fact that a question can give UI doesn't mean it will give UI by definition.

 

It only does that if it is forbidden to ask, unless you need to know (EBU policy?!) or if the case is pretty blatant (like my example).

That's not true. If your decision to ask is dependent on the contents if your hand, asking a question gives UI. That applies regardless of whether you're following the regulations or not.

[barmar]

Regarding the idea of varying the emphasis of the alert depending on how unusual it is, that does rely on the players being on the same wavelength. The ACBL used to formalise this by having two categories of alert, normal "alerts" and "special alerts". I thought that this was quite a good idea.

That's where we got announcements from. In the cases where there were regular and special alerts for a bid, the regular alerts became announcements.

 

But maybe they need to expand on this, e.g. Jacoby 2NT may be common enough that it should be an announcement, and then an alert of 1Maj-2NT would trigger a question.

[aguahombre]

That's where we got announcements from. In the cases where there were regular and special alerts for a bid, the regular alerts became announcements.

 

But maybe they need to expand on this, e.g. Jacoby 2NT may be common enough that it should be an announcement, and then an alert of 1Maj-2NT would trigger a question.

The "Special Alert" referenced by Gnasher was indeed a different era in the ACBL. In addition to being replaced by certain announcements, it also gave way to elimination altogether of certain alerts.

 

The Negative Double, for example, used to be an alert; then, we started using the Double of a 1♥ overcall to deny Spades. This was a "Special Alert". Now, it is just an alert under the "unexpected" clause.

[barmar]

The "Special Alert" referenced by Gnasher was indeed a different era in the ACBL. In addition to being replaced by certain announcements, it also gave way to elimination altogether of certain alerts.

 

The Negative Double, for example, used to be an alert; then, we started using the Double of a 1♥ overcall to deny Spades. This was a "Special Alert". Now, it is just an alert under the "unexpected" clause.

Are you sure about that? I remember when they made negative doubles non-alertable, it was in the mid-90's, a year or two after I started going to NABCs. I remember this because I would play in some games with a partner where we played very old-fashioned (just "rubber bridge" conventions -- Stayman, Blackwood, Weak 2), and we had fun contradicting people whenever they told us we didn't have to alert 1m-(1M)-Double any more. I'm pretty sure "Special Alert" was added in the next revision after that.

 

Does someone know how to look up the history of ACBL alert changes? They're presumably in the BoD minutes, but I'm not going to try scanning all the old minutes.

[mycroft]

best hope, barmar, is wayback for acbl.org. I've found it's pretty good at giving the appropriate charts and timing.

 

I also believe that the switch to "highly unusual and unexpected" doubles (including, specifically, takeout doubles of <4♠ overcalls) came in the same alert procedures revision that introduced Announcements, 1990 or 1991, I believe (can't remember if '91 was "when *all* NT ranges became announceable" or "when announcements came in".

 

It was really nice to not have to Special Alert 1NT-2♦; but it did get a few rounds of "You don't Alert transfers any more, you just say 'Transfer'." "Thank you. Alert." (and we're *still* getting a long stare when it goes 1NT-2♥, waiting for us to say "Transfer". Of course, that's legitimate - I do the same thing to several pairs who haven't worked out that this is required, 24 years on).