Ethics and the Passout Seat

[Laocoon166]

The situation I'm talking about it when both partner and RHO have passed and if you now pass you will be on lead. I don't know about other jurisdictions but in the UK the procedure is to pass, ask any questions you have about the opponents' auction, lead face down and ask partner if he has any questions.

 

So my question is, is there anything wrong with habitually asking questions about the opponents' auction before you make your final pass?

 

It makes no difference if you are going to pass anyway but if you are considering doubling and want information, the fact that you always ask questions at this point will conceal the fact that you are thinking about doubling, both from your partner and from the opponents.

 

If you usually wait until your lead to ask questions, then when you ask questions during the auction at your final turn to call everyone at the table will know you are thinking of doubling.

 

Of course this practice might be best avoided when you think that if you double that will not end the auction and that questions you ask might give useful information to partner, but that is extremely rare. The practice would also help to reinforce the habit of thinking about what you are going to lead before doubling a contract!

 

So what would you think of a player who habitually does this? And is it an improvement?

[mgoetze]

I think it is just too rare that you actually need to ask anything - especially in the UK where convention cards are actually used! - to justify delay of the game this would induce if you did it every time the situation came up. (I don't know about you but I can't think about my lead while I'm asking a question so the time would have to be added on.)

 

Otherwise the idea is fine in principle but in practice you will run into an opponent who doesn't like it and won't be placated by "he always does it like this".

[ArtK78]

The situation I'm talking about it when both partner and RHO have passed and if you now pass you will be on lead. I don't know about other jurisdictions but in the UK the procedure is to pass, ask any questions you have about the opponents' auction, lead face down and ask partner if he has any questions.

 

So my question is, is there anything wrong with habitually asking questions about the opponents' auction before you make your final pass?

 

It makes no difference if you are going to pass anyway but if you are considering doubling and want information, the fact that you always ask questions at this point will conceal the fact that you are thinking about doubling, both from your partner and from the opponents.

 

If you usually wait until your lead to ask questions, then when you ask questions during the auction at your final turn to call everyone at the table will know you are thinking of doubling.

 

Of course this practice might be best avoided when you think that if you double that will not end the auction and that questions you ask might give useful information to partner, but that is extremely rare. The practice would also help to reinforce the habit of thinking about what you are going to lead before doubling a contract!

 

So what would you think of a player who habitually does this? And is it an improvement?

I think you presented the problem nicely. I don't know what else there is to say. Obviously, it would be better to pass first and then ask any questions before leading.

[Trinidad]

I think you presented the problem nicely. I don't know what else there is to say. Obviously, it would be better to pass first and then ask any questions before leading.

Either you missed the OP's point, or you made a simple mistake

 

His point is that passing first and then asking questions gives his partner the UI that he was never considering doubling. If one always asks first, then passes, and then leads, partner will not get this UI.

 

So, from that perspective, it is obviously better to ask first and then pass.

 

However, since very few opponents will understand this, and the false notion that you shouldn't ask if you don't have anything to ask is widespread in some bridge communities, it may be wiser to pass first and then ask, despite the fact that it transmits more UI.

 

Obviously the best way is to know what the opponents are doing before any action you take (not merely passouts). That way you will never give the UI that you couldn't care less what their bidding means, nor will you give the UI that you are specifically interested in the meaning of 4♣.

 

Rik

[ArtK78]

Either you missed the OP's point, or you made a simple mistake

 

His point is that passing first and then asking questions gives his partner the UI that he was never considering doubling. If one always asks first, then passes, and then leads, partner will not get this UI.

 

So, from that perspective, it is obviously better to ask first and then pass.

 

However, since very few opponents will understand this, and the false notion that you shouldn't ask if you don't have anything to ask is widespread in some bridge communities, it may be wiser to pass first and then ask, despite the fact that it transmits more UI.

 

Obviously the best way is to know what the opponents are doing before any action you take (not merely passouts). That way you will never give the UI that you couldn't care less what their bidding means, nor will you give the UI that you are specifically interested in the meaning of 4♣.

 

Rik

I did not miss the point. It can be a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Suppose I was considering doubling and did not need to ask questions to make my decision. I choose to pass and then, just to be sure that everything is as I believe it to be, I ask some questions. Does this convey UI that I didn't consider doubling?

 

In any event, unless the questions that you need to be answered are relevant in making your determination on what to do in passout seat, you should pass first and ask questions later. The laws give you the right to ask questions at any time that it is your turn to act. You should ask them before the auction is concluded if you believe that the questions are relevant to your action, and you should pass first otherwise.

 

These issues are often very difficult to deal with in abstract cases. As long as the players involved follow the proper procedures in good faith, the problems created by the asking of questions OR THE LACK THEREOF should be minimized.

[barmar]

This is very similar to the age-old question about whether you should ask about all alerts, or only if it affects your bidding.

 

If you only ask when it affects your bidding, then not asking conveys UI that you have a hand that will not bid no matter what the meaning. And asking followed by passing gives UI that you would have bid if it had a different meaning.

 

But despite this UI issue, many regulating authorities recommend asking only when it's relevant, presumably because lots of unnecessary questions would slow down the game (especially if you're playing against opponents with a highly artificial system).

[mikeh]

I appreciate the good faith that underlies the OP, but I really deplore the notion that anyone should habitually ask questions about the auction before the lead.

 

How many times does opening leader really need to know anything beyond what the bids have told him or her? The bidding goes 1N P 3N P P P?

 

Or 1N P 2♥ (transfer) P 2♠ P 3N P P P?

 

And so on.

 

You might argue that 'well, we wouldn't ask on those examples', but as soon as you start making exceptions to your rule, you create a grey area. What are the criteria for asking or not asking? What inferences will arise? How long do you have to think about whether this auction calls for a 'habitual' question or whether it is one of the exceptions?

 

I know that I would be extremely annoyed if in a match against the OP, I had 5 1N 3N auctions and on each one of them the OP asked me to explain the auction!

[Zelandakh]

If I have questions about the auction in that situation then I ask as in the OP before making a pass. Typically having asked I say "ok, thank you" and pick up my bidding cards, which is another practise I know many dislike. Clearly it would be silly always to ask something here though. Ask if you have a question and get on to leading if you do not. I assume this was also the point in the OP and that Mike has misunderstood but it is worthwhile to make it clear.

[Laocoon166]

What are the criteria for asking or not asking? What inferences will arise? How long do you have to think about whether this auction calls for a 'habitual' question or whether it is one of the exceptions?

 

I assume this was also the point in the OP and that Mike has misunderstood but it is worthwhile to make it clear.

 

Yes, I don't mean that you should ask questions in every auction where you are in this situation! Sorry if that was not clear in the OP. My criterion for asking or not asking would be pretty simple: whether or not I have a question.

[mikeh]

If I have questions about the auction in that situation then I ask as in the OP before making a pass. Typically having asked I say "ok, thank you" and pick up my bidding cards, which is another practise I know many dislike. Clearly it would be silly always to ask something here though. Ask if you have a question and get on to leading if you do not. I assume this was also the point in the OP and that Mike has misunderstood but it is worthwhile to make it clear.

You're right...I now see that the issue was the timing of what questions one would ask, rather than always asking a question.

[Laocoon166]

(I don't know about you but I can't think about my lead while I'm asking a question so the time would have to be added on.)

 

Well, ideally you will be asking questions that might inform your lead and so it should take up no additional time. Just imagine in your head that you have already made the final pass if you like. I'm not suggesting asking frivolous questions.

 

you will run into an opponent who doesn't like it and won't be placated by "he always does it like this".

 

This is probably true, and might be a good reason for not following such a practice. Then again that opponent would have no real recourse to the director. It would just be a case of sour grapes if he assumed from my question that I was going to take another call and played accordingly.

 

 

I did not miss the point. It can be a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Suppose I was considering doubling and did not need to ask questions to make my decision. I choose to pass and then, just to be sure that everything is as I believe it to be, I ask some questions. Does this convey UI that I didn't consider doubling?

 

In any event, unless the questions that you need to be answered are relevant in making your determination on what to do in passout seat, you should pass first and ask questions later. The laws give you the right to ask questions at any time that it is your turn to act. You should ask them before the auction is concluded if you believe that the questions are relevant to your action, and you should pass first otherwise.

 

This isn't necessarily the case though. I know some (advanced/expert) players who profess to be very ethical who ask questions at their turn even when it does not affect their call for the exact purpose of not giving UI when they ask and they do need the information for that call.

 

I agree with barmar that the two situations are analogous. However saving time is not an issue here because you are taking up time you were going to use up anyway, just before your final call instead of after it.

[blackshoe]

Otherwise the idea is fine in principle but in practice you will run into an opponent who doesn't like it and won't be placated by "he always does it like this".

Frankly, Scarlett, I don't much care what an opponent like this thinks. I do care what the director thinks - and whether he's malleable enough to defer to a vociferous opponent just because that opponent complains.

[blackshoe]

This is very similar to the age-old question about whether you should ask about all alerts, or only if it affects your bidding.

 

If you only ask when it affects your bidding, then not asking conveys UI that you have a hand that will not bid no matter what the meaning. And asking followed by passing gives UI that you would have bid if it had a different meaning.

 

But despite this UI issue, many regulating authorities recommend asking only when it's relevant, presumably because lots of unnecessary questions would slow down the game (especially if you're playing against opponents with a highly artificial system).

I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to play bridge without, at some time and to some degree, conveying UI — or at least giving sufficient appearance of having done so to trigger opponents' ire. I would say we should try to minimize it (without going so far as to fail to properly disclose our own methods), but otherwise not to worry over much about it.

 

In the case at hand, I see no problem with asking before you make the final pass.

 

The proper way to ask is "please explain your auction". This minimizes any UI you might convey, unless you later ask a supplemental question about a specific call. The problem with it is that players do not understand the question, so they stumble over the response - or reply to a different question altogether ("may I have a review?") That is what slows things down. This proper way applies throughout the auction. The one exception, IMO is that when there is an alert, the proper questions is "please explain [the reason for the alert]". Alerts, I always ask, except once I'm aware of a relay auction, unless my partner gets there first. Otherwise, I would usually wait until the end of the auction, unless something is confusing to me or I'm considering competing, or continuing to compete.

 

I have had this converstation:

 

me: please explain your auction

opponent: well, um, partner bid... and then I bid… (and so on)

me: thank you for the review. Please explain your auction.

opponent: um, what?

 

At this point I am tempted to call the director and complain that my esteemed opponent does not seem to understand simple English. Of course, sometimes the opponent will call the TD and complain that I'm harassing him. :blink:

 

After an opponent's complicated relay auction, I don't care which bids were relays and which were not. I care who was asking, and what the responses showed, and whether there were any implications about the asker's hand in the fact that he chose to relay. This is easily handled by a pair of "partner has shown…" statements.

 

The key to this is education, but in spite of my efforts to do that (mini-lessons for the "C" players, discussions after the round, whatever) it seems an impossible thing to accomplish.

[barmar]

Why don't you ask for a "review with explanations"? I think most players will understand that.

 

If you insist on being passive-aggressive with opponents who don't understand you, you get what you deserve.

[blackshoe]

Why don't you ask for a "review with explanations"? I think most players will understand that.

 

If you insist on being passive-aggressive with opponents who don't understand you, you get what you deserve.

Uh, huh. It's all my fault. Sure.

 

I don't want a review - particularly when the bidding cards are still on the table, as sometimes happens.

[barmar]

It's not "all" your fault, part of the problem is the opponent's misunderstanding. But if you ask a question, and don't get the kind of answer you were looking for, asking the same question again is probably not helpful. Is your goal to get the answer to your question, or demonstrate your superior knowledge of correct procedure?

[mycroft]

I read assuming it was the traditional issue with "questions before passout, *partner's* on lead." It's not - and I hope that part of asking before passing "to be consistent" would not include asking before passing on partner's lead (Note, there's nothing in OP that would lead me to believe it, but it's too easy to forget).

 

Here, I don't think there would be an issue in theory; a quick trip to L73D1 and "actually, this isn't variation, even, for him" should resolve it. But it won't, I'm sure.

[Vampyr]

 

This is probably true, and might be a good reason for not following such a practice. Then again that opponent would have no real recourse to the director. It would just be a case of sour grapes if he assumed from my question that I was going to take another call and played accordingly.

 

 

Is this what you think, even though you admit that this diverges from normal practice and that in certain auctions you are not asking?

 

It is not illegal to transmit UI to partner, but it is illegal to give MI to the opponents.

[Laocoon166]

Is this what you think, even though you admit that this diverges from normal practice and that in certain auctions you are not asking?

 

It is not illegal to transmit UI to partner, but it is illegal to give MI to the opponents.

 

As I understand it misinformation is when you explain the meaning of a bid inaccurately or when you fail to alert a call that should have been alerted. That's not what's happening here. In fact the only 'information' I would be giving anyone is that I have a question to ask, which I do.

 

I think perhaps you have not understood or I have not been clear. What I'm proposing certainly isn't illegal as far as I can work out. What law forbids it?

[blackshoe]

It's not "all" your fault, part of the problem is the opponent's misunderstanding. But if you ask a question, and don't get the kind of answer you were looking for, asking the same question again is probably not helpful. Is your goal to get the answer to your question, or demonstrate your superior knowledge of correct procedure?

Oh, I don't just leave it at repeating the question - I explain what I want, although sometimes I feel like I need a two by four to get the idea across.

[barmar]

I think perhaps you have not understood or I have not been clear. What I'm proposing certainly isn't illegal as far as I can work out. What law forbids it?

I think he's referring to Law 73D:

1. It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk.
   
2. A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or 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.
   

Misleading this way is not usually classed as MI, but he's right that you're not supposed to do it.

[nige1]

So my question is, is there anything wrong with habitually asking questions about the opponents' auction before you make your final pass?

IMO:

• Legal, ethical, and sensible, provided that you are on lead
• If partner is on lead, there might be a suspicion that your question suggested a lead.

[Trinidad]

me: please explain your auction

opponent: well, um, partner bid... and then I bid… (and so on)

me: thank you for the review. Please explain your auction.

opponent: um, what?

 

At this point I am tempted to call the director and complain that my esteemed opponent does not seem to understand simple English. Of course, sometimes the opponent will call the TD and complain that I'm harassing him. :blink:

 

After an opponent's complicated relay auction, I don't care which bids were relays and which were not. I care who was asking, and what the responses showed, and whether there were any implications about the asker's hand in the fact that he chose to relay. This is easily handled by a pair of "partner has shown…" statements.

 

The key to this is education, but in spite of my efforts to do that (mini-lessons for the "C" players, discussions after the round, whatever) it seems an impossible thing to accomplish.

When you are a player it is not your job to educate. It is your job to communicate. And communication is about finding the common denominator. In this specific case that means you will have to rephrase from the bridge jargon "please explain the auction" to simple English "Could you tell me what each bid (1♥, 2♣, etc.) told about the hand?".

 

Rik

[Laocoon166]

I think he's referring to Law 73D:

 

1) It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk.

 

2) A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or 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.

 

Misleading this way is not usually classed as MI, but he's right that you're not supposed to do it.

 

I disagree that there has been any "misleading" at all. As you say above it is similar to the question about whether you should always ask about an alert. I don't think a player who always asked about an alert in a particular spot would be guilty of misleading in any way.

 

Regarding Law 73D which you cite: 73D(2) clearly does not apply as there has been no "attempt" to mislead.

 

The potentially relevant sentence in 73D(1) is "players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side", "variations" referring to "manner" and "tempo". I don't think this practice would fall foul of this law for two reasons. Firstly, since the leader would always ask questions at this point where they have one, there is no "variation" in what they do. And secondly, it seems that by making sure they always follow the same procedure they would be satisfying the requirement in the law that they be "particularly careful".

 

In practice I can't imagine that any director would actually make a ruling against this practice using this law.

 

Just to clarify in response to some posts above, yes, I am only advocating doing this when it is going to be your lead, not partner's.

[PhilG007]

If bidding boxes are being used,then there is no need to ask questions about the auction. That is what bidding boxes were desigmed to do. Until the opening lead is faced,all the bids in the auction must not be moved,thus removing the possible chance that any question asked is not unethical. If a bid was alerted,then either opponent,at their turn to bid can ask the meaning of the conventional bid.