Ethics and the Passout Seat

[Vampyr]

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.

 

The problem is that while the practice might be normal for you, it will be unusual for the opponents and you will get ruled against if they take any inference from your behaviour. Maybe this will not often happen in practice, but be aware that you may be ruled against if the opponents are misled.

[Zelandakh]

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.

Huh? Regulations about when the bids should be picked up are a matter for the local organisation. Here the bids are picked up at the end of the auction for example. Bidding boxes are there to reduce the amount of UI available by variations in delivering a bid verbally and have no effect on questions asked. If I would like to know the meaning of a natural bid during the auction, for example the possible strength range, then it is perfectly acceptable to ask. No alert is required. And this thread is about asking before making a final pass when you have questions (and wil be on lead), so any reference to situations where a player does not have questions is completely irrelevant.

[Zelandakh]

The problem is that while the practice might be normal for you, it will be unusual for the opponents and you will get ruled against if they take any inference from your behaviour. Maybe this will not often happen in practice, but be aware that you may be ruled against if the opponents are misled.

How do you envisage the timing of the question(s) misleading the opponents?

[Vampyr]

Huh? Regulations about when the bids should be picked up are a matter for the local organisation. Here the bids are picked up at the end of the auction for example. Bidding boxes are there to reduce the amount of UI available by variations in delivering a bid verbally and have no effect on questions asked. If I would like to know the meaning of a natural bid during the auction, for example the possible strength range, then it is perfectly acceptable to ask. No alert is required. And this thread is about asking before making a final pass when you have questions (and wil be on lead), so any reference to situations where a player does not have questions is completely irrelevant.

 

Yeah, PhilG007 had clearly not read the thread before posting. I felt it was kindest to just ignore his conribution.

[Vampyr]

How do you envisage the timing of the question(s) misleading the opponents?

 

It's self-evident, isn't it? If you ask questions whether or not you are planning to balance with something, then in the cases where you weren't planning to do anything no matter what explanations you got, the opponents may assume that you were in fact considering action. Else why didn't you pass and then ask? Particularly as this is what everyone else does.

[Zelandakh]

Particularly as this is what everyone else does.

Everyone? Not me! First of all I do not understand the logic - I have a bridge reason for asking and am not passing UI. Why do the opps get to make whatever assumtions they want to here as opposed to doing so at their own risk? Secondly, there is an obvious advantage to asking before passing. If the opps have indeed failed to alert then we have a MI case and by not first passing partner is empowered to change their call. This would not be the case had I first passed. So I fail to see why this practise should be anything less than optimal.

[Vampyr]

Everyone? Not me!

 

I had the impression that you lived someplace else, ie not England.

 

Anyway according to 17E the auction period ends when the opening lead is faced, so your partner can still change his call.

[Laocoon166]

you will get ruled against if they take any inference from your behaviour.

 

I strongly doubt this is the case. By that logic whenever I asked a question about an alert and an opponent was misled into thinking that I might have made a call at that point, then I could be ruled against. What you are suggesting seems to amount to revoking the rights that a player has to ask questions at any point during the auction at his turn to call.

 

 

Secondly, there is an obvious advantage to asking before passing. If the opps have indeed failed to alert then we have a MI case and by not first passing partner is empowered to change their call. This would not be the case had I first passed. So I fail to see why this practise should be anything less than optimal.

 

Thanks Zelandakh. I hadn't actually considered that additional advantage. Interesting.

[Laocoon166]

I had the impression that you lived someplace else, ie not England.

 

Why is that important? Is standard procedure notably different elsewhere?

[aguahombre]

Maybe someone has said this already, but for the soon-to-be opening leader, asking before passing has a practical effect. It keeps the bid-cards on the table while the questions are being asked. I don't believe (even if required in some jurisdictions) those cards are routinely kept out during the clarification period.

[Zelandakh]

Why is that important? Is standard procedure notably different elsewhere?

It was different certainly. When I was playing in England the guidelines were that a player should not ask a question unless considering action. There were many complaints about this and I was under the impression that this was no longer the case. But perhaps one of our EBU Laws experts can come in on that point.

[Vampyr]

I strongly doubt this is the case. By that logic whenever I asked a question about an alert and an opponent was misled into thinking that I might have made a call at that point, then I could be ruled against. What you are suggesting seems to amount to revoking the rights that a player has to ask questions at any point during the auction at his turn to call.

 

I thought we were simply discussing the timing of asking and passing when in the passout seat. And I never said you couldn't ask, but that you could transmit MI and have an adverse ruling.

 

 

Thanks Zelandakh. I hadn't actually considered that additional advantage. Interesting.

 

No, it's not; I edited my post above because I had forgotten to add that partner is still allowed to change his call.

 

Why is that important? Is standard procedure notably different elsewhere?

 

Yes, for example in some places they pick up the bidding cards immediately after the final pass, so you may have to ask questions in your manner to avoid the bidding cards being whipped away, followed by the time-wasting procedure of restoring them to the table.

 

EDIT: Oops it was mentioned above. Sorry on a device that makes it a little hard to not miss posts.

 

But anyway in general, if someone does something in another country they are not part of the "everyone" in the relevant playing environment.

[Vampyr]

Maybe someone has said this already, but for the soon-to-be opening leader, asking before passing has a practical effect. It keeps the bid-cards on the table while the questions are being asked. I don't believe (even if required in some jurisdictions) those cards are routinely kept out during the clarification period.

 

They are in the EBU, where the OP is playing.

[aguahombre]

They are in the EBU, where the OP is playing.

Yes. That is why I worded what I said the way I did.

[Vampyr]

Yes. That is why I worded what I said the way I did.

 

Did you mean to quote me? I haven't the slightest idea what you are on about.

[Laocoon166]

I thought we were simply discussing the timing of asking and passing when in the passout seat. And I never said you couldn't ask, but that you could transmit MI and have an adverse ruling.

 

Yes, we are. I was just drawing an analogy with the similar situation of asking about an alert, where the opponent might inadvertently be misled if he draws an inference about why you asked a question about that alert at your turn to call.

 

I still don't agree that I could be giving out MI by asking a question at that point, nor do I agree that a ruling against that practice would be correct. See my post above (24) for why I think 73D(1) does not cover this situation

 

 

No, it's not; I edited my post above because I had forgotten to add that partner is still allowed to change his call.

 

Well I thought it was interesting. I think you are wrong about this. My understanding accords with what Zelandakh says, and that partner cannot change his call if you pass.

 

Law 21B(1a) says that a player may change a bid which he made based on MI "provided his partner has not subsequently called." Therefore passing would disable partner from changing his last call.

[aguahombre]

Did you mean to quote me? I haven't the slightest idea what you are on about.

That is a shame. You quoted me and replied just above it; I responded. Short-term memory issue?

[barmar]

Yes, for example in some places they pick up the bidding cards immediately after the final pass, so you may have to ask questions in your manner to avoid the bidding cards being whipped away, followed by the time-wasting procedure of restoring them to the table.

In cases where I'd like to see all the bids while asking my question, I (and others) just say something like "please leave your cards out" when the players start picking them up. It works fine. There's rarely any UI from this -- it generally only happens after a complicated auction with lots of alerts, so questions are expected.

[RMB1]

How do you envisage the timing of the question(s) misleading the opponents?

If you ask before passing when you always intend to pass, it will mislead the opponents that you might not have passed if the answers had been different.

[WellSpyder]

If you ask before passing when you always intend to pass, it will mislead the opponents that you might not have passed if the answers had been different.

I agree. I remember once asking a related question about not passing until I had decided what to lead, in order to avoid providing UI (to partner) and AI (to opponents) that my lead wasn't clear-cut. I was told clearly that oppo were entitled to know that I was thinking about my lead not my call if that was the case, so I should not combine the two periods.

[Zelandakh]

If you ask before passing when you always intend to pass, it will mislead the opponents that you might not have passed if the answers had been different.

This is ridiculous and a step back to the bad old days, Robin! What you are saying is that I must ask my questions in such a way as to pass UI to partner, provide information to the opponents and reduce our side's possibility for obtaining a good bridge result in the case of MI. If this is really the EBU's position I would encourage them to reconsider it.

[aguahombre]

I was told clearlywrongly that oppo were entitled to know that I was thinking about my lead not my call if that was the case, so I should not combine the two periods.

The opponents are entitled to guess whatever they want to guess, at their own risk. Asking questions at your turn to act, or at your turn to lead, might imply neither that you were considering a call nor considering a lead. Your obligation is to not purposely provide UI to partner or purposely mislead the opponents.

[Laocoon166]

Exactly. On what basis were your opposition claiming this right Spyder? I don't believe they have the right to any such thing. Zel has hit the nail on the head imo. It concerns me that an EBU TD thinks this way...

[WellSpyder]

Exactly. On what basis were your opposition claiming this right Spyder? I don't believe they have the right to any such thing. Zel has hit the nail on the head imo. It concerns me that an EBU TD thinks this way...

It wasn't my opposition claiming this right, but some of the most respected TDs on this forum (or maybe a predecessor forum on laws issues - I can't remember how long ago it was now) claiming the right on behalf of my opposition.

[Laocoon166]

It wasn't my opposition claiming this right, but some of the most respected TDs on this forum (or maybe a predecessor forum on laws issues - I can't remember how long ago it was now) claiming the right on behalf of my opposition.

 

Apologies. I misread you post. For me I find it troubling that a TD had that opinion. I don't know what basis there is for it in the laws.