Who is the offending side here?

[weejonnie]

On vugraph every couple sessions I see a complete meltdown where one person has forgotten the system. This occurs pretty often with life masters. Can someone explain why its UI because you have dared to look at a conv card or just asking a question to see what opp playing is UI. Either you can protect yourself or you can give UI its seems like your the one screwed when opponents don't alert or forget their system!

 

It's UI because it conveys to partner that you have some interest in the auction - and are therefore unlikely to hold a 4-3-3-3 Yarborough. This makes balancing more attractive. I agree that the philosophy behind requiring players to protect themselves results in this contradiction however the problem is hard-wired into the laws.

 

16B1a - extraneous information from partner (not chose alternative demonstrably suggested) vs

20F1 - right to know what all calls made mean (and possible alternatives)

 

of course 20F1 highlights that Law 16 may apply but law 16 does not mention law 20. This suggests, cateris paribus, that you should not ask unless you intend to take some positive action whatever the result. (You can't ask questions for the benefit of partner, and at the end of the auction you can ask for meanings of all the calls to avoid passing UI that you might have been interested in a particular one. The problem is, of course, that you may have missed your opportunity to make a worthwhile call earlier in the auction.) As a hint - if you are in the pass-out seat ask the opponents the meanings of all the calls before you pass. If there has been misinformation then the director can roll the auction back so your partner could bid again. If you pass then are advised you are misinformed then only your final pass can be rescinded.

 

Bobby Wolff calls this 'convention disruption' and campaigns for people who do so to be penalised automatically. You can understand and sympathise with his point but there is nothing in the laws that allow for it.

[Trinidad]

Just for the record: The "you have to protect yourself" is not part of the Laws either. It is in regulations.

 

Personnally, I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea that you should protect yourself, but only in obvious situations. If you are an experienced player and the auction starts 1♥-(2♥)-?? and you don't hear an alert, you can not claim to think that 2♥ was natural. And, more importantly, you cannot claim that partner might think it was natural.

 

However, that is where it stops. As soon as you are not sure how partner will take the non alerted bid, the "protect yourself" should go out of the window. In my opinion, you should simply be able to assume that the explanation (or lack of alert) was correct. Any consequences are for the perpetrators offending side. After all, if you ask, you will damage your interests. And you should not be forced to damage your interests by an infraction by the opponents. I can damage my own interests by my own infractions just fine, thank you.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

It's UI because it conveys to partner that you have some interest in the auction

This jumped out at me, so I'm addressing just it. "Partner is interested in the auction" simply says that he's a bridge player. That's not UI.

[weejonnie]

This jumped out at me, so I'm addressing just it. "Partner is interested in the auction" simply says that he's a bridge player. That's not UI.

But there is a difference between wanting to know what the bids mean (which you can do at the end of the auction (at the risk of UI) ) and deciding to take some action depending on what the bids mean (which you want to do in the middle of the auction).

 

And don't say 'I always ask' because you don't.

[jillybean]

Giving UI, or having UI, is not the end of the world. It's not even an infraction of law. Using UI is an infraction of law. So when you have, or may have, received UI from partner, you should make every effort to avoid taking advantage of it. If you do that, your conscience is clear, however the TD rules. If you get UI from some other source, of course, you should just call the director and tell him what happened, and let him deal with it.

 

This is of course correct but in my experience your average player has no understanding of of UI or that they must take care not to use it.

I don't know what the answer is but I know I'm never going to find it in local games here.

[steve2005]

What about a situation where you know opponents system (apparently better then them) should you ask meaning of bid you think they've forgotten to alert even though u have no intention of bidding

[trevahound]

What about a situation where you know opponents system (apparently better then them) should you ask meaning of bid you think they've forgotten to alert even though u have no intention of bidding

 

This is not rare in our good local evening game where partnerships are different basically every week. I don't think asking in that case conveys any UI to partner at all.

[mycroft]

All I can say is that back before Announcements, when non-strong NTs were Alerted, they "always asked", but sometimes forgot. But when they forgot, partner didn't balance without a rock (or didn't pull the double with a bad hand), and they were usually right. So much so that my weak NT partnership started scoring 1.5-2% higher on our club night after Christmas than before.

 

A year later, at least two very important clubs (Kate Buckman's (Barbara Seagram) in Toronto and Barrington's (Alan LeBendig) in LA) had club regulations that stated "you do not need to know whether an unAlerted 1NT is 15-17, 16-18, or 15-18; asking that question will be treated as UI, and if your partner takes a call suggested by the UI, the score will be adjusted." Shortly thereafter, a review of the new Alert Procedure was done, and *ALL* NT ranges were now Announceable. And the BoD voted down, almost unanimously, the annual request to unAnnounce 15-17 (or "strong") NTs for enough years that now they don't try any more.

 

No, *of course* there's no UI from these sorts of questions, or looking at the card.

 

Now, as I remarked coming back from the regional this weekend, if C&C decided that over NT, red-suit-to-major transfers were the unAlerted meaning, with natural Announced, and anything else Alerted, I wouldn't have an issue with that (except for the fact that the same crew that haven't worked out that 2♠ isn't Announced, even if it is a transfer (which it frequently isn't), won't be any better about not Alerting - it's just now they'll be silent).

 

[Edit: also possible: both "transfer" and "to play" (or "natural") are Announced, so red-suit responses to NT will always have an Announcement or Alert, like the 1NT opening itself. Same problem with expansion, of course, plus what to do with interference.]

[blackshoe]

And don't say 'I always ask' because you don't.

You don't know me, so that's a bit much. The fact is though that whether I always ask, never ask, or sometimes ask, I don't say "I always ask".

[barmar]

What about a situation where you know opponents system (apparently better then them) should you ask meaning of bid you think they've forgotten to alert even though u have no intention of bidding

If you know their system, you obviously don't need to ask for your own benefit. So it seems that the only reason for such a question would be for partner's benefit, and you're not allowed to ask questions solely for that reason.

[PhilKing]

If you know their system, you obviously don't need to ask for your own benefit. So it seems that the only reason for such a question would be for partner's benefit, and you're not allowed to ask questions solely for that reason.

 

I believe that is sort of his point. When you do ask, it must be for a reason, and this gives UI.

 

Here the UI is either that you have diamonds, and are considering a double or you have hearts (just in case by an off-chance 2♦ is natural) and are thinking of bidding 2♥.

 

Where I think op was wrong was by verbally stating that she may have been damaged when 2NT was passed out, since this can only mean she has diamonds, so the UI was more specific. The trouble is we are generally advised, rightly or wrongly, to draw attention to an irregularity when it becomes apparent, but by doing so we still give UI. In such cases we should be allowed to wait until the end of the hand with out jeopardising our position.

 

The adjustment to 2NT-3 was a bit of a joke, since that was hardly a likely outcome if South gets to double 2♦, but who knows given North's failure to take any positive action.

[blackshoe]

It occurs to me that damage can only be determined after the hand is played, since by definition damage is a result worse than might have been obtained without the infraction, and you can't know that until after the play. So it cannot be incorrect to wait until after the play to call because you think you've been damaged. In particular, it cannot ever be right for the director to say "because you waited, you failed to protect yourself" in such cases.

[aguahombre]

It occurs to me that damage can only be determined after the hand is played, since by definition damage is a result worse than might have been obtained without the infraction, and you can't know that until after the play. So it cannot be incorrect to wait until after the play to call because you think you've been damaged. In particular, it cannot ever be right for the director to say "because you waited, you failed to protect yourself" in such cases.

I am on Ed's side if the infraction is (as here) disclosure or MI. If we were addressing BIT or UI, then whole different thing.

[pran]

If you know their system, you obviously don't need to ask for your own benefit. So it seems that the only reason for such a question would be for partner's benefit, and you're not allowed to ask questions solely for that reason.

More than once have I experienced opponents' whose system I certainly knew well (at least I thought) suddenly turning up with new agreements.

 

It cannot be illegal to ask in order to verify that they haven't changed their agreements from what you believe they are?

[nige1]

The rules about "Protecting yourself", "SEWOGs", and "Professional questions" are among many that add no discernible value. Bridge would be simpler and better without them.

[trevahound]

I believe that is sort of his point. When you do ask, it must be for a reason, and this gives UI.

 

Here the UI is either that you have diamonds, and are considering a double or you have hearts (just in case by an off-chance 2♦ is natural) and are thinking of bidding 2♥.

 

Where I think op was wrong was by verbally stating that she may have been damaged when 2NT was passed out, since this can only mean she has diamonds, so the UI was more specific. The trouble is we are generally advised, rightly or wrongly, to draw attention to an irregularity when it becomes apparent, but by doing so we still give UI. In such cases we should be allowed to wait until the end of the hand with out jeopardising our position.

 

The adjustment to 2NT-3 was a bit of a joke, since that was hardly a likely outcome if South gets to double 2♦, but who knows given North's failure to take any positive action.

 

We all know, or should know, when we are asking a question for partner's benefit. I am more likely to ask a question in these circumstances for opp's benefit, and I've even told opps before what their partner's bid meant when opps were friends. Of course, I wouldn't do that at an NABC, but I also wouldn't want to take advantage of their misunderstanding any more than absolutely unavoidable.

[blackshoe]

I am on Ed's side if the infraction is (as here) disclosure or MI. If we were addressing BIT or UI, then whole different thing.

Of course. For one thing, the UI laws specifically suggest that you establish agreement that UI may have been passed when that happens (and if your opponents disagree they are supposed to call the director, but many players don't know that, and most of the ones that do won't call anyway, whatever their reason :( ).

[aguahombre]

It cannot be illegal to ask in order to verify that they haven't changed their agreements from what you believe they are?

Exactly. I would go even farther. I dare anyone to PROVE I absolutely knew their agreements and that they had not changed, and even if they could, I contend that asking a question to ensure partner knows the proper context for my call --- the meaning of which varies depending on what RHO's call meant --- is not asking solely for partner's benefit. I do not accept that we have to be doomed to confusion about our own auction because partner doesn't know whether I knew what RHO's call meant when I doubled or bid.

[Trinidad]

Exactly. I would go even farther. I dare anyone to PROVE I absolutely knew their agreements and that they had not changed, and even if they could, I contend that asking a question to ensure partner knows the proper context for my call --- the meaning of which varies depending on what RHO's call meant --- is not asking solely for partner's benefit. I do not accept that we have to be doomed to confusion about our own auction because partner doesn't know whether I knew what RHO's call meant when I doubled or bid.

That's a non problem.

 

I always assume that partner knows what their calls mean. We simply stick with their explanation. In this case, 2♦ was "explained" (by not alerting) as natural. We will not get confused. If the explanation was wrong, we will get an AS.

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

That's a non problem.

 

I always assume that partner knows what their calls mean. We simply stick with their explanation. In this case, 2♦ was "explained" (by not alerting) as natural. We will not get confused. If the explanation was wrong, we will get an AS.

 

Rik

We certainly have different philosophies. As a player, if I can predict and prevent a problem which might cause a score adjustment, I will do that.

 

As a director, I do not appreciate those players who are capable of lawfully preventing irregularities but would rather let them happen...sometimes as a double shot.

[pran]

We certainly have different philosophies. As a player, if I can predict and prevent a problem which might cause a score adjustment, I will do that.

 

As a director, I do not appreciate those players who are capable of lawfully preventing irregularities but would rather let them happen...sometimes as a double shot.

The British have a saying: "That is not Cricket" which (loosely) as far as I understand translates to "that is not how a Gentleman would behave".

 

I believe what you describe above, and do not appreciate, definitely is not Cricket! (+)

[barmar]

Exactly. I would go even farther. I dare anyone to PROVE I absolutely knew their agreements and that they had not changed, and even if they could, I contend that asking a question to ensure partner knows the proper context for my call --- the meaning of which varies depending on what RHO's call meant --- is not asking solely for partner's benefit. I do not accept that we have to be doomed to confusion about our own auction because partner doesn't know whether I knew what RHO's call meant when I doubled or bid.

I believe the idea behind the "no asking for partner's benefit" rule is that if he needs to know, he should ask himself.

 

But I see that this raises an issue. If they forgot to alert, and his question exposes that, how should he interpret my action that I took before this disclosure? Should he assume that I knew their actual agreement, or that I believed they had a non-alertable agreement?

 

I don't think that the requirement to protect oneself should be taken so far that partner should make inferences about my action based on whether I did or didn't do so. If this were in EBU, I think the rule that I'm allowed to assume the non-alertable meaning when they fail to alert would indemnify us in the above situation.

[Trinidad]

We certainly have different philosophies. As a player, if I can predict and prevent a problem which might cause a score adjustment, I will do that.

 

As a director, I do not appreciate those players who are capable of lawfully preventing irregularities but would rather let them happen...sometimes as a double shot.

I think you don't understand where my position comes from. Essentially, there are two possibilities:

A) The explanation by the opponents is correct.

B) The explanation by the opponents is incorrect.

 

If the explanation is correct, there is no infraction. If I start to ask all kinds of questions, I am damaging my own interest, and I may even be guilty of an infraction myself (e.g. asking for partner's benefit). If I don't ask any questions and believe the explanation, I will be able to conduct a perfectly normal auction. Conclusion: It is best to believe the explanation.

 

If the explanation is incorrect, there is an infraction. If I start to ask all kinds of questions, I am damaging my own interest (e.g. I may wake up an opponent), and I may even be guilty of an infraction myself (e.g. asking for partner's benefit). The upshot is that -in some cases- I will get a corrected explanation. This rarely leads to better feelings at the table and there still was an infraction. Inevitably the original explanation will clutter my mind and will distract from making the right decisions. If I don't ask any questions and believe the explanation, I will be able to conduct a perfectly normal auction, except that at some point it might turn silly. The case for the TD will be extremely simple: The damage is entirely due to the infraction by the opponents and we are entitled to redress. Conclusion: It is best to believe the explanation.

 

It is simple. Somebody breaks the rules at the table by failing to explain properly. Nobody accuses him or her to do that on purpose, nobody is angry or upset. But it is (or should be) 100% clear who is liable for the consequences of the infraction: the person who committed it and nobody else. Even suggesting that somebody else should have jumped in and prevented the consequences, at the risk of damaging his own interests is absurd (in any somewhat serious game).

 

And, of course, we all have been on both sides of the issue. When I am misinforming my opponents, I am fully willing to take 100% of the blame. No, I won't be happy about it, but if I make a mistake, I have to take the consequences.

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

O.K. I will start a thread Lamford would love based on this one, complete with the obligatory SB. Don't hold your breath, though. It won't be til tomorrow.

[barmar]

Nearly everyone who plays strong NT also plays transfers over them, and you're experienced enough to know this. You hear the auction 1NT-(Pass)-2♥, and there's no alert or announcement from opener (assuming this is required in your jurisdiction). Do you really think you'll get any protection if you proceed on the assumption that RHO has a weak hand with hearts, as if it were 30+ years ago? Isn't it far more likely that LHO simply forgot to alert/announce?

 

This is the kind of thing that the rule about players protecting themselves is aimed at.