Nat Pairs 3 - a question during the auction

[VixTD]

[hv=pc=n&s=sj6ht876dt9873cq2&w=sq74hqjdaj542ckt4&n=sakt8532hak53d6c7&e=s9h942dkqcaj98653&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1n(12-14)2d(one%20major)2n(clubs)p(question)3c3s4cpp4sppp]399|300[/hv]

1NT (announced) was 12-14, 2♦ (alerted) showed a single-suited hand with a major, unsuited for a penalty double. 2NT (alerted) showed clubs.

 

Before passing, South asked West about the 2NT and was told it was a transfer to clubs.

 

Result: 4♠(N)=, lead ♦Q, NS +420 (37/48 MPs)

 

Part 1: My colleague was called at the end of play to query North's 4♠ call after the question asked by South.

 

Do you see anything untoward?

[helene_t]

I think the actual South hand confirms that a question about an alerted call does not suggest anything in particular. Maybe South was just being ethical and wanted to avoid transmitting the UI from sometimes asking, sometimes not asking.

[Lanor Fow]

If they alwyas ask then surely they would mention this to the TD, and He would have reported it in the OP.

 

I also am far from convinced that we can use the actual hand as proof of what is or isn't suggested.

[aguahombre]

IMO when a player is alerted, it is his turn to call, and he properly asks the meaning of the alerted call --- we need to answer the question without exploring for motive merely because a player exercised his right.

 

The burden should not be on the player to show that he always asks. Absent evidence that he provides UI by asking or not asking, the subject should not even be addressed.

[steve2005]

So asking a question about alert coveys UI? Can't someone just ask so they will be ready if the auction develops they might need to take action. Doesn't that also means when a person doesn't ask that conveys UI that partner if in doubt should pass?! It's just silly, it's natural to ask what an alert means.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sj6ht876dt9873cq2&w=sq74hqjdaj542ckt4&n=sakt8532hak53d6c7&e=s9h942dkqcaj98653&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1n(12-14)2d(one%20major)2n(clubs)p(question)3c3s4cpp4sppp]399|300|

1NT (announced) was 12-14, 2♦ (alerted) showed a single-suited hand with a major, unsuited for a penalty double. 2NT (alerted) showed clubs. Before passing, South asked West about the 2NT and was told it was a transfer to clubs. Result: 4♠(N)=, lead ♦Q, NS +420 (37/48 MPs). Part 1: My colleague was called at the end of play to query North's 4♠ call after the question asked by South. Do you see anything untoward? [/hv]

When partner asks or doesn't ask a question about an alerted call, he transmits UI, unless he always asks or never asks. Some jurisdictions seem to adopt an ostrich-like policy about such UI. In contrast, the EBU blue book (as quoted in recent threads) warns players about asking a question, lest it impose UI constraints on partner. IMO, the actual hand held by the asker should certainly be irrelevant to any resultant ruling.

 

Director interpretations vary. SBU directors made different rulings in two recent similar cases. One was at the Scottish trials:

 

(South opened 2♠ alerted). West doubled. (North raised to 4♠). East asked about the opening bid.

(South passed). West doubled, passed out.

4♠X was two down. Declarer called the director. The director adjusted to 4♠ undoubled -2. The doubler held a flat 16 count. The questioner held a flat 5-count (not that it matters).

 

Law simplifications have been suggested, which would mitigate this (and other) kinds of problem.

[campboy]

Director interpretations vary. SBU directors made different rulings in two recent similar cases. One was at the Scottish trials:

I don't think the Scottish trials case is similar at all. It is fairly normal to ask about the call just made, if it is alerted. It is much more unusual to ask about a call from earlier in the auction.

 

In contrast, the EBU blue book (as quoted in recent threads) warns players about asking a question, lest it impose UI constraints on partner.

What the Blue Book actually says is:

 

"A player has the right to ask questions at his turn to call or play, but exercising this right may have consequences. If a player shows unusual interest in one or more calls of the auction, then this may give rise to unauthorised information. His partner must avoid taking advantage. It may be in a player’s interests to defer questions until either he is about to make the opening lead or his partner’s lead is face-down on the table."

 

IMO the case in OP does not show unusual interest, but your Scottish case does.

[nige1]

I don't think the Scottish trials case is similar at all. It is fairly normal to ask about the call just made, if it is alerted. It is much more unusual to ask about a call from earlier in the auction.

During the auction, in Scotland, you should not ask about an alerted call, until it's your turn to bid.

[blackshoe]

During the auction, in Scotland, you should not ask about an alerted call, until it's your turn to bid.

That's true everywhere. Law 20F1.

[Aardv]

...IMO, the actual hand held by the asker should certainly be irrelevant to any resultant ruling...

IMO, the actual hand held by the asker should certainly be relevant to any resultant ruling.

 

IMO, it's utterly unreasonable to assert that the question suggests bidding 4♠ when the evidence we have is that the asker asks on what looks like a one-count with no particular fit. My recollection is that "demonstrably" in 16B1a was intended to be a stronger replacement for the previous "reasonably"; that is the laws tell us not to be unreasonable in penalizing imaginary suggestions.

[Trinidad]

Say now that South would have had 7 HCPs instead of 3. Would we all have agreed that the question didn't give (significant) UI? Or woould some of us have said that the question indicated that South wanted to bid something?

 

Just curious...

 

Rik

[pran]

IMO, the actual hand held by the asker should certainly be relevant to any resultant ruling.

 

IMO, it's utterly unreasonable to assert that the question suggests bidding 4♠ when the evidence we have is that the asker asks on what looks like a one-count with no particular fit. My recollection is that "demonstrably" in 16B1a was intended to be a stronger replacement for the previous "reasonably"; that is the laws tell us not to be unreasonable in penalizing imaginary suggestions.

So in your opinion a player may by asking or not asking a question (made according to L20f5) inform his partner whether or not he has a hand "justifying" such question?

 

Fine. The next time I want to locate a particular card I shall take into account whether an opponent likely to have asked if holding that card did or die not ask. And if this results in an unfortunate choice by me I shall request redress? Will that be OK With you?

 

I think I stick with the rule that a general question about an auction as a whole or about an alerted call is hardly ever considered to pass UI.

[gwnn]

He asks if he has a queen and a jack but doesn't ask if he has more? Or is it something like:

 

0-2 hcp: "what does it mean."

3-5 hcp: "what does it mean?"

6-8 hcp: "what does it mean?!"

9-11 hcp:"what does it mean?!?"

 

(adjust the ranges with significant length in both majors)

 

EW saw dummy, right? Maybe they did not realize that all 3 hcp's were essentially wasted in S's hand, but really what they should have been doing is commending S for ethically asking with his complete garbage of a hand and not wasting the TD's time.

[gwnn]

Say now that South would have had 7 HCPs instead of 3. Would we all have agreed that the question didn't give (significant) UI? Or woould some of us have said that the question indicated that South wanted to bid something?

 

Just curious...

 

Rik

It depends on S right? In your case it is unclear what the tendencies of that S player are. In this case it is crystal clear.

[campboy]

During the auction, in Scotland, you should not ask about an alerted call, until it's your turn to bid.

Obviously I meant "It is fairly normal for the player whose turn it is to ask about the call just made, if it is alerted." That is the situation in OP. I agree that if North had immediately asked about the meaning of 2NT, that would be both illegal and unusual.

 

It is unusual for anyone to ask about a call from earlier in the auction, as in the Scottish case.

[VixTD]

When asked by the TD why he had asked about the 2NT bid, South said he wanted to know if it was forcing or not. If it wasn't forcing, he was going to double to show his high card. (We didn't ever manage to work out which card he was talking about.)

 

A poll of players had them all bidding 4♠ (if they hadn't already done so a round earlier), so no score change.

 

Part 2: East isn't finished. He now claims that the question asked by South put him off bidding 5♣ over 4♠, so he wants an adjusted score on that basis (he suggests a split score, allowing NS to keep theirs for 4♠).

 

Any takers?

[helene_t]

Part 2: East isn't finished. He now claims that the question asked by South put him off bidding 5♣ over 4♠, so he wants an adjusted score on that basis (he suggests a split score, allowing NS to keep theirs for 4♠).

 

Any takers?

what's his point? That South appears to have values which may be finessable honours so that 5♣ could easily be a phantom? This is really very far fetched. I bet, if E had actually bid 5♣ and it had worked badly, he would have said that it was South's question that made him do it.

[barmar]

Fine. The next time I want to locate a particular card I shall take into account whether an opponent likely to have asked if holding that card did or die not ask. And if this results in an unfortunate choice by me I shall request redress? Will that be OK With you?

The Laws specifically say that you take inferences from the opponents actions at your own risk. So unless you can show that they could have known that their choice of whether to ask or not would deceive you, there's no redress.

[Aardv]

So in your opinion a player may by asking or not asking a question (made according to L20f5) inform his partner whether or not he has a hand "justifying" such question?

20F5? But yes, obviously that's possible - 20F1 "Law 16 may apply", or see 73B1 which forbids it.

8.16.9 Law 16B: Unauthorised information from partner [WBFLC]

The committee noted extensive correspondence concerning unauthorised information derived from a question asked following an alert. […] Such unauthorised information can arise.

[WBFLC minutes 2001-10-30#8]

 

A question about the meaning of a call (even of an alerted call) may provide unauthorised information to partner.

Fine. The next time I want to locate a particular card I shall take into account whether an opponent likely to have asked if holding that card did or die not ask. And if this results in an unfortunate choice by me I shall request redress? Will that be OK With you?

If I were the TD, I suppose I would not object to your attempt to draw my attention to something you believed to be an irregularity. As a player, I hope I would keep my (impolite) views to myself.

 

As regards a ruling on your request: it seems to me that this inference is not covered by 73D or 73F. So you keep your table result.

 

I think I stick with the rule that a general question about an auction as a whole or about an alerted call is hardly ever considered to pass UI.

It usually doesn't. My point was that the actual hand of the asker is useful evidence when we're considering a possible exception to that.

 

Say now that South would have had 7 HCPs instead of 3. Would we all have agreed that the question didn't give (significant) UI? Or woould some of us have said that the question indicated that South wanted to bid something?

In that case I'd want the TD to make further enquiries...

 

When asked by the TD why he had asked about the 2NT bid, South said he wanted to know if it was forcing or not. If it wasn't forcing, he was going to double to show his high card. (We didn't ever manage to work out which card he was talking about.)

 

A poll of players had them all bidding 4♠ (if they hadn't already done so a round earlier), so no score change.

So unexpectedly we learn that the question did in fact show values (and also that South is mad). But a poll supports North's actions anyway, good job by the TD.

 

Part 2: East isn't finished. He now claims that the question asked by South put him off bidding 5♣ over 4♠, so he wants an adjusted score on that basis (he suggests a split score, allowing NS to keep theirs for 4♠).

And perhaps a golden unicorn thrown in. He can't have one.

[VixTD]

The Laws specifically say that you take inferences from the opponents actions at your own risk. So unless you can show that they could have known that their choice of whether to ask or not would deceive you, there's no redress.

Not exactly. Law 73F says:

When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player

has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who

could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C).

[barmar]

Not exactly. Law 73F says:

Are you saying that "would deceive you" is sufficiently different from "could work to his benefit" that my paraphrase was incorrect? Should I have said "could" instead of "would"?

[barmar]

Say now that South would have had 7 HCPs instead of 3. Would we all have agreed that the question didn't give (significant) UI? Or woould some of us have said that the question indicated that South wanted to bid something?

I don't think a person has to "always ask" or "never ask" to avoid conveying UI when he asks. Another possibility is "always asks when he needs to know, but sometimes asks even when he doesn't". There's still some UI when you don't ask, but when you ask it's not possible to tell whether it's because you need to know or because it's one of the "sometimes" that you ask when you don't.

 

The hand in this thread suggests that this is a "sometimes asks" player, which means that his questions wouldn't suggest something to a regular partner who has picked up on this tendency.

 

But if he had the 7-HCP hand, we wouldn't be able to conclude anything about his tendencies from this particular occurrence. If the players claim that he frequently asks with no need, the TD could believe them. But this is a self-serving statement, so it will often be taken with a grain of salt, and the hand would not serve to bolster the claim. In that case, we will usually follow general guidelines, which are that questions imply a need to know, which suggests that he has a hand that could take different actions based on the answer. Flat near-Yarbs don't usually fall into that category.

[gwnn]

When asked by the TD why he had asked about the 2NT bid, South said he wanted to know if it was forcing or not. If it wasn't forcing, he was going to double to show his high card. (We didn't ever manage to work out which card he was talking about.)

 

A poll of players had them all bidding 4♠ (if they hadn't already done so a round earlier), so no score change.

 

Part 2: East isn't finished. He now claims that the question asked by South put him off bidding 5♣ over 4♠, so he wants an adjusted score on that basis (he suggests a split score, allowing NS to keep theirs for 4♠).

 

Any takers?

Can we throw him in the ocean with cement shoes?

[weejonnie]

Not exactly. Law 73F says:

I never like the 'could have' - it is extremely wide ranging.

[barmar]

I never like the 'could have' - it is extremely wide ranging.

I know what you mean. But I understand why it's written like that -- they're trying to avoid requiring mind reading or having to get the perpetrator to admit that he did something intentionally. So rather than having to determine whether someone DID know that their action would benefit them, we try for a more objective "could have known".