Fluffy Posted September 30, 2015 Report Share Posted September 30, 2015 [hv=pc=n&s=skqt7532h5dj4ckj4&w=sht3dakt86532ct72&n=saj94hk976dq97ca3&e=s86haqj842dcq9865&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1d1h4s5d5sppp]399|300[/hv] Before bidding 5♦ west asks: do you play best minor? (Standard in Spain) At the table I just felt infuriated and did nothing as it was a club game, but now I am just laughing at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted September 30, 2015 Report Share Posted September 30, 2015 A lot depends on whether NS have convention cards or not. If yes, then W needs to be told to look at the CC instead of asking such a question. If not then maybe W should be told to try to do something to avoid UI. Ask a more general question, or ask p to leave the table. But it is difficult and the root cause of the problem is the lack of CC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted September 30, 2015 Report Share Posted September 30, 2015 "Do you play best minor?" - "No, your minor is obviously better." ;) Rik 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted September 30, 2015 Report Share Posted September 30, 2015 If not then maybe W should be told to try to do something to avoid UI. Ask a more general question, or ask p to leave the table. But it is difficult and the root cause of the problem is the lack of CC.You don't think seeing partner read the CC would pass the same UI as the question? What else could he be looking for other than the meaning of 1♦? Even asking partner to leave the table suggests the same thing. I'm not sure there's any way for West to find out without passing UI. Do you think East was supposed to assume 5♦ was a cue bid in support of hearts, and take the phantom sac in 6♥? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted September 30, 2015 Report Share Posted September 30, 2015 North clearly shouldn't have bid 5♠. He should have passed after asking: "What does that cuebid mean?" ;) Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellSpyder Posted September 30, 2015 Report Share Posted September 30, 2015 maybe W should be told to try to do something to avoid UI. I would consider going further than this, and imposing a penalty on W for deliberately conveying UI. However, I guess this might depend on the normal methods in this part of the world. Would it be normal to use 5♦ as a natural bid if oppo were playing better minor but to use it as some sort of cue-bid if they were playing 4-card diamond suit openings? If so, then clearly a penalty would not be appropriate. But this sounds like an unlikely agreement to me, whether it is explicit or implicit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted September 30, 2015 Report Share Posted September 30, 2015 If whatever you do (ask a question, look at a system card) will convey UI, then either you bid in the dark, or you convey UI. There is no other choice. Getting angry over an opponents' stupid questions is probably not a good idea. B-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanst Posted September 30, 2015 Report Share Posted September 30, 2015 If yes, then W needs to be told to look at the CC instead of asking such a question.Altough such a leading question is an nfraction, asking about a call shouldn't be answered by telling an opponent to look at the CC. The law requires you to give a full explanation and nowhere in the laws CC's are mentioned, let alone that they require the players to look at them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted September 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2015 Blackshoe: Everyone plays best minor in spain, playing anything else liek 1 promising 4 is alertable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted September 30, 2015 Report Share Posted September 30, 2015 Altough such a leading question is an nfraction, asking about a call shouldn't be answered by telling an opponent to look at the CC. The law requires you to give a full explanation and nowhere in the laws CC's are mentioned, let alone that they require the players to look at them.oh sorry, by "needs to be told" I didn't mean that South should ask W to look at the CC. Of course, South must answer the question once asked. But I think the TD should teach W not to ask such questions if a CC was available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Blackshoe: Everyone plays best minor in spain, playing anything else liek 1 promising 4 is alertable.And there was no alert, so West should not ask the question, as he already knows the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 But I think the TD should teach W not to ask such questions if a CC was available.I'm still interested in how you think this would help. The opponents have only made two calls, it should be totally obvious which one he's looking at the CC to find the meaning of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Ah yes, the "fewer than you have, obviously" question. This time not intended to get a lead, but to make clear that the bid is natural. I'm not sure, given 5♠, what I can do on the hand - whatever 5♦ meant, East has an obvious DSI pass over 5♠. But unless the player is clueless or can prove to me that they do play different meanings for diamond bids based on opener's minimum length (and I'm not talking 2+ or 0+, I assume that would have been disclosed in the jurisdiction), she's getting a penalty for *that* question. What does it matter if 1♦ is 4+ or 3 "2% of the time" or 3 "10% of the time" when you have AK-to-8? That, combined with the UI generated, is enough for me for make just a warning insufficient. Law 72B1, 73B1, example of 74C4. My guess is that it was completely innocent and she had no idea the implications. Well, now she does. As a side note: why is it always diamonds? Now here, it's 1♦, not 2♦ (which in my area always seems to be asked about with strength - some just ask all the time, but somehow I don't believe that generally), but still. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 I'm still interested in how you think this would help. The opponents have only made two calls, it should be totally obvious which one he's looking at the CC to find the meaning of.Yes good point. Even better is, of course, to familiarize yourself with opps' system at the start of the round. Or, in this case, just bid 5♦ without asking anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TylerE Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 imposing a penalty on W for deliberately conveying UI. Under what law? GIVING UI is not illegal, and never has been. Acting on it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 Under what law? GIVING UI is not illegal, and never has been. Acting on it is.Giving UI is illegal if it's done as a part of collusive cheating. See Law 73B2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted October 5, 2015 Report Share Posted October 5, 2015 Cheating is generally addressed completely separately from routine application of the Laws by TDs. When deciding on a ruling, assume the players are basically honest, although possibly ignorant of their ethical responsibilities, not deliberately cheating. I think the recent cheating scandals in championship bridge have oversensitized you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted October 5, 2015 Report Share Posted October 5, 2015 I didn't suggest there's any element of cheating in this case, only that the assertion that giving UI is never illegal is not correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted October 5, 2015 Report Share Posted October 5, 2015 Under what law? GIVING UI is not illegal, and never has been. Acting on it is.UI is a normal and inevitable negative side effect of the procedures of the game. Sometimes you need to think about what to bid or play, sometimes you need to answer a question, etc. All this information is UI to your partner, but it is inevitable that this happens. In such a situation, giving UI is not an infraction. This is in sharp contrast to what actually happened in the OP (at least that is what the OP believes, otherwise I am sure he wouldn't have posted this). The UI was not a side effect of an action that is necessary to play the game. The UI was the main effect (and possibly/probably the intended effect) of an action that was completely unnecessary to play the game. I think this is a clear case of 73B1 (not of 73B2): B. Inappropriate Communication between Partners 1. Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them. Rik 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted October 5, 2015 Report Share Posted October 5, 2015 The evidence of "communication," if any, would lie in the actions of the recipient of the communication. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted October 5, 2015 Report Share Posted October 5, 2015 I didn't suggest there's any element of cheating in this case, only that the assertion that giving UI is never illegal is not correct.I wouldn't even use the term UI to refer to deliberate signals. Yes, it technically falls into the definition, but including it muddles the discussion. Sending/using UI and cheating are separate concerns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted October 5, 2015 Report Share Posted October 5, 2015 The evidence of "communication," if any, would lie in the actions of the recipient of the communication.When I write this post, in response to you, aiming it at you, Blackshoe, I communicate. Whether you chose to read it is not relevant and whether you chose to act on it is not relevant at all. This post is communication. When West asked "Do you play best minor?", he/she was (supposedly) aiming it at East. That is communication and is in defiance of Law 73B1. For this, it is irrelevant whether East acted on the communication, or even heard the question. When, in a normal situation, West asks a question, he is communicating to his opponents, not to his partner, East. The fact that East can hear the question is a side effect that makes the fact that West asked this question UI to East. But this doesn't make it communication from West to East. Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted October 5, 2015 Report Share Posted October 5, 2015 Communication is not a one-way street. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 Communication is not a one-way street.It is for some people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 http://i0.wp.com/makeapowerfulpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/What-we-got-here-is-01.png?resize=608%2C281 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.