BBO Discussion Forums: we are all intelligent people here, aren't we? - BBO Discussion Forums

jillybean, on 2011-December-20, 12:20, said:

Quote

mycroft, on 2011-December-20, 17:20, said:

JLOGIC, on 2011-December-20, 18:03, said:

These are the relevant laws. There's more to 20F1 and 20F2, but nothing really relevant to this question.

Quote

Law 16B1 deals with UI from partner. For purposes of Law 73 a question is included in "remark or gesture".

Regarding the wording of the laws, the Introduction to the Laws has this to say:

Quote

So the prohibitions in the quoted parts of Law 73, particularly the second one, are pretty serious.

I have to confess that the most frequent response I get to "please explain your auction" (which is the way I was taught to ask questions) begins "well, partner opened 1♣, and then I bid..." The second most frequent is "huh?" The third most frequent is "Director!" Once, the director arrived and asked me "which call were you interested in?"

I would not suggest that anyone ever lecture their opponents about anything to do with the game. That's what the director's for, and at least if you call the TD you won't have to deal with an escalating argument.

BTW the proper procedure in the case of potential UI from an inappropriately timed question is the same as the procedure in the case of potential UI from a break in tempo: you attempt to establish agreement that UI may have been passed, and if the opponents disagree, they are supposed to call the TD. Then, if you think you may have been damaged by use of UI, you call the TD after the hand is over.

Yes, bridge is supposed to be fun, and if in your judgement a TD call is unnecessary, just don't call attention to their irregularity.

JLOGIC, on 2011-December-20, 18:03, said:

Yes they are allowed.

The problem is that some people repeatedly do things like this and it is not much fun playing against them.

blackshoe, on 2011-December-20, 19:06, said:

Nevertheless I am a little surprised by the use of "shall not" and "may not" in these laws. I would have thought that the strongest possible message would be given regarding these matters.

JLOGIC, on 2011-December-20, 18:03, said:

You're not allowed to mislead the opponents or ask solely for partner's benefit. But other than that, you're allowed to ask.

The question of whether you can ask if it won't affect your bid comes up often. The conundrum that this raises is that the fact that you DON'T ask may pass UI that you have a hand that's unaffected by what the opponent has. So any "rule" for when you ask potentially raises UI issues.

But the only way out of this trap is to ask always or never (even if you need to know); the former would be annoying, while the latter is clearly not intended (the Laws specifically say that you're allowed to ask). So we live with the small amount of UI as the compromise. And the result of this is that accepted recommendation not to ask if you don't need to know.

barmar, on 2011-December-21, 01:00, said:

That depends on your location.

In most places, the accepted recommendation is to ask when you need to know and to ask frequently (i.e. less than always) when you don´t need to know. On top of that, it is considered "not done" to pass an alerted skip bid without asking, since it implies that you are not interested in bidding regardless of the meaning.

Rik

barmar, on 2011-December-21, 01:00, said:

Ergo I would submit that asking in passout seat when you are only allowed to ask if the explanation will influence your bid when you never intend to bid as misleading to the opps. Or is that false? Technically speaking of course. My understanding is you are not allowed to ask in passout if the answer will not influence your bid (aka, if you will never bid). Is this true or false? If true, asking when you will never bid is misleading to your opps.

JLOGIC, on 2011-December-21, 04:06, said:

I think this should be the case but suspect it isn't.

I played against a good player in a national event in an auction where spades were bid and alerted twice by my partner on the way to 3N by me. The player on my right asked about both alerted bids, and his partner led a spade so I wheeled the man in. Turned out the spade lead was completely natural and the asker had 8x. He apparently ALWAYS asks about any alerted bid at his turn. I hate this practice as it can create UI problems for the other side where none need to exist in circumstances where a bid is obviously conventional (or beyond 3N) but it's not precisely clear what it is, but apparently it's completely legal.

I suspect you can do the same thing if you always ask about the auction before partner leads.

You may hate the practice of always asking alerted bids, but it is the recommended practice in many places. The UI problems that it creates are minor (certainly when compared to the UI problems it prevents) since the first -and most revealing- UI already went over the table in the form of the alert.

I will not make any call, unless I know what the opponents' auction means. (This doesn't necessarily mean that I will ask all the time. Often I will know it from the convention card or because the auction has come up before.) That is my rule and there are only two exceptions:
- I will not ask if the opponents are in an artificial relay sequence and it seems clear that we don't want to be in the auction. In principle I would ask, since I might want to make a lead directing double at some point, but asking each round would be consuming too much time. If I then do want to make a lead directing double, I will ask and I will give my partner a ton of UI. I will take my loss. I consider this a favor to my opponents. (This, BTW, is a typical situation where I will ask when I am in the pass out seat. My partner will ask anyway before he leads, but it may just be possible that I want to do something other than pass. By asking at that point I will not give the UI that I was going to pass regardless of the meaning of the auction.)
- If I think that the opponents are clueless, I won't ask if it doesn't effect my bidding. I will give them every opportunity to get the auction right or wrong without UI.

Rik

It doesn't strike me as fair that when a pair who plays a "frequent alert" system is up against a pair who plays a system which is basically natural, the former gets the whole auction time to think about the hand, and plan the defence etc, whereas the latter, if they don't ask about alerted bids as they go along, have to wait until the end, and have to try to assimilate all the information from the auction in one go.

Thanks blackshoe for the recital of laws, but there was one missed:

Quote

As it's the one that allows "questions, partner?" "yeah, what was..." I figured it should be there (and in fact, when I went through your list, I twigged for a second saying "oh, so we can't actually ask before the lead is faced? I wonder how we managed to codify that illegality...")

So, to shorten Justin's query:

• You are allowed to ask at your turn to call, even if you're going to pass it out no matter what.
  
• questions asked pass UI to partner.
  
• in the passout (and presumed declarer's RHO) seat, the UI from questions about a particular call are obvious -
  
• and that by waiting until the clarification period (between the last pass and the faced opening lead) or one's play to T1, the UI won't influence the opening lead.
  
• Partner's "magically" finding the lead of the suit asked about by passout *is* going to trigger a TD call, and now you've put partner's brilliant lead-finding skills into the hands of the TD's "LA judgement". This one's pretty much no-win.

To shorten even more (in the ACBL, at least): you're allowed to ask at your turn to call. There are times when it's much safer to ask at a different time. Before passing the auction out to partner's opening lead is #1 on that list (unless, of course, you would do something given an expected explanation of the call - in that case, partner's restricted if you end up passing, but oh well).

As far as misleading the opponents, players may not "attempt to mislead". They may attempt - in fact, it is "desire[able]" for them - to keep an unvarying manner.

If a player "always asks about alerted calls", then that's what he does - and varying that due to circumstances is more of a violation than not varying it. The player is not attempting to mislead - he always asks, so he asks here too. It's not his fault if you assume that his habit means something it would for lots of other people.

If they always ask about Alerted calls in my strong club auctions, I get a bit peeved, but you know, it is their right. With luck, the explanations don't confuse them more than not having them :-)

(If a player always asks about all calls, it's going to be suggested to him that maybe he should develop a better habit...)

Always asking can cause a time problem.

And while it might mask a UI I would bet that with most partner's I could tell when they were interested and when not even if they always asked after just a few sessions. And I don't think this is one of my strengths players who are more astute in these matters could probably read their partner much sooner that I could.

Frankly, in the ACBL at least, playing a frequent alert system is a significant advantage if you are playing opponents who don't ask about every call. Either an opponent is at high risk at transmitting UI by asking about system calls when they might matter, or they risk a lead directing X without asking, which might be a significant disadvantage to their side either by being re-wrapped, or because one of the opponents has shown shortness in the suit and this X will help them evaluate HCP distribution with no upside to the doubler. Because of the burden that frequent alert systems place on the opponents, I would be very tolerant of opponents who always ask about alerts when playing against such systems in non-screen environments.

This, by the way, is my opinion despite playing a frequent alert system (or perhaps because of my experience in such a system).

"Always ask" seems like a good solution in theory but something that would significantly slow down the game and be annoying for little theoretical gain. Exactly like waiting at least 10 seconds over a skip.

BTW, I can just imagine it going 2N p 3S alert, someone asking, and then passing, and having reasonable spades and their partner leading a spade vs 3N with a LA. They say "but I always ask" and that is considered self serving and ignored without evidence. I think always askers should write it down on their card that they always ask to protect themselves. That also allows us to police them when they do NOT ask. I have seen many time people who say "but I always ask" not ask. The problem is, it is unclear what the UI is when this happens if any, or if their partner will be barred from doing anything because of it, but obviously it is a big issue.

Cascade, on 2011-December-21, 15:51, said:

I know that there are players who don't care about the meaning of opponents' bidding. I, however, like to know what is going on in the auction. During the auction, I start to visualize the possible distributions around the table. I add the HCP in my hand to the points that the "declarer to be" has shown. I visualize who could have what honors and check how they are placed relative to mine. If I have thought things over during the auction I have an easier time defending.

Therefore, it is easy for me to act as if I am interested in the answer, even if I am not contemplating a bid. This simply is because I actually am interested.

Rik

If the opponents are playing a relay system, you're still probably better off waiting until the end. They'll often give you a complete picture like "Partner showed 5 spades, 4 hearts, with the club ace and 2 other controls." If you ask along the way, the intermediate bids often have multiple possible meanings, so you're best off waiting until later bids have narrowed things down.

barmar, on 2011-December-22, 14:22, said:

Except that often this isn't the complete picture. Most such methods allow the relayer to do something other than relay. To understand the auction properly, you have to know what was shown at each stage, and what else the relayer could have done at each stage.

I'm not sure I've ever heard an explanation of a relay go into more detail than "He's asking for more information about my hand." I think most of the alternatives are just natural bids. The inference that he wants more information before setting trumps is available to both sides.

Consider these two made-up examples:

1♠-2♣       5 spades / relay
2♠-2NT     11-15, exacly 5 spades, exactly 4 cards in a red suit / relay (but could sign off in 3NT instead)
3♣-3NT     4 diamonds / signoff

1♠-2♣       5 spades / relay
2♠-2NT     5+ spades, 4+ diamonds / relay
3♣-3NT     11-15, exactly 5-4 / signoff

In the former case we know that responder would have done something different opposite a four-card heart suit. If you only ask what opener has shown, you're not getting all the information to which you're entitled.

I fully agree with gnasher.

In the cases of relays, I ask afterwards, but I do want to know what each individual bid showed. Once the opponents understand this, this can be very quick: They point to the bidding card and explain each individual bid:
- 11-15, 5+ spades
- heart side suit
- 5=4=3=1
- MIN
- 3 controls (♣K doesn't count)
- AKQ or no spade control
- heart control and diamond control (therefore, no control in spades), no control in clubs, so he has ♦A and ♥K or the ♦K and ♥A
- With that knowledge I decided to bid...

And in my experience relay pairs are very good at full disclosure.

Another thing that you do need to take into account is that relayers sometimes intentionally ask for more information than they need. They do this to mask the reason for their sign-off.

Rik