[blackshoe]

Codo, on Jan 10 2007, 02:43 AM, said:

So, why don´t you use your power and change the laws?

Huh? Did somebody die and leave me in charge?

I have no power to change the laws, and anyway, we're not talking about laws here, but regulations. I have no power to change those either. Every Sponsoring Organization is permitted to make whatever regulations it likes, so long as they don't conflict with the laws. That's why alerting regulations and convention restrictions differ from place to place.

It may not be the best possible situation, but it's the one we've got.

[paulg]

It is interesting to contract the ACBL and EBU approaches to this problem:

First the ACBL:
[quote name='http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/coc/allEvents.pdf']
ACBL Conditions of Contest
ALERTS
...
4. Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves.
5. When an Alert is given, ASK!, do not ASSUME.[/quote]
And the EBU:
[quote name='http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/articles/orangebook/default.htm']
3 A 3 It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious misinformation cases. If such players receive an explanation which is implausible, and they are able to protect themselves by seeking further clarification without putting  their side’s interests at risk (eg by transmitting unauthorised information or waking the opposition up), failure to do so may prejudice the redress to which they would otherwise be entitled.

3 E 1 A player has the right to ask questions at his turn, but should be aware that exercising this right has consequences. It suggests that the player’s action at the current turn depends on the answer to the question. In particular, if a player asks a question and then passes, he has shown an interest in taking some other action had the player received a different answer. Asking about a call which has not been alerted may cause more problems than asking about an alerted call. If, therefore, at a player’s turn to call, he does not need to have a call explained, it is in his interests to defer all questions until either he is about to make the opening lead or his partner’s lead is face-down on the table.[/quote]

The principal difference in approach appears to be it is recognised in England that asking questions provides UI and hence you are advised not to ask if it would prejudice your own rights.

The difference in approach to asking about alerted calls is born out by my limited experiences when playing in the US. People ask far more questions during the auction than they do in the UK.

Paul

[csdenmark]

cardsharp, on Jan 10 2007, 12:05 PM, said:

It is interesting to contract the ACBL and EBU approaches to this problem:

First the ACBL:

http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/coc/allEvents.pdf said:

ACBL Conditions of Contest
ALERTS
...
4. Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves.
5. When an Alert is given, ASK!, do not ASSUME.

And the EBU:

Quote

3 A 3 It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious misinformation cases. If such players receive an explanation which is implausible, and they are able to protect themselves by seeking further clarification without putting  their side’s interests at risk (eg by transmitting unauthorised information or waking the opposition up), failure to do so may prejudice the redress to which they would otherwise be entitled.

3 E 1 A player has the right to ask questions at his turn, but should be aware that exercising this right has consequences. It suggests that the player’s action at the current turn depends on the answer to the question. In particular, if a player asks a question and then passes, he has shown an interest in taking some other action had the player received a different answer. Asking about a call which has not been alerted may cause more problems than asking about an alerted call. If, therefore, at a player’s turn to call, he does not need to have a call explained, it is in his interests to defer all questions until either he is about to make the opening lead or his partner’s lead is face-down on the table.

The principal difference in approach appears to be it is recognised in England that asking questions provides UI and hence you are advised not to ask if it would prejudice your own rights.

The difference in approach to asking about alerted calls is born out by my limited experiences when playing in the US. People ask far more questions during the auction than they do in the UK.

Paul

It suggests that the player’s action at the current turn depends on the answer to the question. In particular, if a player asks a question and then passes, he has shown an interest in taking some other action had the player received a different answer
No he has not - he has shown interest in clarification and nothing else. I try to use this also to draw the attention to opps. that their handling is not solid.

It is the first phrase about selfprotection which is important. Whether you can ignore and then put the blame on TD. Looks like such is at least assumed to be poor sportmanship - thats what I have advocated and what some seems to blame me for.

[badderzboy]

[quote name='csdenmark' date='Jan 10 2007, 12:26 PM'] [quote name='cardsharp' date='Jan 10 2007, 12:05 PM']It is interesting to contract the ACBL and EBU approaches to this problem:

First the ACBL:
[quote name='http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/coc/allEvents.pdf']
ACBL Conditions of Contest
ALERTS
...
4. Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves.
5. When an Alert is given, ASK!, do not ASSUME.[/quote]
And the EBU:
[quote name='http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/articles/orangebook/default.htm']
3 A 3 It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious misinformation cases. If such players receive an explanation which is implausible, and they are able to protect themselves by seeking further clarification without putting  their side’s interests at risk (eg by transmitting unauthorised information or waking the opposition up), failure to do so may prejudice the redress to which they would otherwise be entitled.

3 E 1 A player has the right to ask questions at his turn, but should be aware that exercising this right has consequences. It suggests that the player’s action at the current turn depends on the answer to the question. In particular, if a player asks a question and then passes, he has shown an interest in taking some other action had the player received a different answer. Asking about a call which has not been alerted may cause more problems than asking about an alerted call. If, therefore, at a player’s turn to call, he does not need to have a call explained, it is in his interests to defer all questions until either he is about to make the opening lead or his partner’s lead is face-down on the table.[/quote]

The principal difference in approach appears to be it is recognised in England that asking questions provides UI and hence you are advised not to ask if it would prejudice your own rights.

The difference in approach to asking about alerted calls is born out by my limited experiences when playing in the US. People ask far more questions during the auction than they do in the UK.

Paul[/quote]
It suggests that the player’s action at the current turn depends on the answer to the question. In particular, if a player asks a question and then passes, he has shown an interest in taking some other action had the player received a different answer
No he has not - he has shown interest in clarification and nothing else. I try to use this also to draw the attention to opps. that their handling is not solid.

It is the first phrase about selfprotection which is important. Whether you can ignore and then put the blame on TD. Looks like such is at least assumed to be poor sportmanship - thats what I have advocated and what some seems to blame me for. [/quote]
Sorry Claus,

Bobbins if u ask and pass u pass UI.

I don't know a TD who would believe u either.

The 'french' defence to 1NT or weak 2s is a figment of our imaginition.

Yes you may ask at any point in the auction but u are not allowed to ask to assist partner too so why ask if u have no interest.

U can ask b4 the opening lead if u really want to know.

Why do u want to help your opponents for gawds sake (saying that online I offer a redeal in the case of a real screwup)

Steve

[the hog]

"No he has not - he has shown interest in clarification and nothing else. I try to use this also to draw the attention to opps. that their handling is not solid."

No Claus, there is a strong intimation that you have a reason for asking the question. If you asked about say a 2D bid and then passed and your pd led a D from a doubtful holding the director would be called immediately.

[FrancesHinden]

From the descriptions written here, the EBU 3 A 3 regulation ("protecting yourself") seems to be used much less in England than the equivalent one is in the US. No English TD would say that you should have asked about a 2D overcall of 1NT because it's "often artificial".

The sort of thing this regulation protects against is when the auction goes, say, 2C (alerted) P 2D (not alerted) and fourth hand says he couldn't bid his 7-card diamond suit because 2D wasn't alerted and hence it must have been natural. 1S from partner, 2S overcall not alerted and you don't raise spades because you "assume" 2S must have been natural as no alert.

It would not be applied when an auction where there is a normal, sensible meaning for the call in its unalerted form (even if that meaning is relatively rarely used).

[helene_t]

csdenmark, on Jan 10 2007, 01:26 PM, said:

No he has not - he has shown interest in clarification and nothing else. I try to use this also to draw the attention to opps. that their handling is not solid.

It is quite rude (yes, I commit this crime myself occasionaly but I work hard to un-learn that habit) to make unsolicited negative comments on opps (lack of) agreements, bidding and play. So if you motivation for asking about the meaning of a non-alerted bid is to draw the opps' attention to the fact that a natural (hence non-alerted) meaning of the bid is not optimal, you can probably better wisper this motivation in the ears of the TD to avoid offending opps.

Oops now I did it again - made an unsolicited negative comment on someone's behaviour. It will never happen again

Also, I've seen this happen several times: a beginner fails to alert some call which looks as if it should have been alerted. One of the opponents asks something like "shouldn't you alert this?" Then the beginner and/or his partner gets confused and a cacophonium of UI goes over the table in all directions. Sometimes this can cause a misunderstanding, sometimes it can prevent a misunderstanding. Often it will remain unlear what - if any - the consequence was. But in any case I hate those situations. So I teach my students to try to avoid asking questions about unalerted calls. Study the CC before the match and clarify any non-alertable agreements that may call for a special defense (in practice there will almost never be such clarifications to make).

Of course, I'm not suggesting that you ask suggestive questions. But even a neutral question could alter the way an inexperienced opp interprets his partners call.

[csdenmark]

The_Hog, on Jan 10 2007, 01:41 PM, said:

"No he has not - he has shown interest in clarification and nothing else. I try to use this also to draw the attention to opps. that their handling is not solid."

No Claus, there is a strong intimation that you have a reason for asking the question. If you asked about say a 2D bid and then passed and your pd led a D from a doubtful holding the director would be called immediately.

Ron but also for Helene.

I have stated earlier that nobody comes along me bidding 2♦ without explanation. I tried to exemplify that referring to poles and Wilkosz. Then some think I am talking about a convention but I only mentioned the convention because earlier some has suggested racial discrimination referring to poles. All too many seems to be obsessed by something preventing a real debate clarifying the intensions. Text-study instead of studying the meaning looks often to me to what is happening here.

It is not rude to draw opps.' attention to what is good practice in a simple manner. If it is rude to be helpful nowadays I admit I am a bit old fashioned. The hard way is the one preferred from thread starter here.

[kenberg]

"No he has not - he has shown interest in clarification and nothing else. I try to use this also to draw the attention to opps. that their handling is not solid."

If I were to ask, politely of course, "Are you aware that the above is self-contradictory?" would you consider me rude? I try to follow the general rule of not taking offense when none is intended, but when someone purportedly asks a question to get clarification but is in reality making a statement that my handling is not solid, I assume that indeed the offense was intended. Oh yes, they were just trying to be helpful. Sure.

And yes, I intend the above to be critical. At least I am up front about it.

I know that I said I was finished with this thread but I have always thought one of Dante's circles in Hell should be reserved for those who make condescending statements cast in the form of innocuous questions.

[csdenmark]

kenberg, on Jan 10 2007, 04:22 PM, said:

"No he has not - he has shown interest in clarification and nothing else. I try to use this also to draw the attention to opps. that their handling is not solid."

If I were to ask, politely of course, "Are you aware that the above is self-contradictory?"  would you consider me rude? I try to follow the general rule of not taking offense when none is intended, but when someone purportedly asks a question to get clarification but is in reality making a statement that my handling is not solid, I assume that indeed the offense was intended. Oh yes, they were just trying to be helpful. Sure.

And yes, I intend the above to be critical. At least I am up front about it.

I know that I said I was finished with this thread but I have always thought one of Dante's circles in Hell should be reserved for those who make condescending statements cast in the form of innocuous questions.

Certainly it is critical but not necessary to the pair in question. It is based on a general distrust of solid behavior by the majority and therefore I try to be helpful. I think I have good reasons for a general distrust.

[david_c]

Going back to the original hand, I think the TD should adjust the score if there was damage. But at the same time I'd be interested to hear what people think about this counter-argument:

Most people would expect a 2♦ bid to be natural.
However, the 2♦ bidder intended it as showing the majors, and (from the fact that he did not alert) did not seem to think this was unusual.
Thus it seems likely that the 2♦ bidder is an inexperienced player, who does not realise that the Precision auction 1♣:1♦ is treated differently to the natural auction 1♣:1♦.
In other words, he has decided that 2♦ shows the majors based on an incorrect analogy with the natural auction, not because of an agreement with partner.
So the correct explanation of 2♦ is actually "no agreement".
So the opponents have not been misinformed.

Rubbish? But why?

I would also point out that since the player seems not to realise that the Precision auction is any different to the natural one, there is no way that they would realise that an agreement to play 2♦ as showing the majors is alertable. Strictly speaking this is irrelevant to the ruling ("ignorance is no excuse"), but I think we should bear it in mind.

[helene_t]

Claus: Ken and I are just trying to explain that "trying to be helpful" is generally not appreciated. Of course, a lot of poor opps really need your helpfulness and should appreciate it (sigh), but chances are that most of them don't appreciate it.

Take this advice the way it's meant. We're just trying to be helpful

[SteelWheel]

What actually happened (not on the hand, but with respect to my following up on this both through the forums, and an email to the appropriate parties):

I've been advised that I was 100% right in my contention that 2♦ was alertable, and that had we not already received a good score on the board, redress would have been available. Furthermore, the issues raised by my inquiry have been deemed to be of such great interest that Gweny has been advised, and this entire matter is being brought to the attention of all BBO ACBL TDs, for future reference in similar situations.

All in all, not a bad outcome for a player who is "not solid", who has "wasted his strongest weapon", a "lame duck", who is "risk free to interfere against", is "unfamiliar with Wilkosz" (a very important thing to be aware of in an ACBL GCC event, to be sure), "has much homework to do", "not a good strong club player", "not ready to accept responsibility", and who "wastes his bids for nothing".....wouldn't you say?

[csdenmark]

helene_t, on Jan 10 2007, 04:55 PM, said:

Claus: Ken and I are just trying to explain that "trying to be helpful" is generally not appreciated. Of course, a lot of poor opps really need your helpfulness and should appreciate it (sigh), but chances are that most of them don't appreciate it.

Take this advice the way it's meant. We're just trying to be helpful

Sorry Helene - I appreciate your nice tone but your advise I will not adopt.

I don't care whether my advise is appreciated or not. What I care is it will no longer be needed.

[SteelWheel]

Quote

Most people would expect a 2♦ bid to be natural.
However, the 2♦ bidder intended it as showing the majors, and (from the fact that he did not alert) did not seem to think this was unusual.
Thus it seems likely that the 2♦ bidder is an inexperienced player, who does not realise that the Precision auction 1♣:1♦ is treated differently to the natural auction 1♣:1♦.
In other words, he has decided that 2♦ shows the majors based on an incorrect analogy with the natural auction, not because of an agreement with partner.
So the correct explanation of 2♦ is actually "no agreement".
So the opponents have not been misinformed.

This is not merely an incorrect analogy, but also an incorrect anology to an entirely different auction. A Michaels cue-bid is an immediate bid by a player of his RHO's opening bid, at his first turn to act, showing two other suits (sometimes both known, sometimes only one known suit). It is NOT a bid by advancer/4th hand of his RHO's last bid suit, intended to show the other two suits.

Actually, in most of my regular partnerships, we have no problem when the auction goes (1X)--P--(1Y)--? The common understanding is that a bid of 2X or 2Y is an offer to play in that suit; this is in fact the generally accepted treatment in (real) "expert" bridge circles. Or, to put it another way, if the opponents show one suit, we show two suits--if they show two suits, we show one suit (sounds like a Dr. Seuss rhyme, doesn't it? ).

Apparently, some on here feel it is my responsibility to immediately interrogate my RHO about his methods, as a means of "giving lessons", or to attempt to determine whether or not I am dealing with a "solid opponent". I'm a simple soul; I assumed that the 2♦ call was "bridge", indicating a desire to play a contract in ♦. Using the intervention as a means of teaching my opponents the flaws in their methods, or the potentiality of transmitting UI to my partner, never occurred to me as being the right course of action.

[david_c]

SteelWheel, on Jan 10 2007, 04:26 PM, said:

This is not merely an incorrect analogy, but also an incorrect anology to an entirely different auction.  A Michaels cue-bid is an immediate bid by a player of his RHO's opening bid, at his first turn to act, showing two other suits (sometimes both known, sometimes only one known suit).  It is NOT a bid by advancer/4th hand of his RHO's last bid suit, intended to show the other two suits.

Despite what you say, many people do play that Michaels applies by 4th hand. (Amongst the non-expert players where I come from, I would say close to 100% of them would interpret (1♣) : p : (1♦) : 2♦ that way, if 1♦ is natural.)

But this doesn't really matter, since the question I am asking is, do you think these particular players had an agreement about what a 2♦ overcall meant after the Precision auction 1♣:1♦? If, as seems likely, they had no agreement, do you still feel that you were misinformed?

[Al_U_Card]

Last nite our auction started p-p-1D-2C-dbl-2D-2H-p-2S all pass

Expert opps, no alert on the 2D reponse by the passed hand opp.....and it was....diamonds! 6 to the AJT. Boy, pard didnt dbl and I thot it was for C support as I had 2D and 4C.

I never even thot to ask......

[jillybean]

SteelWheel, on Jan 10 2007, 08:07 AM, said:

I've been advised that I was 100% right in my contention that 2♦ was alertable, and that had we not already received a good score on the board, redress would have been available.

Which law permits this?

[FrancesHinden]

jillybean2, on Jan 10 2007, 04:15 PM, said:

SteelWheel, on Jan 10 2007, 08:07 AM, said:

I've been advised that I was 100% right in my contention that 2♦ was alertable, and that had we not already received a good score on the board, redress would have been available.

Which law permits this?

I would rephrase this as saying:

Had we been damaged, redress would have been available. As we already had a good score (i assume: >= the best score at all likely without the MI) there was no need to adjust the result.

[SteelWheel]

Quote

But this doesn't really matter, since the question I am asking is, do you think these particular players had an agreement about what a 2♦ overcall meant after the Precision auction 1♣:1♦? If, as seems likely, they had no agreement, do you still feel that you were misinformed?

This really is beating a dead horse, as the actual situation has been handled, and will be used to inform the BBO ACBL TDs to better handle similar situations going forward. Against my better judgment, though....

As for what I think the players' actual agreement was about this auction? I'll have to get back to you on that, my crystal ball is still in the repair shop. If they have no agreement, why is it I who must pull teeth to get the information I need? Why can't I simply assume that 2♦ means ♦ and act accordingly?

I strongly suspect that if my RHO had had some diamond values, he would have doubled. I also think that if he had held a long string of diamonds (say, a 6+ card suit) he would have bid 2♦ without a moment's hesitation, just as surely as he did in the case at hand where he made the same call to indicate "majors". The agreement that they play "Michaels", would never have occurred to him, as he would just be thinking about/looking at the 13 cards in front of him, rather than focusing on a general principle or approach to bidding in such auctions.

This is yet another symptom of my pet peeve about players who get loaded up with too many rules, and never learn the underlying principles of the game. They've been told that cue-bidding RHO's suit is a takeout for other suits (rule), but never seem to learn the underlying principle (this applies only to immediate overcall of opener's suit, and has nothing whatever to do with an auction in which both opponents have bid suits artificially to indicate the general strengths of their respective hands).