[hotShot]

I have a problem here.

North has a single ♠, his partner made a t/o dbl of ♠ and his LHO opened. North has a clear picture of RHOs strength and knows that opps have a 9+ card ♠ fit. South t/o dbl (most likely) promised a 4 card ♥ suit. North does not need to ask to know that an alerted 2 ♥ bid must be some sort of ♠ support, he can even estimate the strength. If he asks about the bid, the answer will not influence his bid.

1) If he asks and opps recognize that the question was irrelevant for the bid, they will claim asking about the bid and then bidding ♣ implies ♥ length.

2) If North does not ask about the bid and South is not aware of the meaning, South is likely to get into a position to "ask and pass". Although South has the right of full disclosure, he is forced to guess, because opps can claim UI, if the answer makes South pass.

I can't accept a regulation that deprives one side of the right to get full disclosure.

The law should state that the player in 2nd seat always has to ask or better that asking about an alerted bid does not create UI.

[shyams]

ggwhiz, on Jun 8 2010, 03:50 AM, said:

Quote

It remains, I need hardly say, my irrevocable conviction that no question about an alerted call should be held to create UI. And furthermore, I think that Carthage ought to be destroyed.

Agree completely, especially about Carthage.

If a call is alerted as artificial, you are entitled to an explanation, period.

I agree as well.

mjj29, on Jun 8 2010, 06:41 AM, said:

It seems to me that asking about an alerted call because you know you are going to bid - and hence won't generate as much UI as your partner might if after asking he might pass - should be a perfectly reasonable tactic. Not asking to make sure that partner doesn't assume it's natural, but asking because you know you can do so safely but partner may not be able to

Assume you have a sound bidding system with your partner but have not specifically discussed this auction. What do you do with the North hand?
As you have not discussed this, it is possible for me (or people more competent and experienced than me) to show how the sequence you choose (asking then doubling, asking then bidding, not asking and doubling, not asking and bidding) conveys UI to partner. In effect, N/S are being consigned to a poor score because they have not discussed this situation before and every thing they try to extricate themselves from the situation lands them in a "ruling" situation. That doesn't sound fair.

[campboy]

peachy, on Jun 8 2010, 04:48 AM, said:

IMO, it is unfortunate that "asking about an alerted call at one's first legal opportunity to ask" is interpreted as "creating UI". Conversely, that "not asking at one's legal opportunity to ask" is also "creating UI". I still don't understand: When is one allowed to exercise one's legal right to ask WITHOUT creating UI, in EBU?

Legally, of course, a question is always UI whether in the EBU or elsewhere. It is just that sometimes the UI from the question does not suggest anything in particular. IMO an immediate question from North here would not have suggested anything in particular.

[hanp]

From a recent regional tournament, matchpoints.

1C - 1D
1H - 2C
3H - 3S
6H - all pass

1C was alerted, no questions asked.
1D was alerted, no questions asked.
1H was alerted, no questions asked.
2C was alerted, no questions asked.
3H was alerted, no questions asked.
3S was alerted. It was asked what 3S meant, "cuebid in support of hearts" was the explanation.

Opening leader led a spade which was the only lead to hold the contract to =.

I wonder whether dburn thinks that the question about 3S created UI. If he does, I hope he will amend his:

Quote

It remains, I need hardly say, my irrevocable conviction that no question about an alerted call should be held to create UI.

[campboy]

ggwhiz, on Jun 8 2010, 04:50 AM, said:

Agree completely, especially about Carthage.

If a call is alerted as artificial, you are entitled to an explanation, period.

There is a difference between being entitled to an explanation and being entitled to communicate by when you ask about a call or by which member of the partnership asks about it. Were this thread in the "changing laws and regulations" forum, I would suggest the following regulation (as it's not I'm merely going to suggest suggesting it ).

Quote

When a call is alerted, the left-hand opponent of the player who made the call may immediately ask its meaning (even if he already knows the answer or if he has already called); if he does so the question, if neutrally worded, should not be judged to convey any meaningful information.

[edit] although hanp's example seems to kill even that

[mink]

campboy, on Jun 8 2010, 12:07 PM, said:

IMO an immediate question from North here would not have suggested anything in particular.

Of course it would! If he asked and then bid ♣, opps later might say that he showed his ♥ suit by the question, and the ♣ suit by the bid. Therefore I think it is a good idea for North not to ask.

About changing the regulation: Obviously the current regulation makes it impossible for N/S to learn about the meaning of the 2♥ bid without creating UI. However, the only safe way to change this is to require that each alerted call must be asked about, which for sure in not the way it should be as it would force players to ask even if they are sure about the meaning and know their opps very well. Stating that the next seat must ask only if he does not know the meaning would achieve nothing, because this cannot be proved and therefore misused.

Karl

[hotShot]

campboy, on Jun 8 2010, 12:46 PM, said:

Quote

When a call is alerted, the left-hand opponent of the player who made the call may immediately ask its meaning (even if he already knows the answer or if he has already called); if he does so the question, if neutrally worded, should not be judged to convey any meaningful information.

[edit] although hanp's example seems to kill even that

In hanp's example after every single alerted bid, there would have been a question, this would make the question about the 3♠ bid a lot less meaningful.

[Pict]

As currently written Law 20F refers to 16B and the fact that questions about the auction can convey UI, especially questions about individual bids.

It is not ideal that a 'lawful procedure' such as seeking disclosure should be intertwined with UI. However that is the way it is, and phan's example, perhaps, shows the difficulty of removing the UI caveat from the right to question.

[mjj29]

campboy, on Jun 8 2010, 06:46 AM, said:

Quote

When a call is alerted, the left-hand opponent of the player who made the call may immediately ask its meaning (even if he already knows the answer or if he has already called); if he does so the question, if neutrally worded, should not be judged to convey any meaningful information.

[edit] although hanp's example seems to kill even that

There's a key difference between the two auctions (the OP and hanp's example) - in the OP the auction was contested. In a contested auction players should be expected to keep track of what's going on by asking questions since it is more likely they will want to make an action.

Having said that, in hanp's example, if the defending pair had a method to double 3S for the lead - if it was not likely to be a making contract that could be sent back, how can they use that method if they didn't know what the auction meant. Would asking for an explanation of the whole auction and then passing if it suggested they did hold spades be considered to pass the same UI? Given you can't know if there will be the possibility of doubling the correct suit from the right side for the lead - should you be asking about all auctions all the time just in case?

[gnasher]

dburn, on Jun 8 2010, 02:52 AM, said:

Why should he do that? He knew what 2♥ meant, after all.

Did he? How did he know that?

Quote

Surely you are not suggesting that he should ask a question in order to protect his sponsor?

No, I'm suggesting that he should have asked a question to protect his side from the consequences of transmitting UI. By not asking he both conveys UI to his partner, and risks that his partner will convey UI to him.

Quote

Even if he had, it is not clear to me how much trouble would have been saved. After all, he would have bid in exactly the same fashion, and so would the opening bidder, and the doubler would have asked the same question, and...

Why would she have asked the same question? She would already know the answer, having heard it 10 seconds earlier.

[bluejak]

peachy, on Jun 8 2010, 04:48 AM, said:

gnasher, on Jun 7 2010, 05:38 PM, said:

RMB1, on Jun 6 2010, 09:35 PM, said:

North was also reluctant to ask questions about opponents' alerted calls

Perhaps he should work at overcomng this reluctance: think how much trouble would have been saved if he had just done the obvious and asked before bidding 3♣.

IMO, it is unfortunate that "asking about an alerted call at one's first legal opportunity to ask" is interpreted as "creating UI". Conversely, that "not asking at one's legal opportunity to ask" is also "creating UI". I still don't understand: When is one allowed to exercise one's legal right to ask WITHOUT creating UI, in EBU?

This is truly a question out of curiosity, it does not affect me because I don't play in EBU events or clubs. Well, perhaps one day if some found money finds me to take the trip, I might.

The EBU's experience is that players who have no interest in the auction do not ask. So, players who ask tend to have an interest in the auction, so they are passing UI to partner. Now, I know people seem to assume that this is caused by regulation. It is not: it is a matter of experience, and any EBU regulations follow from it. And it is certainly not just in the EBU.

While certain alerted calls will usually be asked in the ACBL, that does not apply to other alerted calls. When a question is asked by an opponent over certain calls in the ACBL, I can tell you a certain minimum strength that player is pretty certain to have. If I can tell, so can his partner: his partner has received UI.

There seems an impression from many posts here and in other forums that the EBU assumes UI is passed when it is not. That is not true. The EBU assumes in many cases that UI is likely to be passed, and the same is true in other jurisdictions.

Now, it may be true that the EBU's former alerting policies tended to exacerbate this. Maybe so, and our current alerting is better. But that does not mean that UI is not passed, nor does it mean that UI will not be passed if certain EBU regulations were deleted. Actually, from their continual misquoting of their meaning, I wonder how often they are read.

The EBU does not create UI to partner: players do.

[PeterAlan]

The full hand will have been as Jeffrey posted it (and my copy has it), and this post is on that basis.

To go back to the original question, I would not be inclined to overturn the TD's decision. This is not quite the same as to say that if I was ruling ab initio I would necessarily have ruled the same way, but I consider that I need a rather higher standard in order to over-rule an experienced TD's judgment with my own.

Before getting to the bridge judgments, however, there are, as always with these wretched UI cases, the various legalities - a major problem being that there's always something in one law / regulation or another to support whatever point of view one wishes to advance.

For example, I can argue quite easily that there is no UI at all: the Orange Book regulation 3E1 that dburn quoted reads (with my emphasis)

Quote

If a player shows unusual interest in one or more calls of the auction, then this is unauthorised information to partner.

There's nothing unusual about South's enquiry, at her turn to bid, about West's alerted call, so no UI and that's that.

Aha, you say, what about Law 16B? Well, what about Law 20F1 I reply? And so we go on, with all the to-ing and fro-ing that seems to accompany all these UI cases. All it really does is to highlight that the present system is unsatisfactory (though, like democracy, it may nevertheless be better than the alternatives).

But assuming UI - bridge judgments? What do we have?

jeremy69, on Jun 3 2010, 04:47 PM, said:

North said that a. 4H  was obvious b. he had bid 3C for the lead in case he defended 4S c. with only one spade 4H figured to be the right thing to do

3C  was agreed to be NF

Ideally, one would know a little more about what N/S agree the double of one major will show in respect of the other, if indeed they do have anything more precise than the normal "4 cards, well maybe a good 3", but it seems appropriate for N to assume opening values and 4 hearts in S as the basis of his assessment. Similarly, it would be helpful to know what length (if any) is indicated by the 3C bid, or whether S is expected to regard it as merely lead-directing.

N can reckon on 9 spades E/W, so that's 17 total tricks. In fact, there are 19, because of the double fits, and he appears to have been allowing for 18, based loosely on the singleton spade in his hand or whatever other adjustment, since 17 doesn't support bidding on if a double can be expected.

Has this slight overbid been demonstrably suggested by the putative UI? I don't see it, if only because N has no reason to assume the double fit. If N's 3C bid could be taken as indicating 5 cards, then S with a 4-card fit there could do the same analysis, arrive at 18 total tricks, and bid 4C at the vulnerability. She hasn't done so, so N should not be drawing any positive conclusion about the clubs.

PeterAlan

[bluejak]

hotShot, on Jun 8 2010, 10:48 AM, said:

The law should state that the player in 2nd seat . . . . . . better that asking about an alerted bid does not create UI.

But it does create UI. How can you have a Law that says it does not?

Suppose, in a different scenario, that there is a Multi opening to your left, alerted, parter passes, RHO bids 2♥, and you have a borderline double/pass hand. Which do you do?

Easy: under your rule, you pass if partner did not ask, you double if he did, because you know from his question or otherwise how strong he is, and because you have given him a Law that allows him to use that information.

mink, on Jun 8 2010, 12:54 PM, said:

About changing the regulation: Obviously the current regulation makes it impossible for N/S to learn about the meaning of the 2♥ bid without creating UI.

Sorry: it is the current Law, not the current regulation. UI is created by imperfect asking methods, whether in the ACBL, Australia, or Peterborough.

mjj29, on Jun 8 2010, 01:43 PM, said:

Would asking for an explanation of the whole auction and then passing if it suggested they did hold spades be considered to pass the same UI?

1C - 1D
1H - 2C
3H - 3S

The first five bids are alerted but not asked. After the alert of 3S, the next player asks the whole auction, is told it including the fact that 3S shows something or other including spade length, and then passes.

You really think that his partner does not know something about his hand? Not to mention the next table but one? UI is not created by regulation, it is just something that happens, and when a player finds something about his partner's hand from a question or some other method that is not a call or play, then it is UI.

[campboy]

mink, on Jun 8 2010, 12:54 PM, said:

campboy, on Jun 8 2010, 12:07 PM, said:

IMO an immediate question from North here would not have suggested anything in particular.

Of course it would! If he asked and then bid ♣, opps later might say that he showed his ♥ suit by the question, and the ♣ suit by the bid. Therefore I think it is a good idea for North not to ask.

Of course oppo might say that, but in most cases they would be wrong. It is totally normal to ask about an alerted bid by RHO on the first round of the auction if you are intending to bid over it. It is much less normal to ask about an alerted bid by LHO when you do not intend to bid.

If I was told that the auction started 1♠ dbl 2♥ (alerted) 3♣, and asked to guess whether the 3♣ bidder asked about 2♥ before bidding (edit: of course I meant that I hadn't seen his hand either), I would reckon that 90% of the time he would have done -- and most of the other 10% would be if he was already familiar with opponents' methods.

[PeterAlan]

bluejak, on Jun 8 2010, 09:34 AM, said:

hotShot, on Jun 8 2010, 10:48 AM, said:

The law should state that the player in 2nd seat . . . . . . better that asking about an alerted bid does not create UI.

But it does create UI. How can you have a Law that says it does not?

That's easy. You have a law that says it's authorised. You're confusing things - the enquiry creates Information, but it's the laws that decide whether this information is authorised or not, and they can in principle be changed to achieve any particular end.

PeterAlan

[bluejak]

campboy, on Jun 8 2010, 03:38 PM, said:

Of course oppo might say that, but in most cases they would be wrong. It is totally normal to ask about an alerted bid by RHO on the first round of the auction if you are intending to bid over it. It is much less normal to ask about an alerted bid by LHO when you do not intend to bid.

If I was told that the auction started 1♠ dbl 2♥ (alerted) 3♣, and asked to guess whether the 3♣ bidder asked about 2♥ before bidding, I would reckon that 90% of the time he would have done -- and most of the other 10% would be if he was already familiar with opponents' methods.

Sensible, but not in accord with my experience. Some players at various level ask much more than others. I know: I like to know what is going on. Most of my partners ask far less often than I do.

So the given sequence is just the sort of one that I might have trouble with. My partners might easily bid 3♣ without asking, and all that means is they do not ask enough. Then I have a difficulty because I would like to ask when it gets round to me whatever my hand because I like to know what is going on.

[RMB1]

[With no offence intended to the 3♣ bidder.]

I projected onto the 3♣ bidder a viking/klingon type disdain for opponents' puny methods. Why does he need to know what opponents' 2♥ bids mean, they will not distract him from making the one right call.

[campboy]

Hmm, I've been thinking about playing transfers after 1M (dbl) for a while; maybe it is worth starting tonight in an attempt to collect some data

[blackshoe]

It may be a minor point, but it seems to me questions do not create information. The player who asks a question has information about his hand, because he can see it. The premise is that the information he has prompts him to ask the question, and so the question passes information, rather than creating it.

IAC, the mere passing of information is not illegal, and I wish people would stop getting all indignant about it, as if it is. Talking about people in general at the table, not necessarily anyone in this thread.

[gnasher]

PeterAlan, on Jun 8 2010, 03:23 PM, said:

Quote

If a player shows unusual interest in one or more calls of the auction, then this is unauthorised information to partner.

There's nothing unusual about South's enquiry, at her turn to bid, about West's alerted call, so no UI and that's that.

How do you know that there's nothing unusual about her enquiry? It may be that she usually asks about unexpected alerts, or that she hardly ever does. In the former case the enquiry is unusual; in the latter it is not.