[wyman]

bluejak, on 2011-September-28, 07:12, said:

We tend to apply regulations with common sense. The reason for the regulation about forcing is for situations where there is doubt. When there is no doubt we do not expect silly adherence to unnecessary regulations.

Forcing to redouble seems the best way to keep opponents informed if that is what you play. UI is irrelevant: you should never fail to keep the opponents fully informed because of UI considerations, in fact it is illegal to do so.

"Transfer" is a specific abuse that the EBU is trying to stamp out: if you "transfer to clubs", for example, you show clubs. So Lebensohl, for example is a puppet to clubs but not a transfer. Rubinsohl, or whatever it is called, where 2NT actually shows clubs, is a transfer to clubs. As campboy says, "relay" has different connotations as well.

But safest of all, as always, is to describe your agreements in terms that will not be misunderstood, and avoiding such words helps. Against good opponents I describe 1NT (2♠) 2NT as "Lebensohl" because I know they know what I mean and will not assume follow-ups of any specific type: against poor opponents I say "2NT forces me to bid 3♣, and shows a variety of hands, some strong, some weak."

BW suggests that puppets are a subset of transfers, and the words may be used interchangeably when the bid is in fact a puppet. Lebensohl, as in over interference over 1N is a puppet. Lebensohl, as over a reverse, is a marionette. It requests that opener bid 3C, but opener, with suitable hands, may deviate.

http://www.bridgewor...y&f=glossa.html

[I agree that most of these words have meanings that are understood throughout the community, especially at low levels, and in the interest of full disclosure, one should really explain bids more fully. I'm just nitting it up about the actual definitions.]

[campboy]

My reading of that glossary is that "transfer" is ambiguous, since two unrelated meanings are given, and that "puppet" may be used unambiguously for the second meaning. The EBU has, sensibly IMO, made a regulation that "transfer" should only be used with the first meaning when disclosing agreements in its jurisdiction.

[mrdct]

campboy, on 2011-September-28, 08:12, said:

My reading of that glossary is that "transfer" is ambiguous, since two unrelated meanings are given, and that "puppet" may be used unambiguously for the second meaning. The EBU has, sensibly IMO, made a regulation that "transfer" should only be used with the first meaning when disclosing agreements in its jurisdiction.

The EBU also advises that as the term "puppet" is not well known and confuses players, it's best to describe puppet bids in full. Similar advice prevails in Australia, so I usually say, "that asks me to bid 2♦ but doesn't say anything at all about ♦ - he might pass it if he's weak with ♦ or he can make a natural inviational bid or a GF enquiry".

[barmar]

Rather than using the F word, I've heard some players say "asks me to {redouble, bid 3♣, etc.}". "asks" seems like less of a requirement than "forces".

[mrdct]

barmar, on 2011-September-28, 20:38, said:

"asks" seems like less of a requirement than "forces".

I've finally worked out why my kids never do the dishes even though I've asked them to do it.

[SimonFa]

I was chided a couple of times for asking about alerts and then not bidding when I first started playing club bridge last year.

My response was along the lines of ".... how do I know I'm not going to bid if don't know what that bid means?"

Now I understand more systems and who plays them I don't need to ask, but if something unusual pops up I will ask even if it is unlikely that I will bid.

I appreciate this is not quite what the OP had on mind but the laws and regulations have to take in to account these different situations, don't they?

[Cyberyeti]

SimonFa, on 2011-September-29, 01:38, said:

I was chided a couple of times for asking about alerts and then not bidding when I first started playing club bridge last year.

My response was along the lines of ".... how do I know I'm not going to bid if don't know what that bid means?"

Now I understand more systems and who plays them I don't need to ask, but if something unusual pops up I will ask even if it is unlikely that I will bid.

I appreciate this is not quite what the OP had on mind but the laws and regulations have to take in to account these different situations, don't they?

What I was getting at was asking questions when you're not going to bid whatever the answer was. It's fairly sound advice to not ask until the answer might make a difference to your action.

The usual reason for this advice is so as not to give partner a problem (pre announcements 1N-(range ? 12-14) P- P -2any and a subsequent director call because the question implied interest, a flat 5 count doesn't ask).

What this thread is about is deliberately creating an impression by your repeated questions in an opponent's mind that you hold a hand you don't, and to me is similar to declarer holding an unbid KJxx seeing LHO lead the Q and quizzing RHO about whether this shows the K or J.

[campboy]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-September-29, 04:41, said:

What I was getting at was asking questions when you're not going to bid whatever the answer was. It's fairly sound advice to not ask until the answer might make a difference to your action.

I disagree. If, as is not unusual when the auction starts (1NT) x (p!), I expect that I will need to ask next round I may as well do so now and transmit less UI.

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-September-29, 04:41, said:

What I was getting at was asking questions when you're not going to bid whatever the answer was. It's fairly sound advice to not ask until the answer might make a difference to your action.

Personally I think that's dreadful advice. This approach is guaranteed to give partner UI, as well as giving the opponents information to which they're not entitled.

Quote

The usual reason for this advice is so as not to give partner a problem (pre announcements 1N-(range ? 12-14) P- P -2any and a subsequent director call because the question implied interest, a flat 5 count doesn't ask).

Then this advice fails miserably in its objective. If you ask and then pass, partner will know that given a different answer you would have bid, so he will have UI. Or if you ask and then bid, he will know that given a different answer you would have done something else, so he will have UI.

Quote

What this thread is about is deliberately creating an impression by your repeated questions in an opponent's mind that you hold a hand you don't, and to me is similar to declarer holding an unbid KJxx seeing LHO lead the Q and quizzing RHO about whether this shows the K or J.

If your question was "Is it acceptable to deliberately create an impression by your repeated questions in an opponent's mind that you hold a hand you don't?", this thread could have been rather shorter.

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on 2011-September-30, 05:44, said:

Personally I think that's dreadful advice. This approach is guaranteed to give partner UI, as well as giving the opponents information to which they're not entitled.

On the odd occasion it happens yes, on the 99% of occasions where you just pass without asking, it improves the situation.

Quote

Then this advice fails miserably in its objective. If you ask and then pass, partner will know that given a different answer you would have bid, so he will have UI. Or if you ask and then bid, he will know that given a different answer you would have done something else, so he will have UI.

It may be that it shouldn't be the case but in my experience it is that if you're going to bid, you want to know what you're bidding over, so asking first doesn't create UI. It may also be that you were always going to bid, but what you were going to bid changes with the meaning of the opps action. It's ask/pass that creates the issues.

Quote

If your question was "Is it acceptable to deliberately create an impression by your repeated questions in an opponent's mind that you hold a hand you don't?", this thread could have been rather shorter.

That was one of my questions, the other was my obligations in explanation.

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-September-30, 06:06, said:

On the odd occasion it happens yes, on the 99% of occasions where you just pass without asking, it improves the situation.

Considering these two:
(1) Ask 1% of the time; don't ask 99% of the time
(2) Ask 100% of the time

Are you saying that (1) transmits less UI than (2)?

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on 2011-September-30, 06:26, said:

Considering these two:
(1) Ask 1% of the time; don't ask 99% of the time
(2) Ask 100% of the time

Are you saying that (1) transmits less UI than (2)?

The problem is that 2 never actually occurs, it's always ask some of the time, and unless you apply it to every alert situation which is going to cause significant slow play issues, you're going to find it difficult to demonstrate to a director that you always ask in this one.

[campboy]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-September-30, 07:06, said:

The problem is that 2 never actually occurs, it's always ask some of the time, and unless you apply it to every alert situation which is going to cause significant slow play issues, you're going to find it difficult to demonstrate to a director that you always ask in this one.

I personally would always ask here (unless I already knew the answer, in which case I do not think I am permitted to do so), and in general after almost any alerted call on the first round of the auction (the only auctions I can think of where I would not bother are 1x (1y) 3x and similar, where it is clear what the alert means). I don't find it slows me down, which is perhaps obvious since if I didn't ask immediately I would be asking at the start of play anyway.

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-September-30, 07:06, said:

The problem is that 2 never actually occurs, it's always ask some of the time, and unless you apply it to every alert situation which is going to cause significant slow play issues, you're going to find it difficult to demonstrate to a director that you always ask in this one.

You're mistaken. I would always ask about an alerted pass in this auction, regardless of my actual hand. And I've never had any trouble with convincing either a director or opponents of that.

As for the "slow play" issue, at some point during this board one member of our partnership is going to ask the meaning of the pass. I can't see why you think it will cause more delay to ask now rather than later.

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on 2011-September-30, 08:40, said:

You're mistaken. I would always ask about an alerted pass in this auction, regardless of my actual hand. And I've never had any trouble with convincing either a director or opponents of that.

As for the "slow play" issue, at some point during this board one member of our partnership is going to ask the meaning of the pass. I can't see why you think it will cause more delay to ask now rather than later.

I don't think so, what is there to ask about after 1N-x-P!-P-XX-P-P ?

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2011-September-30, 08:40, said:

You're mistaken. I would always ask about an alerted pass in this auction, regardless of my actual hand. And I've never had any trouble with convincing either a director or opponents of that.

I don't think the issue is whether you would always ask in this auction, but whether you ask about ALL alerts. Any inconsistency in asking passes UI.

However, there's no Law against transmitting UI (as long as you don't take an action specifically for that purpose), the Laws prohibit USING the UI. The advice to only ask questions when you care about the answer assumes an ethical partner who isn't going to change his action based on whether you ask.

[blackshoe]

Seems to me that UI of the form "one of these things is different from the others" doesn't tell you much.

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-September-30, 10:34, said:

I don't think so, what is there to ask about after 1N-x-P!-P-XX-P-P ?

The pass and the redouble, obviously. You may prefer to guess what your opponents' methods are instead of finding out, but it seems rather unreasoanble for you to expect everybody else to do the same.

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2011-September-30, 11:03, said:

I don't think the issue is whether you would always ask in this auction, but whether you ask about ALL alerts. Any inconsistency in asking passes UI.

No, the question is whether I always ask about this category of call. If, for example, I ask about all alerted calls in competitive auctions, no UI is passed by asking about this redouble. The fact that there are other auctions where I might not ask is irrelevant.

Likewise, if I always ask about calls made by North on an odd-numbered round of the bidding when there's an 'r' in the month, no UI is passed by asking about this redouble.

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2011-September-30, 13:48, said:

No, the question is whether I always ask about this category of call. If, for example, I ask about all alerted calls in competitive auctions, no UI is passed by asking about this redouble. The fact that there are other auctions where I might not ask is irrelevant.

Likewise, if I always ask about calls made by North on an odd-numbered round of the bidding when there's an 'r' in the month, no UI is passed by asking about this redouble.

OK, I guess that fits the more general rule I mentioned, which is that you have to be consistent. If the "consistency" is based on an algorithm that doesn't include any useful information about your hand, it's OK. I suppose you could also use a random factor, like in the recent thread about bids that could have an alternate meaning some percentage of the time, where we contemplated ways to extract randomness from your hand without it being dependent on how strong it is.

But it's not enough to have a rule that says that you always ask when some condition is true -- you also have to NEVER ask when it's false. Otherwise, in the latter case, asking versus not asking would pass UI. Which means that there may be situations where you need to ask a question, but can't because it's the wrong month.

What you could do is ask EITHER when you actually need to know or when some other condition is met, but not tell partner what the condition is. This adds some noise to the UI when you ask -- it could just be an automatic ask. But a non-ask still passes the UI that you don't need to know.