[barmar]

gnasher, on 2013-October-08, 10:23, said:

No, I know that it doesn't. When I ask, it merely conveys that I don't already know the meaning of the bid.

So you always ask about alerts unless you're sure of the meaning (either you've reviewed their CC or it has come up previously)?

Quote

It may be that when you ask in this position it does convey UI, but the solution to that problem is in your own hands.

Directors need consistent rules. We can't have one rule for you (your questions about alerted bids convey no UI), and another rule for the majority of players (questions do suggest UI).

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2013-October-08, 10:57, said:

So you always ask about alerts unless you're sure of the meaning (either you've reviewed their CC or it has come up previously)?

Not quite. In an auction like 2NT-3♣(A) or 1♠-2♦;2♥-3♣(A) I don't always ask, because the decision about whether to double is so unlikely to depend on the exact meaning. For the same reason I don't always ask about alerts late in an uncontested auction. And if I thought the opponents were having a misunderstanding I might not ask, because I wouldn't want to inflict a UI problem on them unnecessarily.

But yes, if it goes

1♣ pass 1♥(A)

I always ask or look at the convention card, unless I already know what it means. I know that there are experienced players who wouldn't always ask here, but I think their approach is unwise.

Quote

Directors need consistent rules. We can't have one rule for you (your questions about alerted bids convey no UI), and another rule for the majority of players (questions do suggest UI).

I thought we were talking about whether UI was conveyed, not about a director's perception of whether UI was conveyed? There is one rule for everyone about what constitutes UI.

I agree that there is a theoretical problem that I would say "I always ask in this situation" and be telling the truth, whereas another player would say the same thing and be lying. However, I don't see this as a real problem: very few people will lie outright to a director, and directors are supposed to be good at evaluating the truth of what they're told.

In any case, if the director was unsure whether to believe me he could easily obtain evidence, in the form of other boards where I had asked questions without any immediate reason to know.

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2013-October-08, 11:45, said:

I agree that there is a theoretical problem that I would say "I always ask in this situation" and be telling the truth, whereas another player would say the same thing and be lying. However, I don't see this as a real problem: very few people will lie outright to a director, and directors are supposed to be good at evaluating the truth of what they're told.

In any case, if the director was unsure whether to believe me he could easily obtain evidence, in the form of other boards where I had asked questions without any immediate reason to know.

Does it matter whether you always ask or not? What matters is whether partner knows that you always ask. If he doesn't know that you're so consistent, then UI is conveyed, even if you didn't intend it.

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2013-October-08, 12:03, said:

Does it matter whether you always ask or not? What matters is whether partner knows that you always ask. If he doesn't know that you're so consistent, then UI is conveyed, even if you didn't intend it.

If I ask becuase I always ask, but partner thinks I'm asking because I have a good hand, what information is actually conveyed? It appears that I'm actually misinforming my partner, by making him think that he has a UI problem when he doesn't.

It's certainly a good idea to make my partner aware of my habits, but if I don't there is still no meaningful UI.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-October-08, 13:56

[CSGibson]

barmar, on 2013-October-08, 12:03, said:

Does it matter whether you always ask or not? What matters is whether partner knows that you always ask. If he doesn't know that you're so consistent, then UI is conveyed, even if you didn't intend it.

Sorry, this is blatantly wrong - if you always ask no matter what your hand type, then partner is not constrained, because the question does not suggest one action would be more successful than another. Partner may think that an action is suggested, but partners get weird thoughts in their head all the time, none of which matter one whit when it comes to what the UI actually suggests in context.

[Trinidad]

I am 100% with Andy here. If it is unexpected that you ask about 1♣-Pass-1♥(A) then you have created a problem for yourself.

Furthermore, I don't get it at all. Even if you really can't envision that you want to get in the bidding right now there will be a point during the hand where you must want to know whether responder showed spades, whether they were alerting a Walsh sequence, or whether you missed an alert on the strong 1♣ opening and 1♥ is an entirely artificial GF bid (e.g. showing a balanced hand).

If you will need to ask anyway, why not ask rightaway?

The non askers think that asking about these things takes a lot of time. It doesn't. But I will tell you what does take a lot of time:

1♣-Pass-1♥(A)- Should I ask or not? I don't want to bid anyway... Pass
2♥-Pass-2♠(A)- What are they doing now? ... Pass
3♥-Pass-4♥- ?!? No Idea ?!? ... Pass
Pass-Pass

... My lead?!?

"Could you please explain?"

   - "Well, 1♥ was Walsh. He could -in principle- have longer diamonds."
"2♥ showed a minimum."
   - "2♠ was an artificial game try. It doesn't say anything about spades -or any other suit- it just asks, but it could, of course, be made with a slammish hand, but then he denies a splinter.
"3♥ was a sign off."
   - "4♥ places the contract. It looks like he was thinking of slam."

Hmmm, RHO has a strong balanced hand. Leftie has a minimum opening. What should I lead?

Imagine that you would have asked about 1♥ and 2♠ immediately after the alerts. You would have understood the auction rightaway -without a need of an explanation of all the bids that weren't alerted- you would have analysed the deal during the auction and you would have had your opening lead ready as soon as the last pass card hits the table.

Rik

[broze]

Trinidad, on 2013-October-08, 13:46, said:

"Well, 1♥ was Walsh. He could -in principle- have longer diamonds."

Is standard Walsh commonly alertable?

[aguahombre]

broze, on 2013-October-09, 07:14, said:

Is standard Walsh commonly alertable?

Not the major suit opening bid; but some responses and rebids are commonly alerted. The source of your question is the opening 1M which might be on 5-6 with a longer minor. It is not a canape opening because the minor will not be revealed as longer via methods; so it is not alerted or alertable.

[broze]

aguahombre, on 2013-October-09, 07:31, said:

Not the major suit opening bid; but some responses and rebids are commonly alerted. The source of your question is the opening 1M which might be on 5-6 with a longer minor. It is not a canape opening because the minor will not be revealed as longer via methods; so it is not alerted or alertable.

I am asking about the 1M response to 1C that Trinidad mentions, not the 1M opening (which I wasn't aware was referred to as 'Walsh').

[Trinidad]

broze, on 2013-October-09, 07:14, said:

Is standard Walsh commonly alertable?

I don't know how common it is in the world, but Walsh is alertable in my jurisdiction (the Netherlands). And Walsh is not really exotic in the Netherlands. Hard to say how many of the tournament players (who don't play T-Walsh) are playing it, but my very rough estimate is somewhere between 25 and 60%.

Of course, the idea that you should -in principle- just ask when opponents are alerting is independent of my example or whether Walsh is alertable. An alerted bid can mean anything.

Rik

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2013-October-09, 07:31, said:

Not the major suit opening bid; but some responses and rebids are commonly alerted. The source of your question is the opening 1M which might be on 5-6 with a longer minor. It is not a canape opening because the minor will not be revealed as longer via methods; so it is not alerted or alertable.

1. The fact that something is commonly alerted does not mean that the alert regulations in force require such an alert. It means that people have decided to alert it regardless what the regulations say.
2. Canapé openings have nothing to do with Walsh, and vice versa. Walsh is about responses to a 1♣ opening.

[barmar]

Walsh used to be alertable in ACBL, but they dropped it in one of the last couple of alert chart revisions.

[campboy]

I believe that in the EBU the major-suit response which could have longer diamonds is alertable, but the 1♦ response which tends not to have a major is not. This was made explicit in the old Orange Book; it is less clear in the new Blue Book.

[FrancesHinden]

Vampyr, on 2013-October-08, 07:21, said:

I suppose it is true.Yes, transfer responses to a club is another thing -- pairs who don't pre-alert this annoy me, because if you ask or even are seen to be looking at their convention card, you transmit tons of UI.I mentioned in a thread a long time ago about sitting down against a pair for a 2-board round. We had been following a very slow pair and often felt too rushed to examine the opponents' convention cards. On one of the boards they opened 2♣, 5-10 (or 0-5 or 0-10, I don't remember) points and at least one 4-card suit, but not a single-suiter in clubs. A first-time partnership, we didn't have any default agreements or anything like that. And the convention was not in the section about things the opponents should know, which would maybe have given us a chance of seeing it in advance. Fine, they didn't do anything illegal, but I was pretty annoyed. (You know who you are.)

paulg, on 2013-October-08, 09:15, said:

It should not be the pairs that annoy you, they are just following EBU regulations and guidelines. It is the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee that should be the focus of your ire.

Blue Book 3K explains what should be put into that section. That includes "....artificial suit responses to opening bids..." so don't blame the L&E if someone hasn't filled in their card correctly.

[FrancesHinden]

campboy, on 2013-October-09, 10:43, said:

I believe that in the EBU the major-suit response which could have longer diamonds is alertable, but the 1♦ response which tends not to have a major is not. This was made explicit in the old Orange Book; it is less clear in the new Blue Book.

This was deliberately removed from the Blue Book, because artificial responses to 1C have become so common that alerting Walsh as well just confuses matters.

[paulg]

paulg, on 2013-October-08, 09:15, said:

It should not be the pairs that annoy you, they are just following EBU regulations and guidelines. It is the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee that should be the focus of your ire.

FrancesHinden, on 2013-October-09, 11:26, said:

Blue Book 3K explains what should be put into that section. That includes "....artificial suit responses to opening bids..." so don't blame the L&E if someone hasn't filled in their card correctly.

Vampyr wants spoken pre-alerts. The lack of them is L&E policy. I'm not saying I agree with her, but if she wants to get annoyed it has nothing to do with the pairs she is playing against.