[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2013-December-31, 18:23, said:

In the context of Law 20F5, a mistaken alert is a mistaken explanation. I know that because it says so:
'Mistaken explanation' here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require.

pran, on 2013-December-31, 18:58, said:

As does Law 21B1a

Fair enough. I don't remember now how we got to this point, and I'm too tired to go back and read the entire thread, so i'll just leave it at that.

[Cascade]

So you ask a question in order to attempt to generate UI. The opponent is deceived by your question. When asked you say the reason you asked was to attempt to generate the UI. Is this a bridge reason?

[gnasher]

Cascade, on 2014-January-01, 04:17, said:

So you ask a question in order to attempt to generate UI. The opponent is deceived by your question. When asked you say the reason you asked was to attempt to generate the UI. Is this a bridge reason?

Is it relevant whether you have a bridge reason or not? So far as I can tell, you're allowed to ask a question even if you have no bridge reason for it, as long as your intention is not to mislead.

[pran]

gnasher, on 2014-January-01, 05:43, said:

Is it relevant whether you have a bridge reason or not? So far as I can tell, you're allowed to ask a question even if you have no bridge reason for it, as long as your intention is not to mislead.

If your opponent has been deceived or misled by your question your only defence is if you can show an acceptable bridge reason for asking your question.

[gnasher]

pran, on 2014-January-01, 07:15, said:

If your opponent has been deceived or misled by your question your only defence is if you can show an acceptable bridge reason for asking your question.

Which Law says that?

[pran]

gnasher, on 2014-January-01, 08:35, said:

Which Law says that?

73F

[gnasher]

pran, on 2014-January-01, 10:38, said:

73F

73F applies only "when a violation of the Proprieties described in this law" has occurred. If I ask a question for a non-bridge reason, which Propriety have I violated?

[aguahombre]

Ha. Sven did a lot better with L20F5 and 21B1 earlier. This offshoot isn't working as well.

[Cascade]

Asking a question, necessarily varies your tempo - Law73D1.

Therefore is subject to the remedies of Law73F if it deceives an innocent opponent.

[aguahombre]

Asking, alerting, or answering is not and should not be considered part of the tempo of bids and plays. It is not considered a break in tempo by the opponent next to call, for instance, when we take time to explain our auction and he listens before acting. Stretching "tempo" to include all time involved in everything is absurd.

Stopping the opponents' uncontested auction frequently with questions so as to disconcert them is a different matter. Then, you would be messing with their tempo to gain advantage.

[pran]

A question without bridge reason is clearly a violation of Law 74A2 if it deceives and/or misleads an opponent.

[ggwhiz]

pran, on 2014-January-01, 13:15, said:

A question without bridge reason is clearly a violation of Law 74A2 if it deceives and/or misleads an opponent.

I had a classic when my lho asked about a bid... queen ask.

asked about the response...... denies it. Not only does he play the same thing, he was looking at it.

It was just a brain cramp though and he actually blushed and begged us to score up the slam (which went down) without calling the director.

[Cascade]

aguahombre, on 2014-January-01, 13:14, said:

Asking, alerting, or answering is not and should not be considered part of the tempo of bids and plays. It is not considered a break in tempo by the opponent next to call, for instance, when we take time to explain our auction and he listens before acting. Stretching "tempo" to include all time involved in everything is absurd.

Really? Last I checked "tempo" meant time, timing or rate or similar. If sometimes I ask a question and sometimes I don't that affects the time I take for my call and therefore is a tempo issue. Just as much as if sometimes I twiddle my thumbs and sometimes I don't.

In fact asking and not asking questions are a frequent source of unauthorised information, this is closely related to one's tempo.

In what sense is using tempo to include the time taken at your turn a stretch?

[nige1]

Cascade, on 2014-January-01, 14:03, said:

Really? Last I checked "tempo" meant time, timing or rate or similar. If sometimes I ask a question and sometimes I don't that affects the time I take for my call and therefore is a tempo issue. Just as much as if sometimes I twiddle my thumbs and sometimes I don't.
In fact asking and not asking questions are a frequent source of unauthorised information, this is closely related to one's tempo.
In what sense is using tempo to include the time taken at your turn a stretch?

IMO, Cascade is right. We're told that you can't rely on opponent's SC. To avoid UI, you must always ask or never ask, unless you can remember forever, after asking once

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2014-January-01, 13:15, said:

A question without bridge reason is clearly a violation of Law 74A2 if it deceives and/or misleads an opponent.

Only if it annoys or embarrasses that opponent, or interferes with his enjoyment of the game (whatever that means).

[axman]

gnasher, on 2014-January-01, 10:47, said:

73F applies only "when a violation of the Proprieties described in this law" has occurred. If I ask a question for a non-bridge reason, which Propriety have I violated?

One might observe the following passage of L73D.1:

..... However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side....

Notably, a question falls amongst those things that are a variation in tempo/ manner.

[campboy]

axman, on 2014-January-01, 15:41, said:

Notably, a question falls amongst those things that are a variation in tempo/ manner.

Well, only if it's actually a variation. The player might routinely ask in this situation.

[campboy]

ggwhiz, on 2014-January-01, 13:38, said:

I had a classic when my lho asked about a bid... queen ask.

asked about the response...... denies it. Not only does he play the same thing, he was looking at it.

It was just a brain cramp though and he actually blushed and begged us to score up the slam (which went down) without calling the director.

If I asked about a bid and was told "queen ask" I would always ask about the response. It wasn't asking me if I had the queen, so I see no reason to tell my opponent whether I do.

[lamford]

shevek, on 2013-December-27, 05:07, said:

East intended 3D as natural, North alerted it. No questions asked.

PP against North for alerting East's bid. No UI restrictions on East (UI can only come from partner not from the opponents) so no adjustment.

[pran]

pran, on 2014-January-01, 13:15, said:

A question without bridge reason is clearly a violation of Law 74A2 if it deceives and/or misleads an opponent.

blackshoe, on 2014-January-01, 14:39, said:

Only if it annoys or embarrasses that opponent, or interferes with his enjoyment of the game (whatever that means).

And do you not find your condition included in "deceives and/or misleads an opponent" ???