[gnasher]

I always ask about alerted first-round bids. In West's situation, I would have said to the director "I always ask about alerted first-round bids."

It seems unlikely that West's knowledge of the rules is sufficient for him to understand the benefits of always asking, but not sufficient for him to understand the benefits of mentioning that fact.

[mjj29]

gnasher, on Apr 19 2010, 02:06 AM, said:

I always ask about alerted first-round bids. In West's situation, I would have said to the director "I always ask about alerted first-round bids."

I always look at convention cards so that I don't have to ask about alerted first round bids.

Well, if they are available. If they aren't, then I think the side asking questions get a bit more leeway...

[RMB1]

Two posters have assumed the OP was from "(probably) UK" and "England, which seems likely". All this after I dutifully put "Swiss Teams, England" in the topic description.

[gnasher]

mjj29, on Apr 19 2010, 08:26 AM, said:

I always look at convention cards so that I don't have to ask about alerted first round bids.

Yes, I do that too. I was trying to avoid complicating the situation, since several posters are already having difficulty with the concepts involved.

Quote

Well, if they are available. If they aren't, then I think the side asking questions get a bit more leeway...

If you:
(a) always look at the convention card if present
(b) In the absence of a convention card, ask with a good hand and pass with a bad hand

your actions in (b) still convey UI. The fact that it's not entirely your fault doesn't make it not UI, and doesn't excuse you of your responsibilities under Law 16. The law as written doesn't offer you any leeway.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2010-April-19, 02:24

[gwnn]

RMB1, on Apr 19 2010, 07:53 AM, said:

Two posters have assumed the OP was from "(probably) UK" and "England, which seems likely". All this after I dutifully put "Swiss Teams, England" in the topic description.

Maybe some people thought it was in Switzerland (:

[Codo]

In Germany we are forbidden to ask always, despite the fact that in the clubs there are seldom ccs and no announcements.

So, we may have to ask with a good hand, and surprisingly to me this work with no (not much) UI. The "normal" UI you get from the body language is a much bigger problem then the problem that you have to ask with some hands.

But this hand has no reason to ask anyway. There is simply no meaning (Acoloish, twosuiter, weak, both minors, whatever) where you want to bid.

So, as there are surely LAs to bidding 3 ♥ (to put it midly), I understood the ruling of 2 ♠ =.

[Cyberyeti]

W deserved what they got (the adjustment), what explanation of 2♠ would have induced them to do anything other than pass ?

If the answer is none, then why ask ?

If partner bids, they can ask then.

Bidding 3♥ is not ridiculous opposite a partner who hasn't asked, but pass is clearly a LA, and the question suggests values, so adjustment correct.

[mjj29]

gnasher, on Apr 19 2010, 03:11 AM, said:

Quote

Well, if they are available. If they aren't, then I think the side asking questions get a bit more leeway...

If you:
(a) always look at the convention card if present
( In the absence of a convention card, ask with a good hand and pass with a bad hand

your actions in ( still convey UI. The fact that it's not entirely your fault doesn't make it not UI, and doesn't excuse you of your responsibilities under Law 16. The law as written doesn't offer you any leeway.

Well, I'd probably ask most or all of the time. Yes, in really blatent cases (not commenting on the OP) I'll adjust, but when it's marginal I'm more inclined to rule against the pair without convention cards.

[helene_t]

Codo, on Apr 19 2010, 09:59 AM, said:

In Germany we are forbidden to ask always, despite the fact that in the clubs there are seldom ccs and no announcements.

Really? If opps have no CC (despite the fact, I suppose, that they are obliged to have one), I would think it would be OK always to ask, even if the regulations say you must not.

[Pict]

Since this is England, the (perhaps) 99% cases for the meaning of the 2♠ would be announced not alerted, so we know we are dealing with something unusual.

In real time is it really completely clear for West to delay asking - until say the auction has gone 2S-P-P-X, P. Are you sure that asking questions to decide if and how your Lebensohl agreements work in this sequence, and whether their strength makes your hand a try or GF, and what you do about a weak 4 hearts and a strong minor - that you are at no risk of giving UI?

The Laws say that you can use information from the lawful procedures of the game. Yes there is a caveat about questions, but I think it would be strange to convert that caveat to a blanket assumption of UI communicated by any question.

Let's say I have observed that partner mostly asks in this position with four plus points (I don't play with people who actually cheat by asking only with a 12-14 no-trump). Will you say that I can't bid 3♥ because I know he has a few points, which I know anyway from the auction?

[gnasher]

Pict, on Apr 19 2010, 11:14 AM, said:

Let's say I have observed that partner mostly asks in this position with four plus points (I don't play with people who actually cheat by asking only with a 12-14 no-trump). Will you say that I can't bid 3♥ because I know he has a few points, which I know anyway from the auction?

If you know from the auction that his point count is 4+, and his question tells you that he has 4+, you have no useful UI and you can do what you want.

If, on the other hand, you know from the auction that his point count is 3+, and his question tells you that he has 4+, then his average expected strength is slightly higher, that slightly suggests 3♥ over pass, and you may not bid 3♥.

[dburn]

blackshoe, on Apr 18 2010, 11:16 PM, said:

bluejak, on Apr 18 2010, 08:01 PM, said:

My 45 years' experience of tournament bridge means that I can tell an opponent's strength of hand from his questions or absence of question in many cases.  If I can, so can his partner.

If his partner also has 45 years' experience, yes. if not...

Here is a way in which you can tell someone's strength from his actions at the table: if he asks a question, he is strong enough to consider bidding; if he does not, he is not.

This is not only legal in England, it is compulsory. It is also absurd - why do we have a regulation that in effect forces players to give information to their opponents while placing constraints on their partners? If I knew, I would tell you, but I don't, so I can't.

[gnasher]

dburn, on Apr 19 2010, 11:44 AM, said:

This is not only legal in England, it is compulsory.

Where does it say that? I know that this approach is encouraged by advice in the Yellow Book and by peer pressure, but I don't know of a regulation that enforces it.

Quote

It is also absurd

Agree with Burn.

[bluejak]

gnasher, on Apr 19 2010, 11:50 AM, said:

dburn, on Apr 19 2010, 11:44 AM, said:

This is not only legal in England, it is compulsory.

Where does it say that? I know that this approach is encouraged by advice in the Yellow Book and by peer pressure, but I don't know of a regulation that enforces it.

It is not. Certain advice is given in the Orange book, but is widely misquoted, including [surprisingly] by people responsible for writing it.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on Apr 19 2010, 01:29 PM, said:

gnasher, on Apr 19 2010, 11:50 AM, said:

dburn, on Apr 19 2010, 11:44 AM, said:

This is not only legal in England, it is compulsory.

Where does it say that? I know that this approach is encouraged by advice in the Yellow Book and by peer pressure, but I don't know of a regulation that enforces it.

It is not. Certain advice is given in the Orange book, but is widely misquoted, including [surprisingly] by people responsible for writing it.

Are you saying that the Orange Book's advice doesn't encourage this approach? If so, what is the intention (and the effect) of the advice below?

Orange Book said:

If, therefore, at a player’s turn to call, he does not need to have a call explained, it may be 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.
...
Players sometimes say “I always ask whether I intend to bid or not”. This is not recommended.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2010-April-19, 06:41

[bluejak]

The Orange book, faced with a specific deep-rooted and long-standing abuse, has recommended an approach that is better.

But it never says "You may not ask" but is continually quoted as saying so.

[helene_t]

I think the reason why it is not recommended to ask if your action will not depend on the answer, is that you slow down the game and you allow opps to exchange UI about how they interpret each other's calls.

Obviously you get your cake and eat it, too, if you just look at their CC and don't ask anything.

Dunno if I agree that 3♥ was such an extraordinary bid that there is a strong suggestion that it must have been based on UI. It may be a bad bid but it's a bid plenty of intermediate players would make. So it will depend on East's skill level and style.

[campboy]

Personally I do not believe that it is legal to always ask, since I do not believe that I am permitted to ask if I already know the answer.

Otoh, I will always ask about an alerted opening bid unless I believe I know what opponents play. However, I accept that a TD is unlikely to rule on that basis (at least in England).

It is certainly true that many people will not ask without some values. As far as we know, the only available evidence as to whether or not West falls into that category is the fact that his partner bid 3♥ here , which suggests that he does.

[gnasher]

campboy, on Apr 19 2010, 02:22 PM, said:

Otoh, I will always ask about an alerted opening bid unless I believe I know what opponents play. However, I accept that a TD is unlikely to rule on that basis (at least in England).

You mean that you think the TD would rule on the assumption that you don't do what you say you do? Why would he do that?

If I told a TD that I always ask about a particular category of call, I'd expect to be believed.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on Apr 19 2010, 01:46 PM, said:

The Orange book, faced with a specific deep-rooted and long-standing abuse, has recommended an approach that is better.

But it never says "You may not ask" but is continually quoted as saying so.

So when I said "I know that this approach is encouraged by advice in the Yellow Book and by peer pressure, but I don't know of a regulation that enforces it.", and you replied "It is not", you were, in fact, agreeing with me?