[gwnn]

opener, doubler, transferer, lead director.

[PeterAlan]

bluejak, on Jun 7 2010, 11:15 AM, said:

... also the hand diagram shows the relevant hand as West.  This is what confused me.

We're talking about Hand 22 here, aren't we bluejack? My copy clearly shows the hand in the OP as held by N (NB: the spots are marginally different). I've got the standard handprint available to all competitors - are you looking at something else?

PeterAlan

[PeterAlan]

And FWIW, assuming I'm right about the hand, E-W were vulnerable, not N/S, E dealt, and will have opened 1S without preceding passes by W or N.

PeterAlan

[jdeegan]

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana...1905

[jeremy69]

Quote

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana...1905

He was famous for Black Magic woman wasn't he?

[jeremy69]

Quote

Of course you may give an opinion, but mis-stating facts because you think them irrelevant is hardly the same as giving an opinion.

Thank you. I mist-stated no facts here. I gave my opinion of ability in the context. I understand you don't agree but arguing about this does not move us forward.

Quote

Please read it.

I did and responded. I'll try again. Some pros ask to protect their clients. You think this irrelevant or non responsive. Some clients also behave the same way not to protect their pro of course but to make it clearer to the pro what is going on.


The essential part about the auction(it occurred at pairs) which is causing angst in the last few posts is that after an opening of 1S and a take out double the next hand bid 2H (alerted). No question was asked and the 4th hand bid 3C.
Opener now bid 3S. Take out doubler asked about the meaning of 2H and passed as did the next hand. The 3C bidder now tried 4H. This made. The lawyering scuzzbags now called the TD and got given a ruling which they appealed. What would you do as an appeal member? State if it makes any difference what the vulnerability was or if there were any passes before the 1S opening.

[nige1]

IMO

• A player who wins the Gold Cup and Crockfords is of good standard.
  
• If Jeremy69 posted the wrong dealer and vulnerablility, that changes the case. Nevertheless ...
  
• GordonTD's arguments apply to the revised facts. Although, at favourable vulnerability, there's a better case for 4♥.
  
• The unauthorised information suggests the 4♥ bid. To understand this, imagine a doubler who regrets the double, holding a flat minimum.
  
• It is less important what the doubler actually holds. It matters more what the UI suggests.
  
• Pass (not suggested) would be less successful.
  
• A poll (among experts in a Bridge Magazine or even among posters here) would confirm that Pass is a logical alternative.
  
• If you call the director about a putative infraction, that doesn't make you a "scuzzbag".
  
• Under EBU regulations, the committee should rule 3♠= and consider a PP against the 4♥ bidder.
  
• The committee should confirm with the director that their judgement is lawful (even if he still thinks it is wrong).

[gordontd]

bluejak, on Jun 7 2010, 01:59 PM, said:

Quote

It's hard to see how the question could do other than indicate an interest in hearts.

Rightly or wrongly, neither I nor the people I consulted with thought that was what the question indicated, and we are surprised Gordon thinks this is the only reason. We believed that East was merely curious.

I don't think the words you quote mean that I think this is the only reason. I wonder if you think East would have followed a similar path of asking and passing had her shape been 2344?

Quote

Quote

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

I suspect that North did not think anything was suggested by South's question and I suspect that he was not aware that the EBU would treat such questions as passing UI.

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

This is a surprising combination of behaviours: usually those who are reluctant to ask about opponents' alerted calls are those who think that asking might be treated as passing UI.

Maybe. But you are ascribing behaviour to someone not known to us who normally plays in another jurisdiction. As a person he was ... Let us say a little different from most English players.

I don't think I was ascribing behaviour to anyone - I was commenting on the behaviour ascribed to him by someone else. He's not unknown to me, and I can't think what you think is "a little different" about him that is relevant to him not asking questions, or to his awareness of the EBU's approach to UI & asking questions.

Quote

The TD ruled that it did not suggest bidding 4♥ over passing, and may easily have said that it did not indicate values.  But I did not say nor believe that it does not suggest hearts: I just thought then and think now that this is irrelevant.

So the question doesn't suggest bidding 4♥ over passing, whether or not it suggests hearts?

[dburn]

If it is considered that the question "what did 2♥ mean?" suggests that the asker has some stronger holding in hearts than was suggested by the original takeout double, then there is UI and 4♥ might not be allowed (but see below).

If on the other hand it is considered that the question does not suggest anything at all, but was merely idle curiosity on the part of someone who at her turn to call wanted to know what an opponent's alerted bid meant, then there is no UI and 4♥ must be allowed.

I do not understand the argument that "the question may have suggested hearts, but this was not relevant" unless what is meant is that even if the question did suggest hearts, a player who bid 3♣ at his first turn really had no logical alternative to 4♥ at his second. That is a matter of bridge judgement; and if the TD and the AC were convinced by the player in question, by their own view of the matter or by a poll of other players that there was no LA to 4♥, I do not consider that their judgement was wrong (although I would not necessarily find no LA to 4♥ myself).

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.

[gnasher]

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♣.

[jallerton]

Quote

State if it makes any difference what the vulnerability was or if there were any passes before the 1S opening.

The vulnerability certainly makes a difference. As I implied earlier, I consider competing to 4♥ vulnerable to be very unwise against opponents who understand the concept of a pairs double.

Mind you as it now transpires that North is not well known to some of the English TDs, maybe North did not himself appreciate that East and West were of "good standard" and hence did not share my expectancy that 4♥ would be doubled.

The following hand appears on the EBU website:

Board 22
Dealer E
EW Game

Scoring: MP

---

from which I deduce that the 4♥ bidder was not vulnerable. Now considering only the AI, saving for one off against 3♠ makes a lot more sense, although I would still be concerned as North that partner would not be able to give preference to clubs at the 4-level. If the UI is considered to suggest hearts then of course this concern about partner having to revert to clubs at the 5-level becomes less relevant.

[bluejak]

PeterAlan, on Jun 7 2010, 05:33 PM, said:

bluejak, on Jun 7 2010, 11:15 AM, said:

... also the hand diagram shows the relevant hand as West.  This is what confused me.

We're talking about Hand 22 here, aren't we bluejack? My copy clearly shows the hand in the OP as held by N (NB: the spots are marginally different). I've got the standard handprint available to all competitors - are you looking at something else?

I was looking at the opening post.

jeremy69, on Jun 7 2010, 06:19 PM, said:

I did and responded. I'll try again. Some pros ask to protect their clients. You think this irrelevant or non responsive. Some clients also behave the same way not to protect their pro of course but to make it clearer to the pro what is going on.

It was suggested the asker might have asked for the benefit of her partner. I gave a view that clients do not ask for the benefit of the pros. Three times now you have disagreed with this by saying that your experience is that pros ask for the benefit of their clients.

Now, if you do not agree with me that clients do not ask for the benefit of their pros, fine, feel free to say so. But explaining I am wrong by quoting a different position hardly helps. Whether pros ask for the benefit of their clients is hardly relevant in this case where the client asked the question, is it?

[dburn]

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♣.

Why should he do that? He knew what 2♥ meant, after all. Surely you are not suggesting that he should ask a question in order to protect his sponsor?

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...

[peachy]

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.

[ggwhiz]

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.

[dburn]

peachy, on Jun 7 2010, 10:48 PM, said:

I still don't understand: When is one allowed to exercise one's legal right to ask without creating UI, in EBU?

Listen, my children, and you shall learn of the midnight ride of David Burn...

Law 20F says, plain as a pikestaff, that:

Quote

During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding.

At a meeting of the L&E a very long time ago, some people were twitched about possible abuse of Law 20 to create UI. In particular, it was alleged, players used to ask about Stayman and get a club lead against the eventual 3NT (or, more subtly, not ask about it and not get one).

A regulation was therefore (or at any rate thereafter) put in place that in its current incarnation reads:

Orange Book 2009 3E10 said:

A player has the right to ask questions at his turn, but should be aware that exercising this right has consequences. If a player shows unusual interest in one or more calls of the auction, then this is unauthorised information to partner. Partner must carefully avoid taking advantage, which may constrain the actions partner is permitted to take during the remainder of the auction or when on lead during the play. (Law 16B, 73C). Asking about a call of 3NT or below which has not been alerted may cause more problems than asking about an alerted call, as may asking repeated or leading questions. Asking about alerted calls in a (potentially) competitive auction is less likely to have adverse consequences, although it is not risk free.

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.

Now, this has been seriously watered down from the original version chiefly at the repeated insistence of yours truly that it ought to be abolished because it has no place in logic or in Law. Since we nowadays announce Stayman, the impetus that gave rise to the regulation in the first place has largely ceased to exist; since we don't alert above 3NT any more, a man who doubles a splinter to ask for a lead in some other suit is marginally more helpless than he was before, but there may be no hope for such a spiv anyway.

Of course, if a player does not ask a question this may (indeed, almost always does) convey the UI that the player does not need to have his opponent's call explained, but for some reason the Visigoths are not worried about that. The only "defence" against this barbaric regulation, if you want to play bridge instead of some guessing game, is always to ask questions when the opponents alert. But the barbarians smugly say: [a] that people will not uniformly follow this defence (as if that mattered); and [b] that if they did, it might slow down the game; so [c] you can't adopt this position.

You know the rest. In the books you have read
How a man didn't ask, but passed instead -
How opponents tore him limb from limb,
And his partner asked in an accent grim
"Why couldn't you double? I'd have bid,
And we wouldn't have got the result we did."
He shrugged, and replied with a downcast look,
"I had to obey the Orange Book."

[mjj29]

dburn, on Jun 7 2010, 08:52 PM, 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♣.

Why should he do that? He knew what 2♥ meant, after all. Surely you are not suggesting that he should ask a question in order to protect his sponsor?

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...

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

[StevenG]

gnasher, on Jun 7 2010, 10:38 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♣.

Perhaps he knew what the 2♥ bid meant.

Edit: Whoops! should read the read of the new posts first ...

[peachy]

mjj29, on Jun 8 2010, 01:41 AM, said:

dburn, on Jun 7 2010, 08:52 PM, 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♣.

Why should he do that? He knew what 2♥ meant, after all. Surely you are not suggesting that he should ask a question in order to protect his sponsor?

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...

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

A lot of "mental gymnastics" to do for a player who has the right to find out the meaning of an alerted call.

[PeterAlan]

bluejak, on Jun 7 2010, 06:29 PM, said:

PeterAlan, on Jun 7 2010, 05:33 PM, said:

bluejak, on Jun 7 2010, 11:15 AM, said:

... also the hand diagram shows the relevant hand as West.  This is what confused me.

We're talking about Hand 22 here, aren't we bluejack? My copy clearly shows the hand in the OP as held by N (NB: the spots are marginally different). I've got the standard handprint available to all competitors - are you looking at something else?

I was looking at the opening post.

Ah! Now I see where all the confusion has arisen!

Actually, the opening post, bluejack et al, says DEALER = West, but the hand given is North's (as is apparent from the auction and the text of the post, and in fact applied at the table). Reading it quickly, you've taken the hand as being West's as well.

PeterAlan