[Vampyr]

In the EBU a minor-suit opening is considered natural, and not alerted, if it promises 3 or more cards.

So, you (or partner) open 1 of a minor (not alerted). A question is asked (ie is that natural, how many does it promise, etc). You later have an opportunity to compete further in the suit but feel that you have been warned off. But it turns out that your contract would have scored well despite the bad break, or in fact second hand didn't "have" his question. Are you entitled to redress?

[iviehoff]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-13, 08:07, said:

In the EBU a minor-suit opening is considered natural, and not alerted, if it promises 3 or more cards.

So, you (or partner) open 1 of a minor (not alerted). A question is asked (ie is that natural, how many does it promise, etc). You later have an opportunity to compete further in the suit but feel that you have been warned off. But it turns out that your contract would have scored well despite the bad break, or in fact second hand didn't "have" his question. Are you entitled to redress?

Whilst there is a group of bad players who suspiciously ask what is going on every time you bid a suit that they hold, there are plenty of better players who want to understand what your bidding means so that they can best judge what is going on in an auction they are, or might, compete in. Which does not necessarily imply any holding of interest in your suit.

So I do not see that asking such a question gives you any legitimate expectation that the asker has a holding in that suit. In the present case, it appears that the opposition did have interest in the auction, even if they didn't hold a stack of the bid suit, and were therefore beyond criticism.

But suppose a player asked when having no interest in the auction. The reason that players are discouraged from asking questions when they have no interest in the auction is mainly because of the potential for UI, not the potential for the opponents to be misled about their level of interest in the auction. It would of course be a very serious accusation to suggest that the irregularity in 73D2 has been committed, ie deliberately misleading by asking a question you have no interest in, and we should only rule that way if we have very strong evidence for it. More often players ask in such circumstances because they haven't got the hang of the idea of not asking when you have no interest, rather than any deliberate intent to mislead. It would appear that without a ruling of deliberate intent to mislead, there is no irregularity when an opponent merely asks a question he had no immediate interest in, and thus no possibility to apply Law 23.

[bluejak]

I do not believe that there is any infraction when a player asks a question out of sheer curiosity.

[paulg]

Questions of this type are far more common in the UK these days given the diverse agreements that people play. Asking when it first comes up can be sensible if you are playing more than a board or two against a pair.

So I don't think you should read much into it.

[Vampyr]

OK, not "how many does it show". That's not usually the question anyway. How about "is that natural". This question is never asked by a player who does not have a long and/or good holding in opener's suit.

[StevenG]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-13, 20:28, said:

OK, not "how many does it show". That's not usually the question anyway. How about "is that natural". This question is never asked by a player who does not have a long and/or good holding in opener's suit.

It isn't? I only ever ask such questions if I don't have a specific interest in the suit (I've been reading these forums long enough to know the UI implications ...)

[gnasher]

StevenG, on 2012-November-14, 02:19, said:

It isn't? I only ever ask such questions if I don't have a specific interest in the suit (I've been reading these forums long enough to know the UI implications ...)

Have you considered the UI implications of only asking when you're not interested?

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-13, 20:28, said:

OK, not "how many does it show". That's not usually the question anyway. How about "is that natural". This question is never asked by a player who does not have a long and/or good holding in opener's suit.

I think this varies by the player. Some people will ask routinely if they've forgotten to find out in advance; others ask when they have length in the suit; some (like StevenG) ask only when they don't have length in the suit. Some people will always phrase the question in the same way; others will vary it according to their holding. Some will avoid asking by glancing at the convention card instead; others will ask regardless.

If you assume one pattern of questioning when they actually follow another, that's your misunderstanding and you're not entitled to redress.

If you've observed a particular pattern of questioning from this player and he unexpectedly departs from that pattern with intent to deceive, it's arguably a breach of Law 73D2. If he varies his questioning innocently, I don't think there's any irregularity, so you have no redress.

[mink]

Is it legal to ask a question without a bridge reason? Especially if it is a question that implies doubt about the bid having been properly alerted/not alerted? IMO the question "Is that natural" or something similar should never be asked, unless you have a clue e.g. that there has been a misinformation in the past and you want to make sure that it does not happen again. Or if I know a plair has been playing Verdi and the 3♦ bid is not alerted, then I could ask about the bid instead of assuming that they changed their system to natural preempts.

But if opp asks about my partner's natural 1♦ opening, there needs to be some bridge reason for that, and a common reason (not a good reason of course) is that this opp holds diamonds. If it later turns out that he has no special ♦ holding, I would be interested to learn about the bridge reason. If he cannot provide a reason other than curiosity (which is synonym for no reason IMO), I think that Law 73F is applicable. If, on the other hand, he had a valid reason for the question other than a ♦ holding, I am unlucky if I assumed a diamond holding and do not reach the optimal contract because of that assumption.

Karl

[WellSpyder]

mink, on 2012-November-14, 03:48, said:

But if opp asks about my partner's natural 1♦ opening, there needs to be some bridge reason for that, and a common reason (not a good reason of course) is that this opp holds diamonds. If it later turns out that he has no special ♦ holding, I would be interested to learn about the bridge reason. If he cannot provide a reason other than curiosity (which is synonym for no reason IMO), I think that Law 73F is applicable. If, on the other hand, he had a valid reason for the question other than a ♦ holding, I am unlucky if I assumed a diamond holding and do not reach the optimal contract because of that assumption.

It seems to me that trying to form a picture of the unseen hands is a key part of more or less every bridge deal, so there is always a valid bridge reason for asking about what an opponent has shown.

[blackshoe]

mink, on 2012-November-14, 03:48, said:

But if opp asks about my partner's natural 1♦ opening, there needs to be some bridge reason for that, and a common reason (not a good reason of course) is that this opp holds diamonds. If it later turns out that he has no special ♦ holding, I would be interested to learn about the bridge reason. If he cannot provide a reason other than curiosity (which is synonym for no reason IMO), I think that Law 73F is applicable. If, on the other hand, he had a valid reason for the question other than a ♦ holding, I am unlucky if I assumed a diamond holding and do not reach the optimal contract because of that assumption.

WellSpyder, on 2012-November-14, 04:23, said:

It seems to me that trying to form a picture of the unseen hands is a key part of more or less every bridge deal, so there is always a valid bridge reason for asking about what an opponent has shown.

I agree with with WellSpyder. Also, in order to apply 73F you have to show that one of the proprieties listed in 73A through 73E has been breached, and I don't see that any has.

[bluejak]

mink, on 2012-November-14, 03:48, said:

Is it legal to ask a question without a bridge reason? Especially if it is a question that implies doubt about the bid having been properly alerted/not alerted? IMO the question "Is that natural" or something similar should never be asked, unless you have a clue e.g. that there has been a misinformation in the past and you want to make sure that it does not happen again. Or if I know a plair has been playing Verdi and the 3♦ bid is not alerted, then I could ask about the bid instead of assuming that they changed their system to natural preempts.

But if opp asks about my partner's natural 1♦ opening, there needs to be some bridge reason for that, and a common reason (not a good reason of course) is that this opp holds diamonds. If it later turns out that he has no special ♦ holding, I would be interested to learn about the bridge reason. If he cannot provide a reason other than curiosity (which is synonym for no reason IMO), I think that Law 73F is applicable. If, on the other hand, he had a valid reason for the question other than a ♦ holding, I am unlucky if I assumed a diamond holding and do not reach the optimal contract because of that assumption.

It depends what you mean by a bridge reason. If the reason for asking is curiosity about what you are doing, that's fine. If the reason for asking is that this seems to be a long sequence and they might as well understand it as it goes along, that's fine. If the reason is that they are bored out of their skull - perhaps because the opponents seem to take forever to make a bid - that's fine.

If by a bridge reason you mean they have to have some likelihood of bidding before they ask, no, they don't need a bridge reason.

What you cannot do is to assume that opponents will only ask when you would have asked if the position was reversed [it sounds similar to people who expect opponents to mean the same thing when they name a convention!].

The EBU has given warnings about asking questions [mis-quoted to say something entirely different 98+% of the time] and advice when to [similarly mis-quoted]. But they cannot and do not say you must not ask in such situations.

The only times questions are illegal are

• questions for partner's benefit, and
  
• questions that mislead the opposition

But the latter case only applies if a question is reasonably going to mislead, and when we quote things here we do not show intonations, body language and the like, which make all the difference. For example:

1♠ is bid.
"Do you play 4 or 5-card majors?" suggests nothing reasonably and any inferences therefrom are unreasonable.

1♦ is bid.
"Is that natural?" "Yes" "What, it shows diamonds?" by someone holding a singleton diamond is clearly coffee-housing and an adjustment is possible.

[PeterAlan]

Perhaps it's time to revisit the issue of regarding minor suit bids on 3 cards as "natural" for alerting purposes. It's a somewhat Alice-In-Wonderland world where bidding a 4-card major when you might have a 5-card minor is alertable, but bidding a 3-card minor when you might have a 4-card major is "natural" and not alertable.

[Vampyr]

WellSpyder, on 2012-November-14, 04:23, said:

It seems to me that trying to form a picture of the unseen hands is a key part of more or less every bridge deal, so there is always a valid bridge reason for asking about what an opponent has shown.

True, but asking whether an unalerted opening bid is natural -- I think people are being a bit disingenuous here. You wouldn't ask whether an unalerted opening bid is natural (unless, perhaps, you had reason to think it wasn't), but you know one or two in your club who always ask when they have a holding in the suit.

There is one player against whom I would feel hard done by if I were damaged by her not asking and then turning up with 5 decent ones!

PeterAlan, on 2012-November-14, 08:57, said:

Perhaps it's time to revisit the issue of regarding minor suit bids on 3 cards as "natural" for alerting purposes. It's a somewhat Alice-In-Wonderland world where bidding a 4-card major when you might have a 5-card minor is alertable, but bidding a 3-card minor when you might have a 4-card major is "natural" and not alertable.

This has been changed not all that long ago, and changing it back would be a mistake as well.

[PeterAlan]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-14, 09:42, said:

This has been changed not all that long ago, and changing it back would be a mistake as well.

I wasn't aware that this was the case before the 2006 OB - I'm relatively new to the duplicate game - so thanks for pointing it out.

[campboy]

IMO 2+ and 3+ minor openings which are otherwise natural would be a good place for announcements.

[mycroft]

I suffer from ACBL-bias here, but I understand both sides of this question.

David's "does that show 4+ or 5+ hearts" question in North America is *much more likely* (in my experience, 100%) to have the correct answer of "fewer than you have", for instance. That's why our "could be short" announcement is for 2+ minors - everybody expects 3+m, 5+M. I'm pleased to hear that 4cM is still common enough in England that it's worth checking.

But I've never heard the 1♦ question, except when I ask it playing against one of our Montreal Relay pairs (some play it promises 4+ if "unbalanced", some promise 5 unless specifically 4=4=4=1, some promise 5 straight up because they play some mini-Roman thing), or a "could be short" pair. I can imagine, however, that it is more common in a world where 3+ or 4+ are both common enough that the 4+ or 5+ Major question is valid. I can also imagine people asking only when they're surprised.

My issue is usually with 2♦, where the EBU have cleared it up with their Announcements. Here, the *only* unAlertable 2♦ call is natural and preemptive. But it's amazing how many people ask...sometimes.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2012-November-20, 10:43, said:

My issue is usually with 2♦, where the EBU have cleared it up with their Announcements. Here, the *only* unAlertable 2♦ call is natural and preemptive. But it's amazing how many people ask...sometimes.

In the EBU there are no two-level suit openings that are not subject to alert or announcement. Thia seems to work well.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2012-November-20, 10:43, said:

I suffer from ACBL-bias here, but I understand both sides of this question.

So do I, but...

Quote

David's "does that show 4+ or 5+ hearts" question in North America is *much more likely* (in my experience, 100%) to have the correct answer of "fewer than you have", for instance.

This.

Strongly agree with Campboy above.

[mycroft]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-20, 13:13, said:

In the EBU there are no two-level suit openings that are not subject to alert or announcement. This seems to work well.

That's where I was going with "where the EBU have cleared it up with their Announcements", yeah. Sorry if I confused.