[Cascade]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-01, 18:43, said:

Perhaps that's how you do things in Norway, Sven. In North America everybody asks partner if he has any questions before facing the opening lead, and nobody thinks this conveys UI. Well, nobody I've ever run across anyway. And both procedures are flawed, since declarer is also entitled to ask questions before the lead is faced.

If that is so then "everybody" is wrong.

1. Is unnessary

2. This question is not permitted by L41 which gives players a right to ask question but not a right to enquire whether partner has any questions

3. Is contrary to L73 which allows communication between partners only by calls and plays made

It seems this does not cause problems but it must be better to follow proper procedure.

[blackshoe]

The ACBL has about 162,000 members, I think. If you want to take on the job of teaching them they're all wrong, be my guest. Me, I think tilting at windmills would be more productive.

[blackshoe]

I suppose that if the only correct procedure is to wait, without comment, for instruction from the people (both of them) who are entitled to ask questions before turning over the opening lead, that I shall have to start doing that. I'll predict that within a very short period of time, people will be calling the director and accusing me of sundry nastiness. Or maybe of just being a jerk. They might even be justified.

[aguahombre]

mgoetze, on 2011-July-01, 02:51, said:

I tend to alert in that auction, but Walsh is not as common here as in the ACBL, I think. If that's all very much unalertable then it's certainly reasonable to ask about it right away.

Yes, the opponents should be given this information up-front and not be burdened with the concern about whether their question about bypassing a 4-card major would give UI.

shevek, on 2011-July-01, 07:54, said:

I reckon every man & his dog rebids 1NT with

♠6 ♥AKJ5 ♦J875 ♣K942

Every man and his dog who don't have a prepared opening to show this pattern and strength might be tempted to rebid 1NT; but I don't believe rebidding 1NT would be a majority choice anyway.


And, about third hand inquiries during the face-down period:

Vampyr, on 2011-July-01, 18:42, said:

Not only for the reasons Sven mentions, but also third hand might want to ask about the auction while the bidding cards are still out, especially if the auction has been long. Also, of course, he may want to ask about inferences in the bidding before declarer has been influenced by seeing dummy's hand.

This is often important when declarer has based his/her final decision about strain and level upon what responder has allegedly shown in the auction. The question is really, "What are you expecting to see in dummy?"; not, about what we all will see in a few seconds. From the answer we can deduce whether declarer has made a choice based on faulty information, and defend accordingly.

[mjj29]

Cascade, on 2011-July-01, 19:19, said:

If that is so then "everybody" is wrong.

1. Is unnessary

2. This question is not permitted by L41 which gives players a right to ask question but not a right to enquire whether partner has any questions

3. Is contrary to L73 which allows communication between partners only by calls and plays made

It seems this does not cause problems but it must be better to follow proper procedure.

It may be unneccessary, but so is saying 'good luck partner' when putting down dummy and 'thank you partner' when I'm declaring - it's just one of those things you do that's generally polite. If you prefer I could say "may I have permission to lead". I could just sit in silence waiting for some pronouncement from the rest of the table, but I'm not sure what my partner will do given that I'm also, presumably, not allowed to know that my partner didn't have any questions...

It doesn't transmit any UI, and even if it did that's not illegal. L73 clearly doesn't apply - I'm not trying to communicate anything about the hand to partner, it's just part of the normal polite workings of the bridge game. And yes, everyone in the EBU does it too

[Cyberyeti]

aguahombre, on 2011-July-01, 21:09, said:

Every man and his dog who don't have a prepared opening to show this pattern and strength might be tempted to rebid 1NT; but I don't believe rebidding 1NT would be a majority choice anyway.

Every man and his dog that doesn't play a weak no trump, automatic 2♣ for a sizable number of people.

[barmar]

As long as players are consistent about asking "Any questions, partner?", not UI is transmitted. And in my experience in the ACBL, players ARE quite consistent about it. I estimate at least 95% of players say it, and they practically never vary in whether they say it. If you want to deal with unintended UI, worry about all the thousands of players who ignore the Stop card, not this inconsequential piece of etiquette.

[mgoetze]

Vampyr, on 2011-July-01, 18:42, said:

(About whether 1♣-1♦-1NT can contain 4-card majors)

I don't understand this quite. Do you alert if you CAN have 4-card majors or if you can't? In most bidding philosophies, and this will come up more with 5-card majors, opener is not permitted to rebid 1M with a balanced hand. So 4-card majors are always possible, and definitely not alertable.

Actually I alert the 1♦ bid and explain that it denies a 4-card major unless GF strength. If I'm having a good day I may also alert 1♣-1M as potentially containing longer diamonds. I don't alert the 1NT but if opps bothered to ask me about 1♦ they should be able to work it out.

[barmar]

mgoetze, on 2011-July-03, 16:48, said:

Actually I alert the 1♦ bid and explain that it denies a 4-card major unless GF strength. If I'm having a good day I may also alert 1♣-1M as potentially containing longer diamonds. I don't alert the 1NT but if opps bothered to ask me about 1♦ they should be able to work it out.

I think ACBL used to require some of these alerts, but got rid of them in a recent revision to the alert chart.

Don't look for consistency in ACBL's alert regulations. Jacoby Transfers are far more common than Walsh-style bidding on the one level (we teach transfers to beginners now, don't we?), yet the former still requires an announcement, while the latter doesn't require any alerting.

[mycroft]

FVO "recent" that approximate "1991"...

[bluejak]

pran, on 2011-July-01, 17:06, said:

But you should not ask partner if he has any questions; the correct procedure is to just wait for your partner to give permission to face your opening lead.

Now why is this so important?

At least in theory your asking might possibly convey UI to your partner, it may for instance be taken as a suggestion for him to ask questions.

This is pretty unlikely. Players ask their partner all the time, and why not? Because you believe some UI in some outlandishly unlikely case?

I think we should play a game with courtesy and tolerance. This sort of idea reduces both.

Vampyr, on 2011-July-01, 18:42, said:

(About whether 1♣-1♦-1NT can contain 4-card majors)

I don't understand this quite. Do you alert if you CAN have 4-card majors or if you can't? In most bidding philosophies, and this will come up more with 5-card majors, opener is not permitted to rebid 1M with a balanced hand. So 4-card majors are always possible, and definitely not alertable.

I do not think this is so in simple basic Acol, so I would expect the vast majority of English players to expect no major in a 1NT rebid.

Cascade, on 2011-July-01, 19:19, said:

If that is so then "everybody" is wrong.

1. Is unnessary

2. This question is not permitted by L41 which gives players a right to ask question but not a right to enquire whether partner has any questions

3. Is contrary to L73 which allows communication between partners only by calls and plays made

It seems this does not cause problems but it must be better to follow proper procedure.

I think it is time you read Law 74 again. Making the game unfriendly for some imaginary problem is undesirable.

[aguahombre]

After down-facing the lead, we are in the small minority who don't ask "any questions, Pard?" But, we would never dream of taking someone to task for doing so.

It is much less annoying than other extraneous verbage which (mostly B/I) players employ all the time. But those peeves are for another thread sometime.