[mfa1010]

gnasher, on 2014-March-09, 03:02, said:

He might say that. If we did, we could ask him how often he follows this supposed regulation.

Or he might say "I asked because I always ask in this type of situation: it's the only way to avoid giving UI or undeserved AI. I wish my partner understood this too."

Or he might say "I was thinking about bidding 5♥", and I wanted to know what 2NT meant."

Any of these answers would help us to judge whether UI was actually conveyed or not. So we should ask him.

I don't think we should be asking W, who followed good procedure, how often he will follow good procedure, implying that it is a problem to follow good procedure if it is not followed often enough.

I see your point, and I think it has theoretical merit. But in practice we also want to educate players and encourage them to follow the regulations.

If we pose questions like that I think W will feel himself rolled up in red tape gasping for air.

[lamford]

In practice, West asks because he is considering saving. Theoretically if he always asks he conveys no UI, Why he would then choose to pass when he learns that North has a good 4-card raise is beyond me, but that is what is likely to have happened. East thought he was only worth 3H on the previous round, but now thinks it is right to save in 5H? Come on, this smacks of illegal communication under 73B2. I would hope that we would be adjusting in every jurisdiction.

[mfa1010]

lamford, on 2014-March-09, 04:04, said:

In practice, West asks because he is considering saving. Theoretically if he always asks he conveys no UI, Why he would then choose to pass when he learns that North has a good 4-card raise is beyond me, but that is what is likely to have happened.

Nothing strange about that. It is a very typical thought process to begin with gathering information and then make a decision afterwards.

It is not like we would always think: "If it means A, I would bid X, if it means B I would bid Y". Sometimes we will, but sometimes it will be more like: "I want to know, so I ask. I can always make my decision later".

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2014-March-09, 04:04, said:

In practice, West asks because he is considering saving. Theoretically if he always asks he conveys no UI, Why he would then choose to pass when he learns that North has a good 4-card raise is beyond me, but that is what is likely to have happened. East thought he was only worth 3H on the previous round, but now thinks it is right to save in 5H? Come on, this smacks of illegal communication under 73B2. I would hope that we would be adjusting in every jurisdiction.

How can following proper procedure smack of illegal communication?

If West would not have asked and East would have passed, that would smack of illegal communication. In that case, I would have asked West why he didn't ask what 2NT meant and the only answer I would be happy with would be: "Why would I ask? I already knew it's a constructive 4+ card raise."

In my opinion, it is time that we enforce the STOP regulation a little stricter. Experienced players who whistle or look around for 10 seconds and then pass should be warned that they violate the STOP regulation. Unfortunately, in bridge there are only two ways to communicate this to the players: Either the opponents call the TD (won't happen) or the TD/NBO actively spreads the message about the STOP regulation. My NBO does that, but I won't say that many people read those magazine articles.

However, in my experience, for many experienced players in the Netherlands it is entirely normal to ask in this situation. They would only refrain from asking if they knew what 2NT meant or if there was considerable time pressure.

Rik

[Cascade]

Trinidad, on 2014-March-07, 12:36, said:

Why would you adjust?

A bid has been alerted (meaning: "Please ask"), and West did what was expected of him. How is this UI?

The only time this can be UI is when West normally never asks about alerted bids and only asks when he is interested in bidding. I didn't see that information anywhere, and I think most competitive players know by now to ask frequently, so no UI and no adjustment.

Rik

This is wrong.

Even if the alert meant "please ask", and I am not sure that it is quite that, it certainly does not mean "please ask immediately without creating unauthorised information" - its not a get out of jail free card. Asking a question is specifically mentioned in the laws as a source of unauthorised information - Law 16B1a.

Also the "normally never asks" and "ask frequently" comments are not correct. If the player "sometimes does not ask" or varies in any way whether a question is asked then there is potential unauthorised information - "ask frequently" does not grant immunity.

It is much more like 'a question, or rather any information gained from it, the question not its answer, always produces unauthorised information'.

In many situations you can mitigate against unauthorised information by asking when you need to know, and dealing with or rather partner dealing with appropriately any unauthorised information when it occurs. In particular, frequently the best time, in order to minimise unauthorised information, is to ask a general question about the bidding like "explain the auction please" at the beginning of the play.

My experience is that there are more players out there who claim they 'always ask' than actually come close to that. By way of example the last player to make that claim against me, in the match in which she asked about our 1NT opening, which she claimed she 'always asked", on the two other occasions that we opened 1NT in that match did not ask.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-08, 00:33, said:

...directors, called when I have asked this neutral general question would not ask me to announce to the table "which bid are you interested in?"

Just answer "all of them".

[Cascade]

mfa1010, on 2014-March-08, 07:35, said:

So W is presumed to sit for 10 sec after the skip bid, pretending that he has something to think about, but if he uses the time to ask a question about an alerted bid, then he transmits UI, because it now seems like he does have something to think about?

If this case merits an adjustment, something has surely gone wrong somewhere.

I am not sure what skip bid regulations you are referring to but some, at least, say that the 10s does not include the question and answer. For example the NZ regulation is

"Before a Player makes a bid that skips one or more levels, a Stop Card should be placed
face up on the table to LHO, before making the (skip) bid. After allowing for any alert that
may be required and any questions by LHO to be answered, the person who made the bid
waits for approximately 10 seconds (but less at one’s own discretion) before removing the
Stop Card and LHO may bid." (my emphasis)

[Cascade]

lamford, on 2014-March-09, 04:04, said:

In practice, West asks because he is considering saving. Theoretically if he always asks he conveys no UI, Why he would then choose to pass when he learns that North has a good 4-card raise is beyond me, but that is what is likely to have happened. East thought he was only worth 3H on the previous round, but now thinks it is right to save in 5H? Come on, this smacks of illegal communication under 73B2. I would hope that we would be adjusting in every jurisdiction.

I am unconvinced by this logic. On the previous round east had less information. You are saying that because of the potential unauthorised information or illegal communication. However east also had less authorised information. The opponent has not bid game and west has not doubled. The eight or nine tricks east was hoping partner could take in 3♥ are now a profitable save in 5♥ against a possible vulnerable game. Further raising to 3♥ enhances the information that is available after 4♠. In particular partner's actions are based on the knowledge that east has some values and a heart fit which would not be the case if partner passed over 4♠ without the 3♥ raise.

[blackshoe]

Cascade, on 2014-March-09, 09:46, said:

Just answer "all of them".

I did.

[Trinidad]

Cascade, on 2014-March-09, 09:55, said:

I am not sure what skip bid regulations you are referring to but some, at least, say that the 10s does not include the question and answer. For example the NZ regulation is

"Before a Player makes a bid that skips one or more levels, a Stop Card should be placed
face up on the table to LHO, before making the (skip) bid. After allowing for any alert that
may be required and any questions by LHO to be answered, the person who made the bid
waits for approximately 10 seconds (but less at one’s own discretion) before removing the
Stop Card and LHO may bid." (my emphasis)

This was not what MFA1010 was referring to.

The way I understand him, he was talking about the fact that somebody who sees his RHO pull the STOP card has to act as if he is trying to solve a problem, regardless of his hand. The STOP regulation is not about 10 seconds. It is about showing active interest in the auction, whether you have a huge problem or the easiest bid ever.

What do you do if you have a problem?
- You make sure that you know what the auction means.
- You think.

So, what do you do when you have the easiest bid ever? ... You act as if you have a problem, so (copy, paste):
- You make sure that you know what the auction means.
- You think.

In short, if West doesn't ask (or look at the CC, or know from previous experience what 2NT meant) and the passes after 10 seconds, then he makes the same mistake that you see some beginning tournament player make (pull the pass card, keep it in the air for 10 seconds and then place it on the table): He shows everybody at the table that he is not interested. He is going to pass.

So, West has to ask about the auction, to follow a regulation that prevents the exchange of UI.

Therefore, West is correct and anybody who passes in this situation without asking is violating the STOP regulation.

Rik

[gnasher]

Suppose that it goes like this:

---

West properly pauses before passing 4♠, but neither East not West asks the meaning of 2NT.

In Denmark and the Netherlands, would the director adjust the score to 5♥x -4 ?

[Trinidad]

gnasher, on 2014-March-09, 16:29, said:

Suppose that it goes like this:

---

West properly pauses before passing 4♠, but neither East not West asks the meaning of 2NT.

In Denmark and the Netherlands, would the director adjust the score to 5♥x -4 ?

If* I would be called, I would ask West what 2NT means. If he doesn't know, he will get a warning. After that, I will poll some people and see whether 5♥ by East is an LA. I doubt that. (I haven't claimed anywhere that the EW bidding was brilliant, did I?) If it turns out 5♥ is an LA, I will adjust.

I, obviously, object to your phrase: "West properly pauses before passing 4♠." After all, if West merely paused, there was nothing proper about it.

One final note: I know of very few people in the Netherlands who would overcall 2♥ with that West hand at adverse vulnerability. I know many who will say that overcalls like that mean the end of the partnership is near.

Rik

* This is a big "if". I doubt that many players will call the TD. But if a NS player asks for a ruling, I am certainly going to investigate and if the conditions are met I will adjust. And I am pretty sure that our national AC will not overturn that decision.

Edited to add footnote.

[mfa1010]

gnasher, on 2014-March-09, 16:29, said:

Suppose that it goes like this:

---

West properly pauses before passing 4♠, but neither East not West asks the meaning of 2NT.

In Denmark and the Netherlands, would the director adjust the score to 5♥x -4 ?

No I hope not. I think anybody could be ready for the asylum if they were adjusted in England after asking, flew to Denmark and were adjusted here again when they stopped asking, as they were basically told to in England.

I think these question-cases shouldn't be handled too aggressively. As Rik is also saying, experienced players are pretty good at handling questions. They don't give a lot away in situations like this. If an experienced player asked as W if I were S, I wouldn't expect W to have a borderline hand for 5♥ just for that reason. The UI is much-much less clear than had there been a huddle.

I don't think we should work from an assumption that a pair is unaware that questions could give UI and ignorant about doing anything to randomize and limit the transmission.

I like akwoo's point of giving latitude and not effectively putting up a barrier to full disclosure. The alerting side shouldn't be getting an advantage through having alertable bids. The other side should be able to play the game in practice.

But first of all I don't think W's question (or silence) here is reliable as UI.

[gnasher]

mfa1010, on 2014-March-10, 02:51, said:

I think these question-cases shouldn't be handled too aggressively. As Rik is also saying, experienced players are pretty good at handling questions. They don't give a lot away in situations like this. If an experienced player asked as W if I were S, I wouldn't expect W to have a borderline hand for 5♥ just for that reason.

If that's true, not asking conveys the UI that West has a borderline hand. That's just as bad as asking when you have a problem but not when you don't.

There really is only one good solution to this problem: always ask.

Quote

The UI is much-much less clear than had there been a huddle.

I agree with that in general, but not in England. Unfortunately, the rules and practice in England have created a culture where many people think that you should ask only if you're considering bidding. When such a person does ask, it conveys UI.

[WellSpyder]

gnasher, on 2014-March-10, 04:12, said:

Unfortunately, the rules and practice in England have created a culture where many people think that you should ask only if you're considering bidding. When such a person does ask, it conveys UI.

I think you have a point about the effect of the culture in England in general. But I think Trinidad and mfa1010 have explained clearly why the fact that this particular auction is a stop bid auction means that the problem doesn't exist on this occasion.

TD to West: "Why did you ask about 2NT?"
West to TD: "Because I wanted to give the impression to the rest of the table that I had something to think about."
North/South to TD: "So West is helping East decide what to do!"
TD to table: "The only UI here is that West understands the stop procedures."

[gnasher]

WellSpyder, on 2014-March-10, 04:39, said:

I think you have a point about the effect of the culture in England in general. But I think Trinidad and mfa1010 have explained clearly why the fact that this particular auction is a stop bid auction means that the problem doesn't exist on this occasion.

TD to West: "Why did you ask about 2NT?"
West to TD: "Because I wanted to give the impression to the rest of the table that I had something to think about."
North/South to TD: "So West is helping East decide what to do!"
TD to table: "The only UI here is that West understands the stop procedures."

No, Trinidad and mfa1010 have explained why the problem may not exist on this occasion. Here is another possible conversation:

TD to West: "Why did you ask about 2NT?"
West to TD: "I was thinking about bidding 5♥."
TD to West: "If you hadn't been thinking about 5♥, would you have asked"
West to TD: "No, of course not."

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2014-March-10, 04:44, said:

No, Trinidad and mfa1010 have explained why the problem may not exist on this occasion. Here is another possible conversation:

TD to West: "Why did you ask about 2NT?"
West to TD: "I was thinking about bidding 5♥."
TD to West: "If you hadn't been thinking about 5♥, would you have asked"
West to TD: "No, of course not."

You can add:

TD to East: "Why did you bid 5H?"
West to TD: "It seeemed like my partner was thinking of doing something, and I had normal ODR".
TD to West: "If your partner hadn't asked about 2NT would you have bid 5H"
West to TD: "No, of course not."

[lamford]

Cascade, on 2014-March-09, 10:05, said:

I am unconvinced by this logic. On the previous round East had less information.

I am unconvinced by this logic. On the previous round West had less information. West chose not to save in 5H. What is particularly unusual about the East hand that makes the latter want to do so? Nothing; I would bet my bottom dollar that he picked up on the level of interest that West showed in the auction, by question or just by general manner. Both UI.

[lamford]

nige1, on 2014-March-07, 11:22, said:

4♠ can be defeated with a club ruff but few found that defence.

Jeez, what event was this? The Scottish equivalent of the National Newcomer's Pairs? West appears to have a routine club lead against 4S, and it ought to be trivial to find the club ruff. Even if West cashes a top heart first, the switch to a club looks obvious. EW should have been getting a bad board for the phantom. Not that it is relevant to a ruling.

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2014-March-10, 07:40, said:

gnasher, on 2014-March-10, 04:44, said:

No, Trinidad and mfa1010 have explained why the problem may not exist on this occasion. Here is another possible conversation:

TD to West: "Why did you ask about 2NT?"
West to TD: "I was thinking about bidding 5♥."
TD to West: "If you hadn't been thinking about 5♥, would you have asked"
West to TD: "No, of course not."

You can add:

TD to East: "Why did you bid 5H?"
West to TD: "It seeemed like my partner was thinking of doing something, and I had normal ODR".
TD to West: "If your partner hadn't asked about 2NT would you have bid 5H"
West to TD: "No, of course not."

These are problems that you both have that were created by the EBU.

This particular case was somewhat special since this was a STOP situation and West had to act as if he was interested.

But suppose that it wasn't a STOP situation, and West would have just asked about an alerted bid "voluntarily". Why would you think that anything abnormal is happening when West asks? It should be completely normal for players to ask about alerted bids. That is why we alert, don't we? So, we should encourage players to ask often about alerted bids, particularly in sensitive situations (e.g. competitive auctions). Because then UI is avoided.

I cannot understand that an NBO would discourage players from asking questions and make a policy of "asking a question means you give UI". Of course, asking a question can give UI (I once had an opponent asking "Was your 2♣ opening natural?". She was furious when her (one time) partner didn't lead clubs at his first opportunity. It's over 10 years ago, but my partner, her partner and I can still laugh about that incident.). But the fact that a question can give UI doesn't mean it will give UI by definition.

It only does that if it is forbidden to ask, unless you need to know (EBU policy?!) or if the case is pretty blatant (like my example).

Rik