[mfa1010]

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

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."

Speculation, Your Honour!

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.

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

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.

No, I think it is posible to have a neutral approach to this, so neither of the options asking/not asking really says anything.

Quote

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

I think this is (fortunately) not so. Alerted bids come in many guises. Uncontested auctions, competitve auctions, bids we know what means anyway (here stayman is alertable for instance), bids by familiar opponents or by unknown opponents, bids where we think know our opponents' system and bids where we don't, etc etc. The reason for asking varies a great deal. We may also be more inclined to ask about a forceful alert than a small knock.

The point is, that we don't need to ask always at all to make us unpredictable in practice.

Quote

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.

Sounds quite problematic.

[nige1]

Trinidad, on 2014-March-09, 13:27, said:

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

Often, when I read an IBLF forum, I learn something horrifying.

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 ?

---

Excellent example. EW were nonvul in the OP but EW vul makes gnasher's point better.

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

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

A better solution might be for the laws to stipulate that partner must announce the meaning without waiting for a question. (Saving time and reducing unintentional UI),

lamford, on 2014-March-10, 07:59, said:

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.

OW. No Travellers/frequencies were published but I reported what I was told.

And what if this had been the full deal?

---

[Fluffy]

I don't think anyone has ever been adjusted in my country for asking a question, this thread will probably look like science fiction to directors here. Always ask must be great in England, here I have seen countless of times players making a support double and then supporting again because partner hasn't alerted.

[gnasher]

mfa1010, on 2014-March-10, 08:38, said:

I think this is (fortunately) not so. Alerted bids come in many guises. Uncontested auctions, competitve auctions, bids we know what means anyway (here stayman is alertable for instance), bids by familiar opponents or by unknown opponents, bids where we think know our opponents' system and bids where we don't, etc etc. The reason for asking varies a great deal. We may also be more inclined to ask about a forceful alert than a small knock.

Yes, of course. I meant "always ask if it's a situation where you might need to know".

Regarding the idea of varying the emphasis of the alert depending on how unusual it is, that does rely on the players being on the same wavelength. The ACBL used to formalise this by having two categories of alert, normal "alerts" and "special alerts". I thought that this was quite a good idea.

[Trinidad]

gnasher, on 2014-March-10, 10:45, said:

Yes, of course. I meant "always ask if it's a situation where you might need to know".

That is the way I see it. And that is what I do (and is normal at decent level here).

I would think that a STOP situation is a situation where by definition you might need to know. Either you might need to know or you have to act as if you might need to know.

But I think that the same is true for most competitive situations.

This was a case where both sides were bidding AND there was a STOP. If "might need to know" doesn't apply here, where would it apply?

Rik

[gnasher]

Trinidad, on 2014-March-10, 08:25, said:

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

I don't have this problem. I make a point of asking the meaning in all such situations. The advice in the EBU regulations is only advice, and bad advice is best ignored.

Quote

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".

Nor me. Just to be clear, I don't agree with the EBU's approach to this. In fact, I think it's awful.

Quote

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).

That's not true. If your decision to ask is dependent on the contents if your hand, asking a question gives UI. That applies regardless of whether you're following the regulations or not.

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2014-March-10, 10:45, said:

Regarding the idea of varying the emphasis of the alert depending on how unusual it is, that does rely on the players being on the same wavelength. The ACBL used to formalise this by having two categories of alert, normal "alerts" and "special alerts". I thought that this was quite a good idea.

That's where we got announcements from. In the cases where there were regular and special alerts for a bid, the regular alerts became announcements.

But maybe they need to expand on this, e.g. Jacoby 2NT may be common enough that it should be an announcement, and then an alert of 1Maj-2NT would trigger a question.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2014-March-11, 11:01, said:

That's where we got announcements from. In the cases where there were regular and special alerts for a bid, the regular alerts became announcements.

But maybe they need to expand on this, e.g. Jacoby 2NT may be common enough that it should be an announcement, and then an alert of 1Maj-2NT would trigger a question.

The "Special Alert" referenced by Gnasher was indeed a different era in the ACBL. In addition to being replaced by certain announcements, it also gave way to elimination altogether of certain alerts.

The Negative Double, for example, used to be an alert; then, we started using the Double of a 1♥ overcall to deny Spades. This was a "Special Alert". Now, it is just an alert under the "unexpected" clause.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2014-March-11, 11:21, said:

The "Special Alert" referenced by Gnasher was indeed a different era in the ACBL. In addition to being replaced by certain announcements, it also gave way to elimination altogether of certain alerts.

The Negative Double, for example, used to be an alert; then, we started using the Double of a 1♥ overcall to deny Spades. This was a "Special Alert". Now, it is just an alert under the "unexpected" clause.

Are you sure about that? I remember when they made negative doubles non-alertable, it was in the mid-90's, a year or two after I started going to NABCs. I remember this because I would play in some games with a partner where we played very old-fashioned (just "rubber bridge" conventions -- Stayman, Blackwood, Weak 2), and we had fun contradicting people whenever they told us we didn't have to alert 1m-(1M)-Double any more. I'm pretty sure "Special Alert" was added in the next revision after that.

Does someone know how to look up the history of ACBL alert changes? They're presumably in the BoD minutes, but I'm not going to try scanning all the old minutes.

[mycroft]

best hope, barmar, is wayback for acbl.org. I've found it's pretty good at giving the appropriate charts and timing.

I also believe that the switch to "highly unusual and unexpected" doubles (including, specifically, takeout doubles of <4♠ overcalls) came in the same alert procedures revision that introduced Announcements, 1990 or 1991, I believe (can't remember if '91 was "when *all* NT ranges became announceable" or "when announcements came in".

It was really nice to not have to Special Alert 1NT-2♦; but it did get a few rounds of "You don't Alert transfers any more, you just say 'Transfer'." "Thank you. Alert." (and we're *still* getting a long stare when it goes 1NT-2♥, waiting for us to say "Transfer". Of course, that's legitimate - I do the same thing to several pairs who haven't worked out that this is required, 24 years on).

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2014-March-11, 11:29, said:

Are you sure about that? I remember when they made negative doubles non-alertable, it was in the mid-90's, a year or two after I started going to NABCs. I remember this because I would play in some games with a partner where we played very old-fashioned (just "rubber bridge" conventions -- Stayman, Blackwood, Weak 2), and we had fun contradicting people whenever they told us we didn't have to alert 1m-(1M)-Double any more. I'm pretty sure "Special Alert" was added in the next revision after that.

Does someone know how to look up the history of ACBL alert changes? They're presumably in the BoD minutes, but I'm not going to try scanning all the old minutes.

The Special Alert was abolished in 1997. At the same time, announcements of 1NT were instated, but only for a range other than 15-17.

There was, indeed, a period of transition prior to 1997 when people had not yet grown comfortable with unalerted doubles ---during which we continued to "special alert" the negative Double which denied spades, so that opponents would not just assume we were one of the pairs who continued to alert Negative Doubles. We desisted in 1997 when the Special Alert was officially abolished.