[nige1]

Mens pairs, Match points.
South, alerted North's 2N. At his turn, West asked about its meaning. South explained it as a constructive 4-card raise to 3+♠. There were no tempo-breaks. Result 5♥ X-1.
North called the director, related the (agreed) facts as above, and expressed concern over the possibility of UI to East from West's question. The TD asked no further questions and returned later to rule "Result stands". 4♠ can be defeated with a club ruff but few found that defence.

---

[RMB1]

EBU: adjust
Other (inc. ABCL): seek local advice about whether the question is considered UI and is considered to suggests action.

[Trinidad]

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

[blackshoe]

There is no indication in the laws that an alert lets a pair off the hook for the UI which may be conveyed by a question. So we have to ask (and answer) "what information is conveyed by the question, and is that information authorized to the questioner's partner?" There is a potential problem here - if a player always asks, the question can be said to convey no information, but suppose that he always asks except when he already knows? If he normally doesn't ask when he already knows, then when he does ask in that situation, he "must" be asking for his partner's benefit - and we don't want him to do that. If he only asks some of the time, randomly or pseudo-randomly, then we cannot say that the question conveys no information, because now his partner will be wondering why he asked. Is his conclusion as to why the player asked "information"? If so, then it's probably unauthorized.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-07, 16:23, said:

suppose that he always asks except when he already knows? If he normally doesn't ask when he already knows, then when he does ask in that situation, he "must" be asking for his partner's benefit - and we don't want him to do that.

Why do you assume that the player already knows?

Anyway, I thought that the EBU had changed its stance and you are now allowed to ask about alerted bids in a neutral way.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2014-March-07, 19:28, said:

Why do you assume that the player already knows?

Anyway, I thought that the EBU had changed its stance and you are now allowed to ask about alerted bids in a neutral way.

I don't assume it, I posit it as part of the scenario I'm discussing.

Not sure about the EBU's current stance on this, and I'm also not sure what "in a neutral way" means.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-07, 21:33, said:

I don't assume it, I posit it as part of the scenario I'm discussing.

OK, but the OP situation is still under discussion.

Quote

Not sure about the EBU's current stance on this, and I'm also not sure what "in a neutral way" means.

Honestly? Well it means asking for an explanation and not asking leading/specific questions. Of corse the latter are permitted, but I was under the impression that they and not neutral questions might be deemed to transmit UI.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2014-March-07, 22:21, said:

OK, but the OP situation is still under discussion.


Honestly? Well it means asking for an explanation and not asking leading/specific questions. Of corse the latter are permitted, but I was under the impression that they and not neutral questions might be deemed to transmit UI.

Okay. That's what I thought you meant, I just wasn't sure.

A neutral general question is less likely to transmit UI than a leading question or a specific question. I don't think it follows that a neutral general question cannot transmit UI. Still, players are I think well advised to limit their (initial, at least) questions to neutral general ones, and TDs are well advised to rarely be inclined to rule that such questions transmit UI.

As a player, I just wish people would understand that "please explain your auction" does not mean "can I have a review of the auction?" Oh, and that 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?"

[Trinidad]

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

Okay. That's what I thought you meant, I just wasn't sure.

A neutral general question is less likely to transmit UI than a leading question or a specific question. I don't think it follows that a neutral general question cannot transmit UI. Still, players are I think well advised to limit their (initial, at least) questions to neutral general ones, and TDs are well advised to rarely be inclined to rule that such questions transmit UI.

As a player, I just wish people would understand that "please explain your auction" does not mean "can I have a review of the auction?" Oh, and that 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?"

The phrasing of the question is not really relevant for this case. In this case one bid was alerted. It is 100% clear that any question, no matter how neutral its phrasing, will be about the 2NT bid. All other bids have already been implicitly explained as natural by the lack of an alert.

Another reason why the phrasing is irrelevant for this case: The real UI is not what question was asked, but simply the fact that a question was asked. The question that we have to answer is whether asking indicated an interest in competing. I would say that in this case pretty much any question does that -if West normally doesn't ask about alerted bids- whether it is phrased as the neutral "Please explain" or the horrible "Did 2NT show a balanced hand?". (The exception would be a question like "Does 2NT show a fit and diamond shortness?" )

Rik

[gnasher]

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.

In the EBU, most people ask only when they need to know, and hardly anyone follows a policy of always (or often) asking. That's mainly the fault of the people who wrote the regulations, which still read
Players sometimes say, "I always ask whether I intend to bid or not". This is not recommended because, in practice, players do not follow this approach strictly.

Notice what East did here: he heard the alert, but he knew it wouldn't affect his action, so he bid without asking. So this East, at least, doesn't seem to understand the need to ask about alerted bids.

Regarding the ruling, a sensible start, especially in the EBU, would be to ask West why he asked the question.

[campboy]

Trinidad, on 2014-March-08, 03:16, said:

Another reason why the phrasing is irrelevant for this case: The real UI is not what question was asked, but simply the fact that a question was asked. The question that we have to answer is whether asking indicated an interest in competing. I would say that in this case pretty much any question does that -if West normally doesn't ask about alerted bids- whether it is phrased as the neutral "Please explain" or the horrible "Did 2NT show a balanced hand?". (The exception would be a question like "Does 2NT show a fit and diamond shortness?" )

In my experience even for a player who normally asks when the previous call was alerted it is unusual to ask about a call from earlier in the auction (before the auction has ended). If I was East on this deal, I would have asked about 2NT. If I was West, I wouldn't.

[mfa1010]

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.

[paulg]

I wonder what answer West could get that could lead him to take action rather than pass? I think this may have been gnasher's question too.

[ggwhiz]

What UI?

Have we come to the point that asking about an alert when all 4 players made consecutive bids (including a skip) we can't ask?

I might ask to buy time to digest the whole situation without giving UI from a prolonged hesitation or to consider a double. In fact asking to suggest a sacrifice is way down on the list of reasons.

[uday]

Let's say NS play that 2N is the equivalent of a limited 5 card raise in spades, with 5+ clubs on the side.

It is possible that West would then choose to bid 5H, knowing of his partner's spade shortness and the likely double fit in Diamonds and Hearts.

I'm not saying that you would, or I would, but perhaps this West would.

It is unfortunate that asking puts his side into jeopardy. Now East probably won't be allowed to take a flyer in 5H unless he was (demonstrably) sandbagging to begin with.

Thus, NS gain nontrivial advantages simply by alerting. There is the advantage of "Hey pard, wake the hell up, this bid is not what it sounds like" and there is the advantage of "Hey, cool for me. If the opps ask, I will sometimes be granted a freebie"

The Bridge World has gone on about this at length and is considerably more educated on the subject than is this one, but it seems to me that one solution for the poor EW would be to be allowed to request that all bids be explained all the time. It is true that this only removes one advantage for NS, but that's better than none.

If you grant that alerting your calls is a net plus for your own side, then it is possible the people who imposed these rules on us should really be considering ways to solve this problem, which (just to me) seems quite unfair to EW. Not that I know who those people are

Screens are widely considered to solve this problem but I don't think they do, at least as currently used. A useful amount of information is routinely transmitted through screens, especially in quiet environments where you can hear everything, including a pencil squeaking across a notepad and what not.

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2014-March-08, 03:16, said:

The phrasing of the question is not really relevant for this case. In this case one bid was alerted. It is 100% clear that any question, no matter how neutral its phrasing, will be about the 2NT bid. All other bids have already been implicitly explained as natural by the lack of an alert.

Another reason why the phrasing is irrelevant for this case: The real UI is not what question was asked, but simply the fact that a question was asked. The question that we have to answer is whether asking indicated an interest in competing. I would say that in this case pretty much any question does that -if West normally doesn't ask about alerted bids- whether it is phrased as the neutral "Please explain" or the horrible "Did 2NT show a balanced hand?". (The exception would be a question like "Does 2NT show a fit and diamond shortness?" )

Rik

I was thinking and writing generally, rather than specifically to the case in the OP. Still, you have a point — although I would say that "natural" is a description, not an explanation. Okay, it's natural. That, for suit bids, sets a minimum number of cards in the suit. Is there a higher minimum? Is there a maximum? What about the range of HCP? Playing Tricks? And so on. The point is there's a lot more information available to the bidder's partner than just "it's natural".

I'm sure you don't intend to go to "every question conveys UI", because if you go there, the game becomes unplayable.

When we speak of UI, we're speaking of information. In particular, we're speaking of information about the hand of the player who (may have) conveyed UI. So yes, the UI in this case derives from the fact a question was asked. That still doesn't tell us what the UI conveys. As for "interest in competing", some players always have such interest - that doesn't mean they necessarily have the hand for it. Aside from that, most folks who will compete in this auction at this point will not do so based solely on the meaning of 2NT (and what's in their own hand, of course) — the rest of the auction is important as well.

I've often wondered what a professional information scientist would say about the way the laws of bridge handle authorized and unauthorized (and extraneous) information. I've even thought it might be good to recruit one to tighten up the laws - provided he can communicate in words the rest of us can understand!

[Trinidad]

campboy, on 2014-March-08, 03:46, said:

In my experience even for a player who normally asks when the previous call was alerted it is unusual to ask about a call from earlier in the auction (before the auction has ended). If I was East on this deal, I would have asked about 2NT. If I was West, I wouldn't.

Why? Maybe East knew what 2NT meant. East is not allowed to ask for West.

So, when the auction comes to West, and West doesn't know what 2NT means, he asks.

And as MFA1010 pointed out, this is even a skip bid situation, so West is supposed to act as if he has a problem and is interested in the auction. Not asking about the meaning of an alerted bid and then passing is not acting as if you are interested in the auction. Simply put: If West didn't ask, look at the CC or act as if he knows what 2NT means, then his passivity is a violation of the STOP regulation.

Rik

[Trinidad]

gnasher, on 2014-March-08, 03:33, said:

Regarding the ruling, a sensible start, especially in the EBU, would be to ask West why he asked the question.

Because the regulations tell him to?

Rik

[gnasher]

Trinidad, on 2014-March-08, 13:59, said:

Because the regulations tell him to?

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.

[akwoo]

First of all, I don't think West's intentions are at all relevant here. If UI is transmitted, it is transmitted whether West intended to transmit it or not and whether West was thinking about bidding on or not. West's general pattern of behavior with regards to asking questions IS of course relevant.

As a practical matter, even if it's not exactly what the Laws say, I think we have to allow East some latitude in this kind of situation. If we did not, we would effectively be putting up a barrier to full disclosure, which cannot be a good thing.

Given the vulnerability, I think East has good reason based purely on his or her hand to believe that 5♥ might be a good sacrifice.

With the colours reversed though...