[pran]

pran, on 2015-April-24, 06:53, said:

Absolutely.

An alert is really a suggestion to opponents that (unless they are absolutely sure about how to understand the alerted call) they should ask (properly).

barmar, on 2015-April-24, 09:38, said:

Is it a suggestion that they should ask immediately? Unless the answer affects their bidding, they could just as well wait until the end of the auction.

Maybe you noticed that I wrote "properly", I delibetately did not write "immediately".

Properly means (among other conditions) that he may ask whenever it is his turn to call, it is no fault if he asks at his first option.

He may of course also delay his question to a later time but that increases the danger of creating UI to partner ("Why did he ask now when he apparently had no need to ask earlier?")

And the fact that a call is alerted is always sufficient bridge reason for asking about that call in general terms.

[barmar]

pran, on 2015-April-24, 11:02, said:

He may of course also delay his question to a later time but that increases the danger of creating UI to partner ("Why did he ask now when he apparently had no need to ask earlier?")

But if he asks immediately, he also increases the danger of creating UI to partner ("Why did he ask now, and then pass, when he could have waited until the end of the auction?").

But we have a conundrum -- they can't BOTH increase the danger of UI in comparison to the other. So either they both create similar UI, or one is worse in general. The advice given in regulations suggests that asking immediately when it won't affect your bidding is considered worse.

[pran]

barmar, on 2015-April-25, 05:11, said:

But if he asks immediately, he also increases the danger of creating UI to partner ("Why did he ask now, and then pass, when he could have waited until the end of the auction?").

But we have a conundrum -- they can't BOTH increase the danger of UI in comparison to the other. So either they both create similar UI, or one is worse in general. The advice given in regulations suggests that asking immediately when it won't affect your bidding is considered worse.

There is always a danger of creating UI with a question, the goal must be to minimize this danger as much as possible.

You do so by spelling out your question in a general way without focusing on any specific aspect of the questioned item, and by asking at a "neutral" time so that your question is not apparently triggered by a sudden need to know something you could easily have had clarified earlier.

Your first time to call after an alert is as neutral as can be, a question at a later time can have been triggered by other aspects of the auction and thus be calling special attention to those.

So a later question had better be something like "please explain your auction so far" rather than "please explain the call you alerted".

Note Laws 20F1 which allows: [...] an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction.[...]
and 20F3: "Under 1 and 2 above a player may ask concerning a single call but Law 16B1 may apply."

[VixTD]

My colleague didn't adjust the score. I agreed with him, and didn't see any reason why the question should put East off bidding 5♣, but I thought it was an interesting question whether we should judge that South has a bridge reason for asking his question.