[j23185]

Is it required or good etiquette or bad form or optional to ask "no spades partner" (or other suit) when partner does not follow suit?

[smerriman]

It's not required, but generally considered good to ask.

It's also perfectly fine if you never ask; what you definitely should not do is ask sometimes and not others, as that conveys unauthorized information about how surprising you found the discard.

[jillybean]

I think it's a good habit to get into, with the benefit of potentially preventing an established revoke.

The inflection in a question is often more of a problem than timing or frequency.

I remember being told some basic table ethics
Keep a poker face
Don't look at partner
Ask questions at the end of the auction unless you need to know before you make a bid.

[pescetom]

I think it's a deprecable habit, although not illegal. It's fortunately absent over here, but I understand it is considered normal in the US.

[Douglas43]

It's legal and it saves unscrambling revokes. But see jillybean's comments about good practice

[pescetom]

Douglas43, on 2024-April-10, 07:27, said:

It's legal and it saves unscrambling revokes. But see jillybean's comments about good practice

The very few times one of us revokes, I would rather let it become established than transmit UI to my partner (inevitable if you only ask in genuine doubt, see smerriman's comment).
And if this becomes 'always ask' to avoid that problem, then there is still the inevitable risk of inflection giving the game away, as jillybean said.
All in all, I think this is a solution looking for a problem and that installing any superfluous verbal dialogue between partners is just asking for trouble.
And if it really was a valid solution to a major problem then surely it should be LHO that is entrusted to ask rather than partner.
But unfortunately the law allows it.

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2024-April-10, 08:41, said:

The very few times one of us revokes, I would rather let it become established than transmit UI to my partner (inevitable if you only ask in genuine doubt, see smerriman's comment).
And if this becomes 'always ask' to avoid that problem, then there is still the inevitable risk of inflection giving the game away, as jillybean said.
All in all, I think this is a solution looking for a problem and that installing any superfluous verbal dialogue between partners is just asking for trouble.
And if it really was a valid solution to a major problem then surely it should be LHO that is entrusted to ask rather than partner.
But unfortunately the law allows it.

I hope to have a game of bridge in Italy one day
IMO, but remember, I'm a secretary bird, there is so much rampant UI given, be it unsolicited explanations, comments, or slightly more discrete eye contact with partner when they need to notice this artificial bid, dummy playing cards ("it's obvious") I am unconcerned with the legal question 'no spades partner'?
(Although I have always thought it was odd the question was allowed)

[mycroft]

I bet I could tell who was from the US and who was from Europe in this discussion without knowing anything but the comments :-)

But channelling everyone else:

• Yes, it's legal.
  
• Yes, if you do it, you should do it consistently - my recommendation would be "on the first discard, each hand, as dummy or defender".
  
• Yes, you should carefully avoid the "why yes, declarer does have a lot of cards in that suit" queries (or cadence, if your query is "normal").
  
• Please don't ask, playing with me. The number of tricks I lose to established revokes in a year pales to the number of tricks I'll pitch if you distract me every hand.
  
• But I'll try to remember to ask you, if you want it.

Spoiler reflects the same issues as the opening line:

Spoiler

• IMHO, This is what a coach/NPC is for - ensuring that the players know what's different about the game they're going to play in as opposed to "how we play back home", and giving the players enough practise with it that they don't screw up in a world championship. But what do I know, I "Can't Play".

[Douglas43]

I usually ask when it is pretty obvious that partner has fouled up. Failing to follow to the first round of a suit that he has bid, or when he has opened 1NT, something like that.

[shyams]

I don't play face-to-face often.

When I do, I don't recall ever having asked my partner (or vice versa).

I have faced opponents who ask their partner. I don't think it has ever bothered me when they do so.

[DavidKok]

I've asked this question once and felt quite bad about it, though nothing happened. In general I just don't see the point. We have maybe a revoke a year at our table, and it's almost ever us. Meanwhile the potential harm it can do to ask questions related to the current board while still playing is tremendous.

[mycroft]

Douglas43, on 2024-April-10, 09:59, said:

I usually ask when it is pretty obvious that partner has fouled up. Failing to follow to the first round of a suit that he has bid, or when he has opened 1NT, something like that.

As do I (sometimes). And I put up with the UI I pass, the rare cases that the answer isn't "oh, a spade led?"

Which isn't in my suggestion list. But it is consistent.

[thepossum]

smerriman, on 2024-April-09, 13:25, said:

It's not required, but generally considered good to ask.

It's also perfectly fine if you never ask; what you definitely should not do is ask sometimes and not others, as that conveys unauthorized information about how surprising you found the discard.

Surely it would be annoying to ask always. Surely the surprising case is the likely revoke, and would be surprising to other players too

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2024-April-10, 09:21, said:

I hope to have a game of bridge in Italy one day
IMO, but remember, I'm a secretary bird, there is so much rampant UI given, be it unsolicited explanations, comments, or slightly more discrete eye contact with partner when they need to notice this artificial bid, dummy playing cards ("it's obvious") I am unconcerned with the legal question 'no spades partner'?
(Although I have always thought it was odd the question was allowed)

You might be deluded all the same.., if Italians don't need to pull stunts like "having none partner?" or "play" or Drury, it's at least partly because they don't need to: they are masters of body language (even the males ).

Hey, you forgot to mention reaching for the Alert card before partner calls too
Although now I think about it, I can be guilty of that and I'm not great at remaining impassive either: I do my best as a Director, but as a player it's not my fault if they don't use screens

I agree that it is odd the question was ever allowed. Maybe someone with knowledge of the history of the Laws could enlighten us. I can only go back to a hundred years ago when it was not mentioned or to 2007 when an RA was allowed to forbid defenders asking each other (which implies that there was dissense when this was introduced).

[mycroft]

The issue really is the difference between "you showed 4 spades in the auction, did you really do it with 1?" and "nobody mentioned diamonds, but if you don't have any diamonds, declarer has 6" - which, if declarer really is 6-6 (or 4-6 in a Majors First style), is information that would really help partner to know.

If you ask every hand on the "first discard" (unless or not unless they're playing to the 13th card), especially if it's "no diamonds, partner?" bland and bored ("Really?", stated or implied by tone of voice, is bad), then the times that it is unusual doesn't pass the same information (and doesn't feel to declarer that it does).

Yes, it would be annoying if it was every showout of a suit. Once a hand, expected and obvious - floats into the background quite quickly.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2024-April-10, 12:58, said:

The issue really is the difference between "you showed 4 spades in the auction, did you really do it with 1?" and "nobody mentioned diamonds, but if you don't have any diamonds, declarer has 6"

I have no experience of this business to help, but if partner showed 4 spades in the auction surely his LHO would have noticed?
Then yes, there is that other quirk of the Laws that LHO is allowed to notice and keep quiet all the same, hoping the revoke becomes established... a murky do ut des that at least exposes the real SBs, but also distances honest newcomers from the game.
As for "nobody mentioned diamonds", asking could even be some kind of Smith for spades.

The solution is electronic play or at least screens, but in the meantime let's avoid giving the creeps unnecessary rope

[blackshoe]

"Play a spade you dumbass, I know you have one."

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2024-April-10, 21:45, said:

"Play a spade you dumbass, I know you have one."

That's more like it.

[barmar]

The editorial in the latest (May 2024) "Bridge World" is about this. They're against it because of the UI potential when used by defenders.

[jillybean]

Expecting players to follow the Laws and proprietaries is futile.
We keep on saying the same thing over and over, are we still expecting a different result?