Easy peasy - UI England UK
#1
Posted 2010-November-18, 11:39
Do you adjust?
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
#2
Posted 2010-November-18, 12:00
- It depends on the type of player North is: does he always ask after the meaning of announced/alerted calls?
- EW started this problem, so NS deserve the benefit of the doubt
So investigation: Yes, adjustment: Not very likely
#3
Posted 2010-November-18, 12:02
bluejak, on 2010-November-18, 11:39, said:
Do you adjust?
I am not convinced that there has been any UI. There may have been but there may not have been. Some might make the stareful interrogation just because the proper procedure was not followed. Such interrogation would not convey any useful information.
4th seat against 1NT at MPs I have been known to bid on some fairly filthy hands on the theory that partner was likely to be making a bad lead anyway. At IMPs I am more cautious.
So not only the 2♥ hand but the scoring might and more information about the nature of the question and questioner might influence a decision here.
East certainly contributed to the problem by his failure to comply with the announcing regulations. Nevertheless I would need to be convinced that north was not taking advantage of the situation to create UI. That is I would need to feel comfortable that north would behave in the same way with a yarborough and the actual hand.
I believe that the USA currently hold only the World Championship For People Who Still Bid Like Your Auntie Gladys - dburn
dunno how to play 4 card majors - JLOGIC
True but I know Standard American and what better reason could I have for playing Precision? - Hideous Hog
Bidding is an estimation of probabilities SJ Simon
#4
Posted 2010-November-18, 12:07
AndreSteff, on 2010-November-18, 12:00, said:
- It depends on the type of player North is: does he always ask after the meaning of announced/alerted calls?
- EW started this problem, so NS deserve the benefit of the doubt
So investigation: Yes, adjustment: Not very likely
I agree. In most cases, the only information conveyed is that N has noticed that E has not followed the correct procedure, and this does not suggest one LA over another.
#5
Posted 2010-November-18, 12:21
#6
Posted 2010-November-18, 14:01
I pick up an 8 count. No real reason to inquire AFAICT.
I pick up a 14 count and there is a Union Jack hanging outside. I think I will be very interested in the range of NT.
In the US where I (sometimes) carry ex-presidents around, I am less worried about the announcement either way.
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#7
Posted 2010-November-18, 14:17
Practice Goodwill and Active Ethics
Director "Please"!
#8
Posted 2010-November-18, 14:50
bluejak, on 2010-November-18, 11:39, said:
North's behaviour seems impeccable. North correctly drew attention to a breach of procedural regulations in a straight-forward way without any additional nuance of meaning. That is not UI. In theory, perhaps, rather than give East a hard stare, he should call the director; but in practice, that would be over the top. A strict director might admonish East for his failure to make a timely announcement but North-South appear to have done nothing wrong.
#9
Posted 2010-November-18, 15:37
I suppose the best thing is to know the range before the bidding starts but that is putting the responsibility on us, not the opening bidder and responder.
Practice Goodwill and Active Ethics
Director "Please"!
#10
Posted 2010-November-18, 16:08
#11
Posted 2010-November-18, 16:16
Zelandakh, on 2010-November-18, 16:08, said:
Just like the left side of the pond.
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#12
Posted 2010-November-18, 16:55
"Range, please?" = seems fine. Strangely enough, I always ask when I'm not told, whether I need to or not, but I'm doing that out of the goodness of my own heart.
As far as I am concerned, any UI caused has been caused (or at least allowed) by East's failure to follow regulations.
I, too, play a system where I may choose to call over a strong NT and pass over a weak NT (or make different calls depending on strong vs weak). If you don't say, I have to ask.
As far as I'm concerned - if you're calling because of UI transmitted because of a question caused by your failure to follow simple procedure (whether it's "stupid" or not), don't expect much sympathy from me. Even if *this* North doesn't Always Ask.
#13
Posted 2010-November-18, 17:33
#14
Posted 2010-November-18, 21:22
#15
Posted 2010-November-19, 01:58
And sealed the Law by vote,
It little matters what they thought -
We hang for what they wrote.
#16
Posted 2010-November-19, 05:26
Does looking pointedly at an opponent, who has failed to announce/alert, transmit UI?
If so, is it (useful) UI that could suggest 2♥ over Pass?
"Robin Barker is a mathematician. ... All highly skilled in their respective fields and clearly accomplished bridge players."
#17
Posted 2010-November-19, 08:36
Perhaps dburn would like to explain what difference the vulnerability makes?
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
#18
Posted 2010-November-20, 00:05
#19
Posted 2010-November-20, 09:18
Chris L, on 2010-November-20, 00:05, said:
I think either of those two solutions are unwarranted by the bridge laws.
#20
Posted 2010-November-21, 04:48
As dburn pointed out, not only the hands but even the vul / form of scoring has not been given.
The key words in the OP appear to be
1. "North looked interrogatively"
2. "worst 2♥ bid ever seen"
... i.e. subjective assessments. The answer would depend on vul, scoring, opp calibre, etc.
How is the info in the OP sufficient to answer the "Do you adjust?" question.