[barmar]

gnasher, on 2011-December-23, 06:38, said:

In the former case we know that responder would have done something different opposite a four-card heart suit. If you only ask what opener has shown, you're not getting all the information to which you're entitled.

It's so obvious that I'd hardly feel cheated out of full disclosure if an opponent failed to mention it. And as Rik said, relayers often ask even when they don't need to know, so the best you could say is that he probably has a 4-card heart suit. Maybe they need to ask the first question just so they can ask a later question (the first relay clarifies shape, and later relays show controls). So what the relayer has "shown" probably depends on whether he's looking for game or slam, which doesn't become apparent until late in the auction.

[gnasher]

Barmar, I think you've missed my point, or maybe I've misunderstood your recommended approach.

As I understand it, if you faced the relay sequence 1♠-2♣;2♠-2NT;3♣-3NT;pass, you would ask "What has opener shown?", and hear "11-15, exactly five spades and exactly four diamonds." Therefore you would have no idea whether you faced my first auction or my second, and you would know nothing about responder's hand except that he wanted to play in 3NT.

I, on the other hand, would ask the meaning of each bid. If my opponents had had the first auction, I would be able to infer that responder had four hearts, or lacked a sufficient diamond stop, or wanted to conceal something from me. The ambiguity makes the inference less valuable, but it doesn't make it valueless.

[barmar]

You're right, I missed that nuance. Knowing that one response was ambiguous about hearts vs. diamonds, and then the relayer asked for discrimination, makes a difference.

I'm still not sure I'd need to know these details as the auction is progressing versus getting all the details at the end.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2011-December-23, 13:54, said:

You're right, I missed that nuance. Knowing that one response was ambiguous about hearts vs. diamonds, and then the relayer asked for discrimination, makes a difference.

I'm still not sure I'd need to know these details as the auction is progressing versus getting all the details at the end.

In principle I need to know. I might want to make a lead directing double. However, explaining "along the way" takes a lot more time than explaining at the end. That is why I make an exception for relay systems and I will ask at the end (but before my final pass, just in case). That means that I give up on the possibility to make a good lead directing double without giving UI.

When I play against "Natural with gadgets" I ask in the middle of the auction when a bid is alerted. That way I can follow the rest of the auction right away. (As an example I want to know whether 2♣ is new minor forcing, checkback Stayman or x-y NT. Then I will understand what non alerted continuations mean: sign offs, invitations or forces.)

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

Trinidad, on 2011-December-21, 08:06, said:

You may hate the practice of always asking alerted bids, but it is the recommended practice in many places. The UI problems that it creates are minor (certainly when compared to the UI problems it prevents) since the first -and most revealing- UI already went over the table in the form of the alert.

A misunderstanding of what I was getting at.

An obviously conventional bid is alerted. You are not going to bid whatever it means or at any point later in the auction. If the bid was made asking for a stop, and you ask, and the bidder's partner says it was showing one, UI has been created where none needed to exist.

[blackshoe]

Are you saying there's an obligation on players to avoid situations in which their opponents may give UI to each other?

[barmar]

No obligation, but isn't it more fun to play the game without having to worry about such things?

Director calls are interruptions of the real play of the game. If you can avoid them without impacting the play, that's something to be preferred.

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-24, 18:41, said:

Are you saying there's an obligation on players to avoid situations in which their opponents may give UI to each other?

There is no obligation, but I find that when this sort of UI happens, particularly when the hand asking was obviously going to pass throughout, it poisons the atmosphere at the table as the side who got ruled against tend to feel that their opponents were deliberately trawling for UI and I prefer to play my bridge in a more friendly (but highly competitive) manner.

[Trinidad]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-December-24, 14:48, said:

Trinidad, on 2011-December-21, 08:06, said:

You may hate the practice of always asking alerted bids, but it is the recommended practice in many places. The UI problems that it creates are minor (certainly when compared to the UI problems it prevents) since the first -and most revealing- UI already went over the table in the form of the alert.

A misunderstanding of what I was getting at.

An obviously conventional bid is alerted. You are not going to bid whatever it means or at any point later in the auction. If the bid was made asking for a stop, and you ask, and the bidder's partner says it was showing one, UI has been created where none needed to exist.

There was no misunderstanding.

Of course, there always is the possibility that opponents are giving each other UI. But this only occurs when something is already wrong (i.e. they have a disagreement about the meaning of the bid). (Though, technically speaking, hearing that your partner is on the same wavelength as you also is UI, but you know what I mean.)

If you would normally never ask, but only ask when you need to know, you generate UI in a situation where everything -up to then- went right.

When I have to chose between ruining a good situation and ruining a situation that was already bad to begin with, I would certainly chose to keep the good situation good.

On top of that, I normally assume that I am playing against opponents who know what they are doing. I have already mentioned earlier that I make an exception for situations where I know that my opponents are clueless.

I am not going to take into account the off chance that opponents -who normally know what they are doing- now suddenly have a bidding misunderstanding and, therefore, now might get a UI problem because I used my right to ask a question.

I also accept that when I am that opponent and my partner and I have a misunderstanding that we will have a UI problem. I don't see that this UI problem is caused by the opponents asking. It is caused by our misunderstanding and we, and no one else, are responsible for the mess that it created. This includes any "poisoning of the atmosphere at the table".

Rik

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2011-December-25, 07:10, said:

I also accept that when I am that opponent and my partner and I have a misunderstanding that we will have a UI problem. I don't see that this UI problem is caused by the opponents asking. It is caused by our misunderstanding and we, and no one else, are responsible for the mess that it created. This includes any "poisoning of the atmosphere at the table".

This. IMO any player who cannot accept that his side is responsible here needs re-education.

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-25, 08:19, said:

This. IMO any player who cannot accept that his side is responsible here needs re-education.

If the other side didn't ask when they didn't need to know, say 3♠ gets alerted (where both its possible meanings are alertable, I'm not talking about where one is and one isn't), 3N gets bid (or something else) and the bidding misunderstanding emerges in the questions on the opening lead, there is no UI. This is what I'm getting at by the UI being created by the question.

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-December-31, 19:31, said:

If the other side didn't ask when they didn't need to know, say 3♠ gets alerted (where both its possible meanings are alertable, I'm not talking about where one is and one isn't), 3N gets bid (or something else) and the bidding misunderstanding emerges in the questions on the opening lead, there is no UI. This is what I'm getting at by the UI being created by the question.

I think, we all understand your argument. Where some of us disagree with you is on the question of responsibility for the UI.

You speak of the UI being created by the question. It isn't (or at least the UI problem isn't). The UI problem is created by a combination of the question and the opponents' misunderstanding. If the opponents knew their system, there would be no UI problem.

Even if I'm not considering action at this point, I want to be able to ask the question for reasons that are unrelated to the possibility of a misunderstanding:
- I don't want to give my partner UI, on this deal or on other deals where the auction goes the same way.
- I don't want to give the opponents information to which they're not entitled, on this deal or on other deals where the auction goes the same way.
- I want to be prepared for the possibility of later action.
- I want to be able to use the available time to think about the meaning of the auction, possible actions by my side later in the auction, the lead, and the defence.

You seem to be arguing that I should disadvantage myself in order to protect my opponents from the consequences of their misunderstanding, and that if I don't the opponents will have cause for complaint. I, on the other hand, think that if the opponents want to avoid the UI the solution is in their hands: they should learn their system.

[Trinidad]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-December-31, 19:31, said:

If the other side didn't ask when they didn't need to know, say 3♠ gets alerted (where both its possible meanings are alertable, I'm not talking about where one is and one isn't), 3N gets bid (or something else) and the bidding misunderstanding emerges in the questions on the opening lead, there is no UI. This is what I'm getting at by the UI being created by the question.

In your scenario, you want to prevent the transmission from UI. That is obviously a worthy goal. But there is only effective UI in the case where the pair has a misunderstanding about 3♠. In other words, there only is transmission of effective UI when the situation was already rotten. But if you can prevent the transmission of UI in a case like that, you are preventing a rotten situation becoming worse. That would be a good thing. On the other hand, misunderstandings are relatively rare, so you would not benefit often, but every time you would, it would be good.

Unfortunately, your idea that one shouldn't ask unless one needs to know, comes with a side effect that is much worse than the disease it is curing. Now, UI is transmitted in a situation that was perfectly fine: a player needs to know and asks the question. His partner now knows that he needed to know and that is UI. Now suddenly, a side that hasn't done anything wrong, but just tried to play sensible bridge, is limited in its options by the UI laws. This wouldn't have happened if the asker would always (often) ask.

So you have to allow one of these two evil situations:

A. Transmit UI in a situation that was already messed up (remember that messed up situations are rare) and limit the possibilities for the pair that messed things up.
B. Transmit UI in a situation that was fine and limit the possibilities of non offenders who are trying to play sensible bridge.

You cannot prevent both.

What would you choose? I sympathize with your aim, but I am not willing to limit an innocent pair in its options, just to keep all options open for pairs who already made a mess on the board.

Rik

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2012-January-01, 03:17, said:

You seem to be arguing that I should disadvantage myself in order to protect my opponents from the consequences of their misunderstanding, and that if I don't the opponents will have cause for complaint. I, on the other hand, think that if the opponents want to avoid the UI the solution is in their hands: they should learn their system.

But he might be talking only about asking solely to create UI because you are pretty sure they are having a misunderstanding.

[Cyberyeti]

Vampyr, on 2012-January-03, 09:13, said:

But he might be talking only about asking solely to create UI because you are pretty sure they are having a misunderstanding.

There's an element of this, but also with some exceptions, most of the people that I've come across that do it then produce some laughable director calls to follow in an attempt to trawl for a result "to protect teammates". I tend to find the asking when you don't need to know happens most often when a long auction is bid with some thought, and that adds to the feeling of trawling for UI.

Also in answer to Gnasher and Trinidad, VERY few people actually ask ALL the time, hence there is some UI created when they do, it's just slightly different to the UI that's created by people who ask less often.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2012-January-03, 09:13, said:

But he might be talking only about asking solely to create UI because you are pretty sure they are having a misunderstanding.

Or asking to break their concentration and create chaos?

[Trinidad]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-January-03, 09:52, said:

Also in answer to Gnasher and Trinidad, VERY few people actually ask ALL the time, hence there is some UI created when they do, it's just slightly different to the UI that's created by people who ask less often.

Asking all the time is not necessary. All that is needed is asking often. It is hard to say how often, but let's say that it is almost all the time for alertable bids that cannot be found on (or deduced from) the convention card and that haven't occured before against this pair.

In the bridge club where I play everybody plays Multi. This is an alertable bid. However, since everybody plays it and since it is prominently shown on the convention cards, there is obviously no need to ask. Similarly, about half of the pairs play a 1♣ opening as showing 2+ (this is alertable). The other half plays it as showing 3+ (which is not alertable). Exactly one pair plays a strong club system (also alertable). Again, there is no need to ask: My partner and I will have read the opening bids from the convention cards. We both know what pair plays strong club and the alert, as well as the look on the convention card will tell us how many clubs the opponents are promising. As a result, not asking doesn't transmit useful UI.

But if they overcall partner's 1♣ opening with 2♦ (alerted), I will ask what it means since there are a couple of popular meanings (e.g. weak jump overcall in a major, both majors, natural weak jump overcall, rounded suits, ...). My action may very well depend on the meaning of the bid. If I pass without asking, I will tell my partner that I have no interest at all in bidding, whatever they may have: "Partner, I am broke." I don't want my partner to know that, therefore, I ask. In such a case I always ask, unless the situation has come up before in the round (and then I will usually ask something like "Same thing?", since it may depend on seat or vulnerability or whatever).

This doesn't create any problems, as long as the opponents know what they are doing. I would not expect my opponents to be confused in the first round of the auction. If they are, then that is entirely their problem. But I realize that I have the luxury of playing at a relatively strong club, with essentially only fixed partnerships playing. Another consequence is that it doesn't take players a lot of time to explain their bid: They don't need to think about the meaning and they can explain clearly.

Rik

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2012-January-03, 11:03, said:

Or asking to break their concentration and create chaos?

Sure. Since when does "Please explain?" create chaos?

Think about it:
- Partner makes a bid.
- You realize that it is alertable, so you alert.
- Your RHO asks for the meaning.
- You explain, now you start to think about what to do with partner's bid.

It isn't your turn to do anything. How can your concentration be broken?

I can come up with a situation where it can happen that your concentration is broken, but players who want to prevent transmitting UI will not get there:

1♠-Pass-2♣*-Pass *Alerted, but not asked: GF relay
2♥(A)-Pass-2♠(A)-Pass
2NT(A)-Pass-3♣(A)-Pass
3♥(A)-Pass-...3♠(A)-Pass
4♥(A)-Pass-......4♠(A)-Pass
5♦(A)-..

"Can you tell me what you guys are doing?"

This will break your concentration and is obviously not necessary. But those people who ask to prevent their partner from getting UI will not pull stunts like this.

Rik

[aguahombre]

Sigh

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-January-03, 09:52, said:

There's an element of this, but also with some exceptions, most of the people that I've come across that do it then produce some laughable director calls to follow in an attempt to trawl for a result "to protect teammates". I tend to find the asking when you don't need to know happens most often when a long auction is bid with some thought, and that adds to the feeling of trawling for UI.

Also in answer to Gnasher and Trinidad, VERY few people actually ask ALL the time, hence there is some UI created when they do, it's just slightly different to the UI that's created by people who ask less often.

The post that provoked this discussion was:

Quote

I played against a good player in a national event in an auction where spades were bid and alerted twice by my partner on the way to 3N by me. The player on my right asked about both alerted bids, and his partner led a spade so I wheeled the man in. Turned out the spade lead was completely natural and the asker had 8x. He apparently ALWAYS asks about any alerted bid at his turn. I hate this practice as it can create UI problems for the other side where none need to exist in circumstances where a bid is obviously conventional (or beyond 3N) but it's not precisely clear what it is, but apparently it's completely legal.

I don't quite understand how we got from that practice, which I consider both acceptable and sensible, to asking questions in the hope of creating a UI problem.