[Vampyr]

 mycroft, on 2012-December-20, 17:57, said:

If not asking a question (sometimes) is not UI, then WeaSeL vs (unAnnounced, in the ACBL) NT is legal.

The full French Defense is not legal, but I believe it is AI to partner that, when you had to ask, you were probably considering doing something different if you'd received a different answer.

[blackshoe]

 gnasher, on 2012-December-20, 16:02, said:

Not asking a question may give UI. If you would sometimes ask a question and sometimes not, depending on the contents of your hand, it does give UI.

How important is the "depending on the contents of your hand" bit? should the TD always assume that's why you asked or didn't ask, in spite of anything you say?

 mycroft, on 2012-December-20, 17:57, said:

If not asking a question (sometimes) is not UI, then WeaSeL vs (unAnnounced, in the ACBL) NT is legal.

Conclusion does not follow from premise.

[jallerton]

 Vampyr, on 2012-December-20, 21:38, said:

The full French Defense is not legal, but I believe it is AI to partner that, when you had to ask, you were probably considering doing something different if you'd received a different answer.

Really? Under which Law(s)?

[iviehoff]

The debate that has occurred since I last posted is precisely why I said it was a murky place I didn't want to go to if I could avoid it.

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2012-December-20, 22:12, said:

How important is the "depending on the contents of your hand" bit?

It's vital, of course.

If you always ask, never ask, or ask at random, that conveys no UI. If you ask when you're thinking of bidding and randomly at other times, it conveys some UI. If you ask only when you're thinking of bidding, and always ask when you're thinking of bidding, it conveys loads of UI. If you ask only when you're thinking of bidding, but sometimes bid without asking because your action is obvious, it conveys even more UI.

Quote

should the TD always assume that's why you asked or didn't ask, in spite of anything you say?

No, why should he do that? The TD should listen to what you say, consider whatever other evidence there is, then use his judgement.

[nige1]

 gnasher, on 2012-December-21, 09:09, said:

If you always ask, never ask, or ask at random, that conveys no UI. If you ask when you're thinking of bidding and randomly at other times, it conveys some UI. If you ask only when you're thinking of bidding, and always ask when you're thinking of bidding, it conveys loads of UI. If you ask only when you're thinking of bidding, but sometimes bid without asking because your action is obvious, it conveys even more UI.

If you follow Gnasher's logic and you don't want to constrain partner's options, then you ask never or always. Unfortunately however...

• Never asking deprives you of information that may be useful.
• Always asking questions wastes time.

The easy solution is a law that insists that (until requested to stop) partner announces the meaning of all your calls (without alerting and waiting to be asked). A matrix of common meanings could make this even easier. Incidentally, we would save rain-forests of local alerting regulations

[mycroft]

If I don't ask about an unannounced NT, and partner figures out from that that I have an unambiguous call (pass or otherwise), because I frequently *do* ask about the range, and uses that information in his future endeavours, and the fact that I didn't ask about the range (when I frequently do) is not UI, then...

It's just harder to argue it from this side than from the "he asked this time, so he's got an 'almost bid' pass, so it's safe to balance" side. If the *fact* of asking a question is UI, then the *fact* of not asking the question passes similar information, which leads to issues if that information is authorized. If only the *contents* of the question is UI, then "no question" is much less non-authorized information prone. But I don't think that's correct in Law.

On the OP, it's interesting that the reaction to the believed meaning of the call and the required behaviour after the call made were identical, and before the end of the auction, not queried to disambiguate. I think anything about MI during the auction is lost to E/W, as the information they *did* get was accurate and all that was required. During the play, may be another issue.

[aguahombre]

 Vampyr, on 2012-December-20, 21:38, said:

I believe it is AI to partner that, when you had to ask, you were probably considering doing something different if you'd received a different answer.

My comments here apply specifically to the un-announced opening NT range in the ACBL where such announcement is required.

This one case is unique. The bid itself (if natural) is always required to be announced. If the bid is not natural it is required to be alerted. I know of no other call which should always be either announced or alerted, no matter what it means.

NO, it is not authorized, or even correct, for partner to assume when I "had to ask" that I was probably considering doing something different with a different answer. The only authorized assumption would be that when I didn't ask I already knew the answer.

If I ask, then pass, the AI is that I now know what their range is ---information which might be good to know on defense or if the auction later becomes competitive. I am also prepared to alert partner's balancing action which might be variable with their range.

If some pair can work out an unethical method of taking advantage of the opponents' irregularity, we are not going to ferret that out. The rest of us should not have to justify asking and then passing when we shouldn't have had to ask in the first place.

[Vampyr]

 aguahombre, on 2012-December-21, 11:02, said:

My comments here apply specifically to the un-announced opening NT range in the ACBL where such announcement is required.

This one case is unique. The bid itself (if natural) is always required to be announced. If the bid is not natural it is required to be alerted. I know of no other call which should always be either announced or alerted, no matter what it means.

NO, it is not authorized, or even correct, for partner to assume when I "had to ask" that I was probably considering doing something different with a different answer. The only authorized assumption would be that when I didn't ask I already knew the answer.

If I ask, then pass, the AI is that I now know what their range is ---information which might be good to know on defense or if the auction later becomes competitive. I am also prepared to alert partner's balancing action which might be variable with their range.

If some pair can work out an unethical method of taking advantage of the opponents' irregularity, we are not going to ferret that out. The rest of us should not have to justify asking and then passing when we shouldn't have had to ask in the first place.

In the EBU it is not only 1NT openings that are always alerted and announced; the same applies to all openings of two in a suit.

When the required announcement is not made, and next hand asks, it is IMO terribly unfair to deem that next hand's partner has the UI that NH "needed to know". The idea behind announcements is not only to eliminate certain defences, but also to avoid the opponents' being constrained when they want to know. It is not their fault that the opponents committed an irregularity.

[gnasher]

 Vampyr, on 2012-December-21, 12:33, said:

When the required announcement is not made, and next hand asks, it is IMO terribly unfair to deem that next hand's partner has the UI that NH "needed to know". The idea behind announcements is not only to eliminate certain defences, but also to avoid the opponents' being constrained when they want to know. It is not their fault that the opponents committed an irregularity.

It's not a matter of deeming it UI: whether it is UI is determined by the law that defines UI. If your partner asks a question, and the question tells you something about his hand, that information is unauthorised.

But that doesn't mean that you will suffer as a result. There are two ways to deal with this problem, one simple and one complex:

(1) If your LHO fails to announce an announceable bid, always ask him what it means. In fact, you can usually just look at him and that will be enough.

(2) If you play with someone who chooses not to do (1), you will sometimes find yourself with UI as a result of an opponent's failure to announce. When that happens, call the Director and explain the situation. He will confirm that partner's question is UI, and that you're constrained by Law 16. Obey Law 16. If your score suffers as a result, call the Director back. He will adjust the score under Law 23.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-December-21, 13:50

[pran]

I never consider it possible cause for UI when a player (at his own turn to call) asks about an alert or asks about a call that by regulation shall be announced but was not.

[gnasher]

 nige1, on 2012-December-21, 10:48, said:

Always asking questions wastes time.

I've heard this said before, but I don't think it's true. In fact, I don't understand why anyone would think it true.

If an opponent makes an alertable call, at some point my side is going to need to know the meaning of that call. It seems to me that finding out the meaning will take the same amount of time whether I do it now or later. In fact, asking immediately gains time, because whilst the opponents continue their auction we can use the time more effectively for thinking about the opening lead.

[barmar]

If the alerted call is made by the player who is likely to become dummy, you will likely learn what it means when he spreads his hand. So unless it affects your subsequent auction or the opening lead, you may not ever need to ask.

[jallerton]

 nige1, on 2012-December-21, 10:48, said:

Always asking questions wastes time.

 gnasher, on 2012-December-21, 13:57, said:

I've heard this said before, but I don't think it's true. In fact, I don't understand why anyone would think it true.

If an opponent makes an alertable call, at some point my side is going to need to know the meaning of that call. It seems to me that finding out the meaning will take the same amount of time whether I do it now or later. In fact, asking immediately gains time, because whilst the opponents continue their auction we can use the time more effectively for thinking about the opening lead.

Nigel did put the word "always" in bold, so let's try a couple of sequences on you, Andy.

1. (2NT)-Pass-(3♥alerted).

Do you always ask about the meaning of the alerted 3♥?

2. Suppose that you have read the opponents' convention card and have seen that they play a Multi 2 ♦ opening. RHO opens 2♦, duly alerted. Do you always ask in this situation?

It's better to have a rule that you always ask when you (think you) might not know the meaning of the alerted call. I agree that people should be asking irrespective of the contents of their hand, but the EBU Orange Book still seems to discourage this practice, even after the relevant section was toned down a few years ago.

[gnasher]

 barmar, on 2012-December-21, 15:53, said:

If the alerted call is made by the player who is likely to become dummy, you will likely learn what it means when he spreads his hand. So unless it affects your subsequent auction or the opening lead, you may not ever need to ask.

You think that one defender might lead without knowing what the bidding meant, and then the other defender would try to guess what dummy had shown?

OK, I can imagine that there are people who would do that, and they probably tend to play together, so perhaps they're the people that Nigel had in mind when he said that "always asking [immediately] wastes time". However, for most people (including all of the people that I ever want to play bridge with, against, or in the same room as), asking immediately does not waste time.

[gnasher]

 jallerton, on 2012-December-21, 16:13, said:

Nigel did put the word "always" in bold, so let's try a couple of sequences on you, Andy.

1. (2NT)-Pass-(3♥alerted).

Do you always ask about the meaning of the alerted 3♥?

2. Suppose that you have read the opponents' convention card and have seen that they play a Multi 2 ♦ opening. RHO opens 2♦, duly alerted. Do you always ask in this situation?

We seem to have moved away from my original point, which was that "Not asking a question may give UI. If you would sometimes ask a question and sometimes not, depending on the contents of your hand, it does give UI." That is true regardless of what I personally do when faced with an opponent's alert.

Since you ask, however:

I always ask about alerted actions over which I might be expected to consider action, including both 2NT-3♦ and an alerted opening bid, unless I already know the meaning for certain, for example having read it on the opponents' convention card or heard them explain it on an earlier board.

If I do already know the meaning, I generally don't ask but sometimes ask reflexively. So far as I know this is not dependent on the contents of my hand.

I think it unwise to read much into Nigel's use of bold or italic.

Quote

It's better to have a rule that you always ask when you (think you) might not know the meaning of the alerted call. I agree that people should be asking irrespective of the contents of their hand, but the EBU Orange Book still seems to discourage this practice, even after the relevant section was toned down a few years ago.

Yes, but it's only advice, and it's sensible to ignore advice which is plainly bad. I'm hoping that next year this will be further toned down, to something like "Some players make a point of asking about alerted calls, or about particular categories of call, regardless of whether they intend to bid. The Laws and Ethics Committee strongly endorses this practice, provided that it is properly carried out."

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-December-21, 17:01

[nige1]

 nige1, on 2012-December-21, 10:48, said:

If you follow Gnasher's logic and you don't want to constrain partner's options, then you ask never or always. Unfortunately however...

• Never asking deprives you of information that may be useful.
• Always asking questions wastes time.

The easy solution is a law that insists that (until requested to stop) partner announces the meaning of all your calls (without alerting and waiting to be asked). A matrix of common meanings could make this even easier. Incidentally, we would save rain-forests of local alerting regulations

 gnasher, on 2012-December-21, 13:57, said:

"Always asking questions wastes time" I've heard this said before, but I don't think it's true. In fact, I don't understand why anyone would think it true.

If an opponent makes an alertable call, at some point my side is going to need to know the meaning of that call. It seems to me that finding out the meaning will take the same amount of time whether I do it now or later. In fact, asking immediately gains time, because whilst the opponents continue their auction we can use the time more effectively for thinking about the opening lead.

IMO, an announcement would take less time than an alert + a question + an explanation

[aguahombre]

 nige1, on 2012-December-21, 22:25, said:

IMO, an announcement would take less time than an alert + a question + an explanation

And if the announcement is required, and adhered to, less ink as well.

[StevenG]

All the contributors to this thread are good players. Do they not realise that any system of this type would he hopeless for ordinary players who have little idea of what is going on in any sequence other than completely routine ones?

[gnasher]

 StevenG, on 2012-December-22, 03:17, said:

All the contributors to this thread are good players. Do they not realise that any system of this type would he hopeless for ordinary players who have little idea of what is going on in any sequence other than completely routine ones?

Which system are you talking about? Most of us aren't advocating any change to the rules, but just discussing what the current rules mean, and the best approach for a player to follow under these rules. Whilst I'd prefer my opponents not to create UI by carelessly omitting to ask questions, I'm not trying to force them to change their behaviour.

I agree that Nigel's proposal would be hard to implement, and not just amongst ordinary players. I think it would be counterproductive too, because most of the announcements would be unnecessary but distracting, especially if he really means "all your calls". For example:
1♥ - "5 or more hearts, unlimited"
Pass - "Nothing to say"
1♠ - "4 or more spades, forcing"
Pass - "Nothing to say"
2♣ - "4 or more clubs, not forcing"
Pass - "Nothing to say"
2♥ - "Prefers hearts to clubs, or a false preference where he wants to keep the bidding open. Not forcing."
Pass - "Nothing to say"
2♠ - "3 spades, extra values, not forcing"
Pass - "Nothing to say"
etc