[WellSpyder]

gordontd, on 2012-February-22, 04:15, said:

...since you already know the meaning of the bid....

I can't remember whether we have discussed this before, but is it legal to ask about the meaning of a bid if you already know the answer? I know that you are not supposed to ask if you are simply trying to make sure that partner knows what the opposing bid means. But suppose you actually want to make sure that your partner knows that YOU know what the bid means, so that he can correctly interpret your next action?

Or is the only way round this for partner always to bid on the assumption that you know what their bids mean, even if there has been no explanation? This seems feasible enough for bids that have been alerted, since you will presumably ask if the meaning of your bids depend on the meaning of the alerted bid unless you already know the answer. But what about a bid that hasn't been alerted where you happen to know anyway that it has a conventional meaning?

[gordontd]

WellSpyder, on 2012-February-23, 03:00, said:

I can't remember whether we have discussed this before, but is it legal to ask about the meaning of a bid if you already know the answer? I know that you are not supposed to ask if you are simply trying to make sure that partner knows what the opposing bid means.

You're supposed not to ask for partner's benefit, which is a bit broader still.

[gnasher]

WellSpyder, on 2012-February-23, 03:00, said:

I can't remember whether we have discussed this before, but is it legal to ask about the meaning of a bid if you already know the answer? I know that you are not supposed to ask if you are simply trying to make sure that partner knows what the opposing bid means. But suppose you actually want to make sure that your partner knows that YOU know what the bid means, so that he can correctly interpret your next action?

That sounds like communication to me. As Gordon says, it's also for partner's benefit, so it's illegal twice over.

However, I've never actually been in the position of *knowing* the meaning of an oponent's bid, unless I have received an explanation or read it on their convention card, or an identical sequence has come up earlier in the same set. Even if I know what it meant yesterday, that doesn't mean they still play it the same way. So I would find out the meaning for my own benefit.

Quote

Or is the only way round this for partner always to bid on the assumption that you know what their bids mean, even if there has been no explanation?

Yes, he should do that. If the meaning of your action depended on whether or not you asked a question, you would be using the question (or lack of a question) to communicate.

[WellSpyder]

gnasher, on 2012-February-23, 03:59, said:

If the meaning of your action depended on whether or not you asked a question, you would be using the question (or lack of a question) to communicate.

Fair point. Not that I was suggesting the meaning would change, of course, just that there would be increased confidence on both sides of the table that we weren't in the middle of a misunderstanding. However, your and Gordon's interpretation of the law is clear and helpful - thanks.

[mrdct]

If there is a non-alerted 1♦ overcall and I happen to have looked at their convention card or otherwise know that they play it as artificial, I'm clearly precluded from asking about it for partner's benefit and, as noted above, it would be illegal communication with partner lf if I enquired so to establish that the bid I'm about to make is our "versus artificial 1♦ defence" rather than "versus natural 1♦ defence". Given that I'm not allowed to ask, surely I have to proceed as if it's natural (even though I know it's not) and call the TD later if there's a belated alert or I'm otherwise damaged.

[sfi]

Why wouldn't you use your defence against their artificial bid? Their failure to alert means that partner has MI and can reasonably argue for an adjustment if it affects any decisions.

Your reasoning is convoluted at best. Given that you do not have misinformation, Law 21B simply does not apply. Therefore, if you bid assuming it is natural, despite knowing that it is artificial, that is your own problem and there is no rectification. Moreover, if your partner now explains your bid correctly (maybe after a late alert or because they look at the convention card as well), you now have UI and have potentially created problems for your own side.

[gordontd]

mrdct, on 2012-February-23, 21:47, said:

surely I have to proceed as if it's natural (even though I know it's not) and call the TD later if there's a belated alert or I'm otherwise damaged.

No, you should proceed as thought you know it's not natural, which is the case, and then call the TD later if you've been damaged by your partner not having been alerted to its meaning.

[mrdct]

gordontd, on 2012-February-24, 04:12, said:

No, you should proceed as thought you know it's not natural, which is the case, and then call the TD later if you've been damaged by your partner not having been alerted to its meaning.

But then it turns out that I didn't read their cc properly and the 1♦ overcall is natural at this particular vul and now I've used my "vs artificial 1♦ defence" and completely misrepresented my hand. Much as I like to think that I know my opponents' system back-to-front, all of the nuances are rarely fully set-out on the cc. I think I'm completely entitled to treat any non-alerted call as non-alertable irrespective of my knowledge of my opponents' methods.

Am I allowed to have a meta agreement with my partner that any non-alerted call by the opponents will be treated as a non-alertable call (usually natural depending on the jurisdiction) for the purposes of our competitive auction agreeements?

[bluejak]

mrdct, on 2012-February-23, 21:47, said:

If there is a non-alerted 1♦ overcall and I happen to have looked at their convention card or otherwise know that they play it as artificial, I'm clearly precluded from asking about it for partner's benefit and, as noted above, it would be illegal communication with partner lf if I enquired so to establish that the bid I'm about to make is our "versus artificial 1♦ defence" rather than "versus natural 1♦ defence". Given that I'm not allowed to ask, surely I have to proceed as if it's natural (even though I know it's not) and call the TD later if there's a belated alert or I'm otherwise damaged.

I don't see the problem. If you think there may be an infraction you are not required to keep quiet about it, far from it. So you check whether there has been an infraction or not.