[Vampyr]

jillybean, on 2014-October-10, 23:06, said:

Terrible way to post this quote, it appears that I said said “has been playing long enough to know that 2♦ was not natural”

Not sure what you mean. I thought I was quoting the director's words exactly as they appeared in the OP. Is that not what happened?

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2014-October-11, 02:14, said:

Not sure what you mean. I thought I was quoting the director's words exactly as they appeared in the OP. Is that not what happened?

You made it look as though they were jillybean's words, not the director's.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2014-October-11, 04:50, said:

You made it look as though they were jillybean's words, not the director's.

Oh, OK. I guess I thought that anyone reading this thread would know that this was not the case.

[steve2005]

jillybean, on 2014-October-07, 16:46, said:

At the end of the round the director advises E/W that the result will be adjusted to -3, then tells N/S (who are still sitting at the table) that the result will be adjusted but that South "has been playing long enough to know that 2♦ was not natural".

I have my own (strong) views on this but would like to hear what others have to say.

I myself prefer not to play transfers after a 1N overcall. Ive seen it also in a book Acol in competition by Eric Crowhurst. Also seen in other systems. Not everyone plays transfers that's why you have to alert. If everyone played same system wouldn't need alerts!

[aguahombre]

helene_t, on 2014-October-08, 10:58, said:

You can look at their CC to see what the bid means. If they don't have a CC then it really isn't your problem.

The whole idea of announcing transfers (or a NT range itself, for that matter) is to avoid the grabbing/looking at their CC which itself gives UI.

Here, however, I would have doubled 2D for penalty anyway.

[jillybean]

aguahombre, on 2014-October-12, 17:19, said:

Here, however, I would have doubled 2D for penalty anyway.

and then I would have been asking a different question: Is West allowed to be woken up by my double of 2♦?

I think the damage is done once West has forgotten they are playing systems on and has failed to alert, and I am left with this
"failed to protect yourself" nonsense. Why do I need to protect myself against players who have forgotten their system, the laws and the
proprieties of the game.

[trevahound]

jillybean, on 2014-October-13, 18:21, said:

and then I would have been asking a different question: Is West allowed to be woken up by my double of 2♦?

I think the damage is done once West has forgotten they are playing systems on and has failed to alert, and I am left with this
"failed to protect yourself" nonsense.

Do people with 1000's of masterpoints really "forget" they're playing transfers over their strong NT, at least in ACBL land? Or do they have undiscussed auctions with irregular partners and jump to different assumptions about what they're playing? I haven't read anything above where anyone established what E/W's agreement was, if in fact they had one. Seems likeliest they each had a different one. Did the TD establish what their agreement was?

[jillybean]

trevahound, on 2014-October-13, 18:27, said:

Do people with 1000's of masterpoints really "forget" they're playing transfers over their strong NT, at least in ACBL land? Or do they have undiscussed auctions with irregular partners and jump to different assumptions about what they're playing? I haven't read anything above where anyone established what E/W's agreement was, if in fact they had one. Seems likeliest they each had a different one. Did the TD establish what their agreement was?

They are a regular partnership. West did not object when East announced 2♦ was a transfer but I don't believe their CC was checked to see if systems on was checked or not.

[steve2005]

jillybean, on 2014-October-13, 18:21, said:

I think the damage is done once West has forgotten they are playing systems on and has failed to alert, and I am left with this
"failed to protect yourself" nonsense. Why do I need to protect myself against players who have forgotten their system, the laws and the
proprieties of the game.

On vugraph every couple sessions I see a complete meltdown where one person has forgotten the system. This occurs pretty often with life masters. Can someone explain why its UI because you have dared to look at a conv card or just asking a question to see what opp playing is UI. Either you can protect yourself or you can give UI its seems like your the one screwed when opponents don't alert or forget their system!

[blackshoe]

Giving UI, or having UI, is not the end of the world. It's not even an infraction of law. Using UI is an infraction of law. So when you have, or may have, received UI from partner, you should make every effort to avoid taking advantage of it. If you do that, your conscience is clear, however the TD rules. If you get UI from some other source, of course, you should just call the director and tell him what happened, and let him deal with it.

[weejonnie]

steve2005, on 2014-October-13, 21:01, said:

On vugraph every couple sessions I see a complete meltdown where one person has forgotten the system. This occurs pretty often with life masters. Can someone explain why its UI because you have dared to look at a conv card or just asking a question to see what opp playing is UI. Either you can protect yourself or you can give UI its seems like your the one screwed when opponents don't alert or forget their system!

It's UI because it conveys to partner that you have some interest in the auction - and are therefore unlikely to hold a 4-3-3-3 Yarborough. This makes balancing more attractive. I agree that the philosophy behind requiring players to protect themselves results in this contradiction however the problem is hard-wired into the laws.

16B1a - extraneous information from partner (not chose alternative demonstrably suggested) vs
20F1 - right to know what all calls made mean (and possible alternatives)

of course 20F1 highlights that Law 16 may apply but law 16 does not mention law 20. This suggests, cateris paribus, that you should not ask unless you intend to take some positive action whatever the result. (You can't ask questions for the benefit of partner, and at the end of the auction you can ask for meanings of all the calls to avoid passing UI that you might have been interested in a particular one. The problem is, of course, that you may have missed your opportunity to make a worthwhile call earlier in the auction.) As a hint - if you are in the pass-out seat ask the opponents the meanings of all the calls before you pass. If there has been misinformation then the director can roll the auction back so your partner could bid again. If you pass then are advised you are misinformed then only your final pass can be rescinded.

Bobby Wolff calls this 'convention disruption' and campaigns for people who do so to be penalised automatically. You can understand and sympathise with his point but there is nothing in the laws that allow for it.

[Trinidad]

Just for the record: The "you have to protect yourself" is not part of the Laws either. It is in regulations.

Personnally, I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea that you should protect yourself, but only in obvious situations. If you are an experienced player and the auction starts 1♥-(2♥)-?? and you don't hear an alert, you can not claim to think that 2♥ was natural. And, more importantly, you cannot claim that partner might think it was natural.

However, that is where it stops. As soon as you are not sure how partner will take the non alerted bid, the "protect yourself" should go out of the window. In my opinion, you should simply be able to assume that the explanation (or lack of alert) was correct. Any consequences are for the perpetrators offending side. After all, if you ask, you will damage your interests. And you should not be forced to damage your interests by an infraction by the opponents. I can damage my own interests by my own infractions just fine, thank you.

Rik

[blackshoe]

weejonnie, on 2014-October-14, 01:47, said:

It's UI because it conveys to partner that you have some interest in the auction

This jumped out at me, so I'm addressing just it. "Partner is interested in the auction" simply says that he's a bridge player. That's not UI.

[weejonnie]

blackshoe, on 2014-October-14, 08:07, said:

This jumped out at me, so I'm addressing just it. "Partner is interested in the auction" simply says that he's a bridge player. That's not UI.

But there is a difference between wanting to know what the bids mean (which you can do at the end of the auction (at the risk of UI) ) and deciding to take some action depending on what the bids mean (which you want to do in the middle of the auction).

And don't say 'I always ask' because you don't.

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2014-October-13, 23:14, said:

Giving UI, or having UI, is not the end of the world. It's not even an infraction of law. Using UI is an infraction of law. So when you have, or may have, received UI from partner, you should make every effort to avoid taking advantage of it. If you do that, your conscience is clear, however the TD rules. If you get UI from some other source, of course, you should just call the director and tell him what happened, and let him deal with it.

This is of course correct but in my experience your average player has no understanding of of UI or that they must take care not to use it.
I don't know what the answer is but I know I'm never going to find it in local games here.

[steve2005]

What about a situation where you know opponents system (apparently better then them) should you ask meaning of bid you think they've forgotten to alert even though u have no intention of bidding

[trevahound]

steve2005, on 2014-October-14, 09:28, said:

What about a situation where you know opponents system (apparently better then them) should you ask meaning of bid you think they've forgotten to alert even though u have no intention of bidding

This is not rare in our good local evening game where partnerships are different basically every week. I don't think asking in that case conveys any UI to partner at all.

[mycroft]

All I can say is that back before Announcements, when non-strong NTs were Alerted, they "always asked", but sometimes forgot. But when they forgot, partner didn't balance without a rock (or didn't pull the double with a bad hand), and they were usually right. So much so that my weak NT partnership started scoring 1.5-2% higher on our club night after Christmas than before.

A year later, at least two very important clubs (Kate Buckman's (Barbara Seagram) in Toronto and Barrington's (Alan LeBendig) in LA) had club regulations that stated "you do not need to know whether an unAlerted 1NT is 15-17, 16-18, or 15-18; asking that question will be treated as UI, and if your partner takes a call suggested by the UI, the score will be adjusted." Shortly thereafter, a review of the new Alert Procedure was done, and *ALL* NT ranges were now Announceable. And the BoD voted down, almost unanimously, the annual request to unAnnounce 15-17 (or "strong") NTs for enough years that now they don't try any more.

No, *of course* there's no UI from these sorts of questions, or looking at the card.

Now, as I remarked coming back from the regional this weekend, if C&C decided that over NT, red-suit-to-major transfers were the unAlerted meaning, with natural Announced, and anything else Alerted, I wouldn't have an issue with that (except for the fact that the same crew that haven't worked out that 2♠ isn't Announced, even if it is a transfer (which it frequently isn't), won't be any better about not Alerting - it's just now they'll be silent).

[Edit: also possible: both "transfer" and "to play" (or "natural") are Announced, so red-suit responses to NT will always have an Announcement or Alert, like the 1NT opening itself. Same problem with expansion, of course, plus what to do with interference.]

[blackshoe]

weejonnie, on 2014-October-14, 08:13, said:

And don't say 'I always ask' because you don't.

You don't know me, so that's a bit much. The fact is though that whether I always ask, never ask, or sometimes ask, I don't say "I always ask".

[barmar]

steve2005, on 2014-October-14, 09:28, said:

What about a situation where you know opponents system (apparently better then them) should you ask meaning of bid you think they've forgotten to alert even though u have no intention of bidding

If you know their system, you obviously don't need to ask for your own benefit. So it seems that the only reason for such a question would be for partner's benefit, and you're not allowed to ask questions solely for that reason.