[Stephen Tu]

Quote

You don't see how this breaks down your system? Of course these are all unlikely types of scenarios

Extraordinarily unlikely. Yes, if the exact sequence unfolded exactly as you described you'd get pissed off and director would be called, I'd have to explain my asking strategy, partner would perhaps have to explain the bridge reasoning behind his lead, perhaps you get a ruling in your favor.

But this is like 1 in a billion. Either we play short rounds, unlikely same sequence comes up twice in a row for me not to ask the second time. Or we play long rounds and you notice that I do indeed ask with no desire for the lead or intention to bid on other alerted auctions. And my partners never lead the suit I want anyway, unless I go out of my way to overcall or make the double, silly partners are looking at their own hand! I can't remember any time in years ever being successful in inducing lead of a suit by asking about the alert. Odds are extremely high that the first time you alert something and I ask I have no great holding in the suit, and extremely high that partner leads something else. It's practically hell freezing over before your hypothetical scenario unfolds playing against me.

[ArtK78]

Stephen Tu, on Aug 29 2008, 01:49 PM, said:

I can't remember any time in years ever being successful in inducing lead of a suit by asking about the alert.

Are you implying that you deliberately attempted to induce the lead of a suit by asking about an alert?

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

Are you implying that you deliberately attempted to induce the lead of a suit by asking about an alert?

No of course not. As I've said I always ask. But partners always seem to lead something else, that's all, even I happened to want the lead. And I wouldn't continue to play with partners who would make a lead based on a question unless they were beginners and weren't taught that you can't do this, and then I would carefully explain their duties to them.

[nige1]

Stephen Tu, on Aug 28 2008, 01:11 PM, said:

The obvious solution is to either always ask, or at least sometimes randomly ask when you have nothing in clubs.  Then no inference can be obtained.

I assume that Stephen Tu is suggesting that you ask when

• You need to know.
  
• Randomly at other times.

There are 2 practical problems with this.

• People find it hard to to ask randomly
  
• When you don't ask, your disinterest is still unauthorised information.

In theory, there is another ethical approach: ask only when you don't know (i.e when the call comes up for the first time; and is not explained in the appropriate place on opponent's system card). In practice, unfortunately, it is hard to do this consistently; and scrabbling with opponent's system card gives just as much unauthorised information as asking.

Hence, IMO, the only practical ethical solutions are to ask always or never.

[jtfanclub]

ArtK78, on Aug 29 2008, 01:20 PM, said:

I am intrigued to find that some of the posters have such strong feelings on this issue.

I have been playing for 35 years, and it never occurred to me that a player would ask about the meaning of an alerted call as a lead director and not ask about an alerted call as a lead inhibitor. But I suppose it is possible.

I guess I am just naive.

I had a director call on it on Tuesday.

So I don't think we're just talking hypotheticals here.

[nige1]

ArtK78, on Aug 29 2008, 01:20 PM, said:

I am intrigued to find that some of the posters have such strong feelings on this issue. I have been playing for 35 years, and it never occurred to me that a player would ask about the meaning of an alerted call as a lead director and not ask about an alerted call as a lead inhibitor.  But I suppose it is possible. I guess I am just naive.

Artk78 is right. Experienced players ask about a bid and then pass, to stop that sacrifice or lead.

[Echognome]

Reverse Weasel is much tougher to catch than Weasel.

[mikeh]

nige1, on Aug 29 2008, 02:58 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Aug 29 2008, 01:20 PM, said:

I am intrigued to find that some of the posters have such strong feelings on this issue. I have been playing for 35 years, and it never occurred to me that a player would ask about the meaning of an alerted call as a lead director and not ask about an alerted call as a lead inhibitor.  But I suppose it is possible. I guess I am just naive.

Artk78 is right. Experienced players ask about a bid and then pass, to stop that sacrifice or lead.

I think you meant 'experienced cheaters'


A (thankfully) tiny subset of experienced players.

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on Aug 29 2008, 01:58 PM, said:

First hand, I open 1NT, my partner bids 2♠, alert, you ask. Your partner leads a spade. I call the director but you say you always ask, and nothing bad happens to you.
Next hand I open 1NT, my partner bids 3♣, alert, you ask. You end up on lead so nothing happens.
Next hand I open 1NT, my partner bids 2♠, alert. You remember what it meant and don't ask. Your partner does not lead a spade. I am furious as you said you always ask and from what I have seen your partner only leads it when you ask about the bid. But you explain you remembered what the bid meant. I'm suspicious but I let it slide.
Next hand I open 1NT, my partner bids 3♣, alert. You forgot what it meant you so you ask. I explain (despite being beside myself), and your partner leads a club. And what do you tell the director this time?

Next round, mini me opens 1♠ in first chair, his partner responds 2♣, alert. You ask. Your partner leads a club but etc etc no problem.
Next hand, mini me opens 1♠ in second chair, his partner responds 2♣, you don't ask since you remember what it means. Your partner doesn't lead a club, no problem.
Next hand, mini me opens 1♠ in third chair, his partner responds 2♣. You ask since it's common to play this as meaning other things in third seat. Your partner leads a club. And this time what do you tell them!

You don't see how this breaks down your system? Of course these are all unlikely types of scenarios, but then it's unlikely to matter whether you ask every time or not anyway. The point is you were explaining that as far as UI and being ethical there is nothing wrong with always asking. But if that's the case you have to ALWAYS ask, or else indeed your system breaks down.

You know, I gotta wonder why you're crapping all over Stephen when it's his partner who (maybe) broke the rules.

[nige1]

mikeh, on Aug 29 2008, 03:23 PM, said:

I think you meant 'experienced cheaters' A (thankfully) tiny subset of experienced players.

I meant experienced players (I don't know any cheats). But I should have employed a negative formulation:

• Experienced players don't ask about a bid and then pass, to suggest a sacrifice in that suit or to ask for that lead.
  
• Hence, if they do ask and pass, then they are unlikely to be interested in that sacrifice or lead.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Aug 29 2008, 03:32 PM, said:

You know, I gotta wonder why you're crapping all over Stephen when it's his partner who (maybe) broke the rules.

Because you hadn't joined in yet?

What rule did his partner break? There is no UI, he asks every time! Except for when he doesn't.

If you must know, he is one of the best posters going. Most would think that just because you used a long example or tried to use logic against them you were 'crapping all over them', but he is too smart for that and one of the best people to have discussions like this with.

[paulg]

nige1, on Aug 29 2008, 07:44 PM, said:

Stephen Tu, on Aug 28 2008, 01:11 PM, said:

The obvious solution is to either always ask, or at least sometimes randomly ask when you have nothing in clubs.  Then no inference can be obtained.

I assume that Stephen Tu is suggesting that you ask when

• You need to know.
  
  
• Randomly at other times.

There are 2 practical problems with this.

• People find it hard to to ask randomly
  
  
• When you don't ask, your disinterest is still unauthorised information.

In theory, there is another ethical approach: ask only when you don't know (i.e when the call comes up for the first time; and is not explained in the appropriate place on opponent's system card). In practice, unfortunately, it is hard to do this consistently; and scrabbling with opponent's system card gives just as much unauthorised information as asking.

Hence, IMO, the only practical ethical solutions are to ask always or never.

The only ethical approach is to play with a partner who will not take advantage of any UI created by you asking a question that needs to be asked.

Paul

[nige1]

nige1, on Aug 29 2008, 07:44 PM, said:

Hence, IMO, the only practical ethical solutions are to ask always or never.

cardsharp, on Aug 30 2008, 02:35 AM, said:

The only ethical approach is to play with a partner who will not take advantage of any UI created by you asking a question that needs to be asked.

IMO, selective asking is not a practical ethical solution. If you ask selectively, you impart unauthorised information. In practice, this damages partnership prospects by restricting an ethical partner's options.

[Trinidad]

Stephen Tu, on Aug 29 2008, 12:20 PM, said:

Trinidad, there is a requirement to pause and appear to think after skip bids.  But there is no requirement to *ask* after alerted bids.  Pausing without asking is legal.

But Stephen, How can you make the appearance of thinking about an auction if you show everybody that you don't care what the auction means?

I don't think Al Pacino can act that out convincingly.

As I said before, you don't have to ask, but you need to give the appearance that you know what the auction means. That means that looking at the CC is fine. It also means that you don't have to ask when the auction has occured three times already.

But when I come across a case where a player after a STOP-Alert doesn't ask, doesn't look at the convention card and clearly doesn't know what the auction means then he may take 15 seconds to pass, as a director I will decide that he passed the UI that he was not interested in bidding. (And to be even clearer: Passing UI is in itself not an infraction, but it does come with consequences.)

Rik

[peachy]

Trinidad, on Aug 30 2008, 04:53 AM, said:

Passing UI is in itself not an infraction, but it does come with consequences.

Rik

The legal terms really can be confusing sometimes. I think it is an irregularity to pass UI but it is not illegal. It is the use of the UI and failure to avoid taking advantage of it that are the infractions = illegal.

[mr1303]

From another point of view:

You hold

---

The idea is that this is a hand that would be happy making a lead directional double of 3C (or bidding 3C over 2S) but not bidding at the 4 level.

You are in 4th chair, and the bidding goes 1S P 3C (alert) to you. Assume for the moment that double of a Bergen mixed raise is for take-out of spades, but lead directional for most other meanings of 3C. At this point, you do not know what 3C means. You do not have a position that you always ask about alerted calls.

What should you do?

There are a number of options as I see it.

1) Double without asking what 3C is
2) Ask what 3C is. If it turns out to be a mixed raise, pass and accept that partner will not be able to lead a club for UI reasons.
3) Ask what 3C is. If it turns out to be a mixed raise, double anyway and accept the bad score you'll get when partner bids hearts.
4) Ask what 3C is. If it turns out to be a mixed raise, bid 4C and accept the bad score you'll get when dummy hits with not very much and you are too high.

Any thoughts?

[david_c]

mr1303, on Aug 31 2008, 10:01 AM, said:

There are a number of options as I see it.

1) Double without asking what 3C is
2) Ask what 3C is. If it turns out to be a mixed raise, pass and accept that partner will not be able to lead a club for UI reasons.
3) Ask what 3C is. If it turns out to be a mixed raise, double anyway and accept the bad score you'll get when partner bids hearts.
4) Ask what 3C is. If it turns out to be a mixed raise, bid 4C and accept the bad score you'll get when dummy hits with not very much and you are too high.

Any thoughts?

I am sure that (2) is the "right" thing to do.

(I certainly would not recommend (1). Note that not asking also passes UI, at least in theory, and if you do it deliberately to avoid hearing the "wrong" answer that could be ruled as illegal communication with partner.)

But obviously this sucks. Personally I think the most sensible idea is not to have this agreement in the first place. You might think that it is theoretically best to have different methods depending on the strength of 3♣. But we have seen that this agreement is unplayable because you can't help giving UI. You can complain about the regulations if you like (and I think there is a valid complaint here), but complaining doesn't get you any IMPs. Better to work around it. Play double as take-out over any artificial raise.

[nige1]

mr1303, on Aug 31 2008, 04:01 AM, said:

You would be happy making a lead directional double of 3C (or bidding 3C over 2S) but not bidding at the 4 level.  You are in 4th chair, and the bidding goes 1S P 3C (alert) to you. Assume for the moment that double of a Bergen mixed raise is for take-out of spades, but lead directional for most other meanings of 3C. At this point, you do not know what 3C means. You do not have a position that you always ask about alerted calls. What should you do? There are a number of options as I see it.

1) Double without asking what 3C is
2) Ask what 3C is. If it turns out to be a mixed raise, pass and accept that partner will not be able to lead a club for UI reasons.
3) Ask what 3C is. If it turns out to be a mixed raise, double anyway and accept the bad score you'll get when partner bids hearts.
4) Ask what 3C is. If it turns out to be a mixed raise, bid 4C and accept the bad score you'll get when dummy hits with not very much and you are too high.

Any thoughts?

An illustration of why "Always ask" is a practical strategy. Failing that, I suppose you could try:

• Assuming that you've agreed with partner that double is lead-directing unless their system-card specifies Bergen...
  
• During your 10 seconds, unobtrusively peruse opponent's system-card, if you have not already done so.
  
• Unless Bergen is specified, double.
  
• After perusing opponent's (identical) system-card, partner interprets your double as lead-directing (because that is your agreement over a non-Bergen 3♣).
  
• Partner alerts your double and, if asked, explains it as lead-directing.
  
• If LHO became declarer, then, before leading, your partner asks for an explanation of the Auction to avoid any nasty surprises

This kludge won't always work for a variety of reasons e.g.

• Players don't always complete their system cards.
  
• Even looking at a system card can impart unauthorised information.
  
• Also, if it turns out that 3♣ is Bergen, after all, then your chances of redress are diminished by your failure to protect yourself -- A daft rule but that is another matter