[helene_t]

JoAnneM, on Jun 1 2009, 04:19 PM, said:

It's kind of like if the opps use an alertable bid you are screwed.

Nah, partner just asks what 1NT means, gets an answer, says thanks, pauses for 4 secs and passes.

(FWIW I think that you should be allowed to make your normal call if partner doesn't ask as well, but that's for the other thread)

[gnasher]

JoAnneM, on Jun 1 2009, 04:19 PM, said:

Of course I read the original post. Many here are saying that because partner asked the nt range that you now have UI and shouldn't bid. Yet in another thread in this same forum there was an alerted bid, the opp did not ask and many said that now his partner could not bid because he had the UI that he had a weak hand and wasn't interested in knowing what the alert was. I just find it contradictory. It's kind of like if the opps use an alertable bid you are screwed.

What conveys UI is inconsistency. If your partner always asks the meaning of a particular category of bid, asking conveys no UI. If he never asks the meaning, he conveys no UI. If he asks only when he has some high cards, either asking or not asking tells us something about his hand, and therefore conveys UI.

[mycroft]

Having now looked at the OP, I was up to saying "2D - WTP? The only people who play 1NT white at MPs is us." And then I saw 11-14. That's different. Especially after "11-14? Are you sure? Really sure?"

When, in 1995, Announcements came in (in the ACBL), my MP average went up 2-3% overnight. Why? Because when partner opened 1NT, I said "good 11-14". People stopped asking, or looking at the card, at our Alert (but only when they had a non-obvious call); fourth-in-hand for some odd reason guessed right much less often than before.

That Announcement rule has been pushed to "all NT ranges", because many places found that the same thing was happening when not announced - "they might have forgotten to Announce", "It makes a difference if it's 15-17 or 16-18" - and no matter what the reason (which was probably valid, at least in questioner's mind), fourth hand did seem to guess right in that partnership more often than normal. It drives me nuts to hear the people complaining "everybody plays 15-17, why do we have to say it?" when It's For Their Benefit, Not Mine.

The Alert Procedure in the ACBL is convoluted, incomprehensible, and overweight; but this part of it is Right.

WeaSeL over Preemption explains this like I never could; I've mentioned that people are playing WeaSeL vs. NT before...

[skjaeran]

Oof Arted, on Jun 1 2009, 04:13 PM, said:

Nick your answer is contained in Law 16 B1

If your bid MAY have been suggested

If you would always make the bid you are going to then you do it and let the poor poor harassed Director decide

The law actually says "may DEMONSTRABLY" have been suggested, which is something quite different than "may have been suggested".

[the hog]

NickRW, on Jun 1 2009, 08:52 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Jun 1 2009, 01:20 PM, said:

If you don't "carefully avoid, etc." ....

That's all very well, but it isn't clear to me whether the hesitation suggests strength, shape or what the hell over there in partner's hand - therefore I don't see that I have any UI worth talking about.

That opps may well think I have UI is also obvious unfortunately - but as far as I can see, whatever action I take is potentially open to criticism.

Nick

Were they overbidders, Nuno?

[the hog]

blackshoe, on Jun 1 2009, 08:20 PM, said:

The_Hog, on May 31 2009, 09:23 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Jun 1 2009, 03:41 AM, said:

The_Hog, on May 31 2009, 01:09 AM, said:

I would certainly bid here. This is what I would do without the heitation, so I take my normal action.

If a significant percentage of your peers would consider some other action, and if of that percentage some would take it, then bidding is illegal, and you would (should, anyway) see the score adjusted if your bid damages your opponents.

Bidding IS NOT and CANNOT BE illegal.

The problem is that I do not know what a large percentage of my peers would do without asking them. As I am not allowed to go around the room saying, "Partner hesitated, you hold....will you bid?", I am going to take the action I would normally take. If the director or a committee rolls it back, that is their prerogative. - see Peter Gill's comment above.

Law 16 said:

...A3. No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous).
4. if there is a violation of this law causing damage, the director adjusts the score in accordance with Law 12c.
B. Extraneous information from Partner
1. (a) After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest
a call or play, ... the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.
... 3. When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative
has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon
the director when play ends*. The director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12c) if he
considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender.[/B]

More to the point for players:

Law 73C said:

When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information.

If you don't "carefully avoid, etc." then you have violated Law 73C. So if bidding what you "were always going to bid" is a violation of this law (because it doesn't "carefully avoid, etc.") then it's illegal. If you insist on doing it repeatedly, in spite of having had this law explained to you, then you should get a procedural penalty as well as a score adjustment (see the discussion of the use of the word "must" in the introduction to the laws).

NB: The emphasis in the law quotes is mine.

I take your point, but the other side of the coin is that if i was "always" going to bid and i pass now because of the UI, then my pass is taking advantage of the situation.

[gnasher]

The_Hog, on Jun 2 2009, 04:39 AM, said:

I take your point, but the other side of the coin is that if i was "always" going to bid and i pass now because of the UI, then my pass is taking advantage of the situation.

No one's suggesting that you should change your action to something that will bring you advantage. What blackshoe and others have said is that you must sometimes change your action to something that disadvantages you. That is, sometimes it is illegal simply to "take my normal action".

[mycroft]

The problem with "the normal action" is that people delude themselves. You do it, I do it, it's a species trait. Of course they were "always" going to do what, with the UI, was right - and they can chain logic to prove it.

Every TD has a "what do you call with this hand?" story which ends with "Funny, you swore to me two weeks ago that there was no other option than <othercall>". It's why when we give problems in polls, we give it with all the correct information. It's why when we receive polls, we work very hard not to ask the obvious question ("so, what went wrong at the table?") and just treat it as any UHold in the bar (and usually fail to an extent). It's why postmorteming of the "well, after you can see all 52 cards, the play is obvious" type is the way it is.

It's also why the law is written to not allow you to "do what you would always have done". Not because we don't believe the player. We do, truly, believe that they think they would always have done it. They're just unconsciously and unknowingly influenced by the UI. "Carefully avoid taking advantage", while it does bend the bar a little bit too far, is pretty much the only way to counter the effect.