[pran]

bluejak, on Sep 2 2010, 08:41 PM, said:

Ok, Zelandakh, that's a sensible reply.  Now, you are the player who bid 2♣, and you ask the TD "Is the 2♥ AI or UI to me?".  What is your answer?

If I may submit my answer to this specific question it will be:

"Sure the 2♥ bid is unauthorized to you" (Law 21B2 with reference to Law 16D).

[mink]

bluejak, on Sep 1 2010, 03:58 PM, said:

Is RHO's 2♥ unauthorised information to LHO? Under what Law?

2♥ was a legal call at the point of time when it was issued. So it is allowed information according to Law 16A1a.

About the lead restrictions: Several laws refer to law 26. Most of them say that it may apply. Law 36A and law 37A say that law 26 does not apply. On the other hand, law 26 is not prefaced by a phase like "This law applies only if referenced by another law." So if we only look at law 26 itself, it perfectly matches the replacement enabled by law 21B2, and probably nobbody would doubt that it applies if the words "without other rectification" were not contained in law 21B2.

However, is it really clear that these 3 words inhibit law 26? If this was intended, why was it not written explicitly like in laws 36A and 37A? Maybe the words were intended to inhibit just law 27 (2♥ becomes insufficient as soon as the pass is replaced by 2♠). If it was intended to inhibit both law 27 and 26, I would at least expect to read "without any other rectification".

This is all far from clear. Maybe law 26 should not apply in order to be consistent: If 2♥ is not UI, there also should be no lead restrictions.

However, both is wrong in my opinion, and the law should be changed.

Karl

[jallerton]

mink, on Sep 2 2010, 10:06 PM, said:

bluejak, on Sep 1 2010, 03:58 PM, said:

Is RHO's 2♥ unauthorised information to LHO?  Under what Law?

2♥ was a legal call at the point of time when it was issued. So it is allowed information according to Law 16A1a.

Yes, it was allowed information at the point when the call was initially made. However, as soon as the call was withdrawn, Law 16D took over and the information from the withdrawn call became unauthorised for the offending side.

[dburn]

bluejak, on Sep 1 2010, 09:58 AM, said:

You open 1NT, LHO bids 2♣, not alerted, partner passes, RHO bids 2♥, alerted.

Puzzled, you ask

What? I ask a question when, after I opened a weak no trump and partner passed a 2♣ overcall, it is more or less certain that I cannot possibly be interested in the answer?

But perhaps this occurred in some jurisdiction where bridge is played, and not in England.

[mink]

jallerton, on Sep 2 2010, 10:49 PM, said:

mink, on Sep 2 2010, 10:06 PM, said:

bluejak, on Sep 1 2010, 03:58 PM, said:

Is RHO's 2♥ unauthorised information to LHO?  Under what Law?

2♥ was a legal call at the point of time when it was issued. So it is allowed information according to Law 16A1a.

Yes, it was allowed information at the point when the call was initially made. However, as soon as the call was withdrawn, Law 16D took over and the information from the withdrawn call became unauthorised for the offending side.

Sorry I overlooked your first post. Looks like there is a contradiction between law 16A1a and law 16D. Of course as law 16D is more specific, it precedes law 16A1a. However, I think law 16A1a should contain a reference to law 16D so that the reader is aware that there is an exception.

Karl

[bluejak]

dburn, on Sep 3 2010, 12:59 AM, said:

bluejak, on Sep 1 2010, 09:58 AM, said:

You open 1NT, LHO bids 2♣, not alerted, partner passes, RHO bids 2♥, alerted.

Puzzled, you ask

What? I ask a question when, after I opened a weak no trump and partner passed a 2♣ overcall, it is more or less certain that I cannot possibly be interested in the answer?

As you know perfectly well, a 1NT opener might easily bid on this sequence.

dburn, on Sep 3 2010, 12:59 AM, said:

But perhaps this occurred in some jurisdiction where bridge is played, and not in England.

Please do not be too childish.

Yet again, we have a problem where you have the sort of mind to make meaningful and useful input. Playing little mindgames instead demeans you.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on Sep 1 2010, 08:58 AM, said:

Correct, having sorted the MI out, he lets your partner change his pass and he bids 2♠.  Your RHO now changes his 2♥ to something else [obviously], maybe pass.

This seems to answer Dburn's question, if this part of the ruling was good.

It was opener's turn to bid, and he asked. Whether opener had possibly intended to bid over 2♥ or not, his question about the alert had an effect. It got the TD involved at a point where the auction could be backed up one tick, instead of letting things get further out of control.

I don't think this is what was meant by "asking a question for the benefit of partner", although it seems to have done that. It wasn't partner's turn until the ruling, so he couldn't ask; and I think "for benefit of partner" refers to when asker already knows the answer (not here).

More interesting would be if Opener did know what they were playing, knew his partner didn't, and knew what 2C and 2H meant; but asked anyway just to get the TD involved and allow the auction to be backed up. Now, opener would have been asking for the benefit of partner AND of the game ---legitimate, IMO.

Am I right?

[mjj29]

aguahombre, on Sep 3 2010, 10:09 AM, said:

It was opener's turn to bid, and he asked. Whether opener had possibly intended to bid over 2♥ or not, his question about the alert had an effect. It got the TD involved at a point where the auction could be backed up one tick, instead of letting things get further out of control.

I don't think this is what was meant by "asking a question for the benefit of partner", although it seems to have done that. It wasn't partner's turn until the ruling, so he couldn't ask; and I think "for benefit of partner" refers to when asker already knows the answer (not here).

More interesting would be if Opener did know what they were playing, knew his partner didn't, and knew what 2C and 2H meant; but asked anyway just to get the TD involved and allow the auction to be backed up. Now, opener would have been asking for the benefit of partner AND of the game ---legitimate, IMO.

Am I right?

Indeed, since the possible first lack of alert only came to light at opener's turn to call only opener could ask for clarification to determine whether his partner could change his call. I think it's imperitive that opener ask here since his partner can't ask until it's too late for his call to be changed.

[bluejak]

I think it is desirable that the player ask. It is much better that his partner gets to make his own decision rather than rely on a TD adjustment later.

In the famous Brighton case of some years back, with references in the White book, where the auction went

1♠ 2♣ dbl P
3♥ ???

at that time takeout doubles were alertable. The 2♣ bidder, a good player playing with a far less experienced player, decided not to ask even though he knew the double was for takeout. Later he argued vehemently that if there had been an alert his partner would have bid 5♣ and the slam might have been missed.

Part of the reason for him being ruled against was that his partner could have had her pass back if he had asked.

[Part of the reason for him being ruled against may have been that she was never allowed to say what she might have bid: her partner thought it correct to tell everyone what she would have done].

But the EBU's view was that if the player knew the double should have been alerted he should have done something about it.

[FrancesHinden]

This thread raises another interesting question (which you probably didn't intend).

A couple of people have asked what hand partner can possibly have that passes over a non-alerted 2C bid, but bids 2S on discovering that 2C should have been alerted.

Remember that partner can only change his call if he has been damaged by the MI. So this isn't possible:

Quote

Partner knew what 2C was at the time and intended to balance with 2S if it came around, but was hoping for an accident due to the non-alert.

...because clearly partner has not been damaged.

In fact, the only layout I can think of is the other one suggested, where partner has long clubs, is playing double as take-out, and wants to defend 2Cx.

So is the fact that responder has both spades and clubs AI to opener? I don't see why not as it's a consequence of the other side's irregularity!

[dburn]

bluejak, on Sep 3 2010, 06:48 AM, said:

dburn, on Sep 3 2010, 12:59 AM, said:

bluejak, on Sep 1 2010, 09:58 AM, said:

You open 1NT, LHO bids 2♣, not alerted, partner passes, RHO bids 2♥, alerted.

Puzzled, you ask

What? I ask a question when, after I opened a weak no trump and partner passed a 2♣ overcall, it is more or less certain that I cannot possibly be interested in the answer?

As you know perfectly well, a 1NT opener might easily bid on this sequence.

dburn, on Sep 3 2010, 12:59 AM, said:

But perhaps this occurred in some jurisdiction where bridge is played, and not in England.

Please do not be too childish.

Yet again, we have a problem where you have the sort of mind to make meaningful and useful input. Playing little mindgames instead demeans you.

I can make no picture at all in my mind of a hand that would open a weak no trump, hear an ostensibly natural 2♣ overcall to its left, hear a pass from partner and a 2♥ bid to its right, and want to take some action other than pass.

If you tell me that I "know perfectly well a 1NT opener might easily bid again on this sequence", you are grievously in error - what would you have me bid, after all? I am not in the habit of opening a weak no trump with an unbalanced hand including five or more spades, and neither is anybody else, so I probably won't bid 2♠. But perhaps I should bid my six-card minor, without which no one opens a weak no trump these days.

Of course, partner has promised no more than a balanced Yarborough, so it is entirely possible that any bid by me might go for 1400. If this happens, I hope you will not mind my referring to you as a respected authority for the view that a (weak) 1NT opener "might easily bid again on this sequence".

The point I am trying to make, and it is a serious point, is that "puzzled, you ask" is presumably a joke. Whatever answer you receive cannot affect your action at this turn, so you have per the Absurd Local Regulation no business in asking.

Still, if I am allowed to ask questions because I am "puzzled", that will give me some more ammunition against the Absurd Local Regulation. I am invariably puzzled by everything, so I will always ask about anything that may be perplexing me. Moreover, I will always ask about an alerted call to my right, because that's the least I can do given the ALR. Your mileage, as I believe they say, may vary.

Could have sworn there was a serious question in there somewhere. What was it? Ah, yes - "is the fact that East (assuming South opened 1NT, West bid 2♣ and North passed) bid 2♥ AI to West given that if 2♣ had been alerted, North would have acted in such a way that East would not have bid 2♥?"

No.

[gnasher]

dburn, on Sep 5 2010, 12:11 AM, said:

I can make no picture at all in my mind of a hand that would open a weak no trump, hear an ostensibly natural 2♣ overcall to its left, hear a pass from partner and a 2♥ bid to its right, and want to take some action other than pass.

You open 1NT with xxx AKQ10 Kxx xxx. LHO bids a natural 2♣. RHO bids 2♥, transfer to spades. What should you do?

Not that I think it remotely relevant whether you might be thinking of bidding. It is perfectly OK to ask about puzzling alerted bids, even when you have no interest in bidding, and doing so conveys no UI. Provided, of course, that you always ask about puzzling alerted bids.

So far as I can see there's nothing in the EBU regulations that says it's improper to do this, or that players who do this convey UI, or that players who do this are more likely to be ruled against. Maybe I've missed something, though. So, as well as criticising the "Absurd Local Regulation", could you quote it?

[aguahombre]

I think David has fallen out of his tree on this one. It is obvious from the alert of 2H and the non-alert of 2C that there has been some irregularity.

Asking about 2H, before more damage is done, is reasonable ---expected ----common sense.

See Bluejack's take on it. Don't have a heart attack that he and I agree on something. It has actually happened a lot

[Zelandakh]

gnasher, on Sep 4 2010, 11:44 PM, said:

You open 1NT with xxx AKQ10 Kxx xxx. LHO bids a natural 2♣. RHO bids 2♥, transfer to spades. What should you do?

Not that I think it remotely relevant whether you might be thinking of bidding. It is perfectly OK to ask about puzzling alerted bids, even when you have no interest in bidding, and doing so conveys no UI. Provided, of course, that you always ask about puzzling alerted bids.

So far as I can see there's nothing in the EBU regulations that says it's improper to do this, or that players who do this convey UI, or that players who do this are more likely to be ruled against. Maybe I've missed something, though. So, as well as criticising the "Absurd Local Regulation", could you quote it?

You would think so gnasher but if you ask about the 2H bid and it shows hearts and clubs, say, then when you do not double partner is under severe ethical pressure not to lead a heart since your question "suggests" this lead. There's another current thread floating around about a similar point from the opposite side. The bottom line is that if you ask and pass and hold the suit in question you are penalising your side even if you always take this action. The TD will only be looking at the hands where the opps are "damaged".

It is a little like having a standing joke with your local shop owner (who you've been mates with for 20 years) whereby you come in every day, pull out your life-like water pistol, say "stick 'em up" and spray him. Only one day you do it and the owner has a temp in, hits the panic button, police arrive, etc. It does not matter that you 'always' do this, you are still likely to receive a punishment.

[RMB1]

South opens 1NT, West and North pass and East doubles; South and West pass, North redoubles and East bid 2♥. West says "I should have alerted the Double". The TD is called, the Double is explained as a single-suiter. North changes his Redouble to Pass (as per Law 21B1a). How do we apply Law 21B2?

Must East change 2♥? Can he change 2♥ to nothing?

Assume on the auction (1NT)P(P)X(P)P(P) that there are logical alternatives to a heart lead from West. Can West lead a heart? Is it a breach of Law 16B?

If West lead a heart that damages NS, does the TD adjust at the end of the hand?

[pran]

RMB1, on Sep 5 2010, 10:10 AM, said:

South opens 1NT, West and North pass and East doubles; South and West pass, North redoubles and East bid 2♥.  West says "I should have alerted the Double".  The TD is called, the Double is explained as a single-suiter.  North changes his Redouble to Pass (as per Law 21B1a).  How do we apply Law 21B2?

Must East change 2♥?  Can he change 2♥ to nothing?

Assume on the auction (1NT)P(P)X(P)P(P) that there are logical alternatives to a heart lead from West.  Can West lead a heart?  Is it a breach of Law 16B?

If West lead a heart that damages NS, does the TD adjust at the end of the hand?

Easts 2♥ becomes inadmissible (Law 35.4) and is cancelled (Law 39A).
The rectification prescribed in Law 39 does not apply (Law 21B2).

Law 16D applies in case the Director (after the play) finds that the cancelled (withdrawn) 2♥ bid has caused damage to North/South. (Law 21B2 - last clause)

This implies that West must be careful not to lead a card that could be suggested by the 2♥ bid if he has other logical alternative(s). Such lead is (technically) not a breach of Law 16B, but it can still lead to an adjustment under law 16D. (It is unimportant and difficult, maybe even impossible to tell the practical difference!)

[jallerton]

I suspect that the regulation to which David refers is paragraph 3E of the Orange Book:

EBU Orange Book said:

3 E Asking Questions: Unauthorised Information and the Potential to Mislead
3 E 1 A player has the right to ask questions at his turn, but should be aware that exercising this right has consequences. If a player shows unusual interest in one or more calls of the auction, then this is unauthorised information to partner. Partner must carefully avoid taking advantage, which may constrain the actions partner is permitted to take during the remainder of the auction or when on lead during the play. (Law 16B, 73C). Asking about a call of 3NT or below which has not been alerted may cause more problems than asking about an alerted call, as may asking repeated or leading questions. Asking about alerted calls in a (potentially) competitive auction is less likely to have adverse consequences, although it is not risk free.
If, therefore, at a player’s turn to call, he does not need to have a call explained, it may be in his interests to defer all questions until either he is about to make the opening lead or his partner’s lead is face-down on the table.

Note: this had been toned down compared with what is used to say. Phrases like "may be" and "less likely" give the TD more discretion than previously, but there again not all players and TDs are aware of the change to the wording!

If Gnasher always asks about alerted calls early in the auction then his regular partner will know of this practice and will know that he is not at all constrained by UI considerations. So is Gnasher's side safe from any UI adjustments after his questionning? No! If the TD does not know him, the TD will judge that UI has been conveyed by his question on a particular hand. Of course Gnasher will say "I always ask" but the TD may reflect "I've heard that one a few times before" , discount what to her sounds like self-serving evidence, and proceed with her adjustment.

Does that mean that the regulation is wrong? Not necessarily, but the challenge for anybody who does not like it is to come up with something better. [One of my suggestions, rejected by the EBU L&EC, was to abolish all alerts on the first round of the auction and replace them all by announcements.]

[gnasher]

Zelandakh, on Sep 5 2010, 06:04 AM, said:

You would think so gnasher but if you ask about the 2H bid and it shows hearts and clubs, say, then when you do not double partner is under severe ethical pressure not to lead a heart since your question "suggests" this lead.

You may believe this, but it's not supported by the Laws, the EBU regulations, or, indeed, the publicly expressed views of David Stevenson.

Quote

There's another current thread floating around about a similar point from the opposite side. The bottom line is that if you ask and pass and hold the suit in question you are penalising your side even if you always take this action. The TD will only be looking at the hands where the opps are "damaged".

Will he? There are incompetent TDs everywhere, but not many in the EBU.

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on Sep 5 2010, 04:30 AM, said:

Quote

There's another current thread floating around about a similar point from the opposite side. The bottom line is that if you ask and pass and hold the suit in question you are penalising your side even if you always take this action. The TD will only be looking at the hands where the opps are "damaged".

Will he? There are incompetent TDs everywhere, but not many in the EBU.

And, I don't think the TD will ignore the fact that the "damage" to the opponents, if any, was caused by themselves and their original failure to alert.

I don't think "even if you always (ask)" is relevent, here. We don't run into this situation enough to establish an "always"; even a person who doesn't always ask about alerts would likely ask in this case ---regardless of his/her holdings.