[bluejak]

Cascade, on 2011-November-13, 13:52, said:

A comment is not required by law as far as I can tell. It could be construed as communicating with your partner. It just seems a whole lot better to me to say nothing unless you need to ask a question. By making extraneous remarks to the table you open yourself up for criticism.

Don't be silly. Next duplicate I play, in 26 boards, about 8 to 12 times a player will ask his partner "No questions?". Of course this does not open them for criticism.

But not asking is often impolite, and that is grounds for criticism.

Cascade, on 2011-November-13, 18:07, said:

This practice is not explicit in the laws.

Again my common experience is that "no questions" or the like is not the norm in the games that I play in. It seems superfluous. I do not recall ever making such a statement.

It should be self evident whether a player has a question or not. The player either asks a question or does not.

It is not always self-evident, and failure to follow polite practices is not a matter for self-congratulation.

[Cascade]

bluejak, on 2011-November-15, 08:47, said:

Don't be silly. Next duplicate I play, in 26 boards, about 8 to 12 times a player will ask his partner "No questions?". Of course this does not open them for criticism.

But not asking is often impolite, and that is grounds for criticism.

Try reading Law 73A1. That just means that 8 to 12 times in the next duplicate that you play some player will be violating that law by communicating with his partner other than by means of the calls and plays.

Polite or not it is plainly illegal.

[blackshoe]

By your argument, Wayne, it would be illegal to ask partner if he would like one of your chocolates.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-15, 16:19, said:

By your argument, Wayne, it would be illegal to ask partner if he would like one of your chocolates.

I think you open yourself up for criticism if you start talking with your partner mid hand. It must be better to offer your chocolates or whatever between hands rather than at a critical stage of the hand. Aside from the admittedly remote possibility that you have some code there is a problem of distracting other players (opponents).

Back on topic the communication with your partner regarding "no questions" or the like is additional to what is allowed in the law. As such I think it is best practice to avoid taking that additional liberty.

[mycroft]

By a similar argument, it would be illegal to tell my partially-sighted partner what the board number is, dealer and vulnerability. This is information that partner is entitled to; how to promulgate it otherwise?

If you're consistent, at least - isn't that always the way? - "questions, partner?" is a zero-information statement. It says "I think I'm on lead", which, of course, the face-down card also says. Communication theory would state that zero-information statements are not communication, just either noise or protocol.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2011-November-13, 17:56, said:

A very common misunderstanding when the opening lead is made face down is that this is for the purpose of avoiding an opening lead out of turn. And very often I have heard Dummy or Declarer in this situation saying "yes, it is your lead" (or words to that effect) or just nod.

But in the ACBL apparently the bidding cards will have been picked up already, so third hand might as well wait until it is his turn or use the time while dummy is being put down to ask his questions. Of course, if you lead face-down and partner's questions reveal that you have been given misinformation you may change your lead, but how often does that happen?

Cascade, on 2011-November-13, 18:07, said:

It should be self evident whether a player has a question or not. The player either asks a question or does not.

Not necessarily. The player may well be studying the auction cards and mentally recreating the auction prior to deciding whether he has any questions.

bluejak, on 2011-November-15, 08:47, said:

Don't be silly. Next duplicate I play, in 26 boards, about 8 to 12 times a player will ask his partner "No questions?". Of course this does not open them for criticism.

But not asking is often impolite, and that is grounds for criticism.

Is it really? I never ask; I find it tiring and don't think it is impolite. I make a face-down lead and partner will say something like "yeah" or "go ahead" or "thank you" or "mm-hmm" and then I face the card. As mycroft points out above, it is best to be consistent in your asking or not asking, but living in a country where the question is often asked I have never seen a case where it seemed even remotely that the method of asking/not asking/answering a question about questions was conveying UI. Cascade, maybe you should stop worrying about a non-problem concerned with when people turn their cards over...

[gwnn]

I'm probably misunderstanding something but didn't this thread start (well, after debating about the topic from the opening post) about the message from RHO to LHO "no questions, [you're welcome to face the lead]" and then it turned into a discussion about the question from LHO to RHO "no questions? may I face the lead?". It seems like the two messages are different in nature. The first one occurs in one way or another very often (unless they lead face up), the second one I don't see often and I do see a hint of UI there in more than one way (e.g. maybe LHO thinks RHO should ask about something because LHO feels RHO doesn't know).

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2011-November-16, 01:01, said:

But in the ACBL apparently the bidding cards will have been picked up already, so third hand might as well wait until it is his turn or use the time while dummy is being put down to ask his questions. Of course, if you lead face-down and partner's questions reveal that you have been given misinformation you may change your lead, but how often does that happen?
[...]

More important is the fact that when misinformation by declaring side is revealed during the clarification period the defender who made the last pass may be allowed to withdraw this pass, after which the auction continues. The final result can even be that the side originally presumed defending becomes the declaring side! (And, although not often, this has indeed happened.)

So by (unneccessarily) delaying his questions until after the opening lead has been faced RHO forfeits some of his rights to rectification in case of MI.

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on 2011-November-16, 01:01, said:

Is it really? I never ask; I find it tiring and don't think it is impolite. I make a face-down lead and partner will say something like "yeah" or "go ahead" or "thank you" or "mm-hmm" and then I face the card. As mycroft points out above, it is best to be consistent in your asking or not asking, but living in a country where the question is often asked I have never seen a case where it seemed even remotely that the method of asking/not asking/answering a question about questions was conveying UI. Cascade, maybe you should stop worrying about a non-problem concerned with when people turn their cards over...

I am not saying it is impolite, I am saying it may be impolite. If partner indicates he has no questions then of course there is no need to ask, and now Cascade will blame partner for communicating with you. 'May be' indicates it depends on circumstances.

I agree that Cascade is trying to make something out of a non-problem.

gwnn, on 2011-November-16, 02:38, said:

I'm probably misunderstanding something but didn't this thread start (well, after debating about the topic from the opening post) about the message from RHO to LHO "no questions, [you're welcome to face the lead]" and then it turned into a discussion about the question from LHO to RHO "no questions? may I face the lead?". It seems like the two messages are different in nature. The first one occurs in one way or another very often (unless they lead face up), the second one I don't see often and I do see a hint of UI there in more than one way (e.g. maybe LHO thinks RHO should ask about something because LHO feels RHO doesn't know).

So every time someone asks you see it as an attempt to influence partner, a question that players do automatically and regularly?

I think you and Cascade should join the FBI or the CIA: they are looking for people like you!

[gwnn]

First of all, I said "hint of UI" and Cascade said "it could be construed as ...". It depends on the context

Second of all, I really don't agree that it's automatic or regular. Perhaps for some players. I don't see it often in any club I play or used to play. I'm sure your partner does it 8-12 times a session, but please accept that my experience is different.

[gwnn]

By the way, I do something like this too, but only if my partner fell asleep, or if my card has the same colour as the tablecloth and doesn't see my face down card, etc.

[bluejak]

gwnn, on 2011-November-16, 07:31, said:

First of all, I said "hint of UI" and Cascade said "it could be construed as ...". It depends on the context

Second of all, I really don't agree that it's automatic or regular. Perhaps for some players. I don't see it often in any club I play or used to play. I'm sure your partner does it 8-12 times a session, but please accept that my experience is different.

My partner does not do it at all, but my opponents do, and regularly. In my partnership opening leader's partner says "No questions".

Obviously lots of people do not ask, but is this incredible suspicion about those that do that seems totally inappropriate.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2011-November-16, 07:46, said:

Obviously lots of people do not ask, but is this incredible suspicion about those that do that seems totally inappropriate.

Exactly. It is a habit; it is a non-problem; it is a natural consequence of the face-down opening lead. It has ceased to even be annoying as a needless waste of words (partner will ask a question if she has one).

Whether it is common where I play or not where you play, it is nothing of concern unless opening leader himself only asks pointedly if partner has questions when he believes partner has missed something and is doing it so partner will ask.

[WellSpyder]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-16, 07:58, said:

Exactly. It is a habit; it is a non-problem; it is a natural consequence of the face-down opening lead.

Indeed, it is such a natural consequence of the face-down opening lead that it just happens without thinking about it, and I would actually be at a loss to tell you whether I or my partner normally indicates as 3rd in hand player that we have no questions or asks as opening leader. In fact it probably varies - I suspect the partner of the opening leader normally says something, but if they don't then the opening leader will themselves check before facing the lead. No doubt the thought police will find this very worrying since the variation could itself be used as a means of communication. But at least in the culture in which I play bridge it is just seen as normal courtesy either way.

[gwnn]

I really don't see why these words are being used "thought police" and "incredible suspicion" and some more that I don't remember and I don't care to look for again, what's wrong with thinking about possible UI to your partner? Sure if you do it at random then you're fine, and maybe there's not a UI either way, but surely it's not unreasonable to say "perhaps there is UI". Maybe you think there is no possible circumstance ever where these questions create UI, fine, but if someone even suggests "perhaps there are situations where there is UI", it means they're the thought police?

[WellSpyder]

gwnn, on 2011-November-16, 09:47, said:

I really don't see why these words are being used "thought police" and "incredible suspicion" and some more that I don't remember and I don't care to look for again, what's wrong with thinking about possible UI to your partner? Sure if you do it at random then you're fine, and maybe there's not a UI either way, but surely it's not unreasonable to say "perhaps there is UI". Maybe you think there is no possible circumstance ever where these questions create UI, fine, but if someone even suggests "perhaps there are situations where there is UI", it means they're the thought police?

Fair enough, I withdraw the words "thought police", which were not intended to be at all derogatory. I was just trying to get over, in a fairly light-hearted way, that I really do think this is an unneccesary worry. It is true in principle, of course, that it may be possible either deliberately or accidentally to convey UI, and I'm sure it is a good idea for us all occasionally to stop and think about whether we may be unintentionally and unneccesarily conveying UI, but this particular issue is not one I will be losing any sleep over either from my side of the table or my opponents'.

[mycroft]

One thing I *don't* like, however, is third-hand "no questions" *before* the lead has been selected. I assume it's trying to short-circuit leader's tendency to lead face-up, but it's still annoying and hints of "when I don't do it, you probably should be asking the questions."

Having said that, I commonly ask for the cards to be left out in complicated auctions I'm planning on asking "please explain" to. I realise that passes the same information; I hope I'm consistent about it.

[aguahombre]

IMO, "incredible suspicion" was fine. Without further indication re: a particular pair, suspicion of this common practice is hard to believe.

And note, it is not often I agree with Blue on his choice of words

[blackshoe]

Hm. I think I'm going to look for opportunities to ask questions as declarer before the lead is faced. I'll bet I get a lot of "you can't ask questions now!"

[mjj29]

mycroft, on 2011-November-16, 10:30, said:

Having said that, I commonly ask for the cards to be left out in complicated auctions I'm planning on asking "please explain" to. I realise that passes the same information; I hope I'm consistent about it.

Indeed, far more serious a habit people should be complaining about is the one which makes this necessary - leaving cards up until after the opening lead has been faced and any reviews/questions have happened should be the rule, not the exception.