[Coelacanth]

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

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

I've occasionally seen the converse of this: "Be sure to lead face down, partner; I have some questions." I think, and the tone of this thread seems to agree with me, that this is clearly inappropriate. The question is...what should be done about it? As declarer, would you call the TD if this happened, have a polite word with RHO after the hand, or what?

[WellSpyder]

mjj29, on 2011-November-16, 10:50, said:

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.

I agree it is extremely annoying when people put the bidding cards away too soon. My view of this, however, is that it doesn't make it necessary to say before partner makes the lead that you will be asking questions. It simply makes it necessary for people to get the bidding cards out again after the lead has been made . Hopefully after opponents have been asked to do this a few times they will learn that it might be easier to leave them out in the first place.....

[bluejak]

The reason for comments such as "thought police" and "incredible suspicion" is that we are talking about a normal habit that a lot of people do. Similarly, people touch their pass card instead of putting down a green card at the end: sure, that could be used as a method of importing information, but only the thought police would start assuming this.

Just grow up, people: when a lot of people do something, and no-one cares except three people on a forum, perhaps the three people are not the ones in the right?



Incidentally, I notice someone assumed I was defending this because my partnership does it: similarly someone on RGB seems to assume that a position I am defending is solely for my own benefit.

It is my aim to make the game of bridge better, and the understanding of the legalities greater, and I do not do so solely for my own benefit. I have been working for the good of the game for twenty years, and if people wish to assume otherwise, so be it: but I do not think the evidence suggests otherwise.

[bluejak]

Coelacanth, on 2011-November-16, 11:19, said:

I've occasionally seen the converse of this: "Be sure to lead face down, partner; I have some questions." I think, and the tone of this thread seems to agree with me, that this is clearly inappropriate. The question is...what should be done about it? As declarer, would you call the TD if this happened, have a polite word with RHO after the hand, or what?

This game needs tolerance. I am annoyed by opponents' action many times each night I play in a club, but I tolerate it, and the game is better when you do.

What do I do as declarer? Absolutely nothing, except growl to myself internally.

Maxi Tolerance is good: Zero Tolerance is bad!

[gwnn]

bluejak, are you saying that this question can never, under any circumstance, create UI? In that case I would indeed be in the wrong. I don't think the fact that many people do a certain action makes it devoid of potential UI issues or legal. I am surprised you think so.

I am not saying that it is illegal, just that in some cases it may create UI. Are you saying it never can?

[ggwhiz]

bluejak, on 2011-November-16, 11:24, said:

Just grow up, people

100% These "infractions" are not malicious.

I once sandbagged an 8 card suit against opps who often put their cards away at the speed of light. I was in pass out seat and on lead so I waited about 3 minutes and then bid. That got a big laugh and they never did it again, against me anyway.

I've had best experience mentioning something privately to a player in a calm tone, along the lines of it's only semantics but somebody else may give you grief. Essential that it's private.

Good experience because I pick my targets and just let it go against curmudgeons.

[Cascade]

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.

Its not "incredible suspicion" its a matter of what the laws require. It is not a method of communication that is allowed by the laws. As such I think it is hard to justify.

Sure in some places where this is the norm there may never be any problem. However we have players that play against a wide range of opponents in a wide range of locations. Clearly it is better if everyone follows uniform and correct procedure.

I don't really care whether a player is allowed to ask such a question or not. However when there is a law that severely restricts the forms of communication and you deliberately flout those restrictions you can only place yourself in a position of disadvantage.

If this practice is permitted then the law should say so. Given that the law does not say so then it should not be permitted.

[AlexJonson]

Cascade, on 2011-November-16, 15:37, said:

Its not "incredible suspicion" its a matter of what the laws require. It is not a method of communication that is allowed by the laws. As such I think it is hard to justify.

Sure in some places where this is the norm there may never be any problem. However we have players that play against a wide range of opponents in a wide range of locations. Clearly it is better if everyone follows uniform and correct procedure.

I don't really care whether a player is allowed to ask such a question or not. However when there is a law that severely restricts the forms of communication and you deliberately flout those restrictions you can only place yourself in a position of disadvantage.

If this practice is permitted then the law should say so. Given that the law does not say so then it should not be permitted.

Cascade

Let's ignore the attack dogs. What should you or I do, as a reliable procedure, sitting at the table with our lead face down and the Newtonian clock ticking. Do we allow, say 5 seconds, and turn the card - or what. What do you actually do.

[Cascade]

AlexJonson, on 2011-November-16, 15:49, said:

Cascade

Let's ignore the attack dogs. What should you or I do, as a reliable procedure, sitting at the table with our lead face down and the Newtonian clock ticking. Do we allow, say 5 seconds, and turn the card - or what. What do you actually do.

I put the lead face down and then flip it over. This is not immediate. It seems to give the other players sufficient time to ask a question. No one has ever objected as far as I recall that I turned my card too quickly. However from a different perspective occasionally I have seen someone turn their card too quickly so that I have lost the opportunity to ask a question. This has not been a major problem as there is a further opportunity at my turn to play. Potentially it could be a problem if I am forced to ask my question later in a possibly tempo sensitive situation.

[Mbodell]

Thread convergence? From the BRIDGE HUMOUR thread:

CSGibson, on 2011-November-16, 13:03, said:

One of the best at the table reactions I've seen -

My partner and I bid to a fairly normal contract, and LHO leads face down, asking his parter whether she had any questions. RHO immediately says "No, go ahead and lead that 8 of hearts". LHO then faces the 8 of hearts, and partner sits there in stunned silence for 2 minutes before asking all sorts of questions.

It turns out that this couple has a variation of asking whether his partner had any questions that they only use when they lead the 8 of hearts, letting them mess with declarer's mind (in a well intentioned way, of course).

Passing information through the way you ask questions. Mostly harmless in the case everything goes well, but what if it is a lead out of turn or there was MI and the auction is rolled back?

[bluejak]

gwnn, on 2011-November-16, 13:54, said:

bluejak, are you saying that this question can never, under any circumstance, create UI? In that case I would indeed be in the wrong. I don't think the fact that many people do a certain action makes it devoid of potential UI issues or legal. I am surprised you think so.

I am not saying that it is illegal, just that in some cases it may create UI. Are you saying it never can?

Of course not. But anyone who goes around looking for it is just going to cause no end of trouble.

Sighing, coughing, blowing one's nose, drinking water, groaning, leading a card with your left hand, leading before writing the score down, and many many other things can, in certain special circumstances, create UI that can suggest a call or play.

But that is not a reasons for a suspicious attitude that means you investigate whenever anyone sighs, coughs, blows one's nose, drinks water, groans, leads a card with their left hand, leads before writing the score down, and many many other things.

When there is a worry about a hand you investigate: but this idea of investigating a normal action every time it happens because a couple of people here are suspicious of it in general just cannot be right.

[gwnn]

I don't know who suggested that, bluejak. But great, seems like you and I agree. I will ask for a recommendation if I ever apply for an FBI job.

[barmar]

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

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."

I don't think they're "trying" to do anything, it's simple ignorance. They just get in the habit of saying "no" to "any questions", and their mouth gets ahead of their brain. While they may understand that a question can influence partner in his lead choice, they don't realize that it's possible (although unlikely) that a non-question could also influence him.

Quote

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.

Most people I know do that, too.

[aguahombre]

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

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.

I rarely find this necessary. Opponents who have engaged in a complicated auction are usually aware and delay grabbing up the bid cards. Two reasons:

Either they expect questions and are being practical and courteous, OR there have been "delay alert" bids above 3NT which are easier to explain while the auction is still visible.

When I do have to ask them to leave the auction intact it becomes awkward when I am not the opening leader and her card has not yet been placed on the table.

[mycroft]

barmar, I'm sure they're just trying to shortcircuit what looks to them to be a tedious process. The problem is that it *does* pass UI when they don't; and that UI *could* lead to a question-to-be-asked that might influence the lead; and if you figure this out, it *could* be used deliberately, in such a way as to never really be catchable.

On "leave it out" - well that's one of the downsides to ACBL bidding box policy. Frankly, I think it's the least of the worries; but from the point of view of someone who knows I'm passing UI-that-might-influence-partner, and being the anal-retentive sort who not only does things because it's defined policy, but also works out "why would this stupid-seeming policy be in place?" as well, it's uncomfortable when I feel I have to do it.

Having said that, when we have a crazy strong club auction, we leave the cards out by habit - we're planning on explaining the whole thing before the opening lead anyway (or at least saying "do you want to know about the auction?") I *want* them to know full disclosure (and, on a cynical note, I *want* them to know without having asked leading questions).

[barmar]

We only have to say "Please leave them out" if you see the bidders starting to scoop up their cards. If they're conscientious like you, it's not necessary.

And there's rarely any UI, because it's usually the opening leader who asks for this. In a complex auction, it's unlikely that only 3rd hand would require a recap with explanations.