[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-12, 14:10, said:

I get this one:

Me: 1NT, partner: 2NT, me: Alert! Opponent: You're supposed to say 'transfer'.

And you politely thank them rather than teaching at the table yourself? At the tender age of 67+, I have not yet developed the self-restraint to do that.

[blackshoe]

Well, I'm younger than you, so....

[bluejak]

jillybean, on 2012-February-12, 02:05, said:

Yes, responder explained the bid without being asked. Responder is not an idiot, but rather a capable, long time player. PP's are very rare, I doubt that I will ever see one issued in a club game.

I know they are very rare and I approve of them being very rare. Nevertheless there are certain occasions when PPs should be issued even in a club game and this is one of those occasions.

[blackshoe]

I agree with David. I shall have to ask our local "I would never issue a PP in a club game" director if this would change her mind.

[barmar]

jillybean, on 2012-February-12, 02:05, said:

Yes, responder explained the bid without being asked. Responder is not an idiot, but rather a capable, long time player. PP's are very rare, I doubt that I will ever see one issued in a club game.

This sure seems like the time for that rarity, though. It seems like you're saying that he knew better, yet did it anyway. That's exactly what PPs are for.

I sometimes go above the speed limit on the highway. I know it's against the law. If I get caught, I quietly accept my punishment.

[mycroft]

I have the same issue as many here - why did that hand bid 2NT? I think we need to know. If he comes up with a reasonable argument, then I don't have a problem. If he comes up with "we play 4♠ as only the preemptive raise" then he's in the clear, and I go away happy that he's not putting the opponents to the same troubles I do. If he was only going to try off a heart shortness, okay, too.

Trying for slam with a max 29 high and no shortness is a risky proposition, so signoff seems correct.

However, the alert of 3NT (which is correct) is one thing, the explanation quite another - *especially* when 2NT wasn't Alerted. Having said that, however, I don't know of a player around here in the last 20 years who doesn't play 1♠-2NT by an unpassed hand as a spade raise (except for me and my friends when we're goofing around). So I'm not too concerned about the failure to Alert; I am still concerned about the "hey partner, rememeber?" explanation - even if it wasn't.

[jillybean]

Vampyr, on 2012-February-12, 12:23, said:

If this is the case, responder is definitely (correct spelling) up to something. What he hopes to achieve is unclear, but he at least wants to make sure opener realises that the 2NT bid was a spade raise.

I don't know what was going on, the explanation was given with at least the pretense of 'educating" my partner as to what a 3M bid after 1M:2N means. There is so much of this type of thing that goes on, and is ignored by everyone, that I hate to bring ethics into question. It appears to be the culture in any game below a tournament A/X game. I think it is a combination of ignorance of the laws or the fact that no call is made and no penalty is issued so players get accustomed to breaking laws.

fwiw, I did not call the TD on this occasion, it is absolutely something not done at this game.
[/spell check]

[Vampyr]

jillybean, on 2012-February-13, 17:08, said:

I don't know what was going on, the explanation was given with at least the pretense of 'educating" my partner as to what a 3M bid after 1M:2N means. There is so much of this type of thing that goes on, and is ignored by everyone, that I hate to bring ethics into question. It appears to be the culture in any game below a tournament A/X game. I think it is a combination of ignorance of the laws or the fact that no call is made and no penalty is issued so players get accustomed to breaking laws.

fwiw, I did not call the TD on this occasion, it is absolutely something not done at this game.

I am surprised that this sort of behaviour is common where you play; where I live there is very little of it.

In any case, if you are not willing to call the director it seems that it is a situation you are happy to accept. Perhaps I am missing something, but if this is true, why post?

[jillybean]

Vampyr, on 2012-February-13, 18:01, said:

I am surprised that this sort of behaviour is common where you play; where I live there is very little of it.

In any case, if you are not willing to call the director it seems that it is a situation you are happy to accept. Perhaps I am missing something, but if this is true, why post?

I post because I am interested in cases of UI, (especially those at my table) and how these incidents should influence the choice of calls a player can make - if following the laws of the game. I said early in the thread that I thought it was blatant use of UI if playing standard, I wasn't sure when playing precision.

What responder did was suspicious to say the least and unfortunately, it is not uncommon. I wouldn't say it is deliberate every time, I think players don't realise that they can avoid giving UI and don't understand when they have received it. Calling the director makes me very unpopular very quickly and in a club game it's just not worth it. (sad to say)

[blackshoe]

One of the problems, I think, in UI cases is the tendency of people to say "Aha! Hesitation! That's UI!" It isn't. The hesitation itself is simply a break in tempo. The question is what information the BIT might convey, and whether that information was used by the partner of the one making the BIT in choosing a subsequent action. It is incorrect to say that because a player bid on after a BIT (or passed, if that works out better) he has, blatantly or otherwise, used UI. As Kathryn correctly points out, for one thing the system they're using may make a difference. For another, the recipient of UI may have no LA to his chosen action (not saying that's the case here, speaking in general).

In clubs, if you call the TD whenever you see the problems Kathryn points out, you do become "unpopular". Unfortunately, you don't have much choice. You can try to talk the TD into "educating" the players (which may make him unpopular ) or you can offer to give a little "mini-lesson" once in a while (which most of the players who really need it will ignore) or you can vote with your feet. Or you can just let it go, and consider it one of the prices of playing club bridge. None of these choices are really great, but that's life.

I've given up crusading. Nowadays I tend to just let it go. As said, it's not worth the hassle. The real problem I see though is that the unpopularity of calling the TD in clubs seems to be seeping into Sectionals now. Next thing you know, people will be frowning at any TD calls at all.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2012-February-13, 18:01, said:

In any case, if you are not willing to call the director it seems that it is a situation you are happy to accept. Perhaps I am missing something, but if this is true, why post?

jillybean, on 2012-February-13, 22:28, said:

I post because I am interested in cases of UI, (especially those at my table) and how these incidents should influence the choice of calls a player can make - if following the laws of the game. I said early in the thread that I thought it was blatant use of UI if playing standard, I wasn't sure when playing precision.

What responder did was suspicious to say the least and unfortunately, it is not uncommon. I wouldn't say it is deliberate every time, I think players don't realise that they can avoid giving UI and don't understand when they have received it. Calling the director makes me very unpopular very quickly and in a club game it's just not worth it. (sad to say)

Among other reasons for the post, IMO, is that Jilly and others get reinforcement that what they feel about situations at the table are sentiments other people also feel.

Being human, we don't call every opponent to task for every perceived indiscretion. (Those who insist that they do are not telling the truth.)

Discussion on these fora are helpful to us in determining whether the line we draw in the sand is close to the line drawn by others ---dependent upon the level of the game we are playing.

Threads which cover both the legal and the practical applications are interesting to me.

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-13, 23:14, said:

I've given up crusading. Nowadays I tend to just let it go. As said, it's not worth the hassle. The real problem I see though is that the unpopularity of calling the TD in clubs seems to be seeping into Sectionals now. Next thing you know, people will be frowning at any TD calls at all.

I agree. At a recent sectional I asked the opps to wait until partner had made a face down lead before stating "no questions". (or worse, a question) Opps took offence at this and in a loud voice claimed that "we can ask questions at any time!!!". I called the director and explained the problem - he advised that this was just a minor technicality. My popularity taking another dive. This is part of the reason I would much rather play in A/X than any B,C,D game. A/X players seem to be more aware of, and do their best to adhere to the laws.

[wyman]

jillybean, on 2012-February-14, 04:17, said:

I agree. At a recent sectional I asked the opps to wait until partner had made a face down lead before stating "no questions". (or worse, a question) Opps took offence at this and in a loud voice claimed that "we can ask questions at any time!!!". I called the director and explained the problem - he advised that this was just a minor technicality. My popularity taking another dive. This is part of the reason I would much rather play in A/X than any B,C,D game. A/X players seem to be more aware of, and do their best to adhere to the laws.

Obviously non-leader shouldn't be asking questions until the lead comes face down, but it is super-nitty imo to tell someone to not say "no questions" until the lead is made face down. I mean yeah sure I could encode some lead-directing info into when I state "no questions," but c'mon...

[WellSpyder]

wyman, on 2012-February-14, 08:28, said:

Obviously non-leader shouldn't be asking questions until the lead comes face down, but it is super-nitty imo to tell someone to not say "no questions" until the lead is made face down. I mean yeah sure I could encode some lead-directing info into when I state "no questions," but c'mon...

I'm with jillybean on this one. Yes, of course, there won't be any damage most of the time, but a) it is simply a good habit to get into and b) it wouldn't be difficult to envisage circumstances in which this conveyed the UI that partner thought the opening lead was clearcut and didn't depend on subtle inferences from the opponents' bidding. (Note that this has absolutely nothing to do with encoding lead-directing info. I don't go around suspecting opponents of deliberately cheating, but that is no reason not to try to avoid situations in which they could be unintentionally passing illegal messages.)

[mycroft]

The problem is that when third-hand *doesn't* say "no questions", when you as opening leader don't see a problem. It's not quite as blatant as "you might want to think again about this auction" (and legal and "the right thing to do", of course), but it is information passed not by calls and plays to partner - and it works, at least sometimes.

And yes, I've run into at least one player who I am reasonably certain took advantage of this "technicality" to alert his partner (he is definitely one of the "90% of bridge players who are better than their partners").

[wyman]

mycroft, on 2012-February-14, 10:59, said:

The problem is that when third-hand *doesn't* say "no questions", when you as opening leader don't see a problem. It's not quite as blatant as "you might want to think again about this auction" (and legal and "the right thing to do", of course), but it is information passed not by calls and plays to partner - and it works, at least sometimes.

And yes, I've run into at least one player who I am reasonably certain took advantage of this "technicality" to alert his partner (he is definitely one of the "90% of bridge players who are better than their partners").

Sure I understand what you're saying. I guess I've never run into it in a team match where someone says 'no questions' super fast every board and then shuts up when we have a weird auction. But I've definitely had righty on occasion say something like "ok i pass, no questions pard" and it didn't even occur to me to Secretary Bird him.

[barmar]

For many players, that "no questions" is almost as automatic as "good luck partner". People just don't understand that the reason to wait is because of the negative inferences from when you DO have questions. It's similar to the logic of the skip bid rule -- the point of it is to deal with the occasional cases when you DO need to think, so they don't stand out.

But habits are hard to break. Explaining the logic won't solve it.

[aguahombre]

"No Questions, Partner."
(Partner) "Maybe you should have, since it is your lead."

[blackshoe]

Oooh. I'll have to remember that one!

[barmar]

Definitely better than the more traditional:

"Questions?"
"Yes, why are you leading?"