[ArtK78]

There were two alerted bids by the time the auction reached South. South is entitled to ask the meaning of the alerted bids. Assuming that South phrased the question so as not to unduly emphasize anything about the 3♥ call, East-West have no right to complain about the question asked by South. Furthermore, I would go as far as to say that the complaint was out of line and reeks of sour grapes.

[Lanor Fow]

Regardless of the alert regulations (personally I don't see what's so intricate about alerting all non natural bids below 3nt, which is the relevant bit here) asking about alerted bids will always convey UI, unless you always ask. Even if you always ask unless you know what it means, it will be difficult to convince people that this is the case.

[Lanor Fow]

I'm not sure it's as clear cut as a lot of people are suggesting. I'd want to know whether the double of a p/c bid would be takeout of hearts, or show hearts. If it would be take out of hearts, unless I'm convinced that this player always asks I would say that the UI suggests a heart lead, as the most likely explanation for someone asking at this point (unless they always do) is they want to be able to double a artificial heart bid to show hearts.

I haven't looked at whether there are LAs to the heart lead, or damage, but if both of those were satisfied I would probably adjust (if double of P/C is takeout of hearts)

[nige1]

VixTD, on 2015-March-24, 08:34, said:

Before her first pass South asked about the opponents' auction and received the explanation above.
North led ♥9 and West ended up with seven tricks, -100.
West called the director and claimed that South's question had suggested a heart lead to North.

---

On this hand, South's question could have little effect on the result. But, on a different hand, it could. The EBU allow you to ask but warn that asking about a particular call can impose UI constraints on partner.

2014 Blue Book, 2E1 said:

Unauthorised Information. A player has the right to ask questions at his turn to call or play, but exercising this right may have consequences. If a player shows unusual interest in one or more calls of the auction, then this may give rise to unauthorized information. His partner must avoid taking advantage. It may be in a player's interests to defer questions until either he is about to make the opening lead or his partner's lead is face-down on the table.

Other jurisdictions seem to take a more permissive attitude to asking. But current legislation about asking still creates problems. e.g. Lamford's recent Failure to Alert Topic. Some of the asking strategies available to a player are:

• Ask only when contemplating a call other than pass - but this conveys UI.
• Never ask -- but this is normally a handicap.
• Ask randomly -- but this is hard for a director to police.
• Always ask unless you already know -- but you can't be sure that a call has an identical meaning in subtly different contexts.
• Always ask -- time-consuming but OK.

IMO option 5 should be the law -- except that you can radically simplify that to: announce partner's calls (so that you don't have to wait for a question). Each table would have a card of likely explanations, so that you would usually be able to point to a box on the card, rather than run the risk of disturbing other tables.

A possible improvement is to provide the the option to switch of opponents' announcements when you suspect they might be more helpful to them than to you.

[blackshoe]

campboy, on 2015-March-24, 10:20, said:

I am not so convinced. Yes, lots of partnerships will routinely ask about alerted bids and so avoid passing UI. But all the evidence is that this is not one of those partnerships, since North failed to ask about an alerted opening bid.

A partnership consists of two players. That North did not ask about an alerted opening bid (maybe he'd looked at their card) does not mean that South is inconsistent in his asks.

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2015-March-24, 11:37, said:

<stuff>

Whatever EW knew or didn't know about the purpose of alerts can have little or no connection to the regulations in force.

Apparently in your country the alert regulation is "alert things your opponents might want to know". Here it is "alert artificial bids, except for a few that you announce instead". You seem to think that the latter is horrible.

But what you have works for you and what we have works for us. How often do you play under EBU regulations? Often enough to make it your business to complain about them? Often enough to seek to have them changed?

If your answer is not "yes" to both can you please put a sock in it? Your opinion has been expressed, multiple times, and I doubt if anyone cares.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2015-March-24, 14:19, said:

except that you can radically simplify that to: announce partner's calls (so that you don't have to wait for a question). Each table would have a card of likely explanations, so that you would usually be able to point to a box on the card, rather than run the risk of disturbing other tables.

A possible improvement is to provide the the option to switch of opponents' announcements when you suspect they might be more helpful to them than to you.

Announcing all bids would be horrendous, and the UI implications would be particularly bad with first-time and casual partnerships (i don't know about other places, but here we arrange games with lots of different people). And "switching the announcements off" might not work (it was decided not to do this with alerts because the alerts can become reflexive) and ... When would you be able to decide that you will not need to know anything about the opponents' auction?

As far as your card of likely explanations is concerned, I already carry a variant of one to every table I play at, and I am happy to point out where to find a certain piece of information. Also my footnotes are accurate and detailed.

The card I use with my regular partner is two sides of A4, pretty densely covered with smallish type. Your "universal use" card would be many times the size of this. And if it were possible to compile this hefty tome, how many clubs etc would be able to afford to buy one for every table? Where on the table could it go? Actually, the whole issue could be simplified, couldn't it -- what about if every partnership brought a card that had just their own agreements?

Your vision of the perfect bridge world is strange to be sure, Nigel, but you might as well abandon ideas which are a practical nightmare.

Actually, there is one club in London where all bids are announced, and a very limited number of methods are permitted there. Perhaps when your dream of global adoption of ACBL regulations comes true, a card that everyone can use would be feasible.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2015-March-24, 16:34, said:

Announcing all bids would be horrendous, and the UI implications would be particularly bad with first-time and casual partnerships (i don't know about other places, but here we arrange games with lots of different people). And "switching the announcements off" might not work (it was decided not to do this with alerts because the alerts can become reflexive) and ... When would you be able to decide that you will not need to know anything about the opponents' auction? As far as your card of likely explanations is concerned, I already carry a variant of one to every table I play at, and I am happy to point out where to find a certain piece of information. Also my footnotes are accurate and detailed.

Do you mean your system card? I agree that a suitably completed system card would be a good source of explanations. But you would need an intimate knowledge of the way you had laid out information, to be able to direct opponents to appopriate parts of it without using it as a personal memory aid. The law could get round even that, by allowing you to read/show your own card.

Vampyr, on 2015-March-24, 16:34, said:

The card I use with my regular partner is two sides of A4, pretty densely covered with smallish type. Your "universal use" card would be many times the size of this. And if it were possible to compile this hefty tome, how many clubs etc would be able to afford to buy one for every table? Where on the table could it go? Actually, the whole issue could be simplified, couldn't it -- what about if every partnership brought a card that had just their own agreements?

No card could easily include the explanation of all possible calls. But there might be boxes for common treatments that would cover many calls.

• Common HCP ranges and shapes.
• Aspiration e.g. sign-off, invitational, F1, FG, game-try, slam-try.
• Some common artificial meanings eg Relay, Ask, Splinter, Transfer, FSF, P/C, RKC, Negative,
• Negative, Penalty, Co-operative, Lead directing

Vampyr, on 2015-March-24, 16:34, said:

Your vision of the perfect bridge world is strange to be sure, Nigel, but you might as well abandon ideas which are a practical nightmare.

IMO, rather than hold out for perfection, we should compromise on radical simplification.

Vampyr, on 2015-March-24, 16:34, said:

Actually, there is one club in London where all bids are announced, and a very limited number of methods are permitted there. Perhaps when your dream of global adoption of ACBL regulations comes true, a card that everyone can use would be feasible.

I repudiate what vampyr mistakenly dubs "my dream" -- except that I think that almost any set of global regulations is likely to improve upon the current Tower of Babel

[VixTD]

campboy, on 2015-March-24, 09:11, said:

Why should it make any more tricks on a different lead?

I don't think EW were making a case for a score adjustment, they were just incensed that North had chosen a heart lead after the question.

campboy, on 2015-March-24, 10:20, said:

Yes, lots of partnerships will routinely ask about alerted bids and so avoid passing UI. But all the evidence is that this is not one of those partnerships, since North failed to ask about an alerted opening bid.

North was an expert who knows what the auction means and could definitely be accused of asking for partner's benefit if he had asked. South was obviously very young and inexperienced, the sort of player you would expect to ask about an alerted auction and think nothing more of it.

In view of all this I didn't think South's questions showed unusual interest, and even if they did they didn't focus attention on the heart suit, so I ruled no adjustment.

[campboy]

VixTD, on 2015-March-25, 06:58, said:

North was an expert who knows what the auction means and could definitely be accused of asking for partner's benefit if he had asked. South was obviously very young and inexperienced, the sort of player you would expect to ask about an alerted auction and think nothing more of it.

In view of all this I didn't think South's questions showed unusual interest, and even if they did they didn't focus attention on the heart suit, so I ruled no adjustment.

In that case yes, I agree.

[Aardv]

awm, on 2015-March-24, 10:19, said:

Seems tough to get eight tricks; say you win the lead and duck a diamond as people suggest. Opponents play two rounds of trump. You presumably play ace and ruff a diamond. Now you must exit a round suit from dummy. South cashes a heart and a club (defense has now taken one trick in each suit) and now cashes another heart. If you ruff, north overruffs and cashes the 4th diamond. Ruff high and north's spade is good (and he always gets a diamond). Pitch and south continues a heart for the trump promotion.

Anyway, I don't see what the lead had to do with the result (trump lead seems worse for declarer) nor what the questions had to do with the lead. So no adjustment.

You don't play ace and ruff a diamond: you establish communications first by leading ♥J off dummy. This needs South to have all the club honours as well as the hearts, or he can put North in to play a third trump, so it's not an obvious line.

[nige1]

awm, on 2015-March-24, 10:19, said:

Seems tough to get eight tricks; say you win the lead and duck a diamond as people suggest. Opponents play two rounds of trump. You presumably play ace and ruff a diamond. Now you must exit a round suit from dummy. South cashes a heart and a club (defense has now taken one trick in each suit) and now cashes another heart. If you ruff, north overruffs and cashes the 4th diamond. Ruff high and north's spade is good (and he always gets a diamond). Pitch and south continues a heart for the trump promotion. Anyway, I don't see what the lead had to do with the result (trump lead seems worse for declarer) nor what the questions had to do with the lead. So no adjustment.

Aardv, on 2015-March-25, 09:56, said:

You don't play ace and ruff a diamond: you establish communications first by leading ♥J off dummy. This needs South to have all the club honours as well as the hearts, or he can put North in to play a third trump, so it's not an obvious line.

Gib's analysis often contradicts our gut-feelings.
Here, a black-suit lead results in 3♠-2. A red-suit lead defeats the contract by only 1 trick.
Declarer must win a ♥ lead with ♥A and
Switch immediately to ♦s -- continuing ♥ would revert to 2-down.

You can use the Play and GIB buttons to explore the variations.

---