[trevahound]

I need a little help with an issue that came up at the club a few nights ago. I still haven't issued a ruling.

E/W have the auction to themselves. E deals and opens.
1♠(by east, dealer)
1nt(f) - 2♣(alert)
2nt - 3♠
3nt - 4♠
all pass.

After the 2nt call, N asked about the 2♣ alert. W said their agreement was it showed any minimum opener, artificially. After E rebid 3♠, S asked about the 3s call, and W said it showed lots of spades and clubs (not their agreement).

W erred by misdescribing their agreement, and E further erred by not calling the director and correcting partner's explanation prior to the opening lead. There is no question that E and W committed irregularities. The mis-explanation was solely of the 3s call; the explanation of the 2c bid was correct (if weird to me, when playing a big club as they were).

I have a big problem with the questions about the 3s call. S hand (I held this hand at another table) has no legit bridge reason at all to ask about an un-alerted 3s call. E/W are a regular partnership that regularly goes off the rails in their auctions, and one could uncharitably wonder if S asked these questions only to create and cement UI in an auction where S's calls would not change no matter the explanation given. I don't know why they asked, but it wasn't to alter or influence any action they might have taken.

I am told by my local director gurus that a player is perfectly free to ask any questions whatsoever, regardless of bridge reason, so long as they're willing to risk their partner's future actions being partially constrained in some circumstances. I am told that even if one asks just to cement UI for the opps or a misunderstanding for the opps, that no law or propriety bars this, and my ruling should be based solely on E/W's irregularities. This does not seem correct to me, and before I issue a ruling I am asking for others' opinions.

Here is the gist of my question, as best as I can summerize:
Is it the ACBL's position that one may ask questions during an auction that one has no part in with no legitimate bridge reason to do so, and benefit directly "legally" (via an adjustment, rather than bridge at the table) because of those questions posed again without bridge reason at an inappropriate time?

If the ACBL's answer to that is "no problem, you can never be held accountable for asking your questions at the appropriate or inappropriate time so long as your partner doesn't use any UI those questions provide, and you can benefit through legal channels by asking those questions at the wrong times", then my objections go away. I don't believe that is the acbl's position, but lordy I've been wrong more times than I can count on that.

Thanks!

Brian Zaugg

[gnasher]

I can't speak for the ACBL, but it seems to me that any time is an appropriate time to ask a question, provided that you're asking because you want to know the answer.

It's legitimate to ask a question with no intention to bid at that point, simply because you want to follow the auction. If you know what the auction means you can start thinking about the opening lead, you can be ready to double a cue-bid, you can be prepared for some action that your partner may take, and you can make better inferences from the opponents' tempo and demeanour.

It's unusual to ask about an unalerted bid. However, it is also unusual not to alert a spade bid that you think shows clubs. Perhaps South was aware of a tendency for this West to omit to alert when he should? Or perhaps South was just finding the auction confusing and wasn't sure what an unalerted 3♠ bid in this unusual system actually meant.

If South was really asking in order to create a UI problem, I agree that this ought to be illegal, but I don't think it is.

[cloa513]

gnasher, on 2013-September-05, 16:50, said:

I can't speak for the ACBL, but it seems to me that any time is an appropriate time to ask a question, provided that you're asking because you want to know the answer.

It's legitimate to ask a question with no intention to bid at that point, simply because you want to follow the auction. If you know what the auction means you can start thinking about the opening lead, you can be ready to double a cue-bid, you can be prepared for some action that your partner may take, and you can make better inferences from the opponents' tempo and demeanour.

It's unusual to ask about an unalerted bid. However, it is also unusual not to alert a spade bid that you think shows clubs. Perhaps South was aware of a tendency for this West to omit to alert when he should? Or perhaps South was just finding the auction confusing and wasn't sure what an unalerted 3♠ bid in this unusual system actually meant.

If South was really asking in order to create a UI problem, I agree that this ought to be illegal, but I don't think it is.

There are only two sensible times to ask a question(s)- after its bid (to influence your bid) and after the end of the auction (in order to guide the opening lead). Any other time will give UI.

[barmar]

But if you only ask questions when you're contemplating a call other than Pass, then not asking a question gives UI that you have a hand that passes no matter what the meaning is. Some people suggest randomly asking when it won't influence you, to mitigate this effect, although to do this fully you also have to randomly not ask when you need to know, which is probably not in your best interest.

Anyway, it's not illegal to give UI, only to use UI. So it's legal to ask, and partner's problem to avoid taking inference from your questions.

[trevahound]

Okay, it's legal to ask anytime, even if your only reason for asking is to lawyer your way to an adjustment you'd have never gotten otherwise. I mean, you have no bridge reason at all for asking, but you sense opps might be on different pages, and you want to get them saying something that can be used against them later even when there is no conceivable answer they might give which would influence your next call. Okay, this is apparently not just legal, it's not even improper. Perhaps it's a quality to look for in a teammate?

Then, aren't we giving up mps vs the field if we don't try to gain in score by this method? Now we don't just have to learn to recognize and execute a double squeeze, we have to learn where we can win boards when we hold nothing during the auction, without risk, just with clever questions of the side with the high cards?

Is this a bug, or a feature? and if it's a bug, could we address it on the next update (2018, or whenever)?

I know I'm hiding it well, but this really bothers me.

Thanks.

Brian Zaugg

[gnasher]

trevahound, on 2013-September-05, 20:01, said:

Okay, it's legal to ask anytime, even if your only reason for asking is to lawyer your way to an adjustment you'd have never gotten otherwise. I mean, you have no bridge reason at all for asking, but you sense opps might be on different pages, and you want to get them saying something that can be used against them later even when there is no conceivable answer they might give which would influence your next call. Okay, this is apparently not just legal, it's not even improper. Perhaps it's a quality to look for in a teammate?

Then, aren't we giving up mps vs the field if we don't try to gain in score by this method? Now we don't just have to learn to recognize and execute a double squeeze, we have to learn where we can win boards when we hold nothing during the auction, without risk, just with clever questions of the side with the high cards?

I think you're overstating the size of the problem. Whilst there probably are people who ask questions in order to create UI problems, few people would think of it, and very few people would actually do it, regardless of whether it's legal. Most people try to play fairly.

You haven't yet identified a single instance of someone doing this - from what you've said, there is particular reason to believe that South in the oriignal post was doing anything other than asking because he wanted to know.

Quote

Is this a bug, or a feature? and if it's a bug, could we address it on the next update (2018, or whenever)?

If you want to change the laws, writing about it on an internet forum isn't going to help. The laws are written and maintained by the WBF Laws Committee. The secretary to the committee is Laurie Kelso, lskelso@ihug.com.au . They're currently considering changes to the laws for the 2017 edition, so now would be a good time to suggest a change.

[blackshoe]

I didn't realize the position of secretary to the WBFLC had changed. I see Grattan has a new title: "coordinator". Congratulations to both Laurie and Grattan! (Although I don't suppose either one reads these forums. )

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2013-September-06, 01:09, said:

If you want to change the laws, writing about it on an internet forum isn't going to help. The laws are written and maintained by the WBF Laws Committee. The secretary to the committee is Laurie Kelso, lskelso@ihug.com.au . They're currently considering changes to the laws for the 2017 edition, so now would be a good time to suggest a change.

Or if you want to discuss it here first, post in the "Changing Laws" forum.

[Mbodell]

gnasher, on 2013-September-06, 01:09, said:

I think you're overstating the size of the problem. Whilst there probably are people who ask questions in order to create UI problems, few people would think of it, and very few people would actually do it, regardless of whether it's legal. Most people try to play fairly.

The times I've thought about doing it are when the opponents start to squirm, pause, and tempo UI there way into expressing the problem that they are off the tracks and then often figuring out how to land on their feet. I haven't done it yet, because I wasn't sure of its legality. If I knew it was 100% legal, there is an occasional time when I'd do it.