[bill1157]

Maybe the answer is to have partner announce the meaning of your bid every time it is alertable, as they now do with the 1NT range and transfers.

Bill

[Trinidad]

bill1157, on May 22 2009, 01:52 PM, said:

Maybe the answer is to have partner announce the meaning of your bid every time it is alertable, as they now do with the 1NT range and transfers.

Bill

I think that is a good idea. However, I think it is an even better idea to give the opponents the right to get the information from the convention card.

Rik

[Trinidad]

Oof Arted, on May 22 2009, 01:29 PM, said:

gnasher, on May 22 2009, 05:24 AM, said:

EBU Orange Book 3E1 said:

If, therefore, at a player’s turn to call, he does not need to have a call explained, it may be in his interests to defer all questions until either he is about to make the opening lead or his partner’s lead is face-down on the table.

EBU Orange Book 3E4 said:

Players sometimes say “I always ask whether I intend to bid or not”. This is not recommended.

I think this last sentence in particular is very poor advice. Fortunately, however, it is only advice, and can safely be ignored.

You may think our OB regulations are bad advice; however that is how it is in Blighty.

That may be so, but Law 80 B2f states:

Quote

The Tournament Organizer’s powers and duties include:
f) to announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws

If the OB would actually dictate this, I would think that it is clearly in conflict with Law 73B1. Since they are only giving it as an advice, it is merely 'bad advice' and should be ignored.

Rik

[NickRW]

mycroft, on May 22 2009, 05:55 PM, said:

If you live in Multi-land, it's a different story, I guess - but from what I've heard, an Alerted 2D over there is almost always some form of Multi, and nobody's heard of Flannery, Mini-Roman, Precision, or Mexican 2D...

That's slightly harsh. In the last 12 months with different partners I've played a 2♦ opener as a) multi, b ) precision, c) "normal" weak 2, d) Acol 2 and I've played against Ekren.



Nick

[barmar]

gnasher, on May 22 2009, 11:59 AM, said:

Oof Arted, on May 22 2009, 03:33 PM, said:

The Laws still DO NOT say though shalt always ask the meaning of an alert

No one said they do, explicitly. To my non-expert eye, Law 73B seems to implicitly prohibit the strategy of asking when you have something to think about and not when you don't, but I'm prepared to believe that it means something other than what it appears to mean.

In general, the Laws don't prohibit, explcicitly or implicitly, transmission of UI. For instance, although they say you should try to maintain an even tempo, you're allowed to go into the tank if you have a difficult decision. The real prohibition is on your partner not to take advantage of the UI.

Back to the case at hand, it's a good idea to be consistent about how you ask about alerts. But if you're not, it just means that partner must bend over backwards not to take advantage of any particular ask or not-ask.

[JoAnneM]

NickRW, on May 23 2009, 01:08 AM, said:

mycroft, on May 22 2009, 05:55 PM, said:

If you live in Multi-land, it's a different story, I guess - but from what I've heard, an Alerted 2D over there is almost always some form of Multi, and nobody's heard of Flannery, Mini-Roman, Precision, or Mexican 2D...

That's slightly harsh. In the last 12 months with different partners I've played a 2♦ opener as a) multi, b ) precision, c) "normal" weak 2, d) Acol 2 and I've played against Ekren.



Nick

That is why I don't ask, especially with a 2D opener. Surprisingly, openers partner doesn't always know what they are playing. Why wake them up. Then you get into the mess of their UI.

[jdonn]

For all you know, partner knows what their 2♦ opening means even without asking. Maybe he has played them recently, or talked to them recently, or looked at their convention card at a time when you didn't notice. So my take is you have no UI and are not restricted.

Of course if partner is acting obviously disinterested in the auction though his mannerisms that's a different story.

[Oof Arted]

bill1157, on May 22 2009, 01:52 PM, said:

Maybe the answer is to have partner announce the meaning of your bid every time it is alertable, as they now do with the 1NT range and transfers.

Bill

Now at risk of going off subject and alienating my friends across the 'pond'

What I think personally about 'Self Abuse' (self Alerting) is that it is merely a way of making sure our partner does not forget our system Why dont we really announce ot each persons turn I hold 5 !S to the AKQ 4!h to the AK singleton !D and 2 small clubs ::

We should all get to the right contract then



By the way I never get personal against other writers each have your own views and are entitled to the same

[Tola18]

JoAnneM, on May 22 2009, 10:18 PM, said:

NickRW, on May 23 2009, 01:08 AM, said:

mycroft, on May 22 2009, 05:55 PM, said:

If you live in Multi-land, it's a different story, I guess - but from what I've heard, an Alerted 2D over there is almost always some form of Multi, and nobody's heard of Flannery, Mini-Roman, Precision, or Mexican 2D...

That's slightly harsh. In the last 12 months with different partners I've played a 2♦ opener as a) multi, b ) precision, c) "normal" weak 2, d) Acol 2 and I've played against Ekren.



Nick

That is why I don't ask, especially with a 2D opener. Surprisingly, openers partner doesn't always know what they are playing. Why wake them up. Then you get into the mess of their UI.

Yes. Exactly. I myself also tend not to ask, if I have the a suspicion they arent on the same wavelengh.


But I admit, asking or not asking can give some awkward UI problems...

[MFA]

Tola18, on May 23 2009, 09:30 AM, said:

JoAnneM, on May 22 2009, 10:18 PM, said:

NickRW, on May 23 2009, 01:08 AM, said:

mycroft, on May 22 2009, 05:55 PM, said:

If you live in Multi-land, it's a different story, I guess - but from what I've heard, an Alerted 2D over there is almost always some form of Multi, and nobody's heard of Flannery, Mini-Roman, Precision, or Mexican 2D...

That's slightly harsh. In the last 12 months with different partners I've played a 2♦ opener as a) multi, b ) precision, c) "normal" weak 2, d) Acol 2 and I've played against Ekren.



Nick

That is why I don't ask, especially with a 2D opener. Surprisingly, openers partner doesn't always know what they are playing. Why wake them up. Then you get into the mess of their UI.

Yes. Exactly. I myself also tend not to ask, if I have the a suspicion they arent on the same wavelengh.


But I admit, asking or not asking can give some awkward UI problems...

LOL what kind of opponents are you two used to play against??

[Tola18]

MFA, on May 23 2009, 10:07 AM, said:

Quote

Yes. Exactly. I myself also tend not to ask, if I have the a suspicion they arent on the same wavelengh.

LOL what kind of opponents are you two used to play against??

There are of course answers for it.

But I shall not mock anybody, not even our beloved intermediaries. I shall retell something Alan Sontag wrote in his wonderful book Power Precision. Where he teaches a lot of bridge wisdom, retelling a Cavendish he won together with Peter Weichsel. (and also describing the system, but this is another story, a pure bonus you can have or forget).
His Bridge Bum is also good, btw.

One of the lessons he gave was not to ask unnecessarily. At least twice during the tournaments his world-class opps forget nuances in their own-conventions... Can happen especielly if it is a complicated pet convention from one of them - and partner must learn it in and remember without having his heart in it.

[MFA]

Tola18, on May 23 2009, 05:04 PM, said:

MFA, on May 23 2009, 10:07 AM, said:

Quote

Yes. Exactly. I myself also tend not to ask, if I have the a suspicion they arent on the same wavelengh.

LOL what kind of opponents are you two used to play against??

There are of course answers for it.

But I shall not mock anybody, not even our beloved intermediaries. I shall retell something Alan Sontag wrote in his wonderful book Power Precision. Where he teaches a lot of bridge wisdom, retelling a Cavendish he won together with Peter Weichsel. (and also describing the system, but this is another story, a pure bonus you can have or forget).
His Bridge Bum is also good, btw.

One of the lessons he gave was not to ask unnecessarily. At least twice during the tournaments his world-class opps forget nuances in their own-conventions... Can happen especielly if it is a complicated pet convention from one of them - and partner must learn it in and remember without having his heart in it.

In general it IS a good advice not to ask unnecessarily when the opps are having a specialized sequence.

But I don't think that applies to an opening bid. I seriously can't expect my opponents to be likely to forget those. I would never pass a 2♦ opening bid - no matter my hand - without knowing what 2♦ was. Of course one can typically just look it up in the CC, but if not available I would always ask.

[gnasher]

MFA, on May 23 2009, 11:36 PM, said:

In general it IS a good advice not to ask unnecessarily when the opps are having a specialized sequence.

I hate that attitude. If they know their system, the question has no effect. If they don't know their system but they're honest, the unauthorised information constrains their actions, so if anything I should benefit from asking the question. The only time that asking costs is if they don't know their system and they're dishonest. It seems completely wrong to base my actions on the assumption that my opponents are dishonest.

[jdonn]

gnasher, on May 23 2009, 08:09 PM, said:

MFA, on May 23 2009, 11:36 PM, said:

In general it IS a good advice not to ask unnecessarily when the opps are having a specialized sequence.

I hate that attitude. If they know their system, the question has no effect. If they don't know their system but they're honest, the unauthorised information constrains their actions, so if anything I should benefit from asking the question. The only time that asking costs is if they don't know their system and they're dishonest. It seems completely wrong to base my actions on the assumption that my opponents are dishonest.

I think the problem is you are underestimating the subconscious impact of hearing partner explain. It's not such a black and white situation between opponent being honest and dishonest. There are plenty of possibilities like the following:

- (Probably most common of all these) an opponent may instantly rationalize without even realizing he is doing it. "Of course that's what it means, I knew that all along." And he will believe it's true, even though it may well not be.
- An opponent might not realize that if he had not heard partner give the correct explanation he would later have catered to the possibility of a misunderstanding. (Or vice versa)
- An opponent may make a bid knowing it has one of two meanings, both of which fit his hand. Then when his partner explains he has to decide if he would have remembered later which meaning applied.
- An opponent may be so genuinely surprised about what his partner says that he reacts in some way his partner could notice, without even meaning to.

And, yes, on top of that many are dishonest. I read somewhere a few years ago that 93% of people would steal in at least some situation if they knew they wouldn't get caught (but that only something like 15% of people inwardly believe 'I' belong to that group.) Every time you ask about an alerted bid you are creating a situation where very often an opponent can be dishonest and know he won't get caught. So on this I agree with MFA.

[MFA]

gnasher, on May 23 2009, 08:09 PM, said:

MFA, on May 23 2009, 11:36 PM, said:

In general it IS a good advice not to ask unnecessarily when the opps are having a specialized sequence.

I hate that attitude. If they know their system, the question has no effect. If they don't know their system but they're honest, the unauthorised information constrains their actions, so if anything I should benefit from asking the question. The only time that asking costs is if they don't know their system and they're dishonest. It seems completely wrong to base my actions on the assumption that my opponents are dishonest.

I'm not going to discuss this to death since it's not a big matter for me, and my questioning approach at the table is pretty much middle of the road compared to others.

Jdonn made a good post. One could also talk about their comfort zone. If there is any doubt in their minds about if they understand eachother, they just have one more issue to think about instead of hand evaluation. This problem might compound itself as the artificial sequence continues. At some point one of them might 'crack' and do something silly.

Anyway, not asking in such situations is certainly fair play to the opps too, since they can then demonstrate their bidding abilities without having to worry about UI. So if I feel it's my best strategy too, then all should be fine.

[Trinidad]

Of course, the situation changes gradually.

I think that it is perfectly normal (and recommended) to ask about an opening bid. In the case of an alerted skip bid, you will give your partner UI ("I'm not interested in bidding.") if you don't check what the bid means. For openeing bids, you shouldn't be worried about opponents giving each other UI, except for the very lowest level.

However, it is also obvious that you shouldn't ask about every single bid in a slow, slam going auction.

In general, we can see (at least) two scales:

Length of the auction:
Start --------------------------------------- End of long auction

Competitiveness:
(Potentially) competitive----------------------------------Your side passes throughout

When on the left hand side of these scales: Ask. When on the right hand side of these scales: Don't ask.

Don't ask me where the dividing line goes.

Rik

[Echognome]

gnasher, on May 23 2009, 05:09 PM, said:

MFA, on May 23 2009, 11:36 PM, said:

In general it IS a good advice not to ask unnecessarily when the opps are having a specialized sequence.

I hate that attitude. If they know their system, the question has no effect. If they don't know their system but they're honest, the unauthorised information constrains their actions, so if anything I should benefit from asking the question. The only time that asking costs is if they don't know their system and they're dishonest. It seems completely wrong to base my actions on the assumption that my opponents are dishonest.

Andy -

I really think it matters what the bridge crowd you are talking about is. My experience playing in England was that the higher level you played against, the less you worried about ethics (since the vast majority of good players were highly ethical). In that case, I can see your point, but I also think the policy is less important as people will go out of their way to be ethical. (I also note that it's not that all people at that level are ethical, as I have seen some dodgy things in appeals. I'm sure Frances has a better idea than either of us!)

The problem I find is at the lower levels. Suppose you suggested that players always ask. For starters, that would be pretty annoying, especially in England where you are allowed a pretty wide range of system. I guess it would be a pretty big deterrent to play a complicated system. Your second option of only asking on the first couple of rounds is somewhat covered by the alerting system itself of only alerting bids below 3NT (with some exceptions). Aside from all that, suppose a player claims to "always ask", then what happens if you sit down across from that player and they don't ask. Maybe they know the meaning already as you just had that sequence last board. Is that now UI? And back to where I started in this paragraph, I've seen some pretty blatant things at the club level. I remember having a relay sequence where pretty much every bid was alerted and before his final pass (since his partner was on lead), this player asked me "what does 3♦ mean?" Then he passed. He didn't ask about any other call. Lo and behold his partner leads a diamond. That is extreme of course, but I'm sure you have seen or heard about similar issues.

So the question is not simply what is the best thing for highly capable and highly ethical players to do, it is what advice should be given to the masses to make the game as fair as possible. I can respect that your opinion about that may be different, but I like the advice given in the Orange book.

-Gnome

[mycroft]

I have been told more than once "It is a pleasure to play you. You're the only Precision pair I've met that actually knows your system." And even so, I still worry, just that little bit, when the auction goes 1C-1NT; 2C-2H (all Alerted) that I'm about to play in the 4-2 spade fit.

There are several pairs I have run into who really get uncomfortable if their opponents don't help them keep on the same wavelength by asking. They don't really *forget*, but they do seem to be a bit less composed, and somehow they don't play as well.

Nick: Sure, I agree. And, now that I think about it, many will be playing two-way Benjamin. But "normal" weak 2 and Acol 2 aren't Alertable... BTW, how many Precision players are playing Multi 2D and Precision 2H?

What bothers me is when people ask (back to ACBL rules) about my *unalerted* 2D. There is exactly one meaning for that that is not Alertable - weak 2. I wonder if it's just that other people forget, or they just like showing a WeaSeL pass...

[P_Marlowe]

mycroft, on May 25 2009, 11:17 AM, said:

<snip>
Nick: Sure, I agree. And, now that I think about it, many will be playing two-way Benjamin. But "normal" weak 2 and Acol 2 aren't Alertable...
<snip>

depends on where you are living, a weak two in diamond is alertable
in Germany, it is alos not very common.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mycroft]

Yes, well, you see, Marlowe, I happen to know where Nick is. That was part of the joke :-)