[PhilKing]

barmar, on 2014-October-15, 09:55, said:

If you know their system, you obviously don't need to ask for your own benefit. So it seems that the only reason for such a question would be for partner's benefit, and you're not allowed to ask questions solely for that reason.

I believe that is sort of his point. When you do ask, it must be for a reason, and this gives UI.

Here the UI is either that you have diamonds, and are considering a double or you have hearts (just in case by an off-chance 2♦ is natural) and are thinking of bidding 2♥.

Where I think op was wrong was by verbally stating that she may have been damaged when 2NT was passed out, since this can only mean she has diamonds, so the UI was more specific. The trouble is we are generally advised, rightly or wrongly, to draw attention to an irregularity when it becomes apparent, but by doing so we still give UI. In such cases we should be allowed to wait until the end of the hand with out jeopardising our position.

The adjustment to 2NT-3 was a bit of a joke, since that was hardly a likely outcome if South gets to double 2♦, but who knows given North's failure to take any positive action.

[blackshoe]

It occurs to me that damage can only be determined after the hand is played, since by definition damage is a result worse than might have been obtained without the infraction, and you can't know that until after the play. So it cannot be incorrect to wait until after the play to call because you think you've been damaged. In particular, it cannot ever be right for the director to say "because you waited, you failed to protect yourself" in such cases.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2014-October-15, 13:58, said:

It occurs to me that damage can only be determined after the hand is played, since by definition damage is a result worse than might have been obtained without the infraction, and you can't know that until after the play. So it cannot be incorrect to wait until after the play to call because you think you've been damaged. In particular, it cannot ever be right for the director to say "because you waited, you failed to protect yourself" in such cases.

I am on Ed's side if the infraction is (as here) disclosure or MI. If we were addressing BIT or UI, then whole different thing.

[pran]

barmar, on 2014-October-15, 09:55, said:

If you know their system, you obviously don't need to ask for your own benefit. So it seems that the only reason for such a question would be for partner's benefit, and you're not allowed to ask questions solely for that reason.

More than once have I experienced opponents' whose system I certainly knew well (at least I thought) suddenly turning up with new agreements.

It cannot be illegal to ask in order to verify that they haven't changed their agreements from what you believe they are?

[nige1]

The rules about "Protecting yourself", "SEWOGs", and "Professional questions" are among many that add no discernible value. Bridge would be simpler and better without them.

[trevahound]

PhilKing, on 2014-October-15, 10:48, said:

I believe that is sort of his point. When you do ask, it must be for a reason, and this gives UI.

Here the UI is either that you have diamonds, and are considering a double or you have hearts (just in case by an off-chance 2♦ is natural) and are thinking of bidding 2♥.

Where I think op was wrong was by verbally stating that she may have been damaged when 2NT was passed out, since this can only mean she has diamonds, so the UI was more specific. The trouble is we are generally advised, rightly or wrongly, to draw attention to an irregularity when it becomes apparent, but by doing so we still give UI. In such cases we should be allowed to wait until the end of the hand with out jeopardising our position.

The adjustment to 2NT-3 was a bit of a joke, since that was hardly a likely outcome if South gets to double 2♦, but who knows given North's failure to take any positive action.

We all know, or should know, when we are asking a question for partner's benefit. I am more likely to ask a question in these circumstances for opp's benefit, and I've even told opps before what their partner's bid meant when opps were friends. Of course, I wouldn't do that at an NABC, but I also wouldn't want to take advantage of their misunderstanding any more than absolutely unavoidable.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2014-October-15, 14:49, said:

I am on Ed's side if the infraction is (as here) disclosure or MI. If we were addressing BIT or UI, then whole different thing.

Of course. For one thing, the UI laws specifically suggest that you establish agreement that UI may have been passed when that happens (and if your opponents disagree they are supposed to call the director, but many players don't know that, and most of the ones that do won't call anyway, whatever their reason ).

[aguahombre]

pran, on 2014-October-15, 15:23, said:

It cannot be illegal to ask in order to verify that they haven't changed their agreements from what you believe they are?

Exactly. I would go even farther. I dare anyone to PROVE I absolutely knew their agreements and that they had not changed, and even if they could, I contend that asking a question to ensure partner knows the proper context for my call --- the meaning of which varies depending on what RHO's call meant --- is not asking solely for partner's benefit. I do not accept that we have to be doomed to confusion about our own auction because partner doesn't know whether I knew what RHO's call meant when I doubled or bid.

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2014-October-15, 17:58, said:

Exactly. I would go even farther. I dare anyone to PROVE I absolutely knew their agreements and that they had not changed, and even if they could, I contend that asking a question to ensure partner knows the proper context for my call --- the meaning of which varies depending on what RHO's call meant --- is not asking solely for partner's benefit. I do not accept that we have to be doomed to confusion about our own auction because partner doesn't know whether I knew what RHO's call meant when I doubled or bid.

That's a non problem.

I always assume that partner knows what their calls mean. We simply stick with their explanation. In this case, 2♦ was "explained" (by not alerting) as natural. We will not get confused. If the explanation was wrong, we will get an AS.

Rik

[aguahombre]

Trinidad, on 2014-October-16, 07:39, said:

That's a non problem.

I always assume that partner knows what their calls mean. We simply stick with their explanation. In this case, 2♦ was "explained" (by not alerting) as natural. We will not get confused. If the explanation was wrong, we will get an AS.

Rik

We certainly have different philosophies. As a player, if I can predict and prevent a problem which might cause a score adjustment, I will do that.

As a director, I do not appreciate those players who are capable of lawfully preventing irregularities but would rather let them happen...sometimes as a double shot.

[pran]

aguahombre, on 2014-October-16, 07:52, said:

We certainly have different philosophies. As a player, if I can predict and prevent a problem which might cause a score adjustment, I will do that.

As a director, I do not appreciate those players who are capable of lawfully preventing irregularities but would rather let them happen...sometimes as a double shot.

The British have a saying: "That is not Cricket" which (loosely) as far as I understand translates to "that is not how a Gentleman would behave".

I believe what you describe above, and do not appreciate, definitely is not Cricket! (+)

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2014-October-15, 17:58, said:

Exactly. I would go even farther. I dare anyone to PROVE I absolutely knew their agreements and that they had not changed, and even if they could, I contend that asking a question to ensure partner knows the proper context for my call --- the meaning of which varies depending on what RHO's call meant --- is not asking solely for partner's benefit. I do not accept that we have to be doomed to confusion about our own auction because partner doesn't know whether I knew what RHO's call meant when I doubled or bid.

I believe the idea behind the "no asking for partner's benefit" rule is that if he needs to know, he should ask himself.

But I see that this raises an issue. If they forgot to alert, and his question exposes that, how should he interpret my action that I took before this disclosure? Should he assume that I knew their actual agreement, or that I believed they had a non-alertable agreement?

I don't think that the requirement to protect oneself should be taken so far that partner should make inferences about my action based on whether I did or didn't do so. If this were in EBU, I think the rule that I'm allowed to assume the non-alertable meaning when they fail to alert would indemnify us in the above situation.

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2014-October-16, 07:52, said:

We certainly have different philosophies. As a player, if I can predict and prevent a problem which might cause a score adjustment, I will do that.

As a director, I do not appreciate those players who are capable of lawfully preventing irregularities but would rather let them happen...sometimes as a double shot.

I think you don't understand where my position comes from. Essentially, there are two possibilities:
A) The explanation by the opponents is correct.
B) The explanation by the opponents is incorrect.

If the explanation is correct, there is no infraction. If I start to ask all kinds of questions, I am damaging my own interest, and I may even be guilty of an infraction myself (e.g. asking for partner's benefit). If I don't ask any questions and believe the explanation, I will be able to conduct a perfectly normal auction. Conclusion: It is best to believe the explanation.

If the explanation is incorrect, there is an infraction. If I start to ask all kinds of questions, I am damaging my own interest (e.g. I may wake up an opponent), and I may even be guilty of an infraction myself (e.g. asking for partner's benefit). The upshot is that -in some cases- I will get a corrected explanation. This rarely leads to better feelings at the table and there still was an infraction. Inevitably the original explanation will clutter my mind and will distract from making the right decisions. If I don't ask any questions and believe the explanation, I will be able to conduct a perfectly normal auction, except that at some point it might turn silly. The case for the TD will be extremely simple: The damage is entirely due to the infraction by the opponents and we are entitled to redress. Conclusion: It is best to believe the explanation.

It is simple. Somebody breaks the rules at the table by failing to explain properly. Nobody accuses him or her to do that on purpose, nobody is angry or upset. But it is (or should be) 100% clear who is liable for the consequences of the infraction: the person who committed it and nobody else. Even suggesting that somebody else should have jumped in and prevented the consequences, at the risk of damaging his own interests is absurd (in any somewhat serious game).

And, of course, we all have been on both sides of the issue. When I am misinforming my opponents, I am fully willing to take 100% of the blame. No, I won't be happy about it, but if I make a mistake, I have to take the consequences.

Rik

[aguahombre]

O.K. I will start a thread Lamford would love based on this one, complete with the obligatory SB. Don't hold your breath, though. It won't be til tomorrow.

[barmar]

Nearly everyone who plays strong NT also plays transfers over them, and you're experienced enough to know this. You hear the auction 1NT-(Pass)-2♥, and there's no alert or announcement from opener (assuming this is required in your jurisdiction). Do you really think you'll get any protection if you proceed on the assumption that RHO has a weak hand with hearts, as if it were 30+ years ago? Isn't it far more likely that LHO simply forgot to alert/announce?

This is the kind of thing that the rule about players protecting themselves is aimed at.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2014-October-17, 09:06, said:

Nearly everyone who plays strong NT also plays transfers over them, and you're experienced enough to know this. You hear the auction 1NT-(Pass)-2♥, and there's no alert or announcement from opener (assuming this is required in your jurisdiction). Do you really think you'll get any protection if you proceed on the assumption that RHO has a weak hand with hearts, as if it were 30+ years ago? Isn't it far more likely that LHO simply forgot to alert/announce?

This is the kind of thing that the rule about players protecting themselves is aimed at.

If I know my opponents and I know that they have been playing transfers for as long as I know them, I will obviously ask whether they forgot to alert. There is extremely little UI in that question, since everybody knows that I expected an alert, irrespective of the cards I hold in my hand. So, in case they stopped playing transfers, it is hard to imagine that I will be damaging our side.

However, If I don't know my opponents, I don't know whether they play transfers. It is entirely possible that they don't. It is even possible that they don't have an agreement and they are on their way to a disaster. There is a real possibility that my question will damage my side. Therefore, I will assume that the explanation is correct.

I should be able to play under the assumption that my opponents play by the rules. And if they don't the damage will be paid for by the guilty and not by the innocent.

Rik

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2014-October-17, 09:06, said:

Nearly everyone who plays strong NT also plays transfers over them, and you're experienced enough to know this. You hear the auction 1NT-(Pass)-2♥, and there's no alert or announcement from opener (assuming this is required in your jurisdiction). Do you really think you'll get any protection if you proceed on the assumption that RHO has a weak hand with hearts, as if it were 30+ years ago? Isn't it far more likely that LHO simply forgot to alert/announce?

This is the kind of thing that the rule about players protecting themselves is aimed at.

You seem to be arguing against your own statement earlier --- that when you know the meaning of an unalerted call and yet ask, you are asking solely for partner's benefit. The conclusion would be that when you know a call should have been alerted or announced you should protect yourself by asking; but, if you do you are committing an infraction.

[mycroft]

Sure, nearly everyone who plays strong NT plays transfers, but over what interference? Also, I really really love the people who are in the nearly everyone camp, but because of 1TBS, stare at me after 1NT (12-14)-p-2♥ "come, on, say it" - especially when they show up with a blank. Especially especially when, the time they don't stare at me, but ask "is that a transfer?" partner finds the "obvious" balance.

One of the benefits of switching to Keri is that we now Announce with the rest of the room, and this happy fun time happens much less. Whether it's theoretically better to play a transfer structure over a weak, or mini, NT or not, in the ACBL, it's practically better (even if you're "wrongsiding" these hands as well) just to avoid all this ruck.

Having said that, the OP is a strong NT *overcall*, and not "nearly everyone" plays transfers Systems On. In fact, in parts of the country, only a minority do. Had I not moved away from that area years ago, I would just be fine with "oh, they're playing Cuebid Stayman, that's natural" and not even think to ask.

[jillybean]

barmar, on 2014-October-17, 09:06, said:

Nearly everyone who plays strong NT also plays transfers over them, and you're experienced enough to know this. You hear the auction 1NT-(Pass)-2♥, and there's no alert or announcement from opener (assuming this is required in your jurisdiction). Do you really think you'll get any protection if you proceed on the assumption that RHO has a weak hand with hearts, as if it were 30+ years ago? Isn't it far more likely that LHO simply forgot to alert/announce?

This is the kind of thing that the rule about players protecting themselves is aimed at.

Please read the OP again, your comment here is irrelevant.

[Vampyr]

jillybean, on 2014-October-17, 18:14, said:

Please read the OP again, your comment here is irrelevant.

It is not relevant to the specific hand and auction in the OP, but it is relevant to the thread.