[lmilne]

EIGHT clubs

edit: so yeah, what everyone else is saying. just pointing out, we do have eight.

[JLOGIC]

lmilne, on Sep 10 2010, 01:20 AM, said:

EIGHT clubs

edit: so yeah, what everyone else is saying. just pointing out, we do have eight.

Yup, AQJ94

[hanp]

The_Hog, on Sep 10 2010, 01:09 AM, said:

gnasher, on Sep 10 2010, 05:54 AM, said:

I make lots of bad decisions at bridge - everyone does.  I just don't usually publish them on the internet.

What do we think of partner's double, when he had UI from Phil's question?

I don't think he had UI at all. I am perfectly entitled to ask whether they play Namyats or not. I don't have to ask this after the auction.
I think the x was a bit wild, and I would certainly have bid 5C and appealed if the score had been rolled back.

You are perfectly entitled to huddle as well.

[gnasher]

The_Hog, on Sep 10 2010, 07:09 AM, said:

I don't think he had UI at all. I am perfectly entitled to ask whether they play Namyats or not.

Why should your right to ask mean that asking has no consequences? You're perfectly entitled to ask, but if you're more likely to ask with a good hand than with a bad hand, asking conveys UI.

[the hog]

gnasher, on Sep 10 2010, 02:43 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Sep 10 2010, 07:09 AM, said:

I don't think he had UI at all. I am perfectly entitled to ask whether they play Namyats or not.

Why should your right to ask mean that asking has no consequences? You're perfectly entitled to ask, but if you're more likely to ask with a good hand than with a bad hand, asking conveys UI.

But that's the point, isn't it? Who says I am more likely to ask with a good hand?

[aguahombre]

The_Hog, on Sep 10 2010, 02:26 AM, said:

But that's the point, isn't it? Who says I am more likely to ask with a good hand?

Me. It is not the same as asking about an alerted bid.

[gnasher]

The_Hog, on Sep 10 2010, 09:26 AM, said:

But that's the point, isn't it? Who says I am more likely to ask with a good hand?

Do you routinely ask this question when you aren't thinking of bidding?

[Hanoi5]

gnasher, on Sep 10 2010, 04:55 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Sep 10 2010, 09:26 AM, said:

But that's the point, isn't it? Who says I am more likely to ask with a good hand?

Do you routinely ask this question when you aren't thinking of bidding?

I would say it's equivalent to thinking before following a singleton, or is it?

[hanp]

No it's not, asking questions about an unalerted call is not something you do all the time, so when you do it partner can infer that you have something to think about. If Phil had pulled to 5C I think the score should have been corrected to 4S= as I think partner's double is outrageous after the questions. Note that I am not saying that Phil did anything unethical, not at all.

It's different when a call is alerted, then it is perfectly fine to make it a habit of asking what it means. This is especially true for opening bids (as opposed to late round constructive auctions, where it will be rare that you want to ask before the auction is over).

[Free]

I completely agree with Han.

What's the difference between asking about the 4♠ opening during the auction and after the auction before you have to lead, if you weren't going to bid anyway?

[Fluffy]

yeah good, so if I ask I give UI, but if I don't ask I give UI as well because I might ask with a good hand this is nuts. Much better to just ask regardless

[cherdanno]

Fluffy, on Sep 10 2010, 07:02 AM, said:

yeah good, so if I ask I give UI, but if I don't ask I give UI as well because I might ask with a good hand this is nuts. Much better to just ask regardless

I have never asked opponents about an unalerted 4♠ opening. Have you?

[gnasher]

Much much better is to have the opponents' convention card face-up in front of you, so that there's no need to ask anyway.

[gnasher]

cherdanno, on Sep 10 2010, 01:59 PM, said:

I have never asked opponents about an unalerted 4♠ opening. Have you?

You wouldn't have to in the ACBL, because it would be alertable if they played Namyats. On the other hand, you have a mandatory 10-second pause to fill up, so you could use part of that to ask about it anyway.

[hanp]

Fluffy, on Sep 10 2010, 07:02 AM, said:

yeah good, so if I ask I give UI, but if I don't ask I give UI as well because I might ask with a good hand this is nuts. Much better to just ask regardless

But which bids will you ask about? Any bid?

Come on, if your partner asks about a 4H opening, then thinks for a while and finally decides to pass, you know he was thinking about doing something. What can be more UI than that?

[peachy]

gnasher, on Sep 10 2010, 08:02 AM, said:

Much much better is to have the opponents' convention card face-up in front of you, so that there's no need to ask anyway.

Yes. But this was in the ACBL. Everybody in this forum knows that that isn't happening here unless a foreigner tries to go by that rule. And I really mean "tries"; he may have to force the card from under the opponent's buttocks...

Secondly, if you have a suspicion that a failure to alert has occurred [exactly what happened here], the ACBL regulation says you should inquire rather than claim damage from MI afterward when you could have protected yourself by asking. I don't know how Phil was able to gauge that they might have had Namyats on the card, but it does not matter IMO.

Anyway, things are not the same in EBU and ACBL.

[keylime]

This is a tough decision here. If pard finds a dbl, I am certainly not defending 4SX with this hand, but I'd have to really wonder about partner, and myself (I bid 5C now, I'm 4th seat, bound to go plus).

With Larry at least, he'd OPEN more often than not to save me from this plight.

[the hog]

gnasher, on Sep 10 2010, 03:55 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Sep 10 2010, 09:26 AM, said:

But that's the point, isn't it? Who says I am more likely to ask with a good hand?

Do you routinely ask this question when you aren't thinking of bidding?

Actually, yes.

[awm]

The situation with alerts and asking about bids is really pretty untenable. In this case it seems like:

(1) If the 4♠ call had been alerted, then if you ask it conveys UI (you have a decent hand) and if you don't ask that also conveys UI (you have a lousy hand). Among other things this totally contravenes the purpose of the stop card, since partner always knows whether you have a good hand or a bad hand, and is thus under ethical constraints.

(2) When the 4♠ call was not alerted, there would never be any protection for a possible "failure to alert" because ACBL requires that experienced players protect themselves in situations where an alert is common/possible by asking. Thus if you care whether they play namyats you have to ask about the 4♠ call (you cannot just assume that 4♠ would've been alerted if they played the convention).

(3) Now partner has UI from the choice to ask/not ask about even an unalerted bid. Presumably if Phil had not asked and just passed in his normal (post skip-bid tempo) and then partner had chosen not to balance with a marginal hand (taking advantage of Phil's non-ask) there would be no adjustment... but I don't see why not.

In fact there is a general issue that when the UI says "bid, don't pass" and we choose to bid there is often an adjustment.... but when the UI says "pass, don't bid" and we choose to pass the laws are rarely enforced with such diligence. I can't ever recall seeing a case where a player passed a hand out, then had the board adjusted (basically forcing a marginal balancing call) due to UI from partner's evident disinterest in acting.

[pretzalz]

I don't understand why 4♠ would need to be alerted playing namyats. I open 4♦ on hands I would otherwise open 1♠, not 4♠. The range of hands I open 4♠ is pretty much the same whether or not I'm playing namyats. In third seat I need a borderline 2♣ opener to open 4♦ so from that perspective the question is particularly bizarre.