[bluejak]

It is a very simple question, and only someone with a very suspicious approach would try to complicate it. If you cannot be bothered to answer it because it is too simple, no matter, don't bother.

[pran]

 bluejak, on 2010-November-21, 08:05, said:

It is a very simple question, and only someone with a very suspicious approach would try to complicate it. If you cannot be bothered to answer it because it is too simple, no matter, don't bother.

Challenging statement.
Simple question.
Obvious answer: East started this complication. No UI from North demonstrated. Why adjust?

[bluejak]

That is what I advised the person who asked me the question. I do not believe there was any UI but posted it to see if anyone thought differently.

[Chris L]

 mfa1010, on 2010-November-20, 09:18, said:

I think either of those two solutions are unwarranted by the bridge laws.

I'm not sure they are, since my previous post assumed that a "request", however framed, for the missing announcement was capable of transmitting UI to partner and that UI suggests bidding (or doubling) rather than passing. South will know whether his partner is a fully paid-up member of the "Always Ask" club. If he is, then he would be foolish to make the worst 2♥ bid ever seen. And a procedural penalty on EW is certainly warranted whether or not UI has been transmitted.

[gnasher]

Quote

Do you adjust?

Quote

I do not believe there was any UI but posted it to see if anyone thought differently.

The question of whether UI was transmitted is impossible to answer, because we don't have sufficient information. If North would always look at East in this situation, there is no UI. If North would only look at East when holding a good hand, there is UI. East's failure to follow the rules doesn't change the meaning of Law 16.


The question of whether to adjust is a separate matter. Suppose that I determine that North's question does suggest a good hand. Then there is UI, so the 2♥ bid is illegal. However, it became illegal mainly as a result of East's failure to obey the rules. East certainly could have known that this might happen, so I adjust it back to 2♥ under Law 23.

Is that ruling legal?

[mfa1010]

 Chris L, on 2010-November-22, 03:55, said:

I'm not sure they are, since my previous post assumed that a "request", however framed, for the missing announcement was capable of transmitting UI to partner and that UI suggests bidding (or doubling) rather than passing. South will know whether his partner is a fully paid-up member of the "Always Ask" club. If he is, then he would be foolish to make the worst 2♥ bid ever seen. And a procedural penalty on EW is certainly warranted whether or not UI has been transmitted.

Just to explain my views:

1) It seemed you were suggesting that whether or not to adjust depended on the "grossness" of the 2♥-bid. The problem of this thread is to judge if UI was transmitted or not and we can't use an ugly bid in itself to establish that it was. An evaluation of the actual bid must be kept for the LA-departement.

2) A procedural penalty is warranted as such, but it shouldn't be used to 'deprive EW of the benefit of an adjustment'. Also it seems exorbitant to penalize if EW have not previously been warned about their announcements.

[bluejak]

 gnasher, on 2010-November-22, 04:39, said:

The question of whether to adjust is a separate matter. Suppose that I determine that North's question does suggest a good hand. Then there is UI, so the 2♥ bid is illegal. However, it became illegal mainly as a result of East's failure to obey the rules. East certainly could have known that this might happen, so I adjust it back to 2♥ under Law 23.

Is that ruling legal?

It is very clever, and I like it.

[paulg]

 bluejak, on 2010-November-22, 06:54, said:

 gnasher, on 2010-November-22, 04:39, said:

The question of whether to adjust is a separate matter. Suppose that I determine that North's question does suggest a good hand. Then there is UI, so the 2♥ bid is illegal. However, it became illegal mainly as a result of East's failure to obey the rules. East certainly could have known that this might happen, so I adjust it back to 2♥ under Law 23.

Is that ruling legal?

It is very clever, and I like it.

If East has deliberately decided not to announce the notrump range, then you should punish him for this directly.

If he has forgotten, then he is unaware of his irregularity and therefore could not know that it could damage the opposition at any point in the future.

[campboy]

Law 23 does not require that the irregularity be deliberate, and there is plenty of case law to support that. He could have known; if he was not aware that he was committing an irregularity then of course he did not know, but he could have done. I am, however, concerned that the proposed law-23 solution involves adjusting the score twice, to get back to where you started, which is of dubious legality.

Anyway, I think it simpler to rule on the basis that drawing attention to an irregularity by an opponent does not pass any information other than that you have noticed the irregularity. I do not see anything unusual in the manner by which attention was drawn.

[gnasher]

 campboy, on 2010-November-22, 08:57, said:

drawing attention to an irregularity by an opponent does not pass any information other than that you have noticed the irregularity.

Which law says that?

[mycroft]

I would like to have, on the record, on both sides of the Pond, a regulation that explicitly allows the "French defence" - I call it "WeaSeL vs NT" if NT opener's partner fails to follow her responsibility. Okay, not "You can ask to show strength", but "If opponents fail to Announce or Alert their NT opener, asking the range is deemed not to pass any UI" - there. We're not *telling* them to play that convention.

There are too many people in the ACBL who, almost 20 years on, are still griping about "why do we have to Announce 15-17?" and they Just Don't Want To Hear my explanation (what about variable NT? what about 15-17 vs 15-18 vs 16-18?). After people have played that game against them once or twice, and had the TD read the regulation to them, and having the final answer of their complaints be "I'm not convinced that they were trying anything, but even if they were, you caused this problem. If you had followed the regulations, they wouldn't have been able to make the interest-ask." - well, *that* might convince them. Finally.

I'm not going to get it, but I'd like it.

[dburn]

 bluejak, on 2010-November-22, 06:54, said:

It is very clever, and I like it.

Oh, I don't mind it either. But that is why I suggested that the hands matter, and the vulnerability matters, and the form of scoring matters. If you are going to take the view that North would look at East only when North had a good hand, you need as a minimum the supporting evidence that North had a good hand in the actual case as posted. If you are going to take the view that South used whatever UI may have existed, you need as a minimum the supporting evidence that South would sometimes pass "the worst 2♥ overcall ever" - but at love all, for example, some very good matchpoint players would never pass the opponents out in 1NT if they had a five-card suit that their methods allowed then to show.

If the question is no more than "does ostentatiously waiting for an announcement necessarily convey UI", I would answer with bluejak "No". But if it came to my attention that the next time North heard an unannounced 1NT to his right, he passed with [a] no histrionics and [b] a balanced four count, I might change my mind.

[campboy]

 gnasher, on 2010-November-22, 11:00, said:

Which law says that?

No law says that. I meant that it is simpler because it is obviously legal to rule score stands if you judge that information probably wasn't passed, as I do, whereas it is less clear whether it is legal to do so if you judge that information probably was passed.

[Chris L]

We seem to have reached a consensus that a look, question etc is capable of transmitting UI depending on the circumstances, which (in the absence from the Laws of anything along the lines of Mycroft's proposal) would seem to be right in principle: after all there is no difference in substance between the situation posited by Bluejak in the OP and a situation where the range is announced but North didn't hear it (possibly because he wasn't paying attention) or (as might have happened at a table I was kibitzing in the Tolle qualifier) it was announced in a language with which North was unfamiliar.

I also like Gnasher's suggested solution.

[phil_20686]

I was under the impression that it was illegal to bid before the announcement was made - is that wrong? It is clear that if you bid without waiting for the announcement that would clearly constitute UI ie: My overall is sensible regardless of the strength of the NT.

Moreover in practical terms it seems like you might create a position where you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. At a club or congress level it is pretty normal for players to forget to announce, or not realise they are on lead, and it would be ridiculous to create a position where no one at the table will prompt them after a minute or so.

What are we proposing as the proper response when you have waited an appropriate amount of time (ten seconds or so) and lho has made no indication that he will remember to announce. What course of action provides no UI to partner?

[blackshoe]

If a player fails to announce when he is supposed to announce, that is his problem, not yours. If you need to know the range of a 1NT opening, ask. If you don't need to know, make your call in tempo. If something you do or do not do may suggest a call to partner, that's his problem, not yours. Yes, you would like not give him a problem, but sometimes you have no choice — unless you want to quit playing bridge.

Frankly, I think there's an awful lot of concern — probably too much — in England over the possible passing of extraneous information. It happens; live with it.

[nige1]

 phil_20686, on 2010-November-25, 14:59, said:

I was under the impression that it was illegal to bid before the announcement was made - is that wrong? It is clear that if you bid without waiting for the announcement that would clearly constitute UI ie: My overall is sensible regardless of the strength of the NT.

Moreover in practical terms it seems like you might create a position where you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. At a club or congress level it is pretty normal for players to forget to announce, or not realise they are on lead, and it would be ridiculous to create a position where no one at the table will prompt them after a minute or so.

What are we proposing as the proper response when you have waited an appropriate amount of time (ten seconds or so) and lho has made no indication that he will remember to announce. What course of action provides no UI to partner?

Good point, Phil

[phil_20686]

 blackshoe, on 2010-November-25, 19:09, said:

If a player fails to announce when he is supposed to announce, that is his problem, not yours. If you need to know the range of a 1NT opening, ask. If you don't need to know, make your call in tempo. If something you do or do not do may suggest a call to partner, that's his problem, not yours. Yes, you would like not give him a problem, but sometimes you have no choice — unless you want to quit playing bridge.

Frankly, I think there's an awful lot of concern — probably too much — in England over the possible passing of extraneous information. It happens; live with it.

This is a completely untenable situation. Say I play a penalty dble of a weak nt, but 5m4M over a strong nt, then if they dont announce and dont ask partner knows that I have neither of these hands. Say I play constructive overcalls over a weak nt but weak aggressive overcalls over a strong nt, without the announce partner is in possession of a lot of UI, as there are a wide variety of hands that I cannot have, at least half of which are UI. In the UK it is normal that 50% of the field plays 12-14, 1/3 15-17 and the rest 14-16, and the occasional mini no trump. Many people play widely differing styles and methods depending on the strength of the NT overcall. If partner knows you would take no action over an 8-10 nt or a 11-14 nt, or a 15-17 nt, you may have a *lot* of UI here, depending on your methods.

[phil_20686]

Here is a ruling I heard about that seems somewhat similar, although I only heard about it 3 rd hand and am not completely sure of all the details. Essentially, after several rounds of bidding showing invitational values responder jumped to game, as is common in uncontested auctions they failed to use the stop card, but the opponent (not on lead) paused for several seconds over this, before passing. I.e., a definite BIT, but less time than the ten seconds one should use after the stop card is used. On lead with KQx in one side suit (Clubs), and Jxxxxx in another, he leads the lowest, this gets ruffed and a club is returned. Declarer drifts one off.

After the hand declarer asks "in these auctions, when the opposition fail to use the stop card, is it your partners habit to always wait, or does he sometimes pass in tempo" leader shrugs replying "you know how it goes", or words to that effect. Then he asks, if he doubles game unexpectedly what does that mean, lead "unusual lead" is the answer. The director is called.

It seems clear that UI has been created by NS's fail to follow proper procedure, is it right to Penalise EW? Other tables led a club or a diamond, about 50-50. How would you rule? At the table the director allowed the result to stand.
This seems analogous to the problem at hand.

[blackshoe]

 phil_20686, on 2010-November-26, 17:01, said:

This is a completely untenable situation. Say I play a penalty dble of a weak nt, but 5m4M over a strong nt, then if they dont announce and dont ask partner knows that I have neither of these hands. Say I play constructive overcalls over a weak nt but weak aggressive overcalls over a strong nt, without the announce partner is in possession of a lot of UI, as there are a wide variety of hands that I cannot have, at least half of which are UI. In the UK it is normal that 50% of the field plays 12-14, 1/3 15-17 and the rest 14-16, and the occasional mini no trump. Many people play widely differing styles and methods depending on the strength of the NT overcall. If partner knows you would take no action over an 8-10 nt or a 11-14 nt, or a 15-17 nt, you may have a *lot* of UI here, depending on your methods.

You have a regulation that requires announcements. If players fail to make those announcements, they are the ones who should pay the piper, not the opponents. Is that not happening in England?