[Laocoon166]

Vampyr, on 2014-April-29, 08:27, said:

I thought we were simply discussing the timing of asking and passing when in the passout seat. And I never said you couldn't ask, but that you could transmit MI and have an adverse ruling.

Yes, we are. I was just drawing an analogy with the similar situation of asking about an alert, where the opponent might inadvertently be misled if he draws an inference about why you asked a question about that alert at your turn to call.

I still don't agree that I could be giving out MI by asking a question at that point, nor do I agree that a ruling against that practice would be correct. See my post above (24) for why I think 73D(1) does not cover this situation

Quote

No, it's not; I edited my post above because I had forgotten to add that partner is still allowed to change his call.

Well I thought it was interesting. I think you are wrong about this. My understanding accords with what Zelandakh says, and that partner cannot change his call if you pass.

Law 21B(1a) says that a player may change a bid which he made based on MI "provided his partner has not subsequently called." Therefore passing would disable partner from changing his last call.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2014-April-29, 08:43, said:

Did you mean to quote me? I haven't the slightest idea what you are on about.

That is a shame. You quoted me and replied just above it; I responded. Short-term memory issue?

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2014-April-29, 08:27, said:

Yes, for example in some places they pick up the bidding cards immediately after the final pass, so you may have to ask questions in your manner to avoid the bidding cards being whipped away, followed by the time-wasting procedure of restoring them to the table.

In cases where I'd like to see all the bids while asking my question, I (and others) just say something like "please leave your cards out" when the players start picking them up. It works fine. There's rarely any UI from this -- it generally only happens after a complicated auction with lots of alerts, so questions are expected.

[RMB1]

Zelandakh, on 2014-April-29, 07:46, said:

How do you envisage the timing of the question(s) misleading the opponents?

If you ask before passing when you always intend to pass, it will mislead the opponents that you might not have passed if the answers had been different.

[WellSpyder]

RMB1, on 2014-April-29, 09:22, said:

If you ask before passing when you always intend to pass, it will mislead the opponents that you might not have passed if the answers had been different.

I agree. I remember once asking a related question about not passing until I had decided what to lead, in order to avoid providing UI (to partner) and AI (to opponents) that my lead wasn't clear-cut. I was told clearly that oppo were entitled to know that I was thinking about my lead not my call if that was the case, so I should not combine the two periods.

[Zelandakh]

RMB1, on 2014-April-29, 09:22, said:

If you ask before passing when you always intend to pass, it will mislead the opponents that you might not have passed if the answers had been different.

This is ridiculous and a step back to the bad old days, Robin! What you are saying is that I must ask my questions in such a way as to pass UI to partner, provide information to the opponents and reduce our side's possibility for obtaining a good bridge result in the case of MI. If this is really the EBU's position I would encourage them to reconsider it.

[aguahombre]

WellSpyder, on 2014-April-29, 10:08, said:

I was told clearlywrongly that oppo were entitled to know that I was thinking about my lead not my call if that was the case, so I should not combine the two periods.

The opponents are entitled to guess whatever they want to guess, at their own risk. Asking questions at your turn to act, or at your turn to lead, might imply neither that you were considering a call nor considering a lead. Your obligation is to not purposely provide UI to partner or purposely mislead the opponents.

[Laocoon166]

Exactly. On what basis were your opposition claiming this right Spyder? I don't believe they have the right to any such thing. Zel has hit the nail on the head imo. It concerns me that an EBU TD thinks this way...

[WellSpyder]

Laocoon166, on 2014-April-29, 10:50, said:

Exactly. On what basis were your opposition claiming this right Spyder? I don't believe they have the right to any such thing. Zel has hit the nail on the head imo. It concerns me that an EBU TD thinks this way...

It wasn't my opposition claiming this right, but some of the most respected TDs on this forum (or maybe a predecessor forum on laws issues - I can't remember how long ago it was now) claiming the right on behalf of my opposition.

[Laocoon166]

WellSpyder, on 2014-April-29, 10:55, said:

It wasn't my opposition claiming this right, but some of the most respected TDs on this forum (or maybe a predecessor forum on laws issues - I can't remember how long ago it was now) claiming the right on behalf of my opposition.

Apologies. I misread you post. For me I find it troubling that a TD had that opinion. I don't know what basis there is for it in the laws.

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2014-April-29, 03:43, said:

When you are a player it is not your job to educate. It is your job to communicate. And communication is about finding the common denominator. In this specific case that means you will have to rephrase from the bridge jargon "please explain the auction" to simple English "Could you tell me what each bid (1♥, 2♣, etc.) told about the hand?".

Rik

Some things annoy me. Sometimes, when something annoys me, I use hyperbole in describing my reactions. For a better approach, and one I actually use, see my post #20 in this thread.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2014-April-29, 08:23, said:

Maybe someone has said this already, but for the soon-to-be opening leader, asking before passing has a practical effect. It keeps the bid-cards on the table while the questions are being asked. I don't believe (even if required in some jurisdictions) those cards are routinely kept out during the clarification period.

It would be nice if this were true, and the bidding cards stayed on the table while the questions are being asked, but it is often not, at least around here.

As declarer or opening leader I tend to leave my bidding cards out until the opening lead is faced, although as declarer I used to get "you gonna pick that up?" from opening leader before his lead. Nowadays, they just ignore me. I wouldn't do it as opening leader's partner, for fear of accusations of cheating.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2014-April-29, 08:52, said:

That is a shame. You quoted me and replied just above it; I responded. Short-term memory issue?

No, just that you said something about wording and it didn't make sense to me, and still doesn't. The OP is in a jurisdiction where the bidding cards are left out until the opening lead is faced, and how you worded your comment about other jurisdictions is as irrelevant as the comment itself.

[Vampyr]

RMB1, on 2014-April-29, 09:22, said:

If you ask before passing when you always intend to pass, it will mislead the opponents that you might not have passed if the answers had been different.

Why are people having so much trouble with this concept?

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2014-April-30, 22:49, said:

RMB1, on 2014-April-29, 09:22, said:

If you ask before passing when you always intend to pass, it will mislead the opponents that you might not have passed if the answers had been different.

Why are people having so much trouble with this concept?

Because the laws on misleading make clear that this has nothing to do with it.

Rule 1 on misleading: Everybody takes inferences at their own risk.
Rule 2: It is only misleading if you don't have a good bridge reason for your action.

In this case, you have two good bridge reasons to ask before you pass:
- you reduce UI to partner
- in the case of MI your partner will be able to change his pass, which he won't be able to do if you pass first.

If an opponent takes the wrong inference and thinks that you wanted to bid, because he overlooked the two very good bridge reasons above for your asking first and then pass, then that is his problem.

I cannot say anything kind about the idea that the opponent would be entitled to know whether you thought about another call or not. But in general minimizing UI to partner has the side effect of minimizing AI to the opponents. This would actually be a third good bridge reason in the above list.

Not leading opponents is very different from misleading opponents.

Rik

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2014-April-30, 22:47, said:

No, just that you said something about wording and it didn't make sense to me, and still doesn't. The OP is in a jurisdiction where the bidding cards are left out until the opening lead is faced, and how you worded your comment about other jurisdictions is as irrelevant as the comment itself.

If you want to believe that in your jurisdiction those rules are always followed, fine...consider what I said irrelevant.

[f0rdy]

aguahombre, on 2014-May-01, 03:48, said:

If you want to believe that in your jurisdiction those rules are always followed, fine...consider what I said irrelevant.

IME (in the same jurisdiction, but obviously there may be variation between regions/clubs), it varies with the auction; I think in a protracted auction the declaring side (at least) will leave the cards out 95+% of the time, whereas after 1NT - 3NT either 3 or 4 players will remove their cards pretty swiftly.

I think it's the "minor" (as opposed to major rules like making sufficient bids and bidding in turn) rule concerning the auction followed most frequently; failing to make a 2nd or 3rd pass, ignoring the Stop card by Stopper or Stoppee, and half-pulling cards from the box are much more common.

[gnasher]

RMB1, on 2014-April-29, 09:22, said:

If you ask before passing when you always intend to pass, it will mislead the opponents that you might not have passed if the answers had been different.

Perhaps it will mislead some opponents, but that doesn't make it illegal. It's your turn: you have the right to ask questions.

You don't even need a bridge reason for the questions. You can ask because you're thinking of taking up the opponents' methods, or because you like the sound of your own voice, or because today's date is a prime number.

Even asking a question with the specific objective of misleading an opponent appears to be legal, though we might overcome that problem by pretending that a question is a type of "remark".