[barmar]

Laocoon166, on 2014-April-28, 17:33, said:

I think perhaps you have not understood or I have not been clear. What I'm proposing certainly isn't illegal as far as I can work out. What law forbids it?

I think he's referring to Law 73D:

Quote

• It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk.
  
• A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure.

Misleading this way is not usually classed as MI, but he's right that you're not supposed to do it.

[nige1]

Laocoon166, on 2014-April-28, 03:54, said:

So my question is, is there anything wrong with habitually asking questions about the opponents' auction before you make your final pass?

IMO:

• Legal, ethical, and sensible, provided that you are on lead
• If partner is on lead, there might be a suspicion that your question suggested a lead.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2014-April-28, 11:54, said:

me: please explain your auction
opponent: well, um, partner bid... and then I bid… (and so on)
me: thank you for the review. Please explain your auction.
opponent: um, what?

At this point I am tempted to call the director and complain that my esteemed opponent does not seem to understand simple English. Of course, sometimes the opponent will call the TD and complain that I'm harassing him.

After an opponent's complicated relay auction, I don't care which bids were relays and which were not. I care who was asking, and what the responses showed, and whether there were any implications about the asker's hand in the fact that he chose to relay. This is easily handled by a pair of "partner has shown…" statements.

The key to this is education, but in spite of my efforts to do that (mini-lessons for the "C" players, discussions after the round, whatever) it seems an impossible thing to accomplish.

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

[Laocoon166]

barmar, on 2014-April-28, 21:13, said:

I think he's referring to Law 73D:

Quote

1) It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk.

2) A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure.

Misleading this way is not usually classed as MI, but he's right that you're not supposed to do it.

I disagree that there has been any "misleading" at all. As you say above it is similar to the question about whether you should always ask about an alert. I don't think a player who always asked about an alert in a particular spot would be guilty of misleading in any way.

Regarding Law 73D which you cite: 73D(2) clearly does not apply as there has been no "attempt" to mislead.

The potentially relevant sentence in 73D(1) is "players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side", "variations" referring to "manner" and "tempo". I don't think this practice would fall foul of this law for two reasons. Firstly, since the leader would always ask questions at this point where they have one, there is no "variation" in what they do. And secondly, it seems that by making sure they always follow the same procedure they would be satisfying the requirement in the law that they be "particularly careful".

In practice I can't imagine that any director would actually make a ruling against this practice using this law.

Just to clarify in response to some posts above, yes, I am only advocating doing this when it is going to be your lead, not partner's.

[PhilG007]

If bidding boxes are being used,then there is no need to ask questions about the auction. That is what bidding boxes were desigmed to do. Until the opening lead is faced,all the bids in the auction must not be moved,thus removing the possible chance that any question asked is not unethical. If a bid was alerted,then either opponent,at their turn to bid can ask the meaning of the conventional bid.

[Vampyr]

Laocoon166, on 2014-April-29, 04:27, said:

Firstly, since the leader would always ask questions at this point where they have one, there is no "variation" in what they do. And secondly, it seems that by making sure they always follow the same procedure they would be satisfying the requirement in the law that they be "particularly careful".

In practice I can't imagine that any director would actually make a ruling against this practice using this law.

The problem is that while the practice might be normal for you, it will be unusual for the opponents and you will get ruled against if they take any inference from your behaviour. Maybe this will not often happen in practice, but be aware that you may be ruled against if the opponents are misled.

[Zelandakh]

PhilG007, on 2014-April-29, 07:27, said:

If bidding boxes are being used,then there is no need to ask questions about the auction. That is what bidding boxes were desigmed to do. Until the opening lead is faced,all the bids in the auction must not be moved,thus removing the possible chance that any question asked is not unethical. If a bid was alerted,then either opponent,at their turn to bid can ask the meaning of the conventional bid.

Huh? Regulations about when the bids should be picked up are a matter for the local organisation. Here the bids are picked up at the end of the auction for example. Bidding boxes are there to reduce the amount of UI available by variations in delivering a bid verbally and have no effect on questions asked. If I would like to know the meaning of a natural bid during the auction, for example the possible strength range, then it is perfectly acceptable to ask. No alert is required. And this thread is about asking before making a final pass when you have questions (and wil be on lead), so any reference to situations where a player does not have questions is completely irrelevant.

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2014-April-29, 07:34, said:

The problem is that while the practice might be normal for you, it will be unusual for the opponents and you will get ruled against if they take any inference from your behaviour. Maybe this will not often happen in practice, but be aware that you may be ruled against if the opponents are misled.

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

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2014-April-29, 07:44, said:

Huh? Regulations about when the bids should be picked up are a matter for the local organisation. Here the bids are picked up at the end of the auction for example. Bidding boxes are there to reduce the amount of UI available by variations in delivering a bid verbally and have no effect on questions asked. If I would like to know the meaning of a natural bid during the auction, for example the possible strength range, then it is perfectly acceptable to ask. No alert is required. And this thread is about asking before making a final pass when you have questions (and wil be on lead), so any reference to situations where a player does not have questions is completely irrelevant.

Yeah, PhilG007 had clearly not read the thread before posting. I felt it was kindest to just ignore his conribution.

[Vampyr]

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

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

It's self-evident, isn't it? If you ask questions whether or not you are planning to balance with something, then in the cases where you weren't planning to do anything no matter what explanations you got, the opponents may assume that you were in fact considering action. Else why didn't you pass and then ask? Particularly as this is what everyone else does.

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2014-April-29, 07:50, said:

Particularly as this is what everyone else does.

Everyone? Not me! First of all I do not understand the logic - I have a bridge reason for asking and am not passing UI. Why do the opps get to make whatever assumtions they want to here as opposed to doing so at their own risk? Secondly, there is an obvious advantage to asking before passing. If the opps have indeed failed to alert then we have a MI case and by not first passing partner is empowered to change their call. This would not be the case had I first passed. So I fail to see why this practise should be anything less than optimal.

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2014-April-29, 07:56, said:

Everyone? Not me!

I had the impression that you lived someplace else, ie not England.

Anyway according to 17E the auction period ends when the opening lead is faced, so your partner can still change his call.

[Laocoon166]

Vampyr, on 2014-April-29, 07:34, said:

you will get ruled against if they take any inference from your behaviour.

I strongly doubt this is the case. By that logic whenever I asked a question about an alert and an opponent was misled into thinking that I might have made a call at that point, then I could be ruled against. What you are suggesting seems to amount to revoking the rights that a player has to ask questions at any point during the auction at his turn to call.

Zelandakh, on 2014-April-29, 07:56, said:

Secondly, there is an obvious advantage to asking before passing. If the opps have indeed failed to alert then we have a MI case and by not first passing partner is empowered to change their call. This would not be the case had I first passed. So I fail to see why this practise should be anything less than optimal.

Thanks Zelandakh. I hadn't actually considered that additional advantage. Interesting.

[Laocoon166]

Vampyr, on 2014-April-29, 08:01, said:

I had the impression that you lived someplace else, ie not England.

Why is that important? Is standard procedure notably different elsewhere?

[aguahombre]

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.

[Zelandakh]

Laocoon166, on 2014-April-29, 08:09, said:

Why is that important? Is standard procedure notably different elsewhere?

It was different certainly. When I was playing in England the guidelines were that a player should not ask a question unless considering action. There were many complaints about this and I was under the impression that this was no longer the case. But perhaps one of our EBU Laws experts can come in on that point.

[Vampyr]

Laocoon166, on 2014-April-29, 08:08, said:

I strongly doubt this is the case. By that logic whenever I asked a question about an alert and an opponent was misled into thinking that I might have made a call at that point, then I could be ruled against. What you are suggesting seems to amount to revoking the rights that a player has to ask questions at any point during the auction at his turn to call.

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.

Quote

Thanks Zelandakh. I hadn't actually considered that additional advantage. Interesting.

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

Laocoon166, on 2014-April-29, 08:09, said:

Why is that important? Is standard procedure notably different elsewhere?

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.

EDIT: Oops it was mentioned above. Sorry on a device that makes it a little hard to not miss posts.

But anyway in general, if someone does something in another country they are not part of the "everyone" in the relevant playing environment.

[Vampyr]

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.

They are in the EBU, where the OP is playing.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2014-April-29, 08:28, said:

They are in the EBU, where the OP is playing.

Yes. That is why I worded what I said the way I did.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2014-April-29, 08:38, said:

Yes. That is why I worded what I said the way I did.

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