[lamford]

mrdct, on 2011-November-02, 22:38, said:

I have a bit of a problem with the ethics of North bidding 2♠ without enquiring about what the redouble means

I don't think the failure to ask a question can transmit UI, nor is it unethical.

16B1a says: <snip> as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, <snip>

I see that it says "for example", but failure to ask a question is different to the examples given. It goes to the trouble to say "failure to alert". It could have easily said "failure to ask a question" if it had intended that.

And, reinforcing that, 20F1 states: "During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request <snip>" (my emphasis). This makes it clear that to request an explanation is optional.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2011-November-03, 11:40, said:

An important part of playing bridge is avoiding converying UI unnecessarily. But that leads me to doubt North's competence, not his ethics.

Precisely!

[aguahombre]

I don't see a problem with either North's ethics or his competence. Let's see ---South made a t/o double of clubs, we tend to take out t/o doubles; redouble was not alerted and did not take up any room. North bid his choice of non-club suits. That is what one does when advancing a t/o double.

Competence? That depends on whether North's hand has spades and relative weakness (less than invite values opposite a takeout double).

[barmar]

lamford, on 2011-November-03, 12:35, said:

I don't think the failure to ask a question can transmit UI, nor is it unethical.

If his partner can potentially infer something from an action or inaction that isn't a call or play, then it's transmitting UI. Do you really think it's not possible to make an inference from partner not asking a question at a time when such a question seems normal?

But since both asking and not asking a question might transmit UI, you're totally stuck if you're trying to avoid doing so. Since the UI transmitted from a question tends to be more explicit, that's usually the action players try to avoid if they can.

And remember, there's nothing illegal about transmitting UI if you can't avoid it. The prohibition is against USING UI. So just go ahead and ask or not ask as needed, and let partner deal with the consequences.

[billw55]

mrdct, on 2011-November-02, 22:38, said:

I have a bit of a problem with the ethics of North bidding 2♠ without enquiring about what the redouble means; essentially saying "I want to show my ♠ suit here irrespective of what redouble means" as opposed to asking about the redouble and then bidding 2♠ which says "depending on the meaning of the redouble, I may have taken an action other than 2♠ so read into that what you may as far as my general strength and ♠ quality is concerned".

So North gives UI whether he asks or not? Does this mean that I can call director any time our side has alerted?

[aguahombre]

billw55, on 2011-November-04, 09:53, said:

So North gives UI whether he asks or not? Does this mean that I can call director any time our side has alerted?

I know you were joking, but just in case there is a casual reader who would be confused: we call the director when we think there is a need (infraction, etc.) The mere fact that UI might be floating around does not mean an infraction has occurred; e.g., that someone is possibly using that U.I.

Breaks in tempo are another case on point.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2011-November-04, 02:11, said:

You really think it's not possible to make an inference from partner not asking a question at a time when such a question seems normal?

Irrelevant. Failure to ask a question does not convey UI, or it would be specified in 16B1. We play bridge according to the rules of the game.

[pran]

lamford, on 2011-November-05, 12:39, said:

Irrelevant. Failure to ask a question does not convey UI, or it would be specified in 16B1. We play bridge according to the rules of the game.

I assume you have overlooked:

Law 73B1 said:

Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them.

[blackshoe]

"Communicate" in this context means "share or exchange information". What information is shared or exchanged by one player not asking a question? If there is communication from not asking, does it only occur when there was an alert? Why or why not? I daresay "exchanged" does not apply in this context, but I'm willing to hear arguments to the contrary.

OTOH, I'm pretty sure that the list in 16B1 is not supposed to be considered exhaustive.

[gnasher]

The list in Law 16B1 is definitely not intended as exhaustive - it is merely a list of examples. That is indicated by the use of the phrase "for example".

I was going to accuse Lamford of not having read this law properly, but I see from an earlier post that he has in fact, read and understood the words "for example", but apparently chosen to disregard them. Very strange.

[aguahombre]

There must be a better hand and auction than this one for debating UI from asking or not asking a question. Here, on this one, it just isn't relevent.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-05, 16:42, said:

"Communicate" in this context means "share or exchange information". What information is shared or exchanged by one player not asking a question? If there is communication from not asking, does it only occur when there was an alert? Why or why not? I daresay "exchanged" does not apply in this context, but I'm willing to hear arguments to the contrary.

OTOH, I'm pretty sure that the list in 16B1 is not supposed to be considered exhaustive.

The information conveyed by a player not asking a question is the apparent fact that he doesn't see any need to ask.

The reason he doesn't see any need to ask can for instance be that he already knows the answer or that the answer doesn't matter for his choice of action. The reason can of course also be that he is unaware that there could be a reason for asking.

"Communicate" is a verb describing the act of passing information from a "sender" to a "receiver", i.e. a one-way transfer of information.

When the President of USA makes a speech on TV and/or radio from the White House he "communicates" to the nation, I wouldn't call that an "exchange" of information?

[blackshoe]

Nor would I. Nonetheless, the dictionary definition does allow for exchange, a two-way communication. So communication can be either one or two way.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-November-05, 17:01, said:

The list in Law 16B1 is definitely not intended as exhaustive - it is merely a list of examples. That is indicated by the use of the phrase "for example".

I was going to accuse Lamford of not having read this law properly, but I see from an earlier post that he has in fact, read and understood the words "for example", but apparently chosen to disregard them. Very strange.

I adopted the ejusdem generis principle, expounded in another thread by my learned friend Professor Schiff, in deciding that "failure to ask a question" was not of the same type as the examples given. It is notable that "a question not asked" is not in 16B but is in 73B1. And the former includes "a question" and "a reply to a question" in a carefully drawn-up list of the most important examples of UI.

I wrote, "I see that it says "for example", but failure to ask a question is different to the examples given. It goes to the trouble to say "failure to alert". It could have easily said "failure to ask a question" if it had intended that."

I clearly did not "disregard" the words in 16B1. I must conclude that you have misread it therefore.

In 73B1 it indicates that players may not communicate by means of a question not asked. I take this to mean that it would be illegal to have any agreement that a bid has a different meaning with or without a question.

[blackshoe]

Clearly such an agreement is illegal, but absent such, does the failure really convey information? I can see that it might convey a number of possibilities, but I can't any of them being "demonstrably suggested" (yes, I know 73B doesn't use those words).

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-05, 19:09, said:

Clearly such an agreement is illegal, but absent such, does the failure really convey information? I can see that it might convey a number of possibilities, but I can't any of them being "demonstrably suggested" (yes, I know 73B doesn't use those words).

I think failure to ask a question does convey information, just like the dog that did not bark in the night. However, I have never seen a UI ruling after such a failure. Perhaps that is because the interpretation of 16B is that "not asking" does not convey UI.

[blackshoe]

There was only one possible reason for the dog not barking. There are several possible reasons, as someone point out upthread, for a player not asking a question. IMO, most if not all of them convey no useful information.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-05, 19:26, said:

There was only one possible reason for the dog not barking. There are several possible reasons, as someone point out upthread, for a player not asking a question. IMO, most if not all of them convey no useful information.

We agree. I would say all of them convey no unauthorised information as well.

[mjj29]

However, should any information be passed, it is clearly unauthorized (since it does not appear in the list of authorized information). If your partner bids 2C over an alerted 1C it must be illegal to treat it as artificial if had your partner checked that 1C is artificial and then bid 2C you would treat it as natural (the usual worry in these circumstances).

Of course, the other problem I see is players who ask about the alert and then when given a complete explanation ask "So, it doesn't promise clubs then?", before bidding clubs. Which is tantamount to saying "PARTNER I HAVE CLUBS"...

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2011-November-05, 19:22, said:

I think failure to ask a question does convey information, just like the dog that did not bark in the night. However, I have never seen a UI ruling after such a failure.

Well, I have and more than once. Just last Thursday I got a case like this when I was serving on an AC. It was about a Transfer Walsh auction:

1♣-Pass-1♥ (Alert, showing ♠)-Dbl

Without a question the double means: Spades + Diamonds
With a question the double means: Hearts + Diamonds
The TD didn't have any problem ruling against the non asker.

To be fair, I think this particular case was actually a case of Law 73B1. I think that the doubler and his partner have an implicit agreement what asking and doubling means and what not asking and doubling means. (I know that is pretty bad.)

But there are similar cases where the pair doesn't have prior experience and the partner of the non asking doubler suspects that the doubler might not have hearts (versus being certain that he has hearts if he would have asked first). There is no doubt in my mind that the suspicion from the non ask is unauthorized. If the doubler's partner with 4-4 in the reds elects to bid diamonds (better to be safe than sorry), it should be ruled as using UI.

Rik