Law 23 maybe
#1
Posted 2012-November-13, 08:07
So, you (or partner) open 1 of a minor (not alerted). A question is asked (ie is that natural, how many does it promise, etc). You later have an opportunity to compete further in the suit but feel that you have been warned off. But it turns out that your contract would have scored well despite the bad break, or in fact second hand didn't "have" his question. Are you entitled to redress?
#2
Posted 2012-November-13, 08:23
Vampyr, on 2012-November-13, 08:07, said:
So, you (or partner) open 1 of a minor (not alerted). A question is asked (ie is that natural, how many does it promise, etc). You later have an opportunity to compete further in the suit but feel that you have been warned off. But it turns out that your contract would have scored well despite the bad break, or in fact second hand didn't "have" his question. Are you entitled to redress?
Whilst there is a group of bad players who suspiciously ask what is going on every time you bid a suit that they hold, there are plenty of better players who want to understand what your bidding means so that they can best judge what is going on in an auction they are, or might, compete in. Which does not necessarily imply any holding of interest in your suit.
So I do not see that asking such a question gives you any legitimate expectation that the asker has a holding in that suit. In the present case, it appears that the opposition did have interest in the auction, even if they didn't hold a stack of the bid suit, and were therefore beyond criticism.
But suppose a player asked when having no interest in the auction. The reason that players are discouraged from asking questions when they have no interest in the auction is mainly because of the potential for UI, not the potential for the opponents to be misled about their level of interest in the auction. It would of course be a very serious accusation to suggest that the irregularity in 73D2 has been committed, ie deliberately misleading by asking a question you have no interest in, and we should only rule that way if we have very strong evidence for it. More often players ask in such circumstances because they haven't got the hang of the idea of not asking when you have no interest, rather than any deliberate intent to mislead. It would appear that without a ruling of deliberate intent to mislead, there is no irregularity when an opponent merely asks a question he had no immediate interest in, and thus no possibility to apply Law 23.
#3
Posted 2012-November-13, 08:56
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
#4
Posted 2012-November-13, 12:00
So I don't think you should read much into it.
#5
Posted 2012-November-13, 20:28
#6
Posted 2012-November-14, 02:19
Vampyr, on 2012-November-13, 20:28, said:
It isn't? I only ever ask such questions if I don't have a specific interest in the suit (I've been reading these forums long enough to know the UI implications ...)
#7
Posted 2012-November-14, 03:24
StevenG, on 2012-November-14, 02:19, said:
Have you considered the UI implications of only asking when you're not interested?
#8
Posted 2012-November-14, 03:39
Vampyr, on 2012-November-13, 20:28, said:
I think this varies by the player. Some people will ask routinely if they've forgotten to find out in advance; others ask when they have length in the suit; some (like StevenG) ask only when they don't have length in the suit. Some people will always phrase the question in the same way; others will vary it according to their holding. Some will avoid asking by glancing at the convention card instead; others will ask regardless.
If you assume one pattern of questioning when they actually follow another, that's your misunderstanding and you're not entitled to redress.
If you've observed a particular pattern of questioning from this player and he unexpectedly departs from that pattern with intent to deceive, it's arguably a breach of Law 73D2. If he varies his questioning innocently, I don't think there's any irregularity, so you have no redress.
#9
Posted 2012-November-14, 03:48
But if opp asks about my partner's natural 1♦ opening, there needs to be some bridge reason for that, and a common reason (not a good reason of course) is that this opp holds diamonds. If it later turns out that he has no special ♦ holding, I would be interested to learn about the bridge reason. If he cannot provide a reason other than curiosity (which is synonym for no reason IMO), I think that Law 73F is applicable. If, on the other hand, he had a valid reason for the question other than a ♦ holding, I am unlucky if I assumed a diamond holding and do not reach the optimal contract because of that assumption.
Karl
#10
Posted 2012-November-14, 04:23
mink, on 2012-November-14, 03:48, said:
It seems to me that trying to form a picture of the unseen hands is a key part of more or less every bridge deal, so there is always a valid bridge reason for asking about what an opponent has shown.
#11
Posted 2012-November-14, 05:08
mink, on 2012-November-14, 03:48, said:
WellSpyder, on 2012-November-14, 04:23, said:
I agree with with WellSpyder. Also, in order to apply 73F you have to show that one of the proprieties listed in 73A through 73E has been breached, and I don't see that any has.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#12
Posted 2012-November-14, 08:56
mink, on 2012-November-14, 03:48, said:
But if opp asks about my partner's natural 1♦ opening, there needs to be some bridge reason for that, and a common reason (not a good reason of course) is that this opp holds diamonds. If it later turns out that he has no special ♦ holding, I would be interested to learn about the bridge reason. If he cannot provide a reason other than curiosity (which is synonym for no reason IMO), I think that Law 73F is applicable. If, on the other hand, he had a valid reason for the question other than a ♦ holding, I am unlucky if I assumed a diamond holding and do not reach the optimal contract because of that assumption.
It depends what you mean by a bridge reason. If the reason for asking is curiosity about what you are doing, that's fine. If the reason for asking is that this seems to be a long sequence and they might as well understand it as it goes along, that's fine. If the reason is that they are bored out of their skull - perhaps because the opponents seem to take forever to make a bid - that's fine.
If by a bridge reason you mean they have to have some likelihood of bidding before they ask, no, they don't need a bridge reason.
What you cannot do is to assume that opponents will only ask when you would have asked if the position was reversed [it sounds similar to people who expect opponents to mean the same thing when they name a convention!].
The EBU has given warnings about asking questions [mis-quoted to say something entirely different 98+% of the time] and advice when to [similarly mis-quoted]. But they cannot and do not say you must not ask in such situations.
The only times questions are illegal are
- questions for partner's benefit, and
- questions that mislead the opposition
But the latter case only applies if a question is reasonably going to mislead, and when we quote things here we do not show intonations, body language and the like, which make all the difference. For example:
1♠ is bid.
"Do you play 4 or 5-card majors?" suggests nothing reasonably and any inferences therefrom are unreasonable.
1♦ is bid.
"Is that natural?" "Yes" "What, it shows diamonds?" by someone holding a singleton diamond is clearly coffee-housing and an adjustment is possible.
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
#13
Posted 2012-November-14, 08:57
#14
Posted 2012-November-14, 09:42
WellSpyder, on 2012-November-14, 04:23, said:
True, but asking whether an unalerted opening bid is natural -- I think people are being a bit disingenuous here. You wouldn't ask whether an unalerted opening bid is natural (unless, perhaps, you had reason to think it wasn't), but you know one or two in your club who always ask when they have a holding in the suit.
There is one player against whom I would feel hard done by if I were damaged by her not asking and then turning up with 5 decent ones!
PeterAlan, on 2012-November-14, 08:57, said:
This has been changed not all that long ago, and changing it back would be a mistake as well.
#16
Posted 2012-November-14, 10:02
#17
Posted 2012-November-20, 10:43
David's "does that show 4+ or 5+ hearts" question in North America is *much more likely* (in my experience, 100%) to have the correct answer of "fewer than you have", for instance. That's why our "could be short" announcement is for 2+ minors - everybody expects 3+m, 5+M. I'm pleased to hear that 4cM is still common enough in England that it's worth checking.
But I've never heard the 1♦ question, except when I ask it playing against one of our Montreal Relay pairs (some play it promises 4+ if "unbalanced", some promise 5 unless specifically 4=4=4=1, some promise 5 straight up because they play some mini-Roman thing), or a "could be short" pair. I can imagine, however, that it is more common in a world where 3+ or 4+ are both common enough that the 4+ or 5+ Major question is valid. I can also imagine people asking only when they're surprised.
My issue is usually with 2♦, where the EBU have cleared it up with their Announcements. Here, the *only* unAlertable 2♦ call is natural and preemptive. But it's amazing how many people ask...sometimes.
#18
Posted 2012-November-20, 13:13
mycroft, on 2012-November-20, 10:43, said:
In the EBU there are no two-level suit openings that are not subject to alert or announcement. Thia seems to work well.
#19
Posted 2012-November-20, 13:14
mycroft, on 2012-November-20, 10:43, said:
So do I, but...
Quote
This.
Strongly agree with Campboy above.
#20
Posted 2012-November-20, 18:05
Vampyr, on 2012-November-20, 13:13, said: