[Cascade]

I think there is also potential for a multiple infractions under Law 73

Quote

LAW 73 - COMMUNICATION
A. Appropriate Communication between Partners
1. Communication between partners during the auction and play shall
be effected only by means of calls and plays.
2. Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism
or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. But Regulating
Authorities may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of
the auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick.
B. Inappropriate Communication between Partners
1. 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.
2. The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange
information through prearranged methods of communication other than
those sanctioned by these Laws.
C. Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner
When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his
partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture,
mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an
unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid
taking any advantage from that unauthorized information.
D. Variations in Tempo or Manner
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.
E. Deception
A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or
play (so long as the deception is not protected by concealed partnership
understanding or experience).
F. Violation of Proprieties
When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage
to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player
has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of
an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who
could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to
his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C).
* i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action.

Not limited to illegal communications with partner.

It is also possible to mislead an opponent with a question asked when there is a better time to ask the question.

[jillybean]

RMB1, on 2011-December-18, 21:20, said:

Creating unauthorised information is not an infraction:
sometimes it is unavoidable (answering questions),
sometimes it is avoidable (gratuitous remarks),
and sometimes it just happens (you just do have to think or ask questions).

and...
sometimes it is avoidable (asking unnecessary questions) ?

[mrdct]

jillybean, on 2011-December-18, 20:31, said:

Wouldn't it be preferable to leave all questions that have no immediate relevance to the auction, until the auction is complete?

Of course that is preferable, but if a player wants to ask a question during the middle of the auction he is allowed to do that only in the knowledge that doing so may transmit UI and/or mislead the opponents if there was no demonstrable reason for asking the question. TDs are usually able work out whether or not rectifiable damage has occured and will adjust accordingly if there has been an infraction.

As for the alertability of 3♠, even if you have no agreement or have forgotten the agreement, bids which are likely to be artificial but you are just not sure are alertable in most jurisdictions (including the ACBL) and in giving the explanation you would probably say something like, "we have never played before so haven't discussed this sequence but there's every chance this doesn't show a spade suit". There is obviously a new set of UI issues when you alert 3♠ and describe it that way, particularly if your partner happened to intend 3♠ as natural.

[jillybean]

mrdct, on 2011-December-18, 22:26, said:

Of course that is preferable, but if a player wants to ask a question during the middle of the auction he is allowed to do that only in the knowledge that doing so may transmit UI and/or mislead the opponents if there was no demonstrable reason for asking the question. TDs are usually able work out whether or not rectifiable damage has occured and will adjust accordingly if there has been an infraction.

I am sure he had no knowledge that his question may transmit UI. So the correct procedure is to answer the question and call the director if his partner leads or bids spades, and if not just let it slide?

mrdct, on 2011-December-18, 22:26, said:

As for the alertability of 3♠, even if you have no agreement or have forgotten the agreement, bids which are likely to be artificial but you are just not sure are alertable in most jurisdictions (including the ACBL) and in giving the explanation you would probably say something like, "we have never played before so haven't discussed this sequence but there's every chance this doesn't show a spade suit". There is obviously a new set of UI issues when you alert 3♠ and describe it that way, particularly if your partner happened to intend 3♠ as natural.

I would never alert or explain a bid that I had no agreement on, I don't see anywhere in the laws that requires this.

[mrdct]

barmar, on 2011-December-18, 21:34, said:

Cue bids and control bids aren't alerted in ACBL.

3♠ wasn't a non-alertable cue bid as neither opponent had bid or shown spades at that point so it would be entirely alertable in the ACBL if it didn't show a ♠ suit.

[blackshoe]

Cue bids aren't alerted. The alert regulation says only one thing specific about control bids: it defines what they are (and they are not cue bids). Since the alert regulation says artificial bids (or conventions) require an alert except for 4 specific exceptions, of which control bids is not one, control bids require an alert.

The question on this hand is whether the probability that 3♠ is a control bid is GBK. If it's not, the 3♠ bid should probably have been alerted, even absent a discussion and explicit agreement.

[mrdct]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-18, 23:26, said:

Cue bids aren't alerted. The alert regulation says only one thing specific about control bids: it defines what they are (and they are not cue bids). Since the alert regulation says artificial bids (or conventions) require an alert except for 4 specific exceptions, of which control bids is not one, control bids require an alert.

The question on this hand is whether the probability that 3♠ is a control bid is GBK. If it's not, the 3♠ bid should probably have been alerted, even absent a discussion and explicit agreement.

From the ACBL Alert Definitions:

Cuebid: A bid in a suit which an opponent has either bid naturally or in which he has shown four or more cards.

Control bid: A bid, not intended as a place to play, which denotes a control (usually first or second round). The control need not be in the denomination named. These bids are usually used to investigate slam.

Similar to blackshoe, I'm of the view that whatever its potential meanings, 3♠ should've been alerted as it's highly unlikely to have been intended as natural once ♥ had been agreed.

[Cascade]

I sympathize with Kathryn but the more I direct and see petty disputes develop the more I agree with David.

There are other problems with these questions. Having played relay systems for many years it is a pain to play against players who ask about every bid when they have no intention of doing anything other than pass. Usually afterwards they then claim that our side was slow.

In David's ideal world when there is UI and consequent damage we will get a favourable adjustment. In the real world this doesn't always happen. And frankly in most situations I would rather have a normal result without the (unnecessary) UI than someone's judgement after the UI. In many places the adjustment can be a split ruling. To this is even worse. I would rather get the best of it or the worst of it without the UI and the director's intervention than one of these average judgement rulings. This is one reason why I believe that those who use UI in these sorts of situations should not only receive unfavourable adjustments but they should also be penalized.

There is a misguided notion out there that a player has an absolute unconditional right to ask any question.

In fact some have even worse ideas of their responsibilities. At a recent tournament my teammates played against a player who commented that a question should have been used to direct the best lead.

Players will do much better to ask their questions at better times and to ask less specific questions - "can you explain the auction?" or similar seems very sensible. Such practices will reduce the UI obtained by partner not to mention enhance a player's reputation as a respected opponent.

[JLOGIC]

IMO just answer and then if they lead a spade and it was a non-automatic spade lead call the director. The precedent is that you will win because the spade leader had UI and leading something else is a logical alternative. IMO don't get involved with giving them unsolicited advice about anything including the laws or how to play.

Most of the time in this situation they are both clueless and the opening leader will just make their normal lead, and there is no problem.

[billw55]

Is it feasible to suspect that the question may suggest a save if 3♠ shows shortness?

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-18, 23:26, said:

Cue bids aren't alerted. The alert regulation says only one thing specific about control bids: it defines what they are (and they are not cue bids). Since the alert regulation says artificial bids (or conventions) require an alert except for 4 specific exceptions, of which control bids is not one, control bids require an alert.

The question on this hand is whether the probability that 3♠ is a control bid is GBK. If it's not, the 3♠ bid should probably have been alerted, even absent a discussion and explicit agreement.

I didn't say "control bids aren't required to be alerted", I said "control bids aren't alerted". Despite what the alert regulation says, I have never heard anyone alert a control bid, never heard of a director call because of not alerting them, and never heard of anyone getting penalized for not alerting them. So I believe they are de facto not alerted.

Once you've agreed on a major suit and are in a game force, it's "just bridge" that slam exploration involves showing controls.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2011-December-19, 08:55, said:

I didn't say "control bids aren't required to be alerted", I said "control bids aren't alerted". Despite what the alert regulation says, I have never heard anyone alert a control bid, never heard of a director call because of not alerting them, and never heard of anyone getting penalized for not alerting them. So I believe they are de facto not alerted.

I know what you said. In context, if you had meant "It's supposed to be alerted, but no one ever does" you should have said that. In context, when you didn't, I took your meaning as "no alert is required".

That said, I alert them. I suppose I'm a minority of one.

[daveharty]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-18, 23:26, said:

...control bids require an alert.

Maybe that is true in this particular case, but I would qualify it by saying most control bids require a delayed alert, since most take place above the level of 3NT and at the opener's rebid or later in the auction. (I have no idea what the actual percentage of control bids that take place above 3NT is, but at the club/sectional level I would guess it's north of 90%.)

[jillybean]

I see how I was at fault here and I'm better to keep quiet and let the directors do their job.
How about a similar, not uncommon scenario where the auction has ended and before the player on lead has made their lead face down, their partner starts to ask a question.
Is it acceptable to interrupt and try to prevent any potential UI at this point? Can declarer or dummy intervene?

[WellSpyder]

jillybean, on 2011-December-20, 12:04, said:

How about a similar, not uncommon scenario where the auction has ended and before the player on lead has made their lead face down, their partner starts to ask a question.
Is it acceptable to interrupt and try to prevent any potential UI at this point? Can declarer or dummy intervene?

I certainly hope so, since I would do this! Well, maybe I wouldn't interrupt, but I would certainly say I was postponing any explanation until after the lead had been made.

The difference should be clear if you look at Law 20F1 quoted earlier: during the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction. The scenario you are now postulating involves a player asking when it is not his own turn to call, so you are trying to prevent an irregularity, not just trying to prevent UI.

[Cascade]

jillybean, on 2011-December-20, 12:04, said:

I see how I was at fault here and I'm better to keep quiet and let the directors do their job.
How about a similar, not uncommon scenario where the auction has ended and before the player on lead has made their lead face down, their partner starts to ask a question.
Is it acceptable to interrupt and try to prevent any potential UI at this point? Can declarer or dummy intervene?

This one is a clear infraction. I typically just refuse to answer or interupt usually saying it is not your turn to ask questions. I suppose technically one should call the director.

[jillybean]

WellSpyder, on 2011-December-20, 12:14, said:

I certainly hope so, since I would do this! Well, maybe I wouldn't interrupt, but I would certainly say I was postponing any explanation until after the lead had been made.

The difference should be clear if you look at Law 20F1 quoted earlier: during the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction. The scenario you are now postulating involves a player asking when it is not his own turn to call, so you are trying to prevent an irregularity, not just trying to prevent UI.

Why not interrupt? It's too late once the question is asked, you are left wondering how the player on lead will interpret the UI and hoping the director gets it right if a call is needed.

Does a player become dummy at the end of the auction or after the opening lead?

[mycroft]

My answer as prospective declarer is "I'll explain after the lead." If a similar question now comes from the leader, I will call the TD, and after explaining what happened, answer the question when she tells me to. If a lead-that-seems-suggested by the UI hits the table, I call the TD as well and explain ("Hello. I'm sure there's no problem, but ... Just wanted to make sure we all know." "Everyone" knows that means "How did you find that lead?", but in case it is actually the no-LA lead,...)

Most often, the question from the wrong side is innocent - she thinks she's on lead.

In the original case, I would do the same thing (answer at the correct time, i.e. now), and if I got a feeling that communication was made and received, I would call the TD, again "just in case there's a problem." But I trust the TDs I play under (mostly, anyway) to do the "you know, this is a bad habit/can't win/puts your partner under some really nasty obligations" dance, so I don't have to.

The ones that ask before the last pass, when it's a) clear that they aren't coming in, and b) partner's going to be on lead, rub me the wrong way. They're certainly legally allowed to do that, but why not do it *after* the lead? ("Partner doesn't lead face down." "Okay, ask before playing after dummy. You still have all your rights.")

[JLOGIC]

Quote

The ones that ask before the last pass, when it's a) clear that they aren't coming in, and b) partner's going to be on lead, rub me the wrong way. They're certainly legally allowed to do that

Are they allowed to do that? I was under the impression that you could not ask randomly (ie, if it won't affect your bid), and thus asking at that point in time implies the answer will affect your bid, and that you are not allowed to ask intentionally misleading questions. I have no idea if this is true or not.

But again, usually it doesn't matter and I think all of these director calls or lecturing the opps will just lead to unpleasantness, and slow down the game, and generally will be for no purpose. If someone asks out of turn about a specific artificial bid, and then their partner makes an unusual lead of that suit, then go ahead and call the director, but the other 95 % of the time who cares? I feel like the forums often forget that bridge is a social game, it's not all about everyone following correct protocol all the time even if there is no damage. Have some fun and do your best to make sure that others have a good time also!

[blackshoe]

daveharty, on 2011-December-19, 11:42, said:

Maybe that is true in this particular case, but I would qualify it by saying most control bids require a delayed alert, since most take place above the level of 3NT and at the opener's rebid or later in the auction. (I have no idea what the actual percentage of control bids that take place above 3NT is, but at the club/sectional level I would guess it's north of 90%.)

Fair enough, although a delayed alert is still an alert.