[Cyberyeti]

Vampyr, on 2011-June-22, 16:14, said:

This is not true. The asking player may, as several posters have suggested, genuinely need to know.

I have no problem if they genuinely need to know, but on a hand where they're never going to bid or double at that point, surely they can wait till the end of the auction. I happen to know that team mates had basically heard the entire system discussion of the pair who'd never played together before, so nothing odd was being played.

Also to Robin, in this case the club lead was found as while the leader had both black jacks, he also had the ♣109. If he has 4 small in ♣/♦/♠ even if a club is led, the asker has still improved his odds from 33% to 50%.

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-June-22, 16:53, said:

I have no problem if they genuinely need to know, but on a hand where they're never going to bid or double at that point, surely they can wait till the end of the auction.

Sure they can. But I think that a case where people are trying it on is not very interesting. The interesting cases are those in which the asker is entirely innocent.

[Cyberyeti]

Vampyr, on 2011-June-23, 01:16, said:

Sure they can. But I think that a case where people are trying it on is not very interesting. The interesting cases are those in which the asker is entirely innocent.

I'd suggest that if you can put forward a genuine bridge reason for asking, there aren't going to be any problems for you. To me it's more like the "if there's no obvious bridge reason and the player could be aware that it might work to his side's advantage" type phrase that appears in the laws, although maybe not in this bit of the laws.

[RMB1]

Vampyr, on 2011-June-22, 16:14, said:

This is not true. The asking player may, as several posters have suggested, genuinely need to know.

Rarely does the asking player need to know and wants the lead of another suit and gets a lead of that suit.

[mycroft]

Well, I need to ask after that auction, I think, pretty much all the time.

It could be:

• Bergen (in which case double shows diamonds)
  
• mini-splinter (in which case double shows clubs)
  
• weak jump shift (in which case double is rounds)
  
• fit jump shift (in which case double is rounds, but probably more shape and less strength)

(off the top of my head) which means that no-ask pass passes a *lot* of information.

[blackshoe]

Seems to me, given your list, Mycroft, that no-ask pass suggests you have either clubs, diamonds, or the round suits. What, pray tell, is this UI likely to suggest to partner?

[Cyberyeti]

mycroft, on 2011-June-23, 11:24, said:

Well, I need to ask after that auction, I think, pretty much all the time.

It could be:

• Bergen (in which case double shows diamonds)
  
• mini-splinter (in which case double shows clubs)
  
• weak jump shift (in which case double is rounds)
  
• fit jump shift (in which case double is rounds, but probably more shape and less strength)

(off the top of my head) which means that no-ask pass passes a *lot* of information.

Yeah, but you don't need to ask with pretty much any weakish hand without a good suit or 2 suits, which is a lot of the time what you will hold. It doesn't give partner that much help although if you have AKxxx it's probably in spades unless that in itself is not enough in ♣/♦ for the first 2 doubles. However AKx which is more likely to be useful could be anywhere.

[nige1]

If the rule is that you must always ask or never ask, then that's fine. Otherwise, asking provides UI to partner. An experienced partnership is better able to interpret partnership UI than opponents or a director. in the example case, some experts are reluctant to ask if they want a ♦ lead. But if they feel they must ask, and still desperately want a ♦ lead, then they ensure that they take further action to suggest the lead (for instance double). Unfortunately, the corollary is that when they simply ask, then their partner knows that they don't want the lead.

[blackshoe]

It is not possible to play this game without sometimes transmitting UI to partner. Worrying about whether you should ask or not ask a question, when you need to know the answer, is a waste of time and energy. Frankly, I think this is making a mountain out of a molehill.

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2011-June-23, 22:38, said:

It is not possible to play this game without sometimes transmitting UI to partner. Worrying about whether you should ask or not ask a question, when you need to know the answer, is a waste of time and energy. Frankly, I think this is making a mountain out of a molehill.

But this is exactly what I was not doing. I have made it very clear throughout the thread that the asker did NOT need to know the answer at the time of the question, he was never bidding or doubling. It's just unfortunate if he gains by asking the question when he DID need to know, I don't think there can be any redress.

[blackshoe]

Threads drift. Thirty posts into this one, it's hard to remember how it started.

[mycroft]

blackshoe, cyberyeti, yes, that's exactly what "no-ask pass" shows: a hand that isn't thinking about competing, no matter what the bid is. Either a weak hand, or not a one-suiter. I would expect that to be a lot more UI to partner than asking, really.

Having said that, I have a policy on calls like this one (and any other call where it might be a splinter or a cue-bid) of asking throughout, because too many times I will have a hand where if it were one of the possible results, I have a call, whereas if it is anything else, I don't. If I don't ask all the time, ask-then-pass - especially when it's unusual enough that it's likely I was expecting "the common one" - is a clear issue.

To retard the thread drift a bit, the key is that with me, ask-then-pass doesn't show diamonds, any more than clubs or hearts. So partner's lead guess is somewhat less.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2011-June-24, 07:21, said:

Threads drift. Thirty posts into this one, it's hard to remember how it started.

Yes, you are bored by this thread. You have said so already. Why are you still reading it?

[blackshoe]

I read every thread in here. And I didn't say I was bored, I said y'all were making mountains out of molehills.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2011-June-24, 20:46, said:

I read every thread in here. And I didn't say I was bored, I said y'all were making mountains out of molehills.

I have just alighted on this thread and think the issues are quite important. Most players know that one should not ask if one will not bid whatever the meaning, but, like the dog that did not bark in the night, the lack of a question is UI as well. "Partner would not have even doubled a splinter, even though I know it is fruit-machine Swiss", one can conclude, eliminating whatever hand type would have doubled a splinter from consideration. And this is compounded (in the EBU) by the requirement not to alert an initial response above 3NT. Screens are a solution, but not practical for most competitions. Bridge in 2061 will, I predict, have a palm pilot for each player, on which they will enter a bid, and, if artificial, an explanation only seen by both opponents but not by one's partner. This problem will then go away.

[blackshoe]

Fair enough, Paul, but… I guess where I'm coming from is that UI comes up often enough at the table that we know, generally, how to deal with it, and that all these hypothetical questions, while interesting in isolation, get old after the forty third iteration. Until 2061 and the Palm Pilots come about, UI exists, and we'll just have to deal with it as it comes. It's bad enough we have to consider UI from partner, but now folks want to bring in UI from the fact that we know partner has UI, and I suppose from the fact that he knows that we know that he has UI, and that we know that he knows that… Where will it all end?