[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2015-March-24, 07:39, said:

If you regularly do not ask about non-alerted bids, even if your question is neutral, the simple fact that you ask contains UI. Asking a question about a non-alerted bid is the kind of behaviour I do not expect from my partner. It tells me everything.

I assume you are talking specifically about the EBU here. In some jurisdictions asking about certain non-alerted calls is completely normal and expected. Even within the EBU perhaps - when I was last playing there no jump overcalls were alerted so it was quite normal for the question to be made. There are plenty of other examples like that.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2015-March-24, 07:39, said:

Asking a question about a non-alerted bid is the kind of behaviour I do not expect from my partner. It tells me everything.

Everything? I don't think so. You go too far.

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2015-March-24, 07:39, said:

If you regularly do not ask about non-alerted bids, even if your question is neutral, the simple fact that you ask contains UI. Asking a question about a non-alerted bid is the kind of behaviour I do not expect from my partner. It tells me everything.

In this example, it would say, "I don't think that is a take-out double, pard, as my short hearts and length in the other two suits strongly suggest that it is penalties. If you have another four-card suit, it might be beneficial to run to it. And, wake-up South, everyone plays this as penalties!"

You are confusing me... I was talking about asking about alerted bids. Where does this post about asking about non-alerted bids come from?

Having said that, I think that there are situations where the alert situation might be unclear. This might be one such situation, and it seems quite niormal to ask a question about the non-alerted bid that basically means: "Are you really sure that this has the non-alertable -but rare- meaning or does it have the standard meaning and did you just forget to alert?".

If a question is quite normal and, therefore, not unexpected, it doesn't contain significant UI.

Rik

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2015-March-24, 09:46, said:

"Are you really sure that this has the non-alertable -but rare- meaning or does it have the standard meaning and did you just forget to alert?".

I agree that this is what the question means. But it is clearly in East's interest, in this example, not to ask it as it will potentially wake up South. Also, I would expect Easts that have no intention of bidding not to ask, in which case the question gives the UI that you might consider bidding if it should have been alerted, even if there is no intention to convey that UI.

And I don't think there is much difference between asking about an alerted bid, and asking about a non-alerted bid which is quite likely to have been alertable.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2015-March-24, 09:06, said:

Everything? I don't think so. You go too far.

It was a colloquial use of "everything". In the same way as someone said that "everyone plays 2NT as an enquiry in response to a weak two."

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-24, 07:46, said:

I assume you are talking specifically about the EBU here.

Indeed; "EBU" appears in the OP below the diagram, but 16B does not depend on the RA, and questions (whether about alerted or non-alerted bids) can give UI in any jurisdiction, as per Law 16B.

[Zelandakh]

But your statement was that asking about a non-alerted call tells you "everything" with the implication attached that there is something unethical about it. So I was providing counter examples for this blanket statement. An example from Germany is that doubles and redoubles are never alerted, so a pair that always asks about these is not passing UI even if they typically do not ask about other non-alerted calls.

Indeed, not asking can present problems - one that came up from me was 1NT - X - XX - 2♣. Opener asks about the strength of 2♣ and Doubler's answer is that there are not enough points in the deck for it to be anything other than weak after the first 3 calls. The problem - 1NT was alerted as weak and XX was also weak (but neither alerted nor asked about) so there were plenty of points going around. Now there was no easy way for Opener to ask without giving an unsolicited explanation of partner's XX.

The same thing applied to jump overcalls back in the day. You always needed to ask the first time (if it was not on the CC) so as not to be giving the game away that you held the "wrong" hand type and had to pass. It flew in the face of the "only ask if you need to know now" regulation of the time but was the better option to be ethical. Indeed, always asking in certain spots is a very good idea and one I wish the EBU would stop discouraging.

In any case, the point is that asking about a non-alerted call does not automatically tell you anything, even when followed by a pass. How much it tells you depends on regulations and partnership practise in the more general case on similar hands.

[mycroft]

I'm sure that all the penalty doubles of 3M and 4M on the third round of a competitive auction are all Alerted.

But seriously, (and yes, I know it's defined), what does "takeout" mean as referred to doubles? "Penalty?"
4♠-X. "Takeout, but partner's going to pass more often than not." Alertable? (No, but that's because of the Blue book definition of takeout).
1NT-X. "Penalty, but really 'same values', and over your 10-12..." Alertable? Well, yes, but not because it's not "Penalty", it's because the Blue Book explicitly defines it as "penalty, but Alertable".
2NT (minors)-X. Yeah, it's penalty, but not for NT... Alertable?

Our meta-agreement is that undefined doubles at the 3 level are "do something intelligent". Alertable? Yes - again, because a double that "wishes to compete" isn't in fact a takeout double because of an example.

I think I could fairly easily learn to Alert EBU doubles, and I don't think it's all that difficult. But it's not as easy as people mention, because "takeout, according to the Blue Book and its examples" and "penalty, according to the Blue Book and its examples" are not easy things to understand. The big caveat here is "Doubles are also Alertable if they convey a potentially unexpected meaning in addition to take-out or penalties", and that is not easy.

I'm not trying to say that this may not be the best Double Alert regulation; it may be one of the simplest; I'm just saying that due to the crazy range of doubles and definitions, even the best isn't "easy".

I guess I'm an idiot.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-24, 10:42, said:

But your statement was that asking about a non-alerted call tells you "everything" with the implication attached that there is something unethical about it.

There was no implication of lack of ethics. And, as I explained, "everything" was used as a colloquial synonym for "a lot", in contradiction to Trinidad's claim that asking about a non-alerted bid and then passing conveys "nothing". The requirement to protect oneself only applies when one would give no UI whatsoever by asking. The rest of the time, one should just follow BB 4A6 which is absolutely clear.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2015-March-24, 18:03, said:

I'm sure that all the penalty doubles of 3M and 4M on the third round of a competitive auction are all Alerted.

In the EBU? No.

Quote

I think I could fairly easily learn to Alert EBU doubles, and I don't think it's all that difficult.

I guess I'm an idiot.

Both of these things can't be true, and I think the sentence at the top is.

It's true that the definitions and examples make the matter...more complicated for some and less complicated for others. But actually most EBU members do not own a Blue Book, and know only the basic regulation. Still it seems to work.

[Cascade]

lamford, on 2015-March-23, 10:21, said:

I think you are right. There is a slightly uncomfortable aspect of the hand, however, that this feels like a double-shot by SB, who pretty much "knew" from his hand and from most people's normal methods, combined with his perception of the knowledge of NS about the alerting regulations, that the double was penalties. It seems, however, that we cannot lawfully deny him that double-shot where he gets to redouble if it is right, and gets the score in 3Hx when it is wrong.

Why should there be anything wrong with a double shot. It is a normal occurrence in other games where there is an advantage law and it a side does not benefit from the infraction then and only then is a penalty extracted.

[lamford]

Cascade, on 2015-March-25, 01:56, said:

Why should there be anything wrong with a double shot? It is a normal occurrence in other games where there is an advantage law and it a side does not benefit from the infraction then and only then is a penalty extracted.

I agree with you that one should obtain the maximum benefit from the opponent's infraction. I don't think there is any Law which prevents a double shot, only one that prevents redress for a serious error or wild or gambling action unrelated to the infraction. I am not sure where this aversion to a double shot comes from, but I think it has been around for a few years, and I have certainly seen rulings based on the concept. Others may know its origin.

[Vampyr]

Cascade, on 2015-March-25, 01:56, said:

Why should there be anything wrong with a double shot. It is a normal occurrence in other games where there is an advantage law and it a side does not benefit from the infraction then and only then is a penalty extracted.

The trouble is when someone takes a very low-percentage action which might prove a spectacular success leading to a top -- and there is no risk because if it doesn't work the TD will restore the normal action. And after the hand is played you may, in fact, get to choose which "normal" action you would have taken.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2015-March-25, 12:02, said:

The trouble is when someone takes a very low-percentage action which might prove a spectacular success leading to a top -- and there is no risk because if it doesn't work the TD will restore the normal action. And after the hand is played you may, in fact, get to choose which "normal" action you would have taken.

If I'm understanding this scenario correctly, you may get to suggest to the TD which "normal" action you would have taken, but the TD should give that about as much weight as he does any self-serving statement.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2015-March-25, 12:04, said:

If I'm understanding this scenario correctly, you may get to suggest to the TD which "normal" action you would have taken, but the TD should give that about as much weight as he does any self-serving statement.

Well, maybe, but why should he substitute another "normal" action if there were several plausible alternatives? You were damaged by not having the opportunity to take the action in the first place. But it is true that weighted scores are often assigned in such cases.

But I understand that there are places where weighted scores are not used? I think you would have to use the action the NOS said they would have taken.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2015-March-25, 12:14, said:

But I understand that there are places where weighted scores are not used? I think you would have to use the action the NOS said they would have taken.

Not necessarily. "The most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred" might be something the NOS didn't think of. IAC, all I'm saying is that the TD should not use the action suggested by the NOS just because they suggested it.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2015-March-25, 12:28, said:

Not necessarily. "The most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred" might be something the NOS didn't think of. IAC, all I'm saying is that the TD should not use the action suggested by the NOS just because they suggested it.

I was saying that the NOS would have suggested the most successful action.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2015-March-25, 16:21, said:

I was saying that the NOS would have suggested the most successful action.

Fair enough.

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2015-March-25, 12:02, said:

The trouble is when someone takes a very low-percentage action which might prove a spectacular success leading to a top -- and there is no risk because if it doesn't work the TD will restore the normal action.

Yes, that's why we need a rule to cover SEWoGs. But the term "double shot" seems to be used to cover a much larger range of actions. I agree with Cascade that there's no reason to disapprove of double shots in general.

[FrancesHinden]

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-24, 10:42, said:

Indeed, always asking in certain spots is a very good idea and one I wish the EBU would stop discouraging.

The EBU does not now and never has discouraged 'always asking in certain spots'
There are certain auctions in which I always ask (notably 1NT (alerted action) ?)

They don't like blanket 'always asking' because in practice, everyone who says they do it, doesn't.