[Fluffy]

---

Before bidding 5♦ west asks: do you play best minor? (Standard in Spain)

At the table I just felt infuriated and did nothing as it was a club game, but now I am just laughing at it.

[helene_t]

A lot depends on whether NS have convention cards or not.

If yes, then W needs to be told to look at the CC instead of asking such a question.

If not then maybe W should be told to try to do something to avoid UI. Ask a more general question, or ask p to leave the table. But it is difficult and the root cause of the problem is the lack of CC.

[Trinidad]

"Do you play best minor?"
- "No, your minor is obviously better."



Rik

[barmar]

 helene_t, on 2015-September-30, 04:08, said:

If not then maybe W should be told to try to do something to avoid UI. Ask a more general question, or ask p to leave the table. But it is difficult and the root cause of the problem is the lack of CC.

You don't think seeing partner read the CC would pass the same UI as the question? What else could he be looking for other than the meaning of 1♦? Even asking partner to leave the table suggests the same thing. I'm not sure there's any way for West to find out without passing UI.

Do you think East was supposed to assume 5♦ was a cue bid in support of hearts, and take the phantom sac in 6♥?

[Trinidad]

North clearly shouldn't have bid 5♠. He should have passed after asking: "What does that cuebid mean?"

Rik

[WellSpyder]

 helene_t, on 2015-September-30, 04:08, said:

maybe W should be told to try to do something to avoid UI.

I would consider going further than this, and imposing a penalty on W for deliberately conveying UI. However, I guess this might depend on the normal methods in this part of the world. Would it be normal to use 5♦ as a natural bid if oppo were playing better minor but to use it as some sort of cue-bid if they were playing 4-card diamond suit openings? If so, then clearly a penalty would not be appropriate. But this sounds like an unlikely agreement to me, whether it is explicit or implicit.

[blackshoe]

If whatever you do (ask a question, look at a system card) will convey UI, then either you bid in the dark, or you convey UI. There is no other choice.

Getting angry over an opponents' stupid questions is probably not a good idea.

[sanst]

 helene_t, on 2015-September-30, 04:08, said:

If yes, then W needs to be told to look at the CC instead of asking such a question.

Altough such a leading question is an nfraction, asking about a call shouldn't be answered by telling an opponent to look at the CC. The law requires you to give a full explanation and nowhere in the laws CC's are mentioned, let alone that they require the players to look at them.

[Fluffy]

Blackshoe: Everyone plays best minor in spain, playing anything else liek 1[i] promising 4 is alertable.

[helene_t]

 sanst, on 2015-September-30, 12:32, said:

Altough such a leading question is an nfraction, asking about a call shouldn't be answered by telling an opponent to look at the CC. The law requires you to give a full explanation and nowhere in the laws CC's are mentioned, let alone that they require the players to look at them.

oh sorry, by "needs to be told" I didn't mean that South should ask W to look at the CC. Of course, South must answer the question once asked. But I think the TD should teach W not to ask such questions if a CC was available.

[blackshoe]

 Fluffy, on 2015-September-30, 13:17, said:

Blackshoe: Everyone plays best minor in spain, playing anything else liek 1[i] promising 4 is alertable.

And there was no alert, so West should not ask the question, as he already knows the answer.

[barmar]

 helene_t, on 2015-September-30, 13:20, said:

But I think the TD should teach W not to ask such questions if a CC was available.

I'm still interested in how you think this would help. The opponents have only made two calls, it should be totally obvious which one he's looking at the CC to find the meaning of.

[mycroft]

Ah yes, the "fewer than you have, obviously" question. This time not intended to get a lead, but to make clear that the bid is natural.

I'm not sure, given 5♠, what I can do on the hand - whatever 5♦ meant, East has an obvious DSI pass over 5♠. But unless the player is clueless or can prove to me that they do play different meanings for diamond bids based on opener's minimum length (and I'm not talking 2+ or 0+, I assume that would have been disclosed in the jurisdiction), she's getting a penalty for *that* question. What does it matter if 1♦ is 4+ or 3 "2% of the time" or 3 "10% of the time" when you have AK-to-8? That, combined with the UI generated, is enough for me for make just a warning insufficient.

Law 72B1, 73B1, example of 74C4.

My guess is that it was completely innocent and she had no idea the implications. Well, now she does.

As a side note: why is it always diamonds? Now here, it's 1♦, not 2♦ (which in my area always seems to be asked about with strength - some just ask all the time, but somehow I don't believe that generally), but still.

[helene_t]

 barmar, on 2015-October-01, 09:10, said:

I'm still interested in how you think this would help. The opponents have only made two calls, it should be totally obvious which one he's looking at the CC to find the meaning of.

Yes good point. Even better is, of course, to familiarize yourself with opps' system at the start of the round.

Or, in this case, just bid 5♦ without asking anything.

[TylerE]

 WellSpyder, on 2015-September-30, 09:33, said:

imposing a penalty on W for deliberately conveying UI.

Under what law? GIVING UI is not illegal, and never has been. Acting on it is.

[blackshoe]

 TylerE, on 2015-October-03, 18:57, said:

Under what law? GIVING UI is not illegal, and never has been. Acting on it is.

Giving UI is illegal if it's done as a part of collusive cheating. See Law 73B2.

[barmar]

Cheating is generally addressed completely separately from routine application of the Laws by TDs. When deciding on a ruling, assume the players are basically honest, although possibly ignorant of their ethical responsibilities, not deliberately cheating.

I think the recent cheating scandals in championship bridge have oversensitized you.

[blackshoe]

I didn't suggest there's any element of cheating in this case, only that the assertion that giving UI is never illegal is not correct.

[Trinidad]

 TylerE, on 2015-October-03, 18:57, said:

Under what law? GIVING UI is not illegal, and never has been. Acting on it is.

UI is a normal and inevitable negative side effect of the procedures of the game. Sometimes you need to think about what to bid or play, sometimes you need to answer a question, etc. All this information is UI to your partner, but it is inevitable that this happens. In such a situation, giving UI is not an infraction.

This is in sharp contrast to what actually happened in the OP (at least that is what the OP believes, otherwise I am sure he wouldn't have posted this). The UI was not a side effect of an action that is necessary to play the game. The UI was the main effect (and possibly/probably the intended effect) of an action that was completely unnecessary to play the game. I think this is a clear case of 73B1 (not of 73B2):

Quote

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.

Rik

[blackshoe]

The evidence of "communication," if any, would lie in the actions of the recipient of the communication.