[blml] Declining to ask a bid's meaning to achieve a specific purpose

[Adam Beneschan]

Jerry Fusselman wrote:
 
> On board 1, North deals and opens 1C, alerted "precision"; East bids 1S,
> which is alerted.  If East is showing four or more spades, South has a great
> bid to show his hand. But East might not be showing spades, and South will
> not know until he asks why it was alerted.  So, cleverly, South doesn't ask,
> and he bids 2S (which, assuming it is a cue bid, shows 9+ HCP, no 5-card
> suit and no spade stopper).
> 
> South expects North to treat 1S natural for the purpose of understanding
> South's call, because South has not asked what the alert means.  South meant
> 2S to be a cue bid in their system, and North was listening to the absence
> of a question about the alert and understands it that way, even after he
> later finds out the meaning of East's 1S conventional bid:  It shows a red
> or minor two-suiter.

I think the Laws put the onus on North here.  North has UI that South
did not ask a question.  He must therefore be careful not to gain from
this UI.  I believe that (1) North must alert the 2S bid, if there is
any possible meaning for 2S that is alertable according to the SO's
regulations; (2) if West asks about the meaning of 2S, North will need
to ask what 1S meant before he explains the 2S call, and then must
explain 2S in the context of their agreements (apparently natural with
4-7 HCP in this case); (3) when it's North's turn to bid, he must ask
what 1S meant if he hasn't gotten this information already, and then
must bid as if 2S means what it's supposed to mean over this 1S bid
(natural, as above).

Also, North has to avoid taking any action that is suggested by the UI
(that no question was asked); but determining what is suggested may be
tricky here.  If North suspects that South is trying to communicate
information improperly, then the UI definitely suggests that South has
the kind of hand that would bid 2S over a natural 1S, and North must
avoid logical alternatives that are suggested by this information.
But suppose, on the other hand, that South was somebody with a modicum
of ethics (such as all or most of the readers of BLML); there may be
legitimate reasons for South not to ask a question, such as E-W are
friends of his and South already knows what their bids mean.  Now the
UI that South didn't ask a question doesn't suggest anything---and if
we were to rule that it did, then we would be essentially preventing
people from playing bridge, because we'd be saying that normal UI that
occurs on every hand can put restrictions on how players can bid.

So the TD has a tricky job here.  In some cases, it may be obvious
that North has violated the rules.  For example, if North has good
spade support but never shows it opposite South's "natural" 2S bid,
then North has clearly taken advantage of UI and an adjustment is in
order.  But in other cases, it may not be obvious, and the TD probably
can't rule based on North's hand alone.  As for South, if he has
deliberately attempted to show a hand type by failing to ask a
question, then he is cheating, but it could be impossible to prove if
South denies it (*).  South could have simply misbid after failing to
hear the alert or failing to notice it, and that is not an infraction.
The reason I've focused on North here is that North is the one with
the UI and therefore if an adjustment is in order, it has to be based
on what North did with the UI, the way the Laws are written.

(*) I wrote this before reading your description of board 5; I think
that when both boards are taken into account, there is enough evidence
to take South outside and shoot him.


> On board 5, same dealer and same auction, but this time South has 5 spades,
> so he asks the meaning of 1S.  It again shows the red suits or the
> minors.  South bids 2S again, but this time with a totally different
> meaning:  (Here it is a natural bid showing 4-7 HCP and five spades.)
> 
> I have been told that South and North are lawful here because no player is
> ever required to ask the meaning of an alerted bid, but I suspect that North
> and South on board 1 are both in violation of Law 73A1.  

South is definitely in violation of 73B1 if he's doing this
intentionally (as it appears he is).  You could say he's violating
73A1 also, but 73A1 is more of a general statement of principles that
73B1 expounds on.  North may be in violation of 73C.

It is lawful not to ask a question, but it does create UI.  So does
asking a question.  So does answering a question.  So does alerting.
There are several situations where lawful (and sometimes required)
actions create UI.  It's not illegal to create UI, unless it's done
deliberately in an attempt to communicate information, and then it's
cheating; it *is* illegal to use UI in a manner that violates Law 16
or 73C.

                                -- Adam