Ethics question

[skjaeran]

You've got no right to an explanation of an auction you might have forgotten though. To get an explanation during the play period, you need to go stepwise through the auction.

 

See also Law 41C - you're entitled to be informed as to what the contract is and whether, but not by whom, it was doubled or redoubled.

You not only have a right to an explanation of an auction you might have forgotten, you are, if a defender, required to request one over asking about a specific bid. Read the law I quoted again.

 

You do not need to go stepwise through the auction to explain it.

 

"Declarer has shown six or more spades, some 16-18 points, and first round control of clubs. Dummy showed..." well, you could say what dummy showed, but since dummy is sitting there where everybody can see it, I don't see the point, at least as long as he has what he showed. If Declarer bid Blackwood after a cue bid from partner, a comment to the effect that he (declarer) might have been concerned about a lack of controls in that suit (because he didn't bid BW earlier) might be appropriate. Or not. I should think that would be general bridge knowledge.

 

I am aware of Law 41C. And of Law 41B, which says in part that both defenders and declarer retain the right to request explanations throughout the play period, each at his own turn to play. The procedure for such requests is as defined in Law 20F2, which says that defenders should ask for an explanation of the auction.

This is plainly ridiculous. Even common sense will tell you that this can not be true. You can't seriously believe that if you've forgotten the auction and haven't got a clue to what suit you should guard, you can ask for an explanation of the auction and have the right to be told that declarer has for example shown a 4-card ♣-suit.

 

If you really believe so, I advice you to get your hand on a copy of "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen. In paragraph 20.4.(v) they state explicitely:

fter the rights in (iii) (declarer can ask for a review before playing a card from dummy or his hand) and (iv) (RHO can ask for a review before playing to the first trick), declarer or either defender has the right to be informed as to the contract and whether doubled/redoubled (bu not by whom doubled or redoubled (Law 41C): the player is entitled to know what the contract is, but at this stage may not seek to be reminded as to the possible lie of the cards indicated by the auction).

I've put in the text in italics and made the relevant text bold.

 

I've played at high level for a long time and directed at high level nearly 20 years. You're the first one I've come across who holds this belief.

[blackshoe]

What did Grattan and Mr. Hansen have to say about Law 20F2 in their commentary?

 

BTW, I'm in North America. IIRC, that commentary was written for the EBL. While I'm sure there's a lot of stuff in there, outside the EBL, it has no standing.

 

If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that Law 41C makes Law 20F2 (and Law 41B!) null and void. I don't buy it.

[Fluffy]

Thans for your replies, it seems to me there is no consensous in here, I beleive people went too specific about the specific case.

 

I though there could be a general idea if asking indirectly someone about his own bid was ethic or not, but probably depends on the hand.

[skjaeran]

What did Grattan and Mr. Hansen have to say about Law 20F2 in their commentary?

 

BTW, I'm in North America. IIRC, that commentary was written for the EBL. While I'm sure there's a lot of stuff in there, outside the EBL, it has no standing.

 

If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that Law 41C makes Law 20F2 (and Law 41B!) null and void. I don't buy it.

I quoted from their comments to Law 20F2 in my previous post.

 

Mr Grattan Endicott has been a member of the WBF Laws Committee for 20 years, 7 of them as vice chairman, secretary since 1998. What he's got to say in law matters is something you'd better listen to. Mr Hansen is a danish laws "guru" who has written danish commentarys to the laws prior to writing the formentioned commentary together with Endicott. I'm fully aware that the commentary is written for the EBL. But the fact is that, with some few laws exempted, the same laws and interpretations apply for the whole WBF.

 

Nothing I say make Law 41B nor Law 20F2 null and void. You simply interpret then incorrectly.

 

Law 20F2:

After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at his own turn to play may request an explanation of opposing auction. At his or dummy’s turn to play, the declarer may request (5) an explanation of a defender’s call or card play conventions.

 

Law 41B:

Before the opening lead is faced, the leader’s partner and the presumed declarer each may require a review of the auction, or request explanation of an opponent’s call (see Law 20). Declarer or either defender may, at his first turn to play a card, require a review of the auction; this right expires when he plays a card. The defenders (subject to Law 16) and the declarer retain the right to request explanations throughout the play period, each at his own turn to play.

 

These laws could have been written more clearly. After you have passed the point where you're allowed to receive a review of the auction, you still can ask for explanations. But you do need to know what you're asking about clarification on. You won't get an explanation such as south has shown 5-4-1-3 and, 13-14 hcp and controls in the rounded suits unless you do know which bids where made.

 

If you don't think this is the case, I strongly suggest you contact the ACBL laws committee for clarification.

[blackshoe]

You seem to be saying that if I ask, as a defender, and during the play, for an explanation of the auction, declarer can legitimately refuse to give me that explanation unless I can recite the auction. And further that if the director is called, he will support this position. I don't believe it. Nothing in the law says it.

 

I have never met either of the authors of the commentary you mentioned, but I have corresponded with Grattan Endicott via the internet for several years. I'm well aware of his credentials and his expertise, and have great respect for them. However, I say again that whatever the commentary says, it has no force here. Besides, it was written in 1992, five years before the current laws were promulgated. I"m sure there are many things that didn't change in 1997. I don't know that this area is one of them.

 

I will ask the ACBLLC.

[bid_em_up]

You seem to be saying that if I ask, as a defender, and during the play, for an explanation of the auction, declarer can legitimately refuse to give me that explanation unless I can recite the auction. And further that if the director is called, he will support this position. I don't believe it. Nothing in the law says it.

Essentially, I think the laws do say it. Although somewhat intuitively.

C. Review after Final Pass

1. Opening Lead Inquiry

After the final pass either defender has the right to ask if it is his opening lead (see Law 47E and Law 41).

2. Review of Auction

Declarer or either defender may, at his first turn to play, require all  previous calls to be restated (see Law 41B and Law 41C).

So you can only ask for a review of the auction, up until the time you play to the first trick. After this point, you can no longer ask for a review.

F. Explanation of Calls

2. During the Play Period

After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at his own turn to play may request  an explanation of opposing auction. At his or dummy's turn to play, the declarer may request an explanation of a defender's call or card play conventions.

This means you have to remember the auction in order to be able to request explanations of the auction. Otherwise, there is no point in having subset C above. If you can't remember the auction, or simply wanted a review, you could always ask for an explanation of the auction and force the opponents to provide you with what amounts to a review of the auction.

 

You can, as a defender, inquire about the meaning of specific bids, or the entire auction, but I would interpret this to mean that you must be able to actually remember the auction yourself.

 

So, if you as a defender were to say "I'd like a review of the auction" during the middle of a hand, the answer by declarer can clearly be no. If you as a defender, said "I'd like an explanation of the X call", declarer should provide one.

 

If during the play of the hand, you want an explanation of the entire auction, then I think you had best be able to remember it, as you are not entitled to a review (that right expired after you played to the first trick). And a review of the auction is exactly what you are getting if you don't remember it, and then ask for an explanation of it.

 

I think you can ask for the meaning of a specific bid, or an overall (general) interpretation of the auction as you mentioned above, but you cannot request a step-by-step explanation of the entire auction if you do not remember what the auction was.

 

jmoo.

[barmar]

I think the way to understand 40F2 is that the two sentences are not expressing different things. The first sentence says that you can ask for an explanation of the auction, and the second one clarifies that the way you do this is by requesting an explanation of a defender's call. It's not saying that you can ask for an explanation of the entire auction OR a specific call.

[blackshoe]

I think you can ask for the meaning of a specific bid, or an overall (general) interpretation of the auction as you mentioned above, but you cannot request a step-by-step explanation of the entire auction if you do not remember what the auction was.

Nowhere in what I wrote did I say anything about a step=by-step explanation, except to say that is not what is required by the laws, nor should it be expected by a defender.

 

What are you going to do as declarer? Tell me "if you can recite the auction to me, so proving that you remember it, I'll answer your question"? My response to that would be "You're not entitled to a review of the auction."

[bid_em_up]

I think you can ask for the meaning of a specific bid, or an overall (general) interpretation of the auction as you mentioned above, but you cannot request a step-by-step explanation of the entire auction if you do not remember what the auction was.

Nowhere in what I wrote did I say anything about a step=by-step explanation, except to say that is not what is required by the laws, nor should it be expected by a defender.

 

What are you going to do as declarer? Tell me "if you can recite the auction to me, so proving that you remember it, I'll answer your question"? My response to that would be "You're not entitled to a review of the auction."

And my response to that would be,

 

"And neither are you, and I am not the one who has the problem. I will be more than happy to explain the general auction to you, if that does not satisfy you, then feel free to call the director. What would you like to do?"

 

After rereading 20F2 though, it does not appear that defenders can even ask questions regarding specific bids anyway. It says:

 

"Either defender at his own turn to play may request an explanation of opposing auction"

 

So at best you can only ask for an overall explanation of the auction, ie, tell me what this auction has shown. You are not even allowed to ask (as a defender) what the meaning of a specific call is.

 

Only declarer can inquire regarding the meaning of a specific call.

[Apollo81]

Is this ethic?

If you didn't like the question, you could have explained 3NT as "natural and non-forcing" =)

 

However, this may not be ethical either. From the ACBL alert procedure:

 

* When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of the agreement. Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not sufficient.

* The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question.

* Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given automatically.

 

The spirit of the alert rules is that you should tell them everything you know. Certainly the spirit should apply to any bridge organization.

[bid_em_up]

I think we are confusing (or at least I am):

 

"I would like an explanation of *ALL* the bids in the auction, bid by bid", which is essentially a review of the auction and the meanings of each bid.

 

versus:

 

A general inquiry of "Can you explain what this auction has shown?".

 

The first case clearly is not allowable, imo. It would constitute a review of the bidding. Asking about a specific call as a defender isn't allowed as it could direct partners attention to a potential problem.

 

In the second case, its easy enough to say "My hand has shown ABC, and dummy showed DEF." This is vague enough to not direct attention to any one specific call, nor is it a complete review of the auction. In this scenario, I (as a defender) do not have to be able to "remember" or prove that I "remember" the auction for a general explanation of it.

 

I'm not sure which of the above two cases you are claiming is correct, Blackshoe. :)

[bid_em_up]

♠xx

♥xxx

♦Jxxx

♣K10xx

 

LHO Pa RHO ME

2♠-X-ps-2NT

ps-3NT*-

 

 

3NT* After a long though making it obvious she didn't know what 2NT was (we had no agreement)

 

At this point RHO asked me wha strenght I expected for 3NT.

 

I said around 22, making it obvious that my 2NT was lebenshol.

 

By asking me he was actually 'asking me about my own bid'

 

Is this ethic?

Reverse the question. Is it ethical that by saying 22+, you are making it obvious to your partner that 2N was intended as leb?

 

You had no agreement regarding 2N being leb, right? Therefore, you should have no expectations that partner is holding 22+. It would only be 22+ in a leb context. It is quite likely that if partner doesn't think 2N is leb, then they would take 2N as natural with a stop and a range of 8-12. So 3N would only be 15-19 or so.

 

You do not know what partner is thinking about, so thats not really relevant. If you have agreed leb but partner has failed to alert, the explanation should be 22+. If you have not agreed leb, then you should not be bidding 2N as leb anyway hoping that partner will work it out. :) And when you do, the explanation of 3N should be given as if 2N was natural, since that is how partner SHOULD be interpreting it.

 

Since you had no agreement, your answer should have been either "15-19" (the normal interpretation of 3N) or "we have no agreement".

 

The latter is preferred.

 

jmoo.

[blackshoe]

I think we are confusing (or at least I am):

 

"I would like an explanation of *ALL* the bids in the auction, bid by bid", which is essentially a review of the auction and the meanings of each bid.

 

versus:

 

A general inquiry of "Can you explain what this auction has shown?".

 

The first case clearly is not allowable, imo. It would constitute a review of the bidding. Asking about a specific call as a defender isn't allowed as it could direct partners attention to a potential problem.

 

In the second case, its easy enough to say "My hand has shown ABC, and dummy showed DEF." This is vague enough to not direct attention to any one specific call, nor is it a complete review of the auction. In this scenario, I (as a defender) do not have to be able to "remember" or prove that I "remember" the auction for a general explanation of it.

 

I'm not sure which of the above two cases you are claiming is correct, Blackshoe. :)

Regarding defenders asking during the play, 20F2 refers in that case to Law 16, which has to do with UI. Seems to me that any UI would be minized by only asking a general question, so the fact that UI possibilities are pointed out leads me to believe that a defender can ask questions about specific calls, though he should do so after getting the general info, and keeping in mind that he may be passing UI to his partner.

 

Aside from that, I've been saying that case 2 is correct.

[bid_em_up]

I think we are confusing (or at least I am):

 

"I would like an explanation of *ALL* the bids in the auction, bid by bid", which is essentially a review of the auction and the meanings of each bid.

 

versus:

 

A general inquiry of "Can you explain what this auction has shown?".

 

The first case clearly is not allowable, imo.  It would constitute a review of the bidding.  Asking about a specific call as a defender isn't allowed as it could direct partners attention to a potential problem.

 

In the second case, its easy enough to say "My hand has shown ABC, and dummy showed DEF."  This is vague enough to not direct attention to any one specific call, nor is it a complete review of the auction.  In this scenario, I (as a defender) do not have to be able to "remember" or prove that I "remember" the auction for a general explanation of it.

 

I'm not sure which of the above two cases you are claiming is correct, Blackshoe.  :)

Regarding defenders asking during the play, 20F2 refers in that case to Law 16, which has to do with UI. Seems to me that any UI would be minized by only asking a general question, so the fact that UI possibilities are pointed out leads me to believe that a defender can ask questions about specific calls, though he should do so after getting the general info, and keeping in mind that he may be passing UI to his partner.

 

Aside from that, I've been saying that case 2 is correct.

With all due respect, then why does 20F2 state:

 

"either defender at his own turn to play may request an explanation of opposing auction."

 

but then explicity gives declarer the right ask regarding a specific call.

 

""At his or dummy's turn to play, the declarer may request an explanation of a defender's call or card play conventions."

 

This leads me to believe that a defender is NOT allowed to ask about a specific call, even after requesting an explanation of the auction. If that were to be the case, then the Laws should spell it out explicitly. I don't think it is possible for a defender to ask a question regarding a specific call without providing UI. Thats why it is worded in such a manner that they cannot ask about one.

 

If they were, the Law would read:

 

"either defender at his own turn to play may request an explanation of opposing calls."

 

just as it does for declarer.

 

jmoo.

[blackshoe]

Read 20F1. During the auction, players are allowed to ask for an explanation of the entire auction. They are then entitled to ask questions about specific calls, with the proviso that "Law 16 may apply".

 

IMO, the reason for this two-step procedure is to minimize UI to partner.

 

Now consider 20F2. The different procedures for declarer and defenders arise because declafer has no one to whom he can pass UI.

 

Note that the proviso regarding Law 16 applies to defenders' questions about the auction during the play - this is, I think, because such questions have a greater chance of passing UI then they would during the auction, given the additional info available from the play.

 

Note that passing UI is not in itself an infraction of law. To say that in one place in the Laws (Law 16) and then to say in another law that one may not pass UI seems rather foolish to me - and I don't think Edgar Kaplan was a fool. :)

 

You're right - the law does not explicitly allow defenders to ask about specific calls. If we are to interpret the laws on a "if it is not explicitly permitted it is prohibited" basis, then that's it. Can't be done. But it is known that there are laws that are not interpreted that way (Law 54, for example). Perhaps this is another one of them. Besides, what do you do when a player says "I asked about the auction. I didn't get a full and complete answer because I couldn't ask followup questions"?