bid alert obligation

[babalu1997]

Yesterday I was playing wean nt 12-14, which was pre-alerted.

 

I opened 1 club, which I planned to rebid 2NT, that 2nt bid was alerted as 18-20.

 

The bidding went:

 

1c- 1h overcall by opp- pass- pass- 2nt(18-20)-p-3nt- all pass

 

The lead was 4th best heart taken by a singleton queen in dummy while I held KJt9x in hand.

 

After several tricks, rho paused, and then decided to ask whether our 1 club open can be made with 2 clubs.

 

If it could, I would have alerted in the first place, and before issuing the third pass, the opponent could have asked.

 

I do not have an obligation to alert the hand at the start, much less in the middle of a game where the count on one or more suits was already known, and in fact may give me in formation on card placement in other suits when he chooses his return.

 

I id not know so I just said I had no such 2 club agreement, but was i at an obligation to say so?

[jtfanclub]

They are allowed to ask any time it is their turn to play, although doing so may pass UI to partner. If it's a private question, then yes, they may ask when it's their turn to play in safety.

[helene_t]

Did u really have a 5-card hearts or was it a typo?

 

If your agreement is to play 5-card majors but you haven't discussed whether you play 5533 or 5542, just say so.

 

Btw (off-topic) a 1NT rebid shows more than 15 points here. It would be 18-19 playing a 15-17 1NT opening, don't know what is standard among weak-notrumpers but my guess is that 1NT should show 16-18 or 17-19, hence 2NT being (19)20. Or maybe the 1NT range should be broader, 16-19 or 17-20.

[ArtK78]

They are allowed to ask any time it is their turn to play, although doing so may pass UI to partner. If it's a private question, then yes, they may ask when it's their turn to play in safety.

In the ACBL, one cannot ask about a bid made or unmade (such as a partnerswhip agreement) once play has begun.

 

That is one of the reasons for face-down opening leads - it gives the partner of the opening leader a last chance to ask a question about the bidding.

[mike777]

They are allowed to ask any time it is their turn to play, although doing so may pass UI to partner.  If it's a private question, then yes, they may ask when it's their turn to play in safety.

In the ACBL, one cannot ask about a bid made or unmade (such as a partnerswhip agreement) once play has begun.

 

That is one of the reasons for face-down opening leads - it gives the partner of the opening leader a last chance to ask a question about the bidding.

Even with screens or ACBL online screens this is illegal?

[brianshark]

In the ACBL, one cannot ask about a bid made or unmade (such as a partnerswhip agreement) once play has begun.

Is that really true? That's ridiculous.

[kenberg]

They are allowed to ask any time it is their turn to play, although doing so may pass UI to partner.  If it's a private question, then yes, they may ask when it's their turn to play in safety.

In the ACBL, one cannot ask about a bid made or unmade (such as a partnerswhip agreement) once play has begun.

 

That is one of the reasons for face-down opening leads - it gives the partner of the opening leader a last chance to ask a question about the bidding.

I am not so sure of this. Certainly in watching vugraph shows it frequently happens that the vugraph operator reports that X is asking Y about aspects of their bidding agreements. I have often encountered this at the table as well. In particular with the first trick I believe that third hand can ask for a review until he plays to that trick.

 

Some of the above may just be players using common sense to keep from slowing down the game by having lengthy inquiries at trick 1 that may in fact have no relevance, but it was my understanding that artificial bids can be inquired about at any time, albeit there is the problem of UI to be dealt with.

 

In the matter at hand, asking about the 1C opening promising at least 3, it is a somewhat odd question but, playing online, I have encountered many players who open 1C on 2 and are simply unaware that there should have been an alert if they have this agreement (surely there should have been an alert if the 1C opening could contain a five card heart suit and fewer than five clubs, but like Helene I trust that this was a typo). I imagine that it is legally permissible to say that the 1C bid was not alerted because they have no alertable agreements and then to refuse to answer further inquiries but I can't see why anyone would do that.

 

 

I am not much on legal technicalities so my thoughts about what can be asked may well be wrong. I would appreciate being corrected, with references to the literature.

[jtfanclub]

In the ACBL, one cannot ask about a bid made or unmade (such as a partnerswhip agreement) once play has begun.

Who the hell told you that?

 

LAW 20

REVIEW AND EXPLANATION OF CALLS

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.

 

Which part of "throughout the play period" was unclear?

 

What you cannot ask for is a review of the auction (after you play to the first trick).

[ArtK78]

In the ACBL, one cannot ask about a bid made or unmade (such as a partnerswhip agreement) once play has begun.

Who the hell told you that?

 

LAW 20

REVIEW AND EXPLANATION OF CALLS

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.

 

Which part of "throughout the play period" was unclear?

 

What you cannot ask for is a review of the auction (after you play to the first trick).

This is news to me.

 

Must be a change in the laws (and possibly some time ago) that I am not familiar with. It certainly was true at one time that one could not ask about the auction after playing to the first trick.

 

But I do object to the manner in which you choose to disagree with me.

[blackshoe]

In the ACBL, one cannot ask about a bid made or unmade (such as a partnerswhip agreement) once play has begun.

 

That is one of the reasons for face-down opening leads - it gives the partner of the opening leader a last chance to ask a question about the bidding.

Nonsense.

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.

 

What is prohibited after the first trick in the play is asking for a review of the bidding - and even then the law does not define the period while the opening lead is still face down as the last chance to do that. The last chance is right before the player plays to the first trick (for declarer, when he plays from dummy).

 

Edit: It seems I have duplicated information provided by another poster. Possibily Art will take exception to my use of the word "nonsense", but I will not retract it, for the suggestion is nonsense, the law is clear. Sorry, Art.

 

"Must be a change in the laws". Possibly, but even if so, it's been in place since at least 1997, and possibly earlier. I note that the 1993 Laws of Contract Bridge (ie, rubber bridge) allow such questions.

[jtfanclub]

This is news to me.

 

Must be a change in the laws (and possibly some time ago) that I am not familiar with. It certainly was true at one time that one could not ask about the auction after playing to the first trick.

 

But I do object to the manner in which you choose to disagree with me.

http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/Law20.htm

 

That's from 1997.

 

You can object all you want. I rather object to somebody coming here and declaring something is a rule without bothering to look. That can cause real damage to people playing, whether they're casual club players or players at tournaments.

[ArtK78]

I guess I confused the rule about asking about the opponents' bidding with the one about asking for a review of the auction.

 

And I did mention in my original post that one has the right to ask up until the time one plays to the first trick. Face down opening leads are a means both to allow the partner of the opening leader to ask questions without affecting the choice of the opening lead and also to try to prevent leads out of turn.

 

Stating that my post is nonsense when it is, in fact, nonsense, doesn't bother me. Statements like "Who the hell told you that?" are out of line. "Who told you that?" would have been more than sufficient.

 

However, as was mentioned previously, questions about the bidding in the middle of the play of the hand are very dangerous, as they cannot help but to impart unauthorized information. At least with screens, the danger is far less. In normal play, one might ask one's partner to leave the table before asking questions, but that also conveys some UI. At least the UI conveyed by asking partner to leave the table is much less specific than allowing partner to hear the question(s) that one is going to ask about the auction.

 

Back to the law in question. Note that the law allows either defender to request an explanation as to the calls made. There is no provision for an explanation of calls not made, or any partnership agreements relating to alternatives to the calls made. Only an explanation of the calls made is permitted. Questions directed to the declarer about the partnership agreements may not only convey UI, some may not be permitted at all.

[kenberg]

Bridge being a game where your methods are to be disclosed I think there are times when asking about a specific bid doesn't quite do it. I may well wish to know, after a 1C opening, whether they regularly open 1C holding 4-4 in the minors. Usually I deal with this by asking some generic question such as "tell me a bit about how you handle minor suit openings". Since they opened a minor I can be expected to be interested, and so such a question hardly conveys any UI. Usually the opponent understands the question and the reason for the generic phrasing and answers adequately.

 

In casual online play, I rarely ask anything.

[ArtK78]

I note in rereading the law regarding explanation of the opponents' auction, that during the auction period the questions may relate to relevant calls available but not made. But after the auction is over the inquiries are limited to the auction - the calls made.

 

The Law in question - Law 20 - specifically refers to Law 75C which requires that the partnership disclose all special information available through partnership agreements and experience, but not from general bridge knowledge. The reference to Law 75C only applies to questions asked during the auction period. There is no reference to Law 75C relating to questions about the auction made after the auction has closed and the play has begun.

[jdonn]

I note in rereading the law regarding explanation of the opponents' auction, that during the auction period the questions may relate to relevant calls available but not made. But after the auction is over the inquiries are limited to the auction - the calls made.

Can you quote the law here for us?

[ArtK78]

Law 20 - Review and Explanation of Calls

 

F. Explanation of Calls

 

1. During the Auction

 

During the auction and before the final pass, any player, at his own turn to call, may request a full explanation of the opponents’ auction (questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made); replies should normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call in question (see Law 75C).

 

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.

 

If the Laws Commission intended that the extent of the inquiry during the play were to be the same as during the auction, it would have been very easy for them to say so by using the same parenthetical language and the same cross-reference to Law 75C. But they did not do so. Therefore, the interpretation of "an explanation of the opposing auction" in paragraph 2 must mean just that - the auction that actually occurred, not including questions about relevant calls available but not made as specifically noted in paragraph 1.

[jdonn]

If the Laws Commission intended that the extent of the inquiry during the play were to be the same as during the auction, it would have been very easy for them to say so by using the same parenthetical language and the same cross-reference to Law 75C. But they did not do so. Therefore, the interpretation of "an explanation of the opposing auction" in paragraph 2 must mean just that - the auction that actually occurred, not including questions about relevant calls available but not made as specifically noted in paragraph 1.

Ok, as I suspected (though I didn't want to say so until reading) that is nothing more than your own interpretation. It's not unreasonable but I completely disagree, as for one thing it makes no sense to disallow in the first place, and for another it would conflict with the fact you can look at your opponents' convention card at any time.

 

Anyway if anyone felt like emailing Beye or Flader I'm sure it would be easy to clear up.

[han]

Agree with Donn, clearly we are at any point entitled to know all about our opponents system, including negative inferences, etc. One should not need a laws book to figure this out.

[ArtK78]

My interpretation of paragraph 2 is also consistent with the way that the laws read before the change that allowed for questions after the auction closed. It is my recollection that, before the 1997 change, one could not ask any questions about the bdding after the auction closed. Furthermore, it is my recollection that, prior to the 1997 change, one could not ever ask any questions about calls that were not made. Hence the change to the laws added the language relating to "relevant calls available but not made."

 

Quite frankly, the Laws should encourage full disclosure at all times. If there is not a general statement to that effect in the Laws, there should be one. That would make language such as the parenthetical in Law 20, Section F, Paragraph 1 unnecessary.

[blackshoe]

I don't need to email anybody. I do not agree that one may not ask for amplifying information - including information about available calls not made - during the play. I'm about 98% certain both Beye and Flader will agree with me, but even if they don't, I'm going to rule that way unless and until the WBFLC or the ACBLLC tells me my interpretation is incorrect.

 

Guessing at the intention of the lawmakers is futile.

[jtfanclub]

Ok, as I suspected (though I didn't want to say so until reading) that is nothing more than your own interpretation. It's not unreasonable but I completely disagree, as for one thing it makes no sense to disallow in the first place, and for another it would conflict with the fact you can look at your opponents' convention card at any time.

Keep in mind that:

 

(questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made)

 

is relatively new, as a clarification (ie., you could always do it but the rules didn't say you could do it). So while the rules appear to say that, for declarer at least, he can ask only about an opposing call or card play conventions, I would interpret it otherwise. The clarification is that when the rules say opposing calls they actual and available opposing calls, it was not designed to add a power to a single point in the rules.

 

However, that is my interpretation of Gary Blaiss' comments on the 1997 edition.

 

http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/law_acbl.htm

 

Questions

 

While the Laws do not extend to players the right to subject opponents to inquisitions, the Laws provide some latitude in asking about calls. Law 20 now makes clear with the addition of a parenthetical phrase that questions may be asked about relevant calls available but not made as well as calls that were actually made. Please remember that bridge is a game of "full disclosure." To continually question and cross-examine opponents hoping that they will say something that can justify a request for an adjustment later is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Laws.

 

Whether you feel that the opponents are not answering your questions or that the opponents are asking too many questions, rather than fuss with one another it is best to summon an objective person (tournament director) to resolve the matter and get on with the bidding or play.

[ArtK78]

Pardon me for treating this as a lawyer, since that is what I am. But most of the members of the Laws Commission are lawyers, and laws are usually drafted by lawyers.

 

One of the basic principals of interpretation of laws is that the laws say what they mean. If there is a way of saying something different and the law doesn't do so, the failure to do so is intentional.

 

So, for example, in Paragraph 1 of Law 20, Section F, the law relating to asking questions about bids during the auction, the law specifically states that questions about relevant bids not made are permissible. Furthermore, there is a reference to Law 75C which talks about questions that are permissible and the requirement that the answers must include all relevant information about the partnership methods. In Paragraph 2 of Law 20, Section F, the law relating to asking questions about bids after the auction is closed, there is no such statement about questions concerining relevant bids not made and there is no cross reference to Law 75C. One should not assume that this is an oversight.

 

One might argue that the parenthetical language in Paragraph 1 is meant to define what is meant by "a full explanation of the opponents' auction." If that were the case, then the law would include a statement that "For purposes of Law 20, the term 'a full explanation of the opponents' auction' and similar language includes an explanation of all bids made and all relevant bids not made." But Law 20 does not include such a statement. So, Law 20 does not mean that.

 

While Gary Blaiss' comments about Law 20 is certainly in the spirit of full disclosure, it is not what the law says. So his interpretation of the importance of the parenthetical language in Paragraph 1 as it applies to other situations may not be correct.

[jtfanclub]

Pardon me for treating this as a lawyer, since that is what I am. But most of the members of the Laws Commission are lawyers, and laws are usually drafted by lawyers.

We may have had overlap here.

 

Gary Blaiss was, at the time, the Chief Director of the ACBL. The paragraph I quoted was from the ACBL Bridge Bulletin, in a series of articles designed in part to tell directors how to handle the new rules. In my mind, it's closer to a Supreme Court decision than a simple opinion.

 

How you choose to interpret it is up to you.

[ArtK78]

Pardon me for treating this as a lawyer, since that is what I am.  But most of the members of the Laws Commission are lawyers, and laws are usually drafted by lawyers.

We may have had overlap here.

 

Gary Blaiss was, at the time, the Chief Director of the ACBL. The paragraph I quoted was from the ACBL Bridge Bulletin, in a series of articles designed in part to tell directors how to handle the new rules. In my mind, it's closer to a Supreme Court decision than a simple opinion.

 

How you choose to interpret it is up to you.

Actually, it is not.

 

Gary Blaiss, in his position as Chief Tournament Director of the ACBL, is entitled to interpret the Laws as he sees fit. He can even write articles in the ACBL Bulletin announcing how he interprets the Laws. And his opinion may carry great weight and influence over the ACBL Tournament Directors. That doesn't make his interpretation correct.

 

The Laws state that a Tournament Director is bound by the Laws. The Laws also state that it is one of the Tournament Director's duties to administer and interpret the Laws. The Laws do not say that any interpretation of the Laws by a Tournament Director, even a Chief Tournament Director, is the last word.

 

Tournament Directors do have a special legal status when it comes to interpreting the Laws of Bridge, in that their interpretation of the laws to an appeals committee may not be overruled. However, a TD's interpretation of the Laws can be appealed to the National Laws Commission.

 

So, in a sense, the National Laws Commission is the "Supreme Court" when it comes to interpretation of the Laws of Bridge.

[jdonn]

Pardon me for treating this as a lawyer, since that is what I am. But most of the members of the Laws Commission are lawyers, and laws are usually drafted by lawyers.

Luckily a director's call is not a legal proceeding, so common sense is allowed to be applied.