Explaining bids - can either player explain?

[shyams]

CLUB EVENT -- NO SCREENS

 

Partner and I reach a slam contract after 6-7 rounds of bidding -- opps pass throughout. There were a few alerted bids (or delayed alerts). After the final pass, we offer to explain the auction and opps say 'go ahead'.

 

I am (to be) dummy and I begin explaining both my & partner's bids. RHO (one on lead) stops me and asks my partner to explain the meanings of my bids (and vice versa).

 

1. Can opponents insist on such a requirement? Please note the bidding phase has ended.

 

2. If partner makes a mistake in the explanation, am I allowed to interrupt and correct the mistake? Can RHO prohibit me from correcting?

 

3. If opp. can prohibit me from speaking, and then partner's mistake causes a MI, can opps claim damage?

 

Thanks

 

This is based on a real club event where RHO stopped me from explaining my bids. Though perplexed by opp's request, partner explained all bids properly -- no harm done.

[Vampyr]

1. I believe that they can. Perhaps they are interested in inferences that might not occut to you when you are looking at your own hand.

 

2. I think that rather then interrupting, you should wait until the end of partner's explanations.

 

3. N/A. I don't think they can prevent you from giving the correct explanation of your system.

 

On the other side of the coin, some opponents insist on giving a ping-pong explanation of the auction. I find it irritating and sometimes hard to follow, but I believe that they are entitled to do that.

[helene_t]

The normal question for opps to ask is "what do you know about your partner's hand?". They can ask about individual calls also but it is easier to follow the explanation of what is known at the end of the auction. If opener has shown five spade and five hearts they just want to know that, usually they don't want to know whether the 1♠ opening already showed five an whether the 3♥ rebid already showed five. If opener has shown a strong hand they probably don't need to know when in the auction that became clear, either.

 

You should explain what partner's biddings mean. If you say something which your partner knows is wrong, he must correct it. Of course if you explain your agreements correctly and p just happened to have misbid, he must not "correct" your explanation.

[greenender]

Assuming an uncontested auction, I think it is helpful for the declaring side at the end of the auction to repond to the defenders' questions according to the way those questions are put. Some players find it more helpful to have the auction explained in sequence, and some prefer a more general "what do you know about partner's hand?" approach.

 

For myself, as defender asking the questions, it will depend very much on the sort of auction the opponents have had, and the degree of familiarity I have with their basic system. In long auctions I do tend towards the step-by-step approach, as I feel that this gives me a better inkling as to how secure they are in their agreements, and therefore how likely they are actually to have what their partner thinks they have shown. In such circumstances I would generally expect the opponents to explain each others' bids, and if the explanation comes from just one opponent I am inclined to ask the other at the end of the explanation "nothing in that you disagree with?". This is largely because I know that (say) declarer ought to correct an explanation by dummy of one of dummy's bids if he (declarer) would have given a different explanation, but I don't always know whether opponents know this.

 

With my regular partner I play a system which has a number of aspects which are not generally familiar to most opponents. Some of our sequences are quite long and include waiting bids by one of us which are designed solely to give the other a chance to differentiate between some of the hand-type options already shown*. In those circumstances I will often make a comment to the effect of "it may be easier if I just tell you what we know about each other's hands". But if the defenders nevertheless want to follow the step-by-step (ping-pong) approach, then we will definitely go along with it.

 

*For example, anyone like to hazard a guess what we have shown in the following uncontested sequence:

 

1♣ 1♦

1♥ 1♠

1NT 2♦

2♥ 2♠

2NT 3NT

4♥ end?

 

No, I thought not :)

[jeremy69]

With one partner of mine I tend to explain the auction not because he won't know or remember but because it is guaranteed that the opponents won't understand him despite him trying to be helpful! The opponents, however, can certainly ask for the bids to be explained by the partner of the person making them (Law 20F2) not least because it might come to light that they did not actually agree. One example I can recall was a player explaining a long auction to slam accurately apart from the moment when he said that 4NT was keycard for diamonds. Oh no, said partner it was keycard for hearts!

[blackshoe]

1. Yes. If he wishes to do so, he should call the director.

2. Yes. No.

3. Not applicable, since the answer to the second question in #2 is "no".

 

There is nothing too terribly wrong with one member of the declaring side explaining the whole auction, even by just saying what, in the end, the auction has shown about the two hands. It isn't, technically speaking, correct procedure, but it cannot cause harm, unless the defenders get so hung up on "it's not the way I'm used to hearing" that they ignore the information conveyed. At least, it can't cause harm if the partner is prepared to correct any errors.

 

Personally, I'm not usually interested so much in how opponents' bidding system works (as in what each call means) as I am in what information I can use to defend the hand. But that's just me — there seem to be a lot of players for whom the precise meaning of each individual call is paramount. Seems a bit silly to me, but there it is.

[aguahombre]

Personally, I'm not usually interested so much in how opponents' bidding system works (as in what each call means) as I am in what information I can use to defend the hand. But that's just me....

No, that isn't just you. And 90% or more of the time, a nice recap by either of the opps will do it. If, after politely listening to the recap, the opening leader needs a 20F disclosure about a particular bid, is he breaking the rules (20B) by asking for a new partial review? Can he request a new full review and then stop them when that point comes up? Or does he have to wait for the new review to end, even though he has heard the gist of it all before?

[jdonn]

There is nothing I find stupider and that makes me madder than a blind adherence to the written rules with absolutely no consideration of reason. It's the main reason I don't particularly like playing at bridge clubs, most of the ones I have ever been to seem full of self-proclaimed directors who will do things like yell at east if he tries to touch a board

[blackshoe]

No, that isn't just you. And 90% or more of the time, a nice recap by either of the opps will do it. If, after politely listening to the recap, the opening leader needs a 20F disclosure about a particular bid, is he breaking the rules (20B) by asking for a new partial review? Can he request a new full review and then stop them when that point comes up? Or does he have to wait for the new review to end, even though he has heard the gist of it all before?

First, a review is not the same thing as a request for an explanation of the auction — in spite of the fact that about 90% of my opponents seem to think it is. A review of the auction is a simple restatement of the calls made (and any alerts or announcements). You can only ask for a review up until your play to the first trick. You cannot ask for a partial review, and you cannot halt a review before it is ended. But if you ask for an explanation of the auction, and the opponents explain it (in whatever way they do) you may then ask about specific calls, even if they didn't tie any particular thing in their explanation to particular calls (for example, they explain by "partner has shown X, Y, and Z, and I have shown A, B, and C").

 

If you ask for an explanation, and what you get is a review, I guess the best thing to do is thank your opponent, and then restate your request for an explanation. OTOH, I've had this:

 

me: explain your auction, please.

opp: huh? he bid 1C, and I bid....

me: thank you. now would you explain your auction please?

opp: huh?

:)

 

At this point I usually ask something like "what did your partner's bidding tell you about his hand?" To this I usually get "Director!" followed by some noise abut how they're not required to answer that question (which is bogus, of course).

[duschek]

Personally, I'm not usually interested so much in how opponents' bidding system works (as in what each call means) as I am in what information I can use to defend the hand. But that's just me — there seem to be a lot of players for whom the precise meaning of each individual call is paramount. Seems a bit silly to me, but there it is.

These aspects cannot necessarily be separated. You might:

 

1. Tell what you know about partner's hand, or

2. Tell what each of his individual calls showed and which negative inferences are available from him not choosing alternative calls at each turn.

 

Technically, the two are equivalent. In practice, option two often provides information which is more complete and precise, but also more complex.

[blackshoe]

Um. Maybe. Although I think it's certainly possible to include negative inferences in the first method, even if you don't explicitly say it's a negative inference. Either method is certainly susceptible to errors of omission.

[Mbodell]

Isn't the place this most often comes up when there has been a misunderstanding? No matter who gives the explanation aren't the opponents only entitled to the partnership understanding of the auction, and really shouldn't each player be able to give that?

 

The place I see this most often is where there may not be a partnership understanding, there has been a likely disaster or near disaster of miscommunication, and a defender wants to ask "So how did you take his 4♣" even if there was no partnership agreement about 4♣.

[blackshoe]

Isn't the place this most often comes up when there has been a misunderstanding? No matter who gives the explanation aren't the opponents only entitled to the partnership understanding of the auction, and really shouldn't each player be able to give that?

 

The place I see this most often is where there may not be a partnership understanding, there has been a likely disaster or near disaster of miscommunication, and a defender wants to ask "So how did you take his 4♣" even if there was no partnership agreement about 4♣.

Players do like to ask that question. And players do like to answer it - sometimes even when it is not asked. But it's not an appropriate question, because the asker isn't entitled to the answer.

[mink]

An Example

 

W - E

1♠ - 2♥

2♠ - 3♦

4♣ - 4♦

6♠ - pass

 

Opps are silent during the bidding and ask for the meaning of the bids before the first lead. Everything up to 3♦ is explained as natural. 4♣ is explained by East as 4th suit forcing. West however thought that it was agreed to be Gerber. Though opps are not entitled to learn about the partnership misunderstanding, they likely will learn about it now as West has to correct East's explanation even if he is unsure what was agreed, as they play both Gerber and 4th suit forcing and it was never discussed what should be the meaning if both interpretations are possible.

 

 

I think in only few cases of misunderstanding a player who chose a wrong bid is so sure that his partner's interpretation of their agreements is right and documented that there is no obligation to tell what he thought it was.

 

Karl

[TimG]

Last weekend, in a local event, my partner and I had a Polish Club auction to 6C. After the auction, the player who was going to be on lead leaned forward in preparation for asking about the auction and I started to explain both my partner's and my bids. I was cut off with a wave of the hand and told that I couldn't do that. He then pointed to one of my bids and asked my partner: "Is that natural?"

[bluejak]

There is nothing I find stupider and that makes me madder than a blind adherence to the written rules with absolutely no consideration of reason. It's the main reason I don't particularly like playing at bridge clubs, most of the ones I have ever been to seem full of self-proclaimed directors who will do things like yell at east if he tries to touch a board

Maybe so - but look at the other side. When someone breaks the rules, thereby upsetting the opponents, that person is wrong.

 

Of course it is normal for one person to explain the whole auction. But he is downright rude if he does not ask permission first, and he is totally out of line if he does not accept it when the opponents indicate they would prefer each call explained by the correct person.

 

Last weekend, in a local event, my partner and I had a Polish Club auction to 6C. After the auction, the player who was going to be on lead leaned forward in preparation for asking about the auction and I started to explain both my partner's and my bids. I was cut off with a wave of the hand and told that I couldn't do that. He then pointed to one of my bids and asked my partner: "Is that natural?"

:D

 

Let me reprise: last weekend there was a hand where you broke the rules and an opponent broke the rules. Ok. Fine.

 

And your point is?

 

:P

[shyams]

There is nothing I find stupider and that makes me madder than a blind adherence to the written rules with absolutely no consideration of reason. It's the main reason I don't particularly like playing at bridge clubs, most of the ones I have ever been to seem full of self-proclaimed directors who will do things like yell at east if he tries to touch a board

Maybe so - but look at the other side. When someone breaks the rules, thereby upsetting the opponents, that person is wrong.

I am curious: why do you include the phrase "thereby upsetting the opponents"? I'd have expected simply "When someone breaks the rules, that person is wrong" -- but my honest belief is that no club would really be successful if they implemented all the Laws to the last word.

 

Take Law 74C.8 which says leaving the table needlessly before the round is called is a violation of procedure.

 

Yet, in my club (and I'd guess in most clubs), once a table finishes one or more players leaves immediately for a quick cigarette or to buy a drink from the bar etc. Some people who are dummy leave to drink/smoke even before the play to a board is complete. I'm not talking about bathroom breaks which are a need.

 

If I or the Director were to start objecting to everyone who gets up (after all nothing in this Law says I can object only to people at my table leaving), the club would be definitely see its revenues drop. With some exaggeration I claim that one person can bankrupt a club by insisting that Director implement Law 74C8 at all times.

 

I'm totally with jdonn on this one. He used the words "...a blind adherence to the written rules with absolutely no consideration of reason". And I fully support his opinion that such behaviour causes annoyance.

 

I see the logic for Law 20F2 and I have no issue with the person who stopped me from explaining my own bids, but I often find this and other examples like East not touching the board weird & mildly annoying.

[jdonn]

Of course it is normal for one person to explain the whole auction. But he is downright rude if he does not ask permission first, and he is totally out of line if he does not accept it when the opponents indicate they would prefer each call explained by the correct person.

Disagree on both counts. It is not rude for one person to simply explain without asking permission, as the opponents are welcome to object if they choose. And if they opponents insist each person explain his partner's bids, well then it depends what you mean by 'out of line'. It would be illegal not to do so, that is true. But it's an example of the type of rule that is enforced by the sort of people who make bridge less fun and don't use an ounce of common sense. The example about leaving the table is another good example.

[bluejak]

When someone says he wants the bids explained by the partners, and despite this one of the players carries on explaining the bidding himself, he is making hte game less enjoyable for his opponents, and what is more, doing so deliberately. That is the sort of person who spoils the game for other people.

 

As to politeness, perhaps my problem is that I play in England and Wales, where people are normally polite at bridge.

 

I am curious: why do you include the phrase "thereby upsetting the opponents"? I'd have expected simply "When someone breaks the rules, that person is wrong" -- but my honest belief is that no club would really be successful if they implemented all the Laws to the last word.

Because if he is not upsetting the opponents, and they do not mind, he is not wrong. Players break the rules in all sorts of ways, but if no-one at the table cares, so what?

[blackshoe]

An Example

 

W - E

1♠ - 2♥

2♠ - 3♦

4♣ - 4♦

6♠ - pass

 

Opps are silent during the bidding and ask for the meaning of the bids before the first lead. Everything up to 3♦ is explained as natural. 4♣ is explained by East as 4th suit forcing. West however thought that it was agreed to be Gerber. Though opps are not entitled to learn about the partnership misunderstanding, they likely will learn about it now as West has to correct East's explanation even if he is unsure what was agreed, as they play both Gerber and 4th suit forcing and it was never discussed what should be the meaning if both interpretations are possible.

 

 

I think in only few cases of misunderstanding a player who chose a wrong bid is so sure that his partner's interpretation of their agreements is right and documented that there is no obligation to tell what he thought it was.

 

Karl

"Natural" as an explanation of the first two rounds of bidding in that sequence is imo inadequate. I do know, of course, that people will "explain" that way, and that others will accept that "explanation". Doesn't change my opinion.

 

When the law requires a player to explain that in his opinion his partner has misinformed his opponents about his partnership's agreements, of course the player has to do that. But that's not the kind of situation I was talking about. All to often, I see one side ask "how are you taking your partner's call" when a player has already either stated an agreed meaning or, more likely, said that they have no agreement. In such cases, opponents are entitled to know about pertinent agreements in other situations and about partnership experience. They are not entitled to know how the player is going to interpret the call. If they're given full disclosure under the law, and they can't figure it out, too bad.

[blackshoe]

Meh. There's an old story about a consultant, called in to a company because their machine stopped working. He came in, listened to the tale of woe, looked at the machine for a minute, took out a tiny screwdriver, and tweaked one screw on the face of the machine. It started right up. Company manager was ecstatic. "Thank you!" he cried. "Soon as you submit your bill, I'll pay it." The consultant took a piece of paper, wrote "Invoice" at the top, and wrote a line: "Consulting: $1200". "What!?" cried the manager. "$1200 for that! All you did was tweak one little screw!"The consultant took back the invoice, crossed out the one line, and wrote two new ones: "Tweaking: $5", and "Knowing where to tweak: $1195". The manager paid this bill.

 

The point is that directors are paid big bucks ;) for their judgment. A TD who "judges" that the letter of the law shall always be enforced won't be a director long, as he will have demonstrated poor judgement.

 

What constitutes rudeness in any given circumstance is a matter of judgement, guided (one hopes) by common sense — which involves among other things the local standard of behavior. Something might be considered rude in England, and not rude in the US, or vice versa. Or rude by an older generation, and not rude by a younger. IAC, it's pointless to argue it, particularly when the protagonists are arguing from their different viewpoints.

[jdonn]

When someone says he wants the bids explained by the partners, and despite this one of the players carries on explaining the bidding himself, he is making hte game less enjoyable for his opponents, and what is more, doing so deliberately. That is the sort of person who spoils the game for other people.

Incidentally, I never said I wouldn't comply with their request. In my personal experience that particular request has never been made against me, which is fine with me.

[shyams]

I am curious: why do you include the phrase "thereby upsetting the opponents"? I'd have expected simply "When someone breaks the rules, that person is wrong" -- but my honest belief is that no club would really be successful if they implemented all the Laws to the last word.

Because if he is not upsetting the opponents, and they do not mind, he is not wrong. Players break the rules in all sorts of ways, but if no-one at the table cares, so what?

OK, LOL. You MUST be right.

 

In any case, please feel free to re-apply your couple of statements to a revoke situation. Opp revokes, I notice it and point it out. But partner and I are not upset by the loss of a trick, and we don't care and we definitely don't want to call a director. So what?

[hanp]

If you leave the table to smoke a cigarette or order a drink at the bar, it isn't needless is it? You can hardly expect the bar to come to you and smoking is thankfully no longer allowed at the table.

 

In the club where I play it is normal that after every so many hands dummy gets drinks for all four players. If you always let the others get the drinks then that is considered rude.

 

But I guess it is not against the laws.

[blackshoe]

I suppose, Clintonesque, we can discuss the meaning of "need". Personally, I'd rather not.`

 

The thing about irregularities is that you don't have to point them out. So perhaps if you don't care that there was an established revoke, you shouldn't bother saying anything. But whether you say anything or not, if no one calls the director, and that's the end of it, fine. Just don't later call the director because you don't like the outcome.