unethical question

[jillybean]

ACBL

 

Here's the auction, my lho opens in 1st seat

 

(1♦) X  (P) 1♠

(2♦) 3♦ (P) 3♠

(P)  P  P*

 

*before the final pass, RHO asks me 'what is 3♦, is it asking for a stopper for NT?'

I answer no, it is showing a good ♠ raise.

 

LHO leads ♦K - ♦Ace in dummy - ruff

 

I call the TD, what should happen here?

[Cascade]

An adjustment is in order if there is a logical alternative to the diamond lead.

 

Given they bid diamonds and led the king it looks like they had a sequence and a diamond lead was normal.

 

Some sort of lecture needs to be given to RHO about asking inappropriate questions.

 

It is much better to ask general questions about the meaning of an auction than to concentrate one's question on a specific bid even if that is what you want to know about. "Can you explain the auction?" gives much less directed information.

[jillybean]

An adjustment is in order if there is a logical alternative to the diamond lead.

 

Given they bid diamonds and led the king it looks like they had a sequence and a diamond lead was normal.

 

Should the director take a look at LHO's hand?

 

 

 

Some sort of lecture needs to be given to RHO about asking inappropriate questions.

 

I agree.

 

It is much better to ask general questions about the meaning of an auction than to concentrate one's question on a specific bid even if that is what you want to know about. "Can you explain the auction?" gives much less directed information.

Or in this case, would it be most appropriate to wait until partner makes a face down lead before asking the question?

[Cascade]

There is no need to look at the hand until the play is complete.

 

The question after the lead would be better but its still a bad habit to single out the diamond bid.

[barmar]

The question after the lead would be better but its still a bad habit to single out the diamond bid.

True, but in an auction like this there's only one "interesting" bid, so it would be clear what they're actually asking about.

[Phil]

Agree with Cascade, although more times than not the question isn't directing a diamond lead and its more gratuitous in nature. The player might have just just learned about a Western Q and wants to show the table how much they know.

[jillybean]

Agree with Cascade, although more times than not the question isn't directing a diamond lead and its more gratuitous in nature. The player might have just just learned about a Western Q and wants to show the table how much they know.

 

This is involving a flight B pair at a sectional.

[peachy]

The asker could have waited until dummy shows and would not need then to even ask anything. If asking before final pass, I see it as unethical because it had no effect on what he was bidding, and could only be to alert partner to "lead the diamonds". If a non-diamond lead is a LA, then diamond lead should be ruled as based on UI from the badly timed question.

[Zelandakh]

No peachy, this is wrong. If the 3D bid was a stopper ask then 3S has denied a stopper. If 3D is an UCB then 3S is merely showing a minimum. It could easily be relevant to the defence for RHO to know this difference. I do think this question should be left until after the lead since it does not affect RHO's call. However if the opps are not a regular partnership or LHO has a history of facing their opening lead then this might be the last opportunity. RHO should also not offer a potential meaning within the question but simply ask for the meaning and accept the explanation. In this auction I think RHO should have asked about the meaning of the 3S bid since that is actually the information they require (if being ethical), only going back to the 3D bid if necessary to understand the resulting explanation. Or as others have suggested reviewed the entire auction.

 

Nonetheless RHO is on very dubious ground here. With a void in diamonds they are pretty much asking for a ruling against them. What will happen now is that the TD will decide if the question passed UI to LHO and whether LHO took advantage of that information. If LHO has a hand such as -/Axx/KQJTxxx/Axx then the TD might rule that there is no LA to DK and that therefore no damage has resulted. However if LHO actually has xxx/x/KQxxxx/AKx then there may be a LA. And with xx/Axx/KT9xxxx/x the TD would be (almost) certain to rule against the opps since now the DK is an unusual choice and might even suggest an illegal agreement.

[Bbradley62]

I do think this question should be left until after the lead since it does not affect RHO's call. However if the opps are not a regular partnership or LHO has a history of facing their opening lead then this might be the last opportunity.

It's my understanding that a player can ask the meaning of a bid whenever it is his turn to play, presumably through trick 12. You cannot ask for a review after a certain point, but as long as you know what bid you're asking about, you can ask about it.

[pran]

It is highly improper for RHO to ask before LHO has selected the opening lead and placed it face down on the table.

 

The director should afterwards inspect the board and adjust if there is any possibility that the question demonstrably could have suggested a diamond lead over other lead alternatives.

 

RHO may of course ask immediately following the 3♦ bid (at his turn to call), but unless he has a relevant bridge reason to ask he will run the risk of being ruled against on the ground that his question was a violation of law 73.

 

In this particular situation RHO asking a question just before the opening lead when this question will obviously be answered immediately by dummy facing his cards is so suspicious that I would rule a violation of Law 73 and adjust unless LHO had no possible logical alternative to leading a diamond.

[blackshoe]

It's my understanding that a player can ask the meaning of a bid whenever it is his turn to play, presumably through trick 12. You cannot ask for a review after a certain point, but as long as you know what bid you're asking about, you can ask about it.

 

Law 20F. Explanation of calls

1. During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding. Except on the instruction of the director, replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question. The partner of a player who asks a question may not ask a supplementary question until his turn to call or play. Law 16 may apply and the regulating Authority may establish regulations for written explanations.

2. After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at his own turn to play may request an explanation of the opposing auction. At his turn to play from his hand or from dummy declarer may request an explanation of a defender’s call or card-play understandings. Explanations should be given on a like basis to F1 above and by the partner of the player whose action is explained.

3. Under F1 and F2 above, a player may ask concerning a single call, but Law 16B1 may apply.

4. If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must call the director immediately. the director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4.

5. (a ) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. “Mistaken explanation” here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require.

(b ) The player must call the director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is

(i) for a defender, at the end of the play.

(ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction.

6. If the director judges that a player has based an action on misinformation given to him by an opponent, see, as appropriate, Law 21 or Law 47e.

 

It's amazing how many different ways players - and even directors - can misunderstand this law. I've asked for an explanation of the auction, and gotten a review of the bidding. I've gotten blank looks. I've had people call the director - and one director then asked me "which call are you asking about?" Naturally, I replied "all of them". B)

 

So you see, you don't need to know which particular bid you want to ask about. In fact, it's better (because there's less chance of transmitting UI) to ask about the whole auction. And opponents need not give a review of the bidding while explaining their auction, either. West: "Partner has shown a balanced hand with 15-17 HCP, possibly including a five card suit (any denomination)." East: "Partner has shown a balanced hand with some 10-15 HCP and no interest in slam or in game in a major."

[pran]

Law 20F. Explanation of calls

 

 

It's amazing how many different ways players - and even directors - can misunderstand this law. I've asked for an explanation of the auction, and gotten a review of the bidding. I've gotten blank looks. I've had people call the director - and one director then asked me "which call are you asking about?" Naturally, I replied "all of them". B)

 

So you see, you don't need to know which particular bid you want to ask about. In fact, it's better (because there's less chance of transmitting UI) to ask about the whole auction. And opponents need not give a review of the bidding while explaining their auction, either. West: "Partner has shown a balanced hand with 15-17 HCP, possibly including a five card suit (any denomination)." East: "Partner has shown a balanced hand with some 10-15 HCP and no interest in slam or in game in a major."

 

The general problem is not asking about the auction, it is unneccessarily creating UI and the possibility of abusing such created UI. Notice that Law 20F explicitly mentions Law 16!

Law 73 is considered violated if the Director judges that the reason for a question probably was to communicate (whatever information) to partner.

 

After reading Nigel1's comment I have added a few words in my last paragraph to make it even more clear what causes me to frown.

[nige1]

Current disclosure laws generate lots of unauthorised information and are ripe for abuse. In the UK, directors tend to frown on a question during the auction, that seems to have no legitimate Bridge reason. Other jurisdictions are more tolerant. What is condoned seems to be a culture thing. For example, in the UK, until the new edition of the laws, defenders could not ask "having none?" because of potential UI : count signals still seem to be more common here than in other jurisdictions :)

[mfa1010]

Agree with Cascade etc.

 

Reminds me of an episode in my club many years ago.

 

Our club is a strong one and a young and quite inexperienced newcomer were defending 3NT against a pair of really old rats. He cashes an ace and partner contributes the deuce. Hmm. He pauses to think with the cards from trick 1 still face up, but then, after a while, the old champ interrupts and cunningly asks: "Is that encouraging?" pointing at the 2 (everybody here plays UDCA). The young guy shrugs and answers "yes, sure it is" and quickly continues the suit. Needless to say did his partner have a singleton... :D

[jillybean]

Agree with Cascade etc.

 

Reminds me of an episode in my club many years ago.

 

Our club is a strong one and a young and quite inexperienced newcomer were defending 3NT against a pair of really old rats. He cashes an ace and partner contributes the deuce. Hmm. He pauses to think with the cards from trick 1 still face up, but then, after a while, the old champ interrupts and cunningly asks: "Is that encouraging?" pointing at the 2 (everybody here plays UDCA). The young guy shrugs and answers "yes, sure it is" and quickly continues the suit. Needless to say did his partner have a singleton... :D

 

And the sad thing is that the director was called, shrugged his shoulders and walked away, the old rats are still pulling these stunts and the newcomers either are no longer playing or are using these tricks themselves?

[axman]

ACBL

 

Here's the auction, my lho opens in 1st seat

 

(1♦) X  (P) 1♠

(2♦) 3♦ (P) 3♠

(P)  P  P*

 

*before the final pass, RHO asks me 'what is 3♦, is it asking for a stopper for NT?'

I answer no, it is showing a good ♠ raise.

 

LHO leads ♦K - ♦Ace in dummy - ruff

 

I call the TD, what should happen here?

 

The primary reason that it is important to ask questions [if any] after the OL is face down and before it is faced is to avoid the problems caused by accusations of breaches of propriety that can occur- particularly when the question was posed prior to selection of the OL. In this case the question itself or its phrasing can be a code [perhaps tacitly derived] that RHO is particularly enamored with the effects expected because of the ebullient bidding of diamonds, and wants self assurance that he won’t be disappointed- just in case pard might entertain other ideas.

 

This is L73B territory. Regardless as to whether LHO’s selection was affected, RHO could have, and would have, easily avoided any possibility of the idea had he done his asking during time the lead was face down. A player should never get this wrong- so when he does it demands a stiff PP [particularly for new players as it will save them and many others much grief in the long run].

[blackshoe]

Notice that Law 20F explicitly mentions Law 16!

 

Indeed it does — in conjunction with a question about a specific call. Which is why I suggested asking about the entire auction, rather than a specific call.

 

UI is always "created" - it doesn't appear out of thin air.

[bluejak]

No peachy, this is wrong. If the 3D bid was a stopper ask then 3S has denied a stopper. If 3D is an UCB then 3S is merely showing a minimum. It could easily be relevant to the defence for RHO to know this difference. I do think this question should be left until after the lead since it does not affect RHO's call. However if the opps are not a regular partnership or LHO has a history of facing their opening lead then this might be the last opportunity.

Sorry, that is not acceptable. To do something apparently unethical and then claim you did it because your partner cannot be bothered to follow the rules is not good enough.

 

It does seem relevant to me that in the ACBL people do not lead face-down very much. When I started to play a few sessions every year with one American partner one of the first things I had to do was to train her to lead face-down and wait for me to tell her to lead. But the failure to follow the rules in the ACBL does not excuse unethical [or apparently unethical] conduct even if it does explain it.

[wyman]

Sorry, that is not acceptable. To do something apparently unethical and then claim you did it because your partner cannot be bothered to follow the rules is not good enough.

 

It does seem relevant to me that in the ACBL people do not lead face-down very much. When I started to play a few sessions every year with one American partner one of the first things I had to do was to train her to lead face-down and wait for me to tell her to lead. But the failure to follow the rules in the ACBL does not excuse unethical [or apparently unethical] conduct even if it does explain it.

 

Maybe this is for a different thread, but the vast majority of players I've played with and against (ACBL) lead face-down. Sometimes they don't understand why, but they typically lead face down and ask "questions?". [some have asked "questions?" before they led, but this is rare and almost always a total newbie.]

 

That's not to say that there aren't other blatant violations (asking Q's out of turn, asking a bidder mid-auction whether his partner has failed to alert something, etc.), just that I am surprised to hear us ACBL-ers characterized as particularly poor at leading face down. It just hasn't been my experience.

 

@JB, players ask questions for all sorts of reasons -- and for no reason at all. I agree that the director should take a hard look at the hand, but it's not immediately obvious that there's any malice (even if there was UI passed). This is often the hardest thing for me. I assume that everyone understands ethics and that people understand the implications of their partners asking questions, so I assume we're getting jobbed incredibly often. It's infuriating. But it turns out for the most part, people are just clueless (and often just there for some human interaction). I've tried to not get as (internally) mad at the opponents (with only moderate success, but it's a battle I continue to fight).

[TimG]

And the sad thing is that the director was called, shrugged his shoulders and walked away, the old rats are still pulling these stunts and the newcomers either are no longer playing or are using these tricks themselves?

 

I agree that the director's actions are sad, but I disagree that most people who do these sorts of things are doing it intentionally. I would not call it unethical in most cases because the perpetrators are simply unaware of what they are doing.

[blackshoe]

A couple of months ago, I tracked the opening leads at our local club session one Tuesday. Out of 27 boards, 17 leads were made face up. In addition there were several where the lead was face down, "questions, partner?" was asked as it was made, and it was immediately turned face up (without waiting to see if there were questions).

 

One thing I can guarantee you: club players around here, with one or two rare exceptions, are not aware that during this Clarification Period, putative declarer is also entitled to ask questions.

[mycroft]

I suggest that people memorise either the following phrase or its inverse, whichever is appropriate (I being in ACBL-land, that usually covers attitude plays):

 

"If it's a high <x>, it means that (s)he likes it. If it's a low <x>, it means that (s)he doesn't."

 

I don't know what to do about the followup question ("so, is that (usually a 5 or 6) a high or a low card?") besides my usual smartarse response, or a straight up reiteration. "Depends on what else (s)he has", I guess, without either "if you show me your hand, I'll be able to tell you" or "if you let me go over and see partner's hand, I can tell you" (see "smartarse response", above).

[bluejak]

Maybe this is for a different thread, but the vast majority of players I've played with and against (ACBL) lead face-down. Sometimes they don't understand why, but they typically lead face down and ask "questions?". [some have asked "questions?" before they led, but this is rare and almost always a total newbie.]

 

That's not to say that there aren't other blatant violations (asking Q's out of turn, asking a bidder mid-auction whether his partner has failed to alert something, etc.), just that I am surprised to hear us ACBL-ers characterized as particularly poor at leading face down. It just hasn't been my experience.

Maybe it depends on where and when. My experience of clubs is limited to half a dozen sessions, and my main experience is at the Nationals. I shall have another check at Orlando and report back whether I still feel this is the case.

 

But the ACBL is big, and certainly it may just be different where you are. Certainly some of the things described as happening in England sometimes surprise me, possibly because I forget how Americanised bridge has become in the London area.

[jillybean]

I agree that the director's actions are sad, but I disagree that most people who do these sorts of things are doing it intentionally. I would not call it unethical in most cases because the perpetrators are simply unaware of what they are doing.

I was responding here to MFA1010's post, I was not suggesting my opps were doing it intentionally. However, I do think they have a responsibility to know the laws of the game and what effects their actions can have.