jschafer Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 During the play, dummy is allowed to ask declarer if he has none left in a suit when he shows out. Can one defender ask another defender or declarer? Can declarer ask a defender? Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMB1 Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 Law 61 B. Right to Inquire about a Possible RevokeDeclarer may ask a defender who has failed to follow suit whether he has a card of the suit led.(a) Dummy may ask declarer (but see Law 43B2(b)).(b) Dummy may not ask a defender and Law 16B may apply.Defenders may ask declarer and, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority, may ask one another (at the risk of creating unauthorized information). Very few Regulating Authorities prohibit defenders asking one another: Germany may be the only one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jschafer Posted October 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 Thanks for the quick reply! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted October 31, 2011 Report Share Posted October 31, 2011 Of course, in order to prevent transmitting UI, you must ask the question every time partner discards or ruffs. Or never. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted October 31, 2011 Report Share Posted October 31, 2011 Do players really keep track of how consistently their opponents do such things? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted October 31, 2011 Report Share Posted October 31, 2011 Do players really keep track of how consistently their opponents do such things?Not generally. But if anyone had a suspicion about some pair, they might start keeping track of them. It's like any other illicit signalling system. No one routinely keeps track of how people hold their hands. But in the 1965 World Championshops, Becker happened to notice that Reese and Shapiro were both holding their cards strangely, and he, Hayden, and Truscott then started watching more closely and figured out the code. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted October 31, 2011 Report Share Posted October 31, 2011 Not generally. But if anyone had a suspicion about some pair, they might start keeping track of them. It's like any other illicit signalling system. No one routinely keeps track of how people hold their hands. But in the 1965 World Championshops, Becker happened to notice that Reese and Shapiro were both holding their cards strangely, and he, Hayden, and Truscott then started watching more closely and figured out the code.I believe it is still controversial whether the code was cracked or not. Certainly the numbers from independent witnesses of matching hands is shockingly low and, surprisingly, nowhere even close to 100%. I think a better example would have been the score card writing scandal over which there is no such controversy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted October 31, 2011 Report Share Posted October 31, 2011 I don't know. We were talking about the process, not the result. B-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahh Posted October 31, 2011 Report Share Posted October 31, 2011 what score card writing scandal ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 Of course, in order to prevent transmitting UI, you must ask the question every time partner discards or ruffs. Or never.The trouble with this is that it is not true. Nowhere does it say you may not transmit UI to partner: nowhere does it say you "must" do anything to avoid transmitting UI. No doubt it would be a "good thing" to ask always or never, but in practice I do not think it will happen. Sadly, I have discovered myself asking on a couple of occasions. Many of us think it was better when you could not ask partner, but the WBFLC just about got rid of the option by removing the penalty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iviehoff Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 The trouble with this is that it is not true. Nowhere does it say you may not transmit UI to partner: Vampyr didn't actually say it is illegal to transmit UI: her post makes perfect sense on the observation that transmitting meaningful UI is not in your own best interests. Sometimes your surprise at seeing partner fail to follow will be no news to anyone, other times it will be very interesting and places legal constraints on partner's choice of plays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 Asking does not, to me here in the ACBL, express surprise, it's just the normal conformance to common practice. Not asking usually means you didn't notice, or are distracted by something else (such as trying to figure out the hands). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 [...]Many of us think it was better when you could not ask partner, but the WBFLC just about got rid of the option by removing the penalty.Before 1987 any player (including dummy) could ask any other player who didn't follow suit about possible revoke. It is of course a matter of opinion, but I really do not see the alleged improvement of bridge when this right became restricted. Instead we got great problems on the correct procedures and penalties (now termed rectifications) when a defender asked his partner. Personally I think that we have a better game in this respect now that we are (almost) back to the rules that applied before 1987. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy69A Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 But in the 1965 World Championshops, Becker happened to notice that Reese and Shapiro were both holding their cards strangely, and he, Hayden, and Truscott then started watching more closely and figured out the code. Not quite as clearcut as all that perhaps except in the minds of Americans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 Many of us think it was better when you could not ask partner, but the WBFLC just about got rid of the option by removing the penalty. What I didn't understand was why NBOs didn't feel they could impose their own penalties via regulations. What is wrong with, say, instituting a standard PP for asking? I was surprised that the EBU didn't go that route, actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 Asking does not, to me here in the ACBL, express surprise, it's just the normal conformance to common practice. Not asking usually means you didn't notice, or are distracted by something else (such as trying to figure out the hands).If someone is distracted, you can usually tell. Or if they ask 99% of the time, the 1% when they don't is likely to be due to one of those abberations. If a partner who normally asks is clearly paying attention, but doesn't ask, that could be UI. And if the ratio is more like 75/25, I'd be concerned that there's something fishy. Although, I could also imagine some common cases where a player might not bother asking. If the suit is played 3 times, everyone following, it has often seemed superfluous to ask when partner shows out on the 4th round. If partner doesn't ask, the only UI being transmitted is that he can count properly. While this might be considered extraneous if partner is a novice, it's not very surprising with an experienced partner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfi Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 So, I never ask. However, a hand cropped up a couple of weeks ago where I was dummy. RHO led something and the other two players both showed out. RHO now asked her partner, with a note of surprise, "no clubs?". Am I now allowed to ask declarer the same thing? I didn't, and it turned out that RHO just couldn't count. But I was curious about the ethics here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 So, I never ask. However, a hand cropped up a couple of weeks ago where I was dummy. RHO led something and the other two players both showed out. RHO now asked her partner, with a note of surprise, "no clubs?". Am I now allowed to ask declarer the same thing? I didn't, and it turned out that RHO just couldn't count. But I was curious about the ethics here.Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke 1. Declarer may ask a defender who has failed to follow suit whether he has a card of the suit led. 2. (a) Dummy may ask declarer (but see Law 43B2(b)). (b) Dummy may not ask a defender and Law 16B may apply. 3. Defenders may ask declarer and, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority, may ask one another (at the risk of creating unauthorized information). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 Before 1987 any player (including dummy) could ask any other player who didn't follow suit about possible revoke. It is of course a matter of opinion, but I really do not see the alleged improvement of bridge when this right became restricted. Instead we got great problems on the correct procedures and penalties (now termed rectifications) when a defender asked his partner. Personally I think that we have a better game in this respect now that we are (almost) back to the rules that applied before 1987.We got problems? Certainly not in England. Once people got used to the new rules, they did not ask their partners any more, and all the UI problems disappeared. Now the UI problems are coming back, and you say that is better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 There are no UI issues with dummy (except if the conditions in 43A2 occur), so the ethical problem doesn't really exist. The reason dummy has to be given the right to ask explicitly is because otherwise it would be considered "participating in the play". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfi Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 There are no UI issues with dummy (except if the conditions in 43A2 occur), so the ethical problem doesn't really exist. Makes sense, thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jallerton Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 Very few Regulating Authorities prohibit defenders asking one another: Germany may be the only one. In Germany, if a defender does ask his partner about a possible revoke, are there any standard penalties and/or rectification procedures? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 Before 1987 any player (including dummy) could ask any other player who didn't follow suit about possible revoke. It is of course a matter of opinion, but I really do not see the alleged improvement of bridge when this right became restricted. Instead we got great problems on the correct procedures and penalties (now termed rectifications) when a defender asked his partner. Personally I think that we have a better game in this respect now that we are (almost) back to the rules that applied before 1987.We got problems? Certainly not in England. Once people got used to the new rules, they did not ask their partners any more, and all the UI problems disappeared. Now the UI problems are coming back, and you say that is better?Of course if no defender ever asked his partner (illegally) you would not have any problem. Was England the only country in the world where players never violated this law? The very number of "clarifications" on how to apply 1997 Law 61B when there had been a violation tells a different story. (I write "clarifications" because each created new problems for the director who tried to apply the law as probably intended) Matters apparently discussed was like: Did the illegal question establish the revoke or should it be rectified? What penalty (one-trick? two tricks?) should be applied? and so on. Each "clarification" seemed to give a different answer to such questions, leaving the director who didn't care to make up his own law in a mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 In Germany, if a defender does ask his partner about a possible revoke, are there any standard penalties and/or rectification procedures?Please consider both situations: a - the partner has a card in the suit led, and b - the partner does not have any such card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 Of course if no defender ever asked his partner (illegally) you would not have any problem. Was England the only country in the world where players never violated this law? I cannot answer this, but I moved to England in 1999 and confirm that if the law was violated, it was once in a blue moon. I don't think I ever witnessed it myself. Matters apparently discussed was like: Did the illegal question establish the revoke or should it be rectified? What penalty (one-trick? two tricks?) should be applied? and so on. Each "clarification" seemed to give a different answer to such questions, leaving the director who didn't care to make up his own law in a mess. ?? The law stated that the revoke was established, and so it should have been treated like any other established revoke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.