we are all intelligent people here, aren't we?

[jillybean]

It was the Xmas party at the club last night. I had a really nice (and good, 54%) game with a last minute partner.

 

We had this auction, my partner opened..

 

1♥:3♥* inviational

3♠:4♥

 

After I bid 4♥ my LHO suddenly comes alive and asks what the 3♠ bid was.

I say, nicely I thought, you may want to wait until your partner makes her lead face down before you ask that.

So now he says "I have another bid don't I" ?!!!

I said, well yes but unless you are thinking of making an actual bid...

He calls the director.

 

Director comes over and makes a very good explanation of why, although he is permitted to, he should not be asking questions at that

point in the auction. She ends with 'is that clear'? He says no, but never mind. PASS PASS PASS Partner makes a face down lead, he asks what was 3♠ and I start with , this is the first time I have played with this partner, however I...but get cut off with "Well, why couldn't you say that to start with!!"

 

I give up! I'm guessing he is either a lawyer or a used car salesman. (sorry Mike, & others)

[Fluffy]

one of the hardest things in life is to teach to someone who doesn´t want to learn.

[mrdct]

I have to disagree with your approach here.

 

You should answer your LHO's question and worry about whether or not the question transmitted UI later. By coming up with this, "you may want to wait until your partner makes her lead face down" stuff you are making your rulings at the table and crossing over into the TD's domain.

 

If it turns out to be a lead-directing question you will be fully protected, so why would you want to start an argument with someone - especialy at the Christmas Party?

[jillybean]

I disagree. I think any reasonable person would listen to what was being said, call the director for clarification if needed but I think it is far worse to let these things slide. The other day I thought my partner, in the pass out seat was reaching to pick up her bidding cards so I reached to pick up mine. One of the opps said, 'that's a bad habit to get into'. I replied Yes, sorry and that was it. I'll be more careful next time.

 

I see what you are saying about crossing into the TD's domain, I think it is tricky. Politely drawing attention to the “infraction” in both these examples is more appropriate than calling the director but then from there its a short step for players to be making their own, incorrect, rulings.

 

“why would you want to start an argument at the Christmas Party” is a red herring. The fact that food and wine was served before an ACBL sanctioned game is irrelevant.

[ggwhiz]

I'm guessing he is either a lawyer or

 

Everything from a lawyer comes with a disclaimer. After all, they are only "practising" law. Makes me nervous with my physician though.

 

I agree with Mr. dct in that you can endplay the uninformed as he put it so well.

[gwnn]

If you think your opponents is doing something improper, you can always call the director. You should not try to teach them ethics etc at the bridge table.

[mrdct]

Another aspect of jillybean's approach that I don't like is telegraphing a presumption to the table that 4♥ is going to be the final contract which could put the the 1♥ opener in an awkward position if, for example, they were considering further action (given the possible earlier slam-try with 3♠) but now Pass is strongly suggested by East's comment.

 

The Laws are quite clear that at a player's turn to act they can ask anything they like, but they do at the risk of transmitting UI. If a question is asked by the player whose turn it is to act, you should answer it. If at the end of the hand you feel that the question was inappropriate and/or transmitted UI that was acted upon, that is the time call the director.

 

Have you got the full hand?

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa764hat74dj83c62&w=sqjt2hjdkt974ca94&n=shkq6532daq65ckj8&e=sk9853h98d2cqt753&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1hp3hp3sp4h?]399|300[/hv]

[Siegmund]

Once the question has been asked, you answer the question. Had I been the director it is you, not your LHO, who would have gotten the first lecture from me.

 

If you feel the need to give advice too, well, so be it - but your immediate obligation is to answer the legally asked question. Yes, there may be an ethical issue, but if there is, the act of asking the question has already caused it and it can't be undone, and withholding the answer doesn't make things any better.

 

As for LHO's lecture, I would prefer to see it saved until after the hand/round, rather than given in the middle of the auction. It too is better given by the director than by you.

[gnasher]

Politely drawing attention to the “infraction” in both these examples is more appropriate than calling the director but then from there its a short step for players to be making their own, incorrect, rulings.

In the example in your original post, your opponent hadn't committed any infraction. He's entitled to ask questions at his turn, regardless of whether he is considering bidding, as long as he's not using the question to communciate with his partner or decieve his opponents. You might think that the only reason to ask at this point is in order to communicate, but you can't be sure - maybe he always asks his questions at this point, or maybe he asks questions at random.

 

By the way, refusing to answer a legitimate question (if that's what you did) is an infraction.

[mrdct]

Why wasn't 3♠ alerted?

[jillybean]

I am surprised that the laws allow a player, a his turn, to ask a question without exception. I think this is a major cause of UI and will frequently influence partners lead, intentionally or not.

 

We have laws that protect a player where an opponent has made a remark, mannerism or tempo with no demonstrable bridge reason and other laws dealing with unauthorized , extraneous information etc. If a player is permitted during an auction, to ask questions, randomly, with no demonstrable bridge reason

it appears likely to create UI and impossible for a director to determine if a question was random or either accidentally or intentionally lead directing. Wouldn't it be preferable to leave all questions that have no immediate relevance to the auction, until the auction is complete?

[jillybean]

Why wasn't 3♠ alerted?

We had no agreement.

[xcurt]

West didn't have his lead-directing action.

 

Also, I don't see why 3S would be alertable unless NS had a specific agreement like nonserious 3N.

[RMB1]

I am surprised that the laws allow a player, a his turn, to ask a question without exception. I think this is a major cause of UI and ...

 

Creating unauthorised information is not an infraction:

sometimes it is unavoidable (answering questions),

sometimes it is avoidable (gratuitous remarks),

and sometimes it just happens (you just do have to think or ask questions).

[jmcw]

Nice xmas parties don't normally include directors ;)

[barmar]

Once he asked the question, the UI, if any, was already transmitted. So what's the point of not answering? You can suggest that it would be better in the future that he wait until his partner makes a lead, but he can't unask the question this time.

[barmar]

Why wasn't 3♠ alerted?

Cue bids and control bids aren't alerted in ACBL.

[blackshoe]

Law 20F1: 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.

Law 20F3: Under F1 and F2 above, a player may ask concerning a single call, but Law 16B1 may apply.

Law 16B1:

{a} After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

{b} A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

 

* i.e., unexpected in relation to the basis of his action.

[Cascade]

Cue bids and control bids aren't alerted in ACBL.

 

I wouldnt have known that for sure from just looking at the alert charts and procedures.

[Cascade]

I think there is also potential for a multiple infractions under Law 73

 

LAW 73 - COMMUNICATION

A. Appropriate Communication between Partners

1. Communication between partners during the auction and play shall

be effected only by means of calls and plays.

2. Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism

or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. But Regulating

Authorities may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of

the auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick.

B. Inappropriate Communication between Partners

1. Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in

which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures,

questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and

explanations given or not given to them.

2. The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange

information through prearranged methods of communication other than

those sanctioned by these Laws.

C. Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner

When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his

partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture,

mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an

unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid

taking any advantage from that unauthorized information.

D. Variations in Tempo or Manner

1. It is desirable, though not always required, for players to

maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should

be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of

their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner

in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction.

Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an

opponent, and at his own risk.

2. A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of

remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as

in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a

call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct

procedure.

E. Deception

A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or

play (so long as the deception is not protected by concealed partnership

understanding or experience).

F. Violation of Proprieties

When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage

to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player

has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of

an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who

could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to

his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C).

* i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action.

 

Not limited to illegal communications with partner.

 

It is also possible to mislead an opponent with a question asked when there is a better time to ask the question.

[jillybean]

Creating unauthorised information is not an infraction:

sometimes it is unavoidable (answering questions),

sometimes it is avoidable (gratuitous remarks),

and sometimes it just happens (you just do have to think or ask questions).

and...

sometimes it is avoidable (asking unnecessary questions) ?

[mrdct]

Wouldn't it be preferable to leave all questions that have no immediate relevance to the auction, until the auction is complete?

Of course that is preferable, but if a player wants to ask a question during the middle of the auction he is allowed to do that only in the knowledge that doing so may transmit UI and/or mislead the opponents if there was no demonstrable reason for asking the question. TDs are usually able work out whether or not rectifiable damage has occured and will adjust accordingly if there has been an infraction.

 

As for the alertability of 3♠, even if you have no agreement or have forgotten the agreement, bids which are likely to be artificial but you are just not sure are alertable in most jurisdictions (including the ACBL) and in giving the explanation you would probably say something like, "we have never played before so haven't discussed this sequence but there's every chance this doesn't show a spade suit". There is obviously a new set of UI issues when you alert 3♠ and describe it that way, particularly if your partner happened to intend 3♠ as natural.

[jillybean]

Of course that is preferable, but if a player wants to ask a question during the middle of the auction he is allowed to do that only in the knowledge that doing so may transmit UI and/or mislead the opponents if there was no demonstrable reason for asking the question. TDs are usually able work out whether or not rectifiable damage has occured and will adjust accordingly if there has been an infraction.

I am sure he had no knowledge that his question may transmit UI. So the correct procedure is to answer the question and call the director if his partner leads or bids spades, and if not just let it slide?

 

As for the alertability of 3♠, even if you have no agreement or have forgotten the agreement, bids which are likely to be artificial but you are just not sure are alertable in most jurisdictions (including the ACBL) and in giving the explanation you would probably say something like, "we have never played before so haven't discussed this sequence but there's every chance this doesn't show a spade suit". There is obviously a new set of UI issues when you alert 3♠ and describe it that way, particularly if your partner happened to intend 3♠ as natural.

I would never alert or explain a bid that I had no agreement on, I don't see anywhere in the laws that requires this.

[mrdct]

Cue bids and control bids aren't alerted in ACBL.

3♠ wasn't a non-alertable cue bid as neither opponent had bid or shown spades at that point so it would be entirely alertable in the ACBL if it didn't show a ♠ suit.