An interpretation of LAW 20F1

[Hanoi5]

Law 20F1 states:

 

"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."

 

Does this mean that:

 

a. A player can ask 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", or,

 

b. A player can ask about "calls actually made" "where these are matters of partnership understanding", "about relevant alternative calls available that were not made" "where these are matters of partnership understanding", and "about relevant inferences from the choice of action" "where these are matters of partnership understanding"?

[nigel_k]

The structure of the provision suggests that the first one is a better interpretation. But you certainly can't expect an opponent to explain something that is not a matter of partnership understanding, so the practical effect is that the second applies.

 

I'm not sure why substituted 'can ask about' for 'is entitled to know about'. A player may ask about lots of things, since he doesn't know beforehand whether there is a partnership understanding or not.

[Hanoi5]

I think I can make my question more accurate; when the law says:

 

"where these are matters of partnership understanding." (my bold)

 

these refers to

 

a. relevant inferences from the choice of action, or

b. calls actually made, relevant alternative calls available that were not made and relevant inferences from the choice of action?

 

So if the bidding goes 1♠-Pa-3♣, can I ask about the bidding if it wasn't alerted?

 

Because 1♠, being natural, is not necessarily a partnership understanding and 3♣ not being alerted (either) should be natural, so can I ask about those calls (the ones actually made) or do I have to ask only about calls that are a matter of partnership understanding?

[aguahombre]

So if the bidding goes 1♠-Pa-3♣, can I ask about the bidding if it wasn't alerted?

 

Because 1♠, being natural, is not necessarily a partnership understanding and 3♣ not being alerted (either) should be natural, so can I ask about those calls (the ones actually made) or do I have to ask only about calls that are a matter of partnership understanding?

Unless there is something more to it than you stated ---such as finding out that one or both of those bids should actually have been alerted --- if you ask about natural unalerted bids and find out they are natural and what the strength perameters are, further inquiries about calls not made could be considered harrassment.

[Quartic]

Because 1♠, being natural, is not necessarily a partnership understanding and 3♣ not being alerted (either) should be natural

 

I think natural calls such as these *are* partnership understandings. Certainly any partnership (that doesn't contain a complete novice) will have a partnership understanding about a 1♠ opening, and the vast majority will have also discussed jump shifts.

[blackshoe]

If a player bids 1♠, it is because he has a hand he views is appropriate to bid 1♠. Whether 1♠ is natural or not is not relevant - the fact is, he expects his partner to understand what he is doing. Therefore, there is a partnership understanding, although it may not be explicit (IOW, the partners may not have specifically discussed what 1♠ means; they may rely on a general agreement, e.g., to play "5 card majors", or "Precision").

 

One is always permitted, at the proper time(s), to ask for an explanation of the entire auction. Sometimes people get a bit stroppy when the auction has been essential natural, they think the meaning of all the bids is "obvious", and that the asker is "wasting time". No matter, the question is allowed, and the best way to avoid "wasting time" is to quitcherbitchin' and answer the question.

 

The answer to "please explain your auction" (which imo is the right way to start asking questions) is for each opponent to explain the meaning of his partner's calls. So if the auction is 1♠-(P)-3♣, responder should state the meaning of the opening bid, and opener should then describe the meaning of responder's bid. For example "Opener shows a five card or longer spade suit, no longer suit, and some 11 to 21 HCP" and "Responder shows at least 3 clubs and at least 16 HCP; he may or may not have spade support. The bid is forcing to game". Or perhaps, for the response "Responder shows at least six clubs, fewer than nine HCP, and fewer than three spades; this bid is not forcing." Opponents are entitled to know about relevant calls not made. This might include, for opener, 2♣ (to differentiate between hands that might open 2♣ and hands that would not) or 1NT (would opener bid 1NT with a 5332 hand?) Similarly for the responder's bid. Opponents are also entitled to any relevant inferences from the choice of call, where those inferences are a matter of partnership understanding. That opener does not have more hearts than spades is one such inference, for example.

 

A single question is never harassment. A series of questions descends to harassment when a reasonable, objective third party (for example, the TD ;) ) would expect that further detail along the lines being questioned is either not available or not necessary. This last is my attempt to state a concept that is not explicit in the laws, and a bit difficult to explain, so don't jump down my throat if I left something out. B-)

 

Anomalies: I have had players complain that they don't understand the question "please explain your auction". As the players doing the complaining have been very experienced (moreso than me, in some cases) and in at least one case also a qualified director, this seems a bit disingenuous. I have had a TD ask me "which bid were you interested in?", which in my view is tantamount to "please give UI to your partner", and in any case is inappropriate for a TD to ask. My answer to that, btw, was "all of them." I have had the aforementioned disingenuous players tell me, and sometimes the TD, that "I don't have to explain the meaning of that bid," pointing to a specific bid made by partner. Yes, you do. Quit trying to weasel out of it.

[pran]

Fully supporting Ed here I might add that after the closing pass and before selecting my opening lead I sometimes ask:

"What are we entitled to know from your auction?"

Particularly after a long and complicated auction I consider this a perfect question that calls for every relevant information.

 

Without going into details on each individual call it asks for a complete description, and I have no problem with which player (presumed declarer and/or Dummy) gives an answer for instance like: "I have shown a 5-4-4 distribution, void in Diamonds and at least 20HCP. Partner has shown spade support (at least three) including the trump Queen, no voids, two aces and no Kings."

[barmar]

I think natural calls such as these *are* partnership understandings.

In particular, the fact that it's natural is a partnership understanding. And whether you're playing 5-card or 4-card majors is a partnership understanding.

 

I think Hanoi5 was confusing partnership understandings with "special" partnership understandings.

[bluejak]

So if the bidding goes 1♠-Pa-3♣, can I ask about the bidding if it wasn't alerted?

Sure. When your opponent opens 1♠, will his partner alert if it shows 4 cards? If it shows 5 cards? Suppose the answer is 4 cards. Now it might affect your bidding or play to know what he would open with 4-4 in the majors, or 4-4 in the blacks.

 

My regular partner and I play 4 card majors. When I open 1♠ my partner knows the following, except in 3rd seat:

 

• If I have fewer than 15 points I have five spades
  
• I will never be 4-4 in the majors
  
• If I am 4-4 with a minor then I have 15 to 17 points
  
• With 15-17 and 4-4 spades-minor I am more likely to open 1♠, my partner is more likely to open 1m
  

All of this is disclosable, and my partner and I freely disclose it. Bridge is an open information game.

 

However, my experience is that in England people are much more likely to disclose it freely, and in North America people are much more likely to look puzzled and say "Huh?".

[mycroft]

Anomalies: I have had players complain that they don't understand the question "please explain your auction". As the players doing the complaining have been very experienced (moreso than me, in some cases) and in at least one case also a qualified director, this seems a bit disingenuous. I have had a TD ask me "which bid were you interested in?", which in my view is tantamount to "please give UI to your partner",

and information to declarer he's not entitled to, which was more concerning to me the last time this question was asked of me in response to "please explain the auction".

My answer to that, btw, was "all of them."

Yep.

I have had the aforementioned disingenuous players tell me, and sometimes the TD, that "I don't have to explain the meaning of that bid," pointing to a specific bid made by partner. Yes, you do. Quit trying to weasel out of it.

"Why don't you have to explain it?" "Because it's natural and standard." "Thank you. And the next call?"

[barmar]

"Why don't you have to explain it?" "Because it's natural and standard." "Thank you. And the next call?"

I think they're misunderstanding 40B6a:

he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

They're confusing the agreement with the inferences drawn from the agreement. They have to disclose that it's natural, they don't have to explain all the consequences of this.

[aguahombre]

People might want to save their self-righteousness about weasels and disclosure for a different thread.

 

In this one, the OP seems to want to focus on disclosure about calls which were not made during a natural auction. I believe the answer to that question is usually no. We must explain what our natural bids entail, obviously...if asked.

 

There are a couple of instances where we might legitimately ask about calls not made in a natural auction and expect to get an answer. One such situation would be regarding bypasses at the one-level and the inferences when we don't bypass. Another would be an inquiry as to whether we would open 1D vs 1C with a balanced hand and 3-3, 4-4, etc. A third might be regarding the inferences from our rebid of a major in a 2/1 sequence.

[blackshoe]

People might want to be careful about calling other people self-righteous. And no, when I used the word "weasel" I wasn't talking about the people described in the OP. Sue me.

 

The auction goes 1♠-3♠ (both bids natural). Is 2NT by responder natural or artificial? If it's an artificial raise of some kind, is there overlap with 3♠? These are legitimate questions. There are others. The fact that an auction is natural doesn't preclude questions about alternative bids.

[blackshoe]

Without going into details on each individual call it asks for a complete description, and I have no problem with which player (presumed declarer and/or Dummy) gives an answer for instance like: "I have shown a 5-4-4 distribution, void in Diamonds and at least 20HCP. Partner has shown spade support (at least three) including the trump Queen, no voids, two aces and no Kings."

The other day I suggested to opponents that they do this. They declined, saying that "all you're entitled to is the description of the actual bids". :ph34r:

[pran]

Without going into details on each individual call it asks for a complete description, and I have no problem with which player (presumed declarer and/or Dummy) gives an answer for instance like: "I have shown a 5-4-4 distribution, void in Diamonds and at least 20HCP. Partner has shown spade support (at least three) including the trump Queen, no voids, two aces and no Kings."

The other day I suggested to opponents that they do this. They declined, saying that "all you're entitled to is the description of the actual bids". :ph34r:

OK. Then say "fair enough" and request a detailed and complete description of each and every specific call they have made during the auction, including for each such call also a detailed and complete description of every alternative call they could have made in that position. This will of course take some time, but your entitlement to this can definitely not be denied.

 

They might agree that my suggestion is preferable?

[aguahombre]

People might want to be careful about calling other people self-righteous. And no, when I used the word "weasel" I wasn't talking about the people described in the OP. Sue me.

 

The auction goes 1♠-3♠ (both bids natural). Is 2NT by responder natural or artificial? If it's an artificial raise of some kind, is there overlap with 3♠? These are legitimate questions. There are others. The fact that an auction is natural doesn't preclude questions about alternative bids.

So, even though we disagree about referring to apples when asked about oranges, we seem to agree that weasels unfairly get a bad name when they are attempting to ferret out legitimate information.

[blackshoe]

OK. Then say "fair enough" and request a detailed and complete description of each and every specific call they have made during the auction, including for each such call also a detailed and complete description of every alternative call they could have made in that position. This will of course take some time, but your entitlement to this can definitely not be denied.

 

They might agree that my suggestion is preferable?

They might. They might also suggest that I have violated Law 74A2. <_<

[blackshoe]

So, even though we disagree about referring to apples when asked about oranges, we seem to agree that weasels unfairly get a bad name when they are attempting to ferret out legitimate information.

You have clearly completely misinterpreted what I said. Either that or we're talking about two entirely different things.

[pran]

They might. They might also suggest that I have violated Law 74A2. <_<

Not if the questions are asked in a polite manner and you do not already (obviously) know the answers.

 

Notice that it is perfectly legal within Law 20F1 for a player to ask for instance what would each of the opening bids 1Cl/1Di/1He/1NT and so on have shown in a position where your RHO has opened the auction with 1Sp unless these opening bids in the same position (zone and dealer conditions) have already been completely described.

 

A player who refuses to disclose to his opponents what he knows from the auction may need a lesson on what he can bring upon himself with fully legal questions about both calls made and alternative calls available but not made.

 

As one of my partners once said: The calls a player did not make although they were available to him are very often extremely more important than the call he actually did make.

 

How much easier isn't it for a player, particularly after a long and complicated auction, to just sum up what can be told about both hands from the auction?

[blackshoe]

Well, that I am polite and do not obviously know the answers may cause the TD to decide not to rule that I have violated Law 74A2, but trust me, it won't stop players from claiming I did.

 

As to the form of the answer to question, summing up what is known from the auction, I'm 100% in agreement with you, Sven. The problem arises because some players don't agree. Some disagree because they don't understand the principle, some disagree because it's not what they're used to seeing, some may disagree for other reasons, but I assure you, there will be disagreement, at least around here.

[bluejak]

How much easier isn't it for a player, particularly after a long and complicated auction, to just sum up what can be told about both hands from the auction?

Easier, no doubt, but not always helpful or desirable. You are dealing with human beings, and there seems to be an instinct to shorten things. For example, if a player say that his partner has shown four hearts in a complicated system of responses to 1NT, that can mean one of two things:

 

1. Four hearts but not four spades, or
   
2. Four hearts and maybe four spades
   

No doubt a full summary should include this, but few players will. It is much safer to ask questions of individual calls.

 

The trouble with much of this thread is that some people assume that players are all pains in the behind who are going to be as unhelpful as possible, and others assume the reverse, that they will tell you all you want to know. Neither is anything like the truth.

[blackshoe]

No doubt a full summary should include this, but few players will. It is much safer to ask questions of individual calls.

 

The trouble with much of this thread is that some people assume that players are all pains in the behind who are going to be as unhelpful as possible, and others assume the reverse, that they will tell you all you want to know. Neither is anything like the truth.

The fact that players don't include all the information they should is why we can ask supplementary questions.

 

Some players are pains, some players tell all you want to know, some players try to tell all, but fail, some players don't have a clue. :P

[bluejak]

Some players are pains, some players tell all you want to know, some players try to tell all, but fail, some players don't have a clue. :P

Oh, players. For a moment I thought you wrote posters ... :D :) :lol: