barmar Posted August 3, 2012 Report Share Posted August 3, 2012 Now this thread has moved somewhat towards what you actually do. It is like not putting out a pass card for the last pass: sure the TD may be called and will tell the "perp" he has done wrong, but in practice it is a fairly harmless thing. In the case of asking because an answer is confusing it is fairly harmless to clarify it at the time and no-one minds. I am not suggesting that if the TD is called he will not tell me off or even check to see if I am communicating with partner. Fair enough, that is his job. But that does not mean that this matters.I didn't think we were talking about confusing answers. If the answer is confusing, it's reasonable to ask for clarification, and the fact that you do it at the wrong time is a minor deviation from correct procedure (IMHO). What I thought we were talking about is when the asker thinks that the explanation was incomplete, presumably from another source of information (e.g. glancing at the opp's CC). Now asking for the additional information that he already knows is not really for his own benefit, it's either for partner's benefit or to save the opponent from himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted August 3, 2012 Report Share Posted August 3, 2012 And your point is?My point was that your view of the relative importance of these two rules appears to be different from the view of the lawmakers. You described asking a followup question at partner's turn as "reasonable", a "slight bending of the rules" and "not breaking the important Law". You said that "The question is whether anyone else asks at such a time for their own benefit: I never ask for partner's benefit because that is clearly and unambiguously against the rules". Perhaps I misunderstood, but you seemed to be implying that asking for clarification at partner's turn (but not for his benefit) was not "clearly and unambiguously against the rules". When you make statements like these, it seems relevant to quote an authority that appears to disagree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jallerton Posted August 4, 2012 Report Share Posted August 4, 2012 It would actually be designed to help the opponents by preventing them from being guilty of MI - after all, partner can always get redress later for being mis-informed. Nevertheless, it feels like the safest approach is to continue not to ask such questions on the grounds that it could be seen to be for partner's benefit, except perhaps against inexperienced opponents in informal settings where a call for an MI ruling will seem out of order anyway. That's nice of you, but it's not really your place to protect the opponents. And it's really hard to tell the difference between you asking for the opponents' benefit (not really prohibited) and asking for partner's benefit (prohibited). Law 20G1 says "It is improper to ask a question solely for partner’s benefit." (my italics). So which Law precludes asking a question (at your own turn to call or play) partly for your opponents' benefit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted August 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2012 None. Which doesn't make what Barry said wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted August 5, 2012 Report Share Posted August 5, 2012 Law 20G1 says "It is improper to ask a question solely for partner’s benefit." (my italics). So which Law precludes asking a question (at your own turn to call or play) partly for your opponents' benefit?What part of "not really prohibited" suggests that a law precludes this? 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.