Asking about the previous board

[gordontd]

I've been asked by a player whether she can ask the meaning of a bid on a board which they have just finished. She had just taken out her hand on a board, and asked the meaning of one of the bids on the previous board, to be told by her opponents that she had no right to ask that question.

 

I've expressed my opinion to her, but said I would ask some others what you think. What law do you think pertains?

[Fluffy]

No laws expert and not specially in EBU, but my opinion:

Of course she is allowed to ask, first she might be trying to solve if an infraction has occured and obviously she needs the info for that. And second she might be planning ahead a biddign that is going to happen and wants to know the meaning of a future bid that might happen.

[RMB1]

A TD answer in an "Expert-Class" forum :)

 

If you think there may have been an infraction on the previous board, then you may need to ask the meaning of the opponent's call, if they will not answer then you need to call the TD.

 

There is nothing in the laws, but proper disclosure is best served by answering questions about your methods at the start of a round and between hands. This should stop when the auction period starts (for the side asking the questions) but can continue until the side asking the questions has inspected their hand.

 

Law 20F2 starts "After the final pass and throughout the play period", which suggest defenders can asks at anytime after the call is made amd should be answered.

 

I think there are no explicit restrictions on asking questions except by dummy (and dummy is no longer dummy after the play is complete). But questions asked during the auction period can create unauthorised information, as can questions about the current auction.

 

"She had no right to ask the question"? She is not forbidden from asking questions.

 

"She had no right to ask the question" and expect an answer? Despite Law 20F2, I do not think this is a proper question and need not be answered, during the auction period of a subsequent hand.

 

She has the right to ask questions and expect answer before she takes her side take their hands from the next board? Yes. By custom and practice (or explicit disclosure regulations).

[dake50]

Adjustment period/ appeals period ends by conditions of contest.

My most frequent period is 30 min. after last board played.

Isn't this covered by that?

Determine if this is a curiosity question to admire opponents

methods - that may be delaying the current board.

Or really think mis-/un- informed may have occurred.

[blackshoe]

"No right"? I would ask the person who made this claim to explain its basis. If he cannot explain it satisfactorily, I would, as the TD, direct him to answer the question.

 

Seems to me that it is most likely that the asker is just curious, and that the replier is being a prat. I might read to the latter Law 74A2. There is also, as mentioned above, that the question was asked in aid of determining whether an irregularity may have occurred. In such a case, "no right" would draw an instant TD call from me, and probably a comment along the lines of "very well, we'll let the TD deal with it".

[fromageGB]

Law 20F2 starts "After the final pass and throughout the play period", which suggest defenders can asks at anytime after the call is made amd should be answered.

Surely not. You can't ask next week. The play period ends when cards are taken for the next hand. I (not a TD) would say that the question is not allowed by 20F2.

[fromageGB]

...There is also, as mentioned above, that the question was asked in aid of determining whether an irregularity may have occurred.

There has by definition been no irregularity, as this would have to have attention drawn to it during the play period, which, as has been noted, has expired. And of course, as there has been no irregularity, there is no rectification.

[RMB1]

Surely not. You can't ask next week. The play period ends when cards are taken for the next hand. I (not a TD) would say that the question is not allowed by 20F2.

 

But it does not say "After the final pass and through to the end of the play period", which I would understand.

 

If it said various other wording I might be confident that it meant not beyond the play period. "Throughout the clarification and play periods" might be clearest.

 

But the wording we have sounds like "After 15 August and throughout the Autumn" - does that apply to 25 December?

 

But as I said, I do not believe that Law 20 requires an answer to a question about bids in one auction after the start of the auction period of a subsequent board.

[fromageGB]

But it does not say "After the final pass and through to the end of the play period", which I would understand.

Perhaps we are looking at different rule books, because that's practically what mine says :

"After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender ..." - 2007 rules effective England 1/8/2008

By any interpretation "throughout" means "during but not beyond", and "play period" is explicitly defined.

 

Well, maybe not explicitly enough ! "... ends when the cards are removed from their slots ..." but whose cards? We know the questioner's were withdrawn, but maybe her opponent hadn't taken his, so her play period had ended but his hadn't ???

 

I agree that while law 20 does not require an answer, courtesy requests one.

[Cyberyeti]

There has by definition been no irregularity, as this would have to have attention drawn to it during the play period, which, as has been noted, has expired. And of course, as there has been no irregularity, there is no rectification.

err no, if the irregularity doesn't come to light immediately I believe you have until the end of the correction period after play ends. We had this in a match where we only realised the opps were playing an illegal system after play ended and team mates explained the auction at their table.

 

You may not be allowed to ask during the next hand, but if you believe there was an irregularity, I'm sure you can ask after it (probably with the aid of the director is best).

[gordontd]

A TD answer in an "Expert-Class" forum :)

Yes, sorry everyone, I forgot to check which forum I'd been reading.

[gordontd]

There has by definition been no irregularity, as this would have to have attention drawn to it during the play period, which, as has been noted, has expired. And of course, as there has been no irregularity, there is no rectification.

I don't think this is correct. It's not uncommon for players to only realise that there has been an irregularity (misinformation or a revoke for example) when they see the hand records at the end of the session.

[gordontd]

What I said initially to my correspondent was that she had no specific right to ask about a previous auction, but that because she is still well within time to ask for a ruling on the hand, she should ask for the director if the opponents declined to answer.

 

I think that's broadly in line with what has been suggested here. I would refine it as follows:

 

L20F2. 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 1 and by the partner of

the player whose action is explained.

Play period – commences when the opening lead on a board is faced; contestants’

rights and powers in the play period each expire as the relevant Law provides.

The play period itself ends when the cards are removed from their slots on the

subsequent board (or when the last board of a round is quitted).

 

Presumably the play period for that player ends when she removes the cards for the next board, and hence the significance of part of her question. So, had she not removed her cards, she would have had an absolute right under L20F2 to request an explanation. Once she has done so, that is no longer the case but she could still ask for the director to look at the hand, and part of that is likely to involve the director requesting an explanation of the call. The director might well choose to wait until a more convenient moment (at the end of the round or session, for example) to pursue this.

[gwnn]

I find myself taking part in the following dialogue over and over again:

Me (declaring or defending, after a trick or two) 'What is your NT range?"

Opp (slowly explaining, as to a beginner) 'We did not open 1NT'

[gordontd]

So, had she not removed her cards,

In fact, on re-reading her email, I see that she hadn't yet removed her cards from the next board, but had asked me if it would have made a difference if she had. So, it seems she was still within time to invoke L20F2, but that if she had removed her cards she would have had to rely on the TD investigating her concerns for her.

[gordontd]

I find myself taking part in the following dialogue over and over again:

Me (declaring or defending, after a trick or two) 'What is your NT range?"

Opp (slowly explaining, as to a beginner) 'We did not open 1NT'

Perhaps you should instead ask, "What is your basic system?"

[ahydra]

Perhaps you should instead ask, "What is your basic system?"

 

But why should they have to ask that? You're entitled to know about your opponent's agreements (I'm sure this must be in the Law somewhere - I can only find 74B though). So if the auction goes 1NT-pass-pass-pass and your partner has made the opening lead face down you're perfectly entitled, UI-related stuff notwithstanding, to ask "What would the uncontested auction 1S-2NT-4S show in your system?" even though it (ostensibly) has nothing to do with the current deal.

 

IMO this stuff about "after the final pass" applying also to future boards/rounds/etc is not what the Law intends. However, attention can be drawn to an irregularity up until the end of the Correction Period so the player in the OP is well within her rights to ask if she wants to investigate whether there has been an irregularity; though it would of course be more sensible to wait until the end of the current deal, or put her hand back in the board first to stop play.

 

ahydra

[gordontd]

But why should they have to ask that?

Not that they should have to, but that's one way of avoiding the exchanges gwnn has encountered.

[gnasher]

If I were Gwnn, I'd ask "Is there another bridge club in this town?"

[gnasher]

So if the auction goes 1NT-pass-pass-pass and your partner has made the opening lead face down you're perfectly entitled, UI-related stuff notwithstanding, to ask "What would the uncontested auction 1S-2NT-4S show in your system?" even though it (ostensibly) has nothing to do with the current deal.

 

You can ask, but you're not entitled to an answer to that question. You're "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". They have to tell you about 1♠, but not about 1♠-2NT or 1♠-2NT-4♠.

[Fluffy]

I find myself taking part in the following dialogue over and over again:

Me (declaring or defending, after a trick or two) 'What is your NT range?"

Opp (slowly explaining, as to a beginner) 'We did not open 1NT'

Lol, this happens to me all the time, but beware because some old ladies might not open 1NT because they only have Jxx in a major and that is not a stopper.

[helene_t]

And second she might be planning ahead a biddign that is going to happen and wants to know the meaning of a future bid that might happen.

Yes but if you ask a question for that reason after having looked at your hand, you may transmit the UI that you hold a kind of hand that makes such an auction likely.

[ahydra]

Yes but if you ask a question for that reason after having looked at your hand, you may transmit the UI that you hold a kind of hand that makes such an auction likely.

 

Correct, but that doesn't make it illegal to ask. It's any use of UI by partner that's illegal.

 

ahydra