Question re rule " having no hearts partner ? "

[cooee]

Hi list members

In Australia it has been the practice when a suit is lead and you go to trump it on the first round , dummy will say something like " Having no hearts partner ??".

My question is :

Could I get a ruling for the correct procedure. i.e. can partner query as to whether you have any trumps

TYIA

cooee

[uday]

All this from reading acbl web pages, so info only as accurate as those pages....

 

 

 

Summary: (in acbl-land)

 

Dummy can ask declarer, defenders can ask each other

 

 

Details:

 

 

http://web2.acbl.org/laws/node9.html

 

Law 42 "Dummys rights"

Dummy may ask declarer (but not a defender) when he has failed to follow suit to a trick whether he has a card of the suit led.

 

 

LAW 61 "FAILURE TO FOLLOW SUIT - INQUIRIES CONCERNING A REVOKE"

B. Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke

Declarer may ask a defender who has failed to follow suit whether he has a card of the suit led (but a claim of revoke does not automatically warrant inspection of quitted tricks - see Law 66C). Dummy may ask declarer (but see Law 43B2(:D). Defenders may ask declarer but, unless the zonal organization so authorizes, not one another.

 

NOTE: The ACBL Board of Directors under the authority granted in the revised Law61B, has ruled that in ACBL sanctioned events, a defender may inquire of his partner whether he has a card of the suit led.

[geller]

In most (if not all) of the rest of the world outside ACBL land, including WBF championships, defenders may not ask their partner "having none?" (although dummy may ask declarer). It's unfortunate that the ACBL insists on having separate rules than the rest of the world, but that's what has happened.

[mycroft]

The posters have it right - and the difference can cause problems for high-class ACBL players when they play internationally - because if you ask as defender, and partner *did* revoke, partner has to correct *and the revoke penalties apply as if it were established* (Law 63B). It gets to be a habit - especially as you should either always ask or never, to minimize the unauthorized information (and director calls) - and it has bit at least two World-Class pairs that I know of.

 

One small thing - it's in the quote that Uday gave, but not in his summary:

Declarer can ask defenders if they have revoked. This is rarely an issue, but it is important, as in the following case a fellow ACBL TD came up with a month ago or so:

 

You are defending 3NT with [d]AKQJxxx . You play the A, and partner shows out. What do you do?

 

Play the K! If you don't, and partner wakes up to the (potential) revoke, declarer will enforce a lead of the revoke suit, and score up 600+. If you pay the establshed revoke penalty - and remember, you don't *have* to ask, and you don't have to point it out, as long as you don't do anything to try to hide the irregularily (like have the K out before the cards are turned over) - they're still at least one down, usually two. And this isn't an "equity" position - equity without the revoke is 3 down.

 

But, declarer, seeing two diamonds in each hand; he can ask. And in this case he should, even if he sees three in each hand...

 

Michael.

[cooee]

Thank you so much to Uday,Geller and Mycroft for your replies.

I am only an intermediate player and have not had a problem with this but I ask on behalf of a friend who is a "good tournament :rolleyes: player " and he is getting differing interpretations from TDs.

He is very interested in your replies and most appreciative

thanks

cooee

[mikestar]

For most of Bridge history, it was permissible for a defender to ask partner "no hearts", etc. The change prohibiting it was fairly recent and was meant to prevent UI.

 

In ACBL land where it is still legal, many directors I have spoken to say that the defenders need to be careful exercizing their right to ask: either never ask or always ask the first time partner shows out of a suit--don't fall into the habit of asking only when you think partner has made a mistake, this can transmit unauthorised information about your hand--and give an astute declarer clues.

[TimG]

In most (if not all) of the rest of the world outside ACBL land, including WBF championships, defenders may not ask their partner "having none?" (although dummy may ask declarer). It's unfortunate that the ACBL insists on having separate rules than the rest of the world, but that's what has happened.

It's unfortunate that the rest of the world insists upon having rules different from ACBL. Wouldn't it be easier if everyone just followed the ACBL's lead?

[Free]

In most (if not all) of the rest of the world outside ACBL land, including WBF championships, defenders may not ask their partner "having none?"  (although dummy may ask declarer).    It's unfortunate that the ACBL insists on having separate rules than the rest of the world, but that's what has happened.

It's unfortunate that the rest of the world insists upon having rules different from ACBL. Wouldn't it be easier if everyone just followed the ACBL's lead?

No, because then bridge would also get terrorised :P

[mycroft]

In ACBL land where it is still legal, many directors I have spoken to say that the defenders need to be careful exercizing their right to ask: either never ask or always ask the first time partner shows out of a suit--don't fall into the habit of asking only when you think partner has made a mistake, this can transmit unauthorised information about your hand--and give an astute declarer clues.

 

Giving declarer clues is bad defending, but legal. The UI is where the problem is. What UI, you ask?

 

The reason that it has been made illegal in the rest of the world is because the usual response to a "no hearts, partner?" question is declarer's "yes, I do have rather a lot of them, don't I?"[1] Partner doesn't ask when it's he that has AKJT84; but will ask when he has 5, dummy has 2, and partner shows out on the second round... And on the opening lead, or on the second round of opening leader's suit, that's a "good" way of saying "Oops, partner, can't run this suit. Better look for another way to set this."

 

It falls into the category of "look partner, ..." questions unless you are *very careful*. Most of the world believes that by and large bridge players aren't that careful, and deem the doublecheck - remember, you are expected to "pay attention to the game", so you shouldn't revoke anyway - not important enough to have to live with the frequent UI.

 

Other "look partner, ..." questions are:

1) How many hearts does 1H promise? [2]

2) What's the range on that 1NT? [3]

3) (before the final pass, pd on lead) "What was 3H?" [4]

 

...I'm sure you can think of others. This one just happens to be one ruled "unwanted" by the PTB.

 

Michael.

 

[1] No, they don't really say that. But they think it, often.

[2] Real: "4". Thought: "Fewer than you have, obviously."

[3] Real: "12-14". Thought: "About what you have. I wonder...are you going to make a 'rescuing me is fine, pd' double or a 'please balance' pass?"

[4] Real: "Asking for a heart stopper". Thought "...and it it looks like I'm going to need two, given what you've told me about the suit you've just told him to lead."