Attempt to participate

[aguahombre]

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1hp1n(Forcing)p2dp2hpp2sppp]133|100|2D the usual 3+...2H=2 only[/hv]

 

I (South) place my OL face down, at which time West (soon to be dummy) asks whether the properly not alerted 2♦ rebid could be made on only 3.

 

Partner starts to answer the question but stops when West mutters something about failure to alert 2♦ and she (North) calls the TD.

 

In ACBL 3 card minor suit bids are not alertable, so West is wrong anyway. However:

 

1) With the lead face down, may the person about to become dummy ask a question about our auction?

2) Director said no to 1). Was he correct?

3) Is Declarer allowed to ask the same question after the prompting?

 

Dummy, of course comes down with ATXXX of Diamonds.

 

4) Depending on the answers to 1) and 2), is a procedural penalty in the realm of possibility?

 

5) Is this situation within the guidelines for a Recorder form?

 

This was a Regionally rated open A/X (5000) event. The fact that I actually had 4 Diamonds is merely amusing.

[pran]

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1hp1n(Forcing)p2dp2hpp2sppp]133|100|2D the usual 3+...2H=2 only[/hv]

 

I (South) place my OL face down, at which time West (soon to be dummy) asks whether the properly not alerted 2♦ rebid could be made on only 3.

 

Partner starts to answer the question but stops when West mutters something about failure to alert 2♦ and calls the TD.

 

In ACBL 3 card minor suit bids are not alertable, so West is wrong anyway. However:

 

1) With the lead face down, may the person about to become dummy ask a question about our auction?

2) Director said no to 1). Was he correct?

3) Is Declarer allowed to ask the same question after the prompting?

 

Dummy, of course comes down with ATXXX of Diamonds.

 

4) Depending on the answers to 1) and 2), is a procedural penalty in the realm of possibility?

 

5) Is this situation within the guidelines for a Recorder form?

 

This was a Regionally rated open A/X (5000) event. The fact that I actually had 4 Diamonds is merely amusing.

 

IMHO this situation is completely covered by Law 41B.

 

West's activity is completely improper, the Director is correct and a procedural penalty might be in order.

 

Declarer is of course allowed to ask any question he likes, but he might find himself constrained by UI received from presumed Dummy.

[biggerclub]

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1hp1n(Forcing)p2dp2hpp2sppp]133|100|2D the usual 3+...2H=2 only[/hv]

 

I (South) place my OL face down, at which time West (soon to be dummy) asks whether the properly not alerted 2♦ rebid could be made on only 3.

 

Partner starts to answer the question but stops when West mutters something about failure to alert 2♦ and calls the TD.

 

In ACBL 3 card minor suit bids are not alertable, so West is wrong anyway. However:

 

1) With the lead face down, may the person about to become dummy ask a question about our auction?

2) Director said no to 1). Was he correct?

3) Is Declarer allowed to ask the same question after the prompting?

 

Dummy, of course comes down with ATXXX of Diamonds.

 

4) Depending on the answers to 1) and 2), is a procedural penalty in the realm of possibility?

 

5) Is this situation within the guidelines for a Recorder form?

 

This was a Regionally rated open A/X (5000) event. The fact that I actually had 4 Diamonds is merely amusing.

 

[edited to deleted confused reference to West calling the Director -- clarified and edited in OP]

 

1) No. Law 43(A)(1)©.

2) Same question, isn't it? In any event, same answer.

3) This seems like an active ethics question, but I don't see anything in the Laws that specifically bans declarer from asking a question. Not sure about whether there is a general law that could apply here. Note that Law 43 does provide some specific penalties for specific dummy violations, but does not provide a specific penalty for this particular violation.

4) It's possible.

5) I think that any player with a complaint can file a Player Memo. It is up to the Recorder whether to take the next step. In my experience, these dummy participation situations are given quite a bit of leeway.

[blackshoe]

Agree with Sven. On the question of whether it's appropriate for a Recorder form, it sounds to me like I'd like it to be, but after reading the regulations, I'm not so sure it is. The goal statement there speaks to "very serious" complaints. Of course, a player memo is not a complaint, though it may lead to one (complaints are made by the Recorder on the basis of Player Memos, if the Recorder thinks that's appropriate). I suppose it can't hurt to file one - the worst that can happen is that the Recorder tells you you're wasting your time.

[aguahombre]

West did not call the TD. North did, at the time indicated in the OP. So, L43A1 doesn't seem useful here.

 

I am aware of some of the correct answers to my OP, but chose to present things step-by-step for the benefit of clarity and for the casual reader to see those answers. Thanks to Pran for citing the correct L41B. It is clear far beyond his "humble opinion" that the person not quite Dummy yet is already restricted. Now, people who didn't know that will be aware.

[biggerclub]

West did not call the TD. North did, at the time indicated in the OP.

 

Your OP is far from clear on a grammar basis . . . Partner [does . . . ] when W [does . . . ] and calls the director. Not clear to me, at least, who is the implied subject in the final clause.

[aguahombre]

Your OP is far from clear on a grammar basis . . . Partner [does . . . ] when W [does . . . ] and calls the director. Not clear to me, at least, who is the implied subject in the final clause.

OP altered now to hopefully make it clear.

[blackshoe]

Law 43 does not apply. The player is not yet dummy, because the opening lead has not been faced. The player is presumed dummy, and that's the term used in Law 41B, which as Sven pointed out is the applicable law here.

[biggerclub]

Law 43 does not apply. The player is not yet dummy, because the opening lead has not been faced. The player is presumed dummy, and that's the term used in Law 41B, which as Sven pointed out is the applicable law here.

 

You are all correct.

[mamos]

Oh dear Oh dear West is a d***.

 

Has he done any harm? I just don't see it. South is learning about the dummy before he makes his lead - declarer is learning about dummy.... but he'll see it when South leads, hopefully West will learn about ACBL alerting regs.

 

Procedural penalty? For not knowing Law 41 B? Surely not. Unethical? Nah just stupid. It all seems a greatly overblown reaction to a small and harmless mistake

 

Mike

[aguahombre]

Oh dear Oh dear West is a d***.

 

Has he done any harm? I just don't see it. South is learning about the dummy before he makes his lead - declarer is learning about dummy.... but he'll see it when South leads, hopefully West will learn about ACBL alerting regs.

 

Procedural penalty? For not knowing Law 41 B? Surely not. Unethical? Nah just stupid. It all seems a greatly overblown reaction to a small and harmless mistake

 

Mike

The questions involve a prewarning to Declarer that the Diamond suit might be breaking favorably, which is participation in the play. I don't believe my questions and the replies are overblowing anything. There is a problem when the answer to one's inquiry can only be of value to one's partner.

[mycroft]

90% likely it's all innocent. 50% likely it's all innocent if dummy is significantly stronger than declarer (pro-client, mentor-mentee, "helping get your LifeMonstership", whatever). Maybe not an issue in this case, but if it's not pointed out, 100% likely it won't be the last time "prospective dummy" does this, and maybe next time it will be "so the 3♣ preempt guarantees 7? or could be 6?" ("hey, partner, remember that the clubs break badly, so don't expect breaks in the other suits, either") or "is partner's 2♦ raise limit+ or gf?"

 

Of course, if the information pass is the important part, he'll just move it to before his final pass ("well, I was thinking of going to game, but...").

[blackshoe]

The questions involve a prewarning to Declarer that the Diamond suit might be breaking favorably, which is participation in the play. I don't believe my questions and the replies are overblowing anything. There is a problem when the answer to one's inquiry can only be of value to one's partner.

"Participation in the play" is a reference to restrictions on dummy. the player is not dummy (yet), so those restrictions do not apply to him at the time he asks the question.

[campboy]

"Participation in the play" is a reference to restrictions on dummy. the player is not dummy (yet), so those restrictions do not apply to him at the time he asks the question.

But 20G1 (it is improper to ask a question solely for partner's benefit) still does apply.

[blackshoe]

But 20G1 (it is improper to ask a question solely for partner's benefit) still does apply.

Fair enough.

[gnasher]

Law 20F tells us when you are allowed to ask questions.

 

1.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...

2.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...

 

This situation doesn't meet any of these conditions, so South isn't allowed to ask.

[pran]

Law 20F tells us when you are allowed to ask questions.

 

1.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...

2.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...

 

This situation doesn't meet any of these conditions, so South isn't allowed to ask.

Why do you ignore Law 41B?

[blackshoe]

I don't think he's ignoring Law 41B. They both say the same thing: presumed dummy is not permitted to ask for explanations of anything in the auction once the final pass has been made. In fact, Law 41B includes "(see Law 20F2 and 20F3)".

[pran]

Sorry, I had South and presumed declarer mixed up.

[jeffford76]

But 20G1 (it is improper to ask a question solely for partner's benefit) still does apply.

 

Amusingly (?) I was given a talking to by a director at the recent NABC for not following this law. The auction had proceeded with a weak 2H on my right, and a 2S advance on my left passed back around to me. I asked whether 2S was non-forcing, and upon being told it was called the director about the failure to alert. He seemed far more concerned with the fact that I called him to give partner another chance to bid than that the opponents had failed to follow the regulations.

[blackshoe]

Were you damaged in the end? If so, did the director adjust the score?

[jeffford76]

Were you damaged in the end? If so, did the director adjust the score?

 

No, the hand was otherwise uninteresting. Partner had a clear pass and I had a clear takeout double. I don't remember exactly where we ended up.

[blackshoe]

Hm. While I might well say something about 20G1 to a player who did as you did, I would also, I hope, deal with the other side's infraction as the law requires. But at least in this case it didn't seem to matter that he didn't.

[jeffford76]

Hm. While I might well say something about 20G1 to a player who did as you did, I would also, I hope, deal with the other side's infraction as the law requires. But at least in this case it didn't seem to matter that he didn't.

 

I hope you're kidding. What do you think a player is supposed to do in the face of strong evidence that the opponents failed to alert an alertable call?

[barmar]

I hope you're kidding. What do you think a player is supposed to do in the face of strong evidence that the opponents failed to alert an alertable call?

Especially in light of regulations that say that players are expected to protect themselves if they believe that the opponents have failed to alert. Is blackshoe saying that if you're sure they failed to alert, you should not ask "Was there a failure to alert?" if it will be for partner's benefit?

 

I think we've had this discussion before. While you may strongly suspect they failed to alert, it's possible that they recently changed their system, and your suspicions were based on out-of-date information. So unless they had a similar auction earlier in the round, where they did alert, it's unlikely you can be so sure that you know that the question will only benefit partner (and wasn't partner there when they had the earlier auction?).