Attempt to participate

[blackshoe]

No, I'm saying that if a player asks a question solely for partner's benefit, he's done something he shouldn't do, and should be educated about that. But even if that was his reason for asking, rather than that he's trying to find out if his side has been given misinformation, if his side has been given misinformation, that's an infraction that the director should deal with in the way the laws instruct him to do.

 

In the case at hand, if there was no intent to ask solely for partner's benefit, then the asker has done nothing wrong. The fact that partner might benefit from the answer to the question (such as by being given a chance to change his last call) is not relevant.

[biggerclub]

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?

 

Once opener passes, it seems clear that 2♠ is not forcing. Or else Opener unilaterally went off-system.

 

Now, are you asking because the answer you get will affect your call?

 

If not, it seems that the only reason to ask is to back up the auction and give partner a chance to do something over 2♠. And that is not allowed. Unless you are asking in part to humiliate (some people say educate) the opponents. Which doesn't seem to be something that the Laws should sanction either.

[blackshoe]

I wonder what people would say if the scenario was that there was a failure to alert, and Jefford didn't call because "it would be for partner's benefit" and his side were damaged (because his partner would have bid or doubled had he but known), and then the director declines to do anything because "you should have called me at the time". Don't tell me it can't happen. It certainly can.

[biggerclub]

I wonder what people would say if the scenario was that there was a failure to alert, and Jefford didn't call because "it would be for partner's benefit" and his side were damaged (because his partner would have bid or doubled had he but known), and then the director declines to do anything because "you should have called me at the time". Don't tell me it can't happen. It certainly can.

 

You can call the director. When the director arrives, you can request to leave the table for a sidebar. You can explain the situation away from partner's hearing. I think that there's a fair chance that partner's pass is binding on the partnership despite the failure to alert . . . that partner had a duty to protect himself . . . without assistance.

 

Nevertheless, there is a method to involve the director without alerting partner.

[blackshoe]

You can call the director. When the director arrives, you can request to leave the table for a sidebar. You can explain the situation away from partner's hearing. I think that there's a fair chance that partner's pass is binding on the partnership despite the failure to alert . . . that partner had a duty to protect himself . . . without assistance.

 

Nevertheless, there is a method to involve the director without alerting partner.

Asking for a "sidebar" is an unusual procedure invented out of whole cloth. There's nothing in law or regulation to support it. Equally so, the idea that partner's pass is "binding" on the partnership has no basis in law or regulation.

[biggerclub]

Asking for a "sidebar" is an unusual procedure invented out of whole cloth.

 

It has happened to me at a recent regional. (by happened to me, I mean the opponent called the director and then asked to step away from the table to discuss her complaint with the director)

[pran]

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.

Well,

had it been me in your position I would have most strongly objected to any allegation that my question was solely for my partner's benefit.

 

The main purpose of the question is obviously to establish whether an irregularity has taken place, and that is at least as much in my interest as for my partner's benefit.

[blackshoe]

The main purpose of the question is obviously to establish whether an irregularity has taken place, and that is at least as much in my interest as for my partner's benefit.

Precisely!

[aguahombre]

Well,

had it been me in your position I would have most strongly objected to any allegation that my question was solely for my partner's benefit.

 

The main purpose of the question is obviously to establish whether an irregularity has taken place, and that is at least as much in my interest as for my partner's benefit.

Yes..and unfortunately there is no redress when the Director makes an unfounded allegation "for the sole benefit" of letting us all know he can misapply 20G1.

[pran]

♣

Yes..and unfortunately there is no redress when the Director makes an unfounded allegation "for the sole benefit" of letting us all know he can misapply 20G1.

A director's abuse of Law 20G1 can (of course) be appealed, if neccessary all the way up to the national authority.

(And I think it should!)

[helene_t]

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.

This seems to ommit the defender-not-on-lead's right to ask questions after the opening lead has been mede face-down (not that it is relevant to this case, though).

[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.

 

This seems to ommit the defender-not-on-lead's right to ask questions after the opening lead has been mede face-down (not that it is relevant to this case, though).

Well,

that is just another consequence of (ab-)using Law 20F while forgetting or ignoring Law 41B.

[RMB1]

This seems to ommit the defender-not-on-lead's right to ask questions after the opening lead has been mede face-down (not that it is relevant to this case, though).

Isn't that common practice: defender on lead leads face down, asks "questions parther", partner asks questions and then the lead is faced.

[aguahombre]

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.

Number 1 meets the conditions. South inquired at his turn to call, received an answer, properly called the TD re failure to alert at the right time, and then balanced with a double.

 

A poster's contention that South already knew the answer because of RHO's pass and therefore is asking solely for partner's benefit is just wrong. There is still a violation from failure to alert if it were not forcing, and South has a right to know whether that is their agreement or whether RHO has broken with their forcing agreement.

[pran]

Number 1 meets the conditions. South inquired at his turn to call, received an answer, properly called the TD re failure to alert at the right time, and then balanced with a double.

 

A poster's contention that South already knew the answer because of RHO's pass and therefore is asking solely for partner's benefit is just wrong. There is still a violation from failure to alert if it were not forcing, and South has a right to know whether that is their agreement or whether RHO has broken with their forcing agreement.

I am sorry, but you are wrong: Law 20F literally prevents South from asking.

 

Number 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...) does not meet the conditions because we have already had the final pass - and South will in fact not get another turn to call unless the auction is rolled back.

 

As I have already stated more than once: The Director must apply Law 41B!

 

Aside from that your comment is of course correct.

[jeffford76]

I think I have contributed to the confusion between aguahombre and pran, as I think aguahombre is referring to my anecdote and pran to the original post.

[aguahombre]

I think I have contributed to the confusion between aguahombre and pran, as I think aguahombre is referring to my anecdote and pran to the original post.

Yep. I thought we had moved on from the OP to your thing; and since I was South in the OP and didn't ask anything anyway, I have no idea what Pran is talking about.

[gnasher]

Number 1 meets the conditions. South inquired at his turn to call, received an answer, properly called the TD re failure to alert at the right time, and then balanced with a double.

I was answering the question in your original post, which was "1) With the lead face down, may the person about to become dummy ask a question about our auction?"

[blackshoe]

Hm.

 

Law 41A: After a bid, double or redouble has been followed by three passes in rotation, the defender on presumed declarer’s left makes the opening lead face down. The face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director after an irregularity (see Law 47E2); the withdrawn card must be returned to the defender’s hand.

 

Law 41B: Before the opening lead is faced, the leader’s partner and the presumed declarer (but not the presumed dummy) each may require a review of the auction

or request an explanation of an opponent’s call (see Law 20F2 and 20F3). Declarer or either defender may, at his first turn to play a card, require a review of the auction; this right expires when he plays a card. The defenders (subject to Law 16) and the declarer retain the right to request explanations throughout the play period, each at his own turn to play.

I have always assumed (silly me) that the opening leader may request an explanation of the auction, or of any single call, "at his turn to play," which I would have thought would be before he places the opening lead face down. But that's still, technically, in the auction period, so it's not "his turn to play". The play period starts when the opening lead is faced (Law 41C). Law 41C, in the same sentence where it defines when the play period starts, calls the period discussed in 41B, i.e., from the time the opening lead is made face down to the time when it is turned face up, the "Clarification Period". Custom is for the opening leader, after making his lead face down, to ask his partner if he has any questions (he should ask declarer too, but never mind that). So my question is, at what point(s) may the opening leader ask questions?

 

1) during the auction period, before his final call (how does he know it's going to be his final call?)

2) during the auction period (the clarification period hasn't started yet) before he chooses his opening lead

3) during the clarification period, after he makes the opening lead face down, but before anyone else asks questions

4) during the clarification period, at any time before he faces the lead

5) during the play period, after he faces the opening lead (because the play period starts when the opening lead is faced)

 

I would say that 1 is certainly valid, because it's still during the auction, and he's allowed to ask questions at his turn during the auction.

2 is less clear, particularly if the opening leader did not make the final pass in the auction.

3 seems unlikely to be right. Certainly I've never seen anyone do it, and I don't see anything in the law that seems to support it.

4 also seems unlikely to be right. Things could get really confusing.

5. No, because once he faces the lead, his turn to play is over.

 

I think 2 should be the right time for the opening leader to ask questions, but it's not clear to me that the law gives him that right. Law 41A doesn't seem to leave much room for questions.

 

Comments?

[aguahombre]

I was answering the question in your original post, which was "1) With the lead face down, may the person about to become dummy ask a question about our auction?"

O.K. The fact that "South" was not the one about to become dummy confused me.

[pran]

Hm.

 

 

 

 

I have always assumed (silly me) that the opening leader may request an explanation of the auction, or of any single call, "at his turn to play," which I would have thought would be before he places the opening lead face down. But that's still, technically, in the auction period, so it's not "his turn to play". The play period starts when the opening lead is faced (Law 41C). Law 41C, in the same sentence where it defines when the play period starts, calls the period discussed in 41B, i.e., from the time the opening lead is made face down to the time when it is turned face up, the "Clarification Period". Custom is for the opening leader, after making his lead face down, to ask his partner if he has any questions (he should ask declarer too, but never mind that). So my question is, at what point(s) may the opening leader ask questions?

 

1) during the auction period, before his final call (how does he know it's going to be his final call?)

2) during the auction period (the clarification period hasn't started yet) before he chooses his opening lead

3) during the clarification period, after he makes the opening lead face down, but before anyone else asks questions

4) during the clarification period, at any time before he faces the lead

5) during the play period, after he faces the opening lead (because the play period starts when the opening lead is faced)

 

I would say that 1 is certainly valid, because it's still during the auction, and he's allowed to ask questions at his turn during the auction.

2 is less clear, particularly if the opening leader did not make the final pass in the auction.

3 seems unlikely to be right. Certainly I've never seen anyone do it, and I don't see anything in the law that seems to support it.

4 also seems unlikely to be right. Things could get really confusing.

5. No, because once he faces the lead, his turn to play is over.

 

I think 2 should be the right time for the opening leader to ask questions, but it's not clear to me that the law gives him that right. Law 41A doesn't seem to leave much room for questions.

 

Comments?

Without now bothering about Law quotations here is how we in Norway teach correct procedures following the end of the auction. (Three consecutive passes after at least one bid has been made):

1: Presumed declarer's LHO asks whatever question(s) he might have related to the auction.

2: Presumed declarer's LHO selects his opening lead and places this card face down on the table in front of himself.

3: Presumed declarer's RHO asks whatever question(s) he might have related to the auction.

4: Presumed declarer's RHO indicates to his partner that the opening lead should be faced, which is then done.

5: Dummy faces his cards.

 

Note that the opening leader should not ask his partner if he has any questions, and that neither presumed declarer nor presumed dummy should in any way indicate that the opening lead may be faced.

[blackshoe]

Without now bothering about Law quotations here is how we in Norway teach correct procedures following the end of the auction. (Three consecutive passes after at least one bid has been made):

1: Presumed declarer's LHO asks whatever question(s) he might have related to the auction.

2: Presumed declarer's LHO selects his opening lead and places this card face down on the table in front of himself.

3: Presumed declarer's RHO asks whatever question(s) he might have related to the auction.

4: Presumed declarer's RHO indicates to his partner that the opening lead should be faced, which is then done.

5: Dummy faces his cards.

 

Note that the opening leader should not ask his partner if he has any questions, and that neither presumed declarer nor presumed dummy should in any way indicate that the opening lead may be faced.

That procedure is a good try, Sven, but whoever devised it left out one thing:

 

Law 41B: Before the opening lead is faced, the leader’s partner and the presumed declarer (but not the presumed dummy) each may require a review of the auction or request an explanation of an opponent’s call (see Law 20F2 and 20F3).

I will grant that I don't think I've ever seen a declarer want to ask questions at this time, probably because he knows he's also going to be able to ask (again?) in about five seconds - as soon as dummy faces his cards. B-)

 

I would add: "3.5: Presumed declarer asks whatever question(s) he might have related to the auction", and change 4 to "Presumed declarer indicates to his LHO that the opening lead should be faced, which is then done." Then you can renumber 5 to 6, 4 to 5, and 3.5 to 4.

 

Of course, retraining players like this won't be easy. :P

[pran]

That procedure is a good try, Sven, but whoever devised it left out one thing:

Law 41B: Before the opening lead is faced, the leaders partner and the presumed declarer (but not the presumed dummy) each may require a review of the auction or request an explanation of an opponents call (see Law 20F2 and 20F3).

 

I will grant that I don't think I've ever seen a declarer want to ask questions at this time, probably because he knows he's also going to be able to ask (again?) in about five seconds - as soon as dummy faces his cards. B-)

 

I would add: "3.5: Presumed declarer asks whatever question(s) he might have related to the auction", and change 4 to "Presumed declarer indicates to his LHO that the opening lead should be faced, which is then done." Then you can renumber 5 to 6, 4 to 5, and 3.5 to 4.

 

Of course, retraining players like this won't be easy. :P

 

No, I don't think we left out anything.

(Presumed) declarer is really free to ask whatever he wants at any time (because he has no partner that can make any use of UI). He is only forbidden to make misleading questions or remarks.

 

The important thing is that RHO must be very careful and should not say anything until LHO has made his opening lead face down.

Thereafter it is RHO (and neither declarer nor dummy) who should give LHO clearance to face the opening lead with the indication that he has nothing (more) to ask.

 

What we really try to rectify with our procedure is the common misunderstanding that the purpose of making the opening lead face down is to prevent opening leads from the wrong defender. That is not the purpose, and therefore neither declarer nor dummy has any business saying "yes it is your lead" or words to that effect.

[blackshoe]

No, I don't think we left out anything.

(Presumed) declarer is really free to ask whatever he wants at any time (because he has no partner that can make any use of UI). He is only forbidden to make misleading questions or remarks.

 

The important thing is that RHO must be very careful and should not say anything until LHO has made his opening lead face down.

Thereafter it is RHO (and neither declarer nor dummy) who should give LHO clearance to face the opening lead with the indication that he has nothing (more) to ask.

 

What we really try to rectify with our procedure is the common misunderstanding that the purpose of making the opening lead face down is to prevent opening leads from the wrong defender. That is not the purpose, and therefore neither declarer nor dummy has any business saying "yes it is your lead" or words to that effect.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about proper procedure. The laws define proper procedure, and in this case the laws say that it is proper procedure for declarer to ask before the opening lead is faced. Setting up a procedure that ignores the declarer's right to ask questions during the clarification period does not support the proper procedure.

 

Y'all will do what you want, but you can't claim you didn't leave out anything.

 

The purpose of face down opening leads is to ensure that any questions about the auction are cleared up before the play period starts, and so that if there has been MI, at least there's some possibility of rectification in the auction. If you want people to learn that, you should tell them that.

[pran]

The purpose of face down opening leads is to ensure that any questions about the auction are cleared up before the play period starts, and so that if there has been MI, at least there's some possibility of rectification in the auction. If you want people to learn that, you should tell them that.

Yes, and in a manner that as far as possible (without jeopardizing their rights) prevents passing (lead directing) UI between defenders.