Attempt to participate

[gnasher]

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".

 

Of course it's his turn to play. Apart from common sense and common English, we also have the definition of "Play" from the laws: "1. The contribution of a card from one’s hand to a trick, including the first card, which is the lead."

 

The definition of "Play period" is irrelevant, because nothing in the Laws says that a "turn to play" occurs in the "Play period".

 

Comments?

If I may say so, this is the sort of stuff that usually causes you to start ranting about BLML.

[gnasher]

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.

I routinely ask questions at this point (during the clarification period), because

- That's when the laws suggest that I should ask

- Asking at this stage reduces the risk of misleading an opponent about why I'm asking

- It makes it less likely that the answers will be coloured by the sight of dummy.

[barmar]

Asking for a "sidebar" is an unusual procedure invented out of whole cloth. There's nothing in law or regulation to support it.

Does the law specifically say that when you call the TD you have to explain the reason within earshot of the other players? If not, why can't you discuss it away from the table?

 

it's certainly common for the TD to ask players to step away from the table. This is very often done when they want to ask the player if they would have taken different action with a correct explanation.

[mycroft]

It's certainly common for the TD to ask players to step away from the table (at least in the ACBL; in England much less so, from my memory of conversations). However, when *a player* asks if they can talk to *me, the TD* away from the table, it's almost always a bad idea. Maybe less bad than not doing so, but bad nonetheless.

 

I'd suggest that 80% of the time I'm going to hear "partner misexplained..." or "I misbid, and..." and it's the end of the auction. Now, if they won the contract, we're all good. But usually they didn't, and now - well, if partner was going to wake up, the only thing that would make it easier is if the actual explanation was given at the table. It's not exactly hard.

 

So, usually, I come back to the table with the player, and say "Anything <the opposition> can work out from the fact that <player> wanted to talk to me away from the table is Authorized. Anything <partner> can work out is unAuthorized and they may not use that information. I will stick around to pay attention to the play." Which is a drag, no matter what happens.

 

I realize they're in a bind as to what to do, so I remind everyone, as often as I can:

• If your partner's explanation is right, even though it's not what you thought the agreement was when you bid, say nothing (but be prepared for an indignant TD call at the end of the hand);
  
• If your partner's explanation is wrong, and you're declarer or dummy, you must correct it before the opening lead;
  
• If your partner's expalanation is wrong, and you're defending, you must only correct it after the play (but be prepared for an indignant TD call before you get a chance);
  
• If *your* explanation is wrong, and you figure it out, you must call the TD and correct it immediately on realizing it.
  

(yes, I know all our readers know all of this already)

[RMB1]

I realize they're in a bind as to what to do, so I remind everyone, as often as I can:

• If your partner's explanation is right, even though it's not what you thought the agreement was when you bid, say nothing (but be prepared for an indignant TD call at the end of the hand);
  
• If your partner's explanation is wrong, and you're declarer or dummy, you must correct it before the opening lead;
  
• If your partner'sexpalanation is wrong, and you're defending, you must only correct it after the play (but be prepared for an indignant TD call before you get a chance);
  
• If *your* explanation is wrong, and you figure it out, you must call the TD and correct it immediately on realizing it.
  

 

There is a wrinkle to the last bullet which I suspect may depend on where you play.

In England, you can add "even if you used unauthorised information from partner to figure it out";

but then you have to add "but of course you can not use the unauthorised information in your choice of calls/plays".

 

This is EBU Blue Book 2D7

It is proper to use any unauthorised information which has been made available by partner to help a player to alert and explain the partnership understanding accurately, but this information must not be used to help in the bidding and play.

[blackshoe]

If I may say so, this is the sort of stuff that usually causes you to start ranting about BLML.

I know. Maybe I'm just having a bad week.

[blackshoe]

I routinely ask questions at this point (during the clarification period), because

- That's when the laws suggest that I should ask

- Asking at this stage reduces the risk of misleading an opponent about why I'm asking

- It makes it less likely that the answers will be coloured by the sight of dummy.

Good idea, and good reasons. I should probably start doing the same.

[blackshoe]

Does the law specifically say that when you call the TD you have to explain the reason within earshot of the other players? If not, why can't you discuss it away from the table?

 

it's certainly common for the TD to ask players to step away from the table. This is very often done when they want to ask the player if they would have taken different action with a correct explanation.

There are, I grant, times when it's appropriate to ask the player to step away from the table. Not sure there are times when it's appropriate for a player to ask the director to do so. For one thing, a desire to avoid UI to partner does not, as far as I can see, give a player that right.

[blackshoe]

There is a wrinkle to the last bullet which I suspect may depend on where you play.

In England, you can add "even if you used unauthorised information from partner to figure it out";

but then you have to add "but of course you can not use the unauthorised information in your choice of calls/plays".

 

This is EBU Blue Book 2D7

I would think the law would have the same interpretation everywhere. I applaud the EBU for codifying it.

[barmar]

It's certainly common for the TD to ask players to step away from the table (at least in the ACBL; in England much less so, from my memory of conversations). However, when *a player* asks if they can talk to *me, the TD* away from the table, it's almost always a bad idea. Maybe less bad than not doing so, but bad nonetheless.

If it's less bad than not talking away from the table, what's the preferred alternative? Not calling the TD at all? But shouldn't players always be allowed, even encouraged, to call the TD when they're unsure of their rights and/or obligations? And once they call the TD, shouldn't they choose the least bad way of explaining the situation?

 

There are some situations where giving UI to partner is inevitable, such as ordinary spoken alerts, announcements, and questions/answers to opponents. But if there's a simple way to minimize UI, what's wrong with using it? I realize that there's UI just from calling the TD and asking to speak to him away from the table -- that's another of the inevitable situations. But it's less UI than partner actually hearing the conversation.

[blackshoe]

Partner hears you call the TD, and ask to speak to him away from the table. What are the odds he's not going to figure out why you asked to do that?

[gordontd]

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.

I would normally agree to a player's request to talk to me away from the table, primarily because until I hear what that question is I won't know whether or not it will have been helpful to everyone for it not to have been said in front of the table. If they do all need to hear it I can go back and tell them, but if it's right for them not to have been told, I couldn't untell them if it had already been said to them.

[gordontd]

Partner hears you call the TD, and ask to speak to him away from the table. What are the odds he's not going to figure out why you asked to do that?

In this specific situation? I don't know. In general, quite high.

[barmar]

Partner hears you call the TD, and ask to speak to him away from the table. What are the odds he's not going to figure out why you asked to do that?

Partner hears you call the TD, and you speak to the TD at the table. What are the odds he's not going to figure out why you asked to do that?

 

Which one transmits more UI? The only way to not transmit any UI is to not call the TD in the first place, but players are supposed to call the TD when they need his assistance.

[blackshoe]

"Strange game. The only way to win is not to play." -- Joshua, aka the WOPR, in War Games. :)

[blackshoe]

I would normally agree to a player's request to talk to me away from the table, primarily because until I hear what that question is I won't know whether or not it will have been helpful to everyone for it not to have been said in front of the table. If they do all need to hear it I can go back and tell them, but if it's right for them not to have been told, I couldn't untell them if it had already been said to them.

Good point.

[aguahombre]

I would normally agree to a player's request to talk to me away from the table, primarily because until I hear what that question is I won't know whether or not it will have been helpful to everyone for it not to have been said in front of the table. If they do all need to hear it I can go back and tell them, but if it's right for them not to have been told, I couldn't untell them if it had already been said to them.

Yes. I can't unring the bell of the possible UI of the mere request anyway; and maybe, just maybe, there is a good reason.

 

Of particular note: on more than one occasion, I have been asked HOW to properly explain an agreement or lack thereof & and at the appropriate time.

[RMB1]

Players can receive advice from the TD away from the table, including whether the player is required/permitted to draw attention to a particular irregularity.

 

If there has been an irregularity [that the player is permitted to draw attention to] then the TD should deal with that at the table.

 

If the player talks to the TD away from the table, and there is no action to be taken at the table, the TD could explain that he had advised the player of their rights and responsibilities (quoting Law 81C2) and ask to recalled at the end of the hand.

[blackshoe]

If there has been an irregularity [that the player is permitted to draw attention to] then the TD should deal with that at the table.

Um. If a player who is not permitted to draw attention to an irregularity draws the TD's attention to an irregularity, the TD now has two irregularities to deal with, and he should deal with both of them (Law 81C3).

[aguahombre]

Perhaps that is why RMB1 worded his post correctly.

[RMB1]

Um. If a player who is not permitted to draw attention to an irregularity draws the TD's attention to an irregularity, the TD now has two irregularities to deal with, and he should deal with both of them (Law 81C3).

 

I am thinking of the situation that the player asks the TD (away from the table) if he should correct partner's misexplanation. The TD tells the player (away from the table) that he may not, yet (Law 20F5). There has been an irregularity (the misexplanation) but the player should not be drawing the table's attention to it and the TD will not deal with it now.

[blackshoe]

I am thinking of the situation that the player asks the TD (away from the table) if he should correct partner's misexplanation. The TD tells the player (away from the table) that he may not, yet (Law 20F5). There has been an irregularity (the misexplanation) but the player should not be drawing the table's attention to it and the TD will not deal with it now.

Ah, okay. Yeah, in that case you're absolutely right.