Questioning during the bidding

[Jinksy]

This hand came up last night. I was E, I don't know N, but he seemed like an experienced and at least reasonably competent club player:

 

(ETA fixed the bidding; ReETA - though forgot to include the alert that opening 4441s 1N is systematic for us)

 

[hv=pc=n&w=sat98hk976daq76ct&e=skqj32hadt32caq63&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=p1np2hp3cp4cd4dp4sp4nppp]266|200[/hv]

 

This hand did not exactly cover me in glory, but I was quite annoyed by how it had gone down (I didn't involve the director at the time, since it was my first time at the club, and I didn't really care that much about the hand when we were doing so poorly anyway).

 

After W's Xfer break, N started to ask questions about whether we play retransfers and what the break showed. We were well behind at the time and feeling very rushed, which if not justifies, maybe gives some context to the rest of the auction. I'd been planning to sign off in 4S to catch up, but since N seemed substantial enough to know that he shouldn't be asking questions if he wasn't thinking about bidding, I thought he ought to have the KC, and decided to make the slam try - but quickly changed my mind after S's X.

 

My partner carried on - I now think rightly, and that I should have been able to place him with a singleton if I'd trusted him, but at the time I was feeling flustered, and figured that he'd lost his mind and decided to bid RKCB (I'd also forgotten that, by our agreement, his 4N was Turbo). Since any (RKCB) response could excite him and I was still feeling flustered, and he was showing values in my weak suits, I figured passing would at least end the pain, hopefully ensure a positive and might even score us a similar number of tricks to spades and conceivably be our last making contract.

 

So, 0 out of 10 for my decision-making on this board. Nonetheless, when I wondered about N's hand, and when I saw it later, felt that he'd acted unethically in asking questions with such a poor hand. Had I been in a really competitive match, I thought I might have asked for a director ruling, on the grounds that (I claim), he'd talked us out of 4S (for about 50%, as opposed to our approx 6% for 4N managing to go off 1). So, had I done so, how would the ruling have gone?

[weejonnie]

North has every right to know what the calls mean, even if he doesn't intend to bid. Asking questions risks giving UI to your partner (law 16) but that doesn't really seem an issue. This is covered under law 20.

 

F. Explanation of Calls

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. He is 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 where these are matters of

partnership understanding. Except on the instruction of the Director

replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call

in question. The partner of a player who asks a question may not ask a

supplementary question until his turn to call or play. Law 16 may apply

and the Regulating Authority may establish regulations for written

explanations.

...

G. Incorrect Procedure

1. It is improper to ask a question solely for partner’s benefit.

 

Repeatedly asking questions may come under harassment, which is not allowed.

 

However we must look at law 73

 

D. Variations in Tempo or Manner

1. It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady

tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly

careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise,

unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is

made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may

appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk.

2. A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark

or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating

before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made

or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure.

 

 

I think that you have read too much as what is and what is not allowed in the auction as you seem to have made some assumptions (regarding KC for instance) that are unwarranted under the laws. Now it may be that North was hoping that you would do so (as above), but I would find that very hard to prove.

 

I think that (assuming you can), you could ask the TD to record the incident so see whether North has 'form' in trying to mislead opponents.

[Jinksy]

Thanks. I do not believe N had any deceitful intent.

[blackshoe]

I'm confused. Were you East, as you said in the OP, or West?

[Jinksy]

East. Why?

[ahydra]

East. Why?

 

I think this bit is very confusing

 

My partner carried on - I now think rightly, and that I should have been able to place him with a singleton if I'd trusted him, but at the time I was feeling flustered, and figured that he'd lost his mind and decided to bid RKCB (I'd also forgotten that, by our agreement, his 4N was Turbo). Since any (RKCB) response could excite him and I was still feeling flustered, and he was showing values in my weak suits, I figured passing would at least end the pain, hopefully ensure a positive and might even score us a similar number of tricks to spades and conceivably be our last making contract.

 

as it talks about you being the one passing 4NT when in fact you were the one who bid 4NT.

 

ahydra

[wank]

you seem to have some funny ideas. opps can ask questions. they aren't supposed to be deliberately deceptive, for example asking about a 5H response to RKCB, "does that deny the queen of trumps?" when looking at it, but aside from that they can ask any relevant questions whenever they like. they risk giving their partner UI if there's a pattern to those questions, but giving UI isn't illegal either.

[barmar]

I think this bit is very confusing

...

as it talks about you being the one passing 4NT when in fact you were the one who bid 4NT.

Good, it's not just me. :)

[weejonnie]

you seem to have some funny ideas. opps can ask questions. they aren't supposed to be deliberately deceptive, for example asking about a 5H response to RKCB, "does that deny the queen of trumps?" when looking at it, but aside from that they can ask any relevant questions whenever they like. they risk giving their partner UI if there's a pattern to those questions, but giving UI isn't illegal either.

 

Of course not - director can take advantage of comments and gestures made by his opponents at his own risk - but his opponents cannot try and mislead declarer (other by deceptive cards played in tempo).

[Vampyr]

I am surprised that no one seems to have objected to the questions about re-transfers. I thought that most people on these forums were wedded to the bizarre notion that players must not ask or answer questions about possible calls that have not come up yer.

[aguahombre]

I am surprised that no one seems to have objected to the questions about re-transfers. I thought that most people on these forums were wedded to the bizarre notion that players must not ask or answer questions about possible calls that have not come up yer.

Yeh, it is truly disgusting that people actually read 20F1 and think it should be followed.

 

The traditional way for forum members to avoid this, and other rules if we don't like them, is to claim they are unclear.

[Trinidad]

you seem to have some funny ideas. opps can ask questions. they aren't supposed to be deliberately deceptive, for example asking about a 5H response to RKCB, "does that deny the queen of trumps?" when looking at it, but aside from that they can ask any relevant questions whenever they like. they risk giving their partner UI if there's a pattern to those questions, but giving UI isn't illegal either.

Interesting case...

 

I have had the pleasure (:() of playing against opponents who routinely didn't fully disclose their ace asking method (in places where people also played 0/4-1/5-2-3 keycards). They would explain the 5♥ reply as "two keycards". They would simply wait for an opponent to ask the follow-up question "does it say something about the queen?" and then finesse trumps into that hand...

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

Interesting case...

 

I have had the pleasure (:() of playing against opponents who routinely didn't fully disclose their ace asking method (in places where people also played 0/4-1/5-2-3 keycards). They would explain the 5♥ reply as "two keycards". They would simply wait for an opponent to ask the follow-up question "does it say something about the queen?" and then finesse trumps into that hand...

 

Rik

Yes, interesting. I can't imagine ever asking about (specifically) the 5H response to 4NT. I can't ever need to know what I already know.

[Trinidad]

Yes, interesting. I can't imagine ever asking about (specifically) the 5H response to 4NT. I can't ever need to know what I already know.

How is that?

 

The auction is over. You ask for an explanation of the entire auction. When you get to 5♥, they reply "2".

 

You play in an environment where 1/3 of the field plays 5♥ as 2 aces, 1/3 as 2 keycards (no info about the queen) and 1/3 as RKCB (2 keys, no queen). In addition, you know that cc's are sloppy because those players that play 5♥ as showing 2 keys, without info about the queen, will have written "keycard Blackwood" or "RKCB" on their cards, because they don't know any better. The same holds for many who play good old fashioned standard Blackwood: they have "RKCB" on their card, because they don't know any better.

 

So, after the reply "2", you need to ask a follow up question.

 

I think it is relevant to know whether partner has the queen, or merely could have the queen. Similarly, partner would like to know if I (could) have the queen.

 

I have run into some card sharks there who play RKCB and only reply "2", just to figure out how to play the hand. So, my partner and I have the agreement that whoever asks about a keycard auction will ask the follow-up question(s), whether s/he does or doesn't hold the king and/or queen.

 

Rik

[mycroft]

As far as I'm concerned, if I didn't get an answer - especially to ace-asking auctions - I ask until I get it.

 

"2" -> "two what?"

"two keycards" -> "does that say anything about the queen?"

depending on the auction, "for what suit?"

 

I'm amazed how indignant the opponents get to these questions, but I ask them all the same. "isn't it obvious that everyone plays 1430 RKC for the last bid suit if there are zero or two agreed?" is the unspoken comment. Well, no. I've run into straight Blackwood, I *play* 0314, I've seen Roman Gerber, and Roman Keycard Gerber (with the response explained as "Gerber" in both cases - 2NT-4♣; 4♦ shows 1 or 4, obviously, right?), I've seen 2♣-2♦; 4NT be *1430 for diamonds* (it's the last bid suit, right?), I've seen the response to Kickback explained as "1430" (what, you expect *me* do work out the steps for a convention I refuse to play?)...

 

I don't see why it's my responsibility to work all that out; and I'm quite happy to be passive-aggressive about it. Next time they won't try this "minimal crap" - whether it's because they don't understand there isn't One True Bidding Style, or whether they're trying to shark me, or whatever.

[gwnn]

Trinidad, I've also seen a fourth "1/3": "two aces and the trump queen" and a confused look when I ask why the trump Q is more important than the K :P Sorry for the threadjack.

[blackshoe]

"Why is the trump queen more important than the king?" Confused look, followed by "that's the way we play it". IOW, "we have no clue; we read this method in a book somewhere, or overheard a discussion, and it sounded cool, so..."

 

When you ask about the opponents' bidding, ask "please explain your auction". After they give you a review of the bidding, say thank you and ask "please explain your auction". If after they eventually explain their auction you think they might have left something out, ask "is there anything else we need to know?" If, after you have done that, you don't get full disclosure, the director should protect you. If he doesn't, fire him. From a cannon. ;)

[helene_t]

What Ed said.

 

Back to OP: that kind of nonsense questioning can be a bit annoying and as a td I might have a word with North about wasting time and leaking (mis) info but I would not adjust. The question sounds unlikely to be aimed at bidding decisions. Don't read anything into it other than general curiosity or smartassness. The finesse has 50% chance.

[gordontd]

Interesting case...

 

I have had the pleasure (:() of playing against opponents who routinely didn't fully disclose their ace asking method (in places where people also played 0/4-1/5-2-3 keycards). They would explain the 5♥ reply as "two keycards". They would simply wait for an opponent to ask the follow-up question "does it say something about the queen?" and then finesse trumps into that hand...

 

Rik

That's the reason why it's legitimate to ask further when given an incomplete answer, whether or not you have the queen, and we have case law to that effect.

[barmar]

It's legitimate to ask about the queen even if you're looking at it. You don't just need to know what each player has, you also need to know what each opponent knows about their partner's hand. If someone bids slam even though they know that neither of them has the trump queen, that's informative about the rest of their hand (e.g. maybe they have a 10-card fit, or that's the only missing key card).

[wank]

yes but there's a right way to phrase the question and a wrong way. if you ask about the whole auction or the 5H bid in general terms and get a half answer then you can ask a follow up. if you ask specifically about the queen without reference to anything else it's pokeresque.

[Jinksy]

I think this bit is very confusing

 

 

 

as it talks about you being the one passing 4NT when in fact you were the one who bid 4NT.

 

ahydra

 

Sigh, that's what I get for rushing before bedtime. Fixed diagram in OP.

[Jinksy]

Back to OP: that kind of nonsense questioning can be a bit annoying and as a td I might have a word with North about wasting time and leaking (mis) info but I would not adjust. The question sounds unlikely to be aimed at bidding decisions. Don't read anything into it other than general curiosity or smartassness. The finesse has 50% chance.

 

So this does seem peculiar in that there seems to be some sort of claim passed around - and I'm not sure from this thread whether it has any legitimacy - that you should ask about the bidding if you're not considering a call other than pass. If this injunction does exist, what sort of substance does it have, if (as it sounds here) there's no penalty from persistently ignoring it?

[Zelandakh]

You play in an environment where 1/3 of the field plays 5♥ as 2 aces, 1/3 as 2 keycards (no info about the queen) and 1/3 as RKCB (2 keys, no queen).

You can differentiate these by asking what a 5♠ response would have meant instead or, sometimes, just by asking for the player to be more specific (without reference to any specific cards). I have to admit this is the sort of thing that drives me nuts too though.

 

As an aside, I assume the system in play for the OP was Fantunes and it is often the case that players feel they are not being told everything when playing against an unfamiliar system, so it might well be that she was in that mind-set and simply asking about everything. Or she might think of you and your partner as "system people" and want to show off that she knows some things too. Lots of possibilities offer themselves.

[VixTD]

So this does seem peculiar in that there seems to be some sort of claim passed around - and I'm not sure from this thread whether it has any legitimacy - that you should ask about the bidding if you're not considering a call other than pass. If this injunction does exist, what sort of substance does it have, if (as it sounds here) there's no penalty from persistently ignoring it?

I think this is a very tricky topic. Law 73 deals with legal and illegal communication with partner, and legal and illegal deception. It might be useful to look at tempo breaks and questions asked, as the legal distinction between the two is often lost on players:

 

Although they should try to maintain a steady tempo, players have the right to stop and think about a call or play, so long as they have a genuine bridge reason for doing so (law 73D1). They may not vary tempo deliberately in order to mislead the opponents (73D2), or to communicate something to partner (73B). Partner must take care to avoid drawing inferences from such tempo breaks (73C). Opponents may draw whatever inference they wish, but at their own risk (73D1).

 

Players have a right to ask questions about the opponents' bidding and plays (law 21). There is no law that specifically says they may not ask unless the answer is likely to affect their action at that turn (a popular misconception), but they may not ask solely for partner's benefit (law 21G1), they may not ask in order to communicate something to partner (law 73B1), nor in order to mislead an opponent (law 73D2). Again, partner must carefully avoid using any inference from the fact that partner has chosen to ask a question (law 73C). Opponents may draw whatever inference they like (16A2).

 

Law 73F gives the TD the authority to award an adjusted score, but only when an innocent opponent has drawn a false inference from an action that was in violation of the proprieties of law 73. In the case of a tempo break, it's often easy to rule that the player had no demonstrable reason for hesitating and so was in breach of law 73D1, which requires players to take care not to vary tempo when to do so may work to the benefit of their side. In the case of a question asked when there was no reason for the player to need to know the answer at that turn, what law or propriety has been broken? The TD would have to rule that the question had been asked in order to mislead an opponent, or in order to communicate with partner, before they could adjust the score.

 

This leaves directors and players in a difficult situation. Has a player asked a question because they genuinely needed to know the answer there and then, or because it is their habit to ask every time they don't understand a call or play? You see some people on this forum discussing strategies for randomising when they will ask questions to avoid passing information, but unless the TD and the opponents can be sure they really stick to such agreements it can be difficult to dispel the notion that they've asked in the full knowledge that doing so might hoodwink the opponents.