[elwood913]

Hi,

Rules question here, I'm in ACBL land.

After the auction is over, if a defender asks about one of declarer's bids, is it still necessary to ask the dummy? Or is it ok to ask the declarer? Seems to me there is no risk of giving the dummy any UI, so why not just ask the declarer?

Nobody seems to like it much if I do this, lol. I'm not overly familiar with the ACBL rulebook, but I just read what seem to be the most relevant Sections and found one place (Law 20 F1 and F2) where it was pretty clear you're still supposed to ask the dummy about declarer's bids.

I guess I'm hoping I missed something in the Laws, and that it's okay to ask the declarer about his bids. I'm not sure why I'm hoping this, it just seems sensible to me.

If indeed the rules prohibit asking the declarer, anyone have any idea why? I ran through a couple scenarios in my head about who might have forgotten a convention and what it would mean if one person said a bid was x, and the other piped up and said it was y, and would you have more or less information if the dummy first said what they thought the bid was and was later corrected by the declarer, etc., etc., and then I got dizzy and thought I'd ask all you nice folks.

Thanks

[aguahombre]

Regardless of whether you can do this (surely that will be answered by the more knowledgeable), it seems as if you wouldn't want to.

We usually will receive more, not less, information if we ask the partner of the person who made the call, and then the person who made the call corrects him as to their actual agreement. We now know what the partner's actions were based upon in addition to the actual agreement.

There is one obscure situation where you still won't receive better information; but asking the dummy about declarer's call won't help unscrew it: where declarer misbid, dummy's explanation matches the misbid, and declarer corrects the explanation by explaining their actual agreement. (This scenario has occurred, and is in compliance with the rules.)

[blackshoe]

The law is pretty clear on this point: you can only ask declarer if the director gives you permission to do so, which would happen, usually, only if you've already asked dummy and his answer was unsatisfactory - for example, he said he didn't know.

[WellSpyder]

aguahombre, on 2012-January-14, 10:38, said:

We usually will receive more, not less, information if we ask the partner of the person who made the call, and then the person who made the call corrects him as to their actual agreement. We now know what the partner's actions were based upon in addition to the actual agreement.

Indeed. So what about the situation where one opponent insists on explaining the whole auction? People playing complicated systems sometimes do this to save time, but it does give less information that the generally accepted alternative of each player explaining his partner's bids. When I have asked about this before, I've been told that it is normal for each to explain their partner's bids, but not what (if anything) one can do if oppo prefer to do it differently.

[aguahombre]

At the conclusion of the auction, with the bids left out, and before the opening lead ---one of the two (declarer or dummy) might volunteer to explain the bids (corrected by the other if appropriate).

But it can't be right for one or the other to insist that he be the only one to contribute. In answer to questions, the partner of the one who made the call being questioned should be the one to answer (as Blackshoe has stated).

[TimG]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-14, 10:49, said:

The law is pretty clear on this point: you can only ask declarer if the director gives you permission to do so, which would happen, usually, only if you've already asked dummy and his answer was unsatisfactory - for example, he said he didn't know.

I think it would be useful if you quote the Law when making such a statement, or at least reference which Law you are relying upon.

[blackshoe]

The worst problems I see with an explanation of the entire auction (usually during the "clarification period") are first that players don't understand the request and instead give a review, and second, that people think you have to, in effect give a review in the course of explaining. The former is common here in North America where explanations of the entire auction are rarely requested and where the bidding cards are often put away even before the auction is technically concluded. The latter arises because people think that you have to step through each bid, say what it was and then what it means. No. What you can do is "Partner has shown this, that, and this other" and from the other player "Partner has shown such and such". If a particular holding or strength was denied, you can put that in too. Note that both players are involved. One player explaining both sides of the auction, absent an instruction from the TD to do so, is not proper procedure.

[aguahombre]

TimG, on 2012-January-16, 11:09, said:

I think it would be useful if you quote the Law when making such a statement, or at least reference which Law you are relying upon.

I won't presume to speak for Blackshoe. He does fine for himself; and he is the one from whom you would like cites.

But, some might be getting confused here. The discussion was originally assuming Declarer was the one to made the bid/call which is being asked about. Dummy was the "partner" of the one who made the call. The rules seem to mostly address the parties in those terms, and don't seem to change just because one of them is dummy and the other is declarer.

[TimG]

I don't think it is proper for one person to say "partner has shown such and such" without referencing which calls showed what. The timing of when the information was available may well be of importance.

For instance, if a relay sequence reveals that one player has 2=3=4=4 shape, it may be relevant that the last ask clarified major suit length after 4=4 in the minors was already known. Presumably partner would not have asked for major suit length without interest in one of the suits. If the last clarification was minor suit length after having shown 2=3 in the majors, there would be different inferences available.

[blackshoe]

TimG, on 2012-January-16, 11:09, said:

I think it would be useful if you quote the Law when making such a statement, or at least reference which Law you are relying upon.

The Laws are available online in several places (WBF website, ACBL website, EBU website just to name three). Law 20F1 deals with explanations during the auction, Law 20F2 with those during the play. Just to be thorough:

Quote

Law 20F:
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.
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. Explanations should be given on a like basis to F1 above and by the partner of the player whose action is explained.
3. Under F1 and F2 above, a player may ask concerning a single call, but Law 16B1 may apply.

Law 16B1 deals with UI and says, in effect, that asking questions about a single call may transmit UI. The rest of Law 20F deals with errors in explanations, when and how to correct them.

[blackshoe]

TimG, on 2012-January-16, 11:25, said:

I don't think it is proper for one person to say "partner has shown such and such" without referencing which calls showed what. The timing of when the information was available may well be of importance.

For instance, if a relay sequence reveals that one player has 2=3=4=4 shape, it may be relevant that the last ask clarified major suit length after 4=4 in the minors was already known. Presumably partner would not have asked for major suit length without interest in one of the suits. If the last clarification was minor suit length after having shown 2=3 in the majors, there would be different inferences available.

If you need to know which call showed which bit of information, you can certainly ask.

Do you really want a string of "partner's bid was a relay" in such auctions? Aside from that, around here at least relay systems are practically nonexistent.

[TimG]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-16, 11:26, said:

The Laws are available online in several places (WBF website, ACBL website, EBU website just to name three). Law 20F1 deals with explanations during the auction, Law 20F2 with those during the play.

Thank you, that makes it much easier to find the relevant Law.

[TimG]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-16, 11:30, said:

If you need to know which call showed which bit of information, you can certainly ask.

Do you really want a string of "partner's bid was a relay" in such auctions? Aside from that, around here at least relay systems are practically nonexistent.

I do not think it should be necessary to ask a follow up to determine when the information became available. If someone is properly disclosing, that bit will be provided rather than "hidden" until further inquiry is made.

I used a relay system as a simple example, I do understand that relay systems are rare beasts in ACBL land.

I have no objection to a string of "xy was a relay" explanation during a full explanation of an auction. I have played relays in the past and when giving an explanation I will say something like: 2x showed 5+4+ in the majors; 2y showed exactly 5=5; 3x showed 2=1 in the minors*" rather than say "partner showed 5=5=2=1". I think that is the proper way to practice full disclosure.

* I will also include which bids were pure relays (asking bids) and which were not. I tend to give explanations for all calls rather than have a back and forth with partner because that seems simpler and easier to follow, but do not object when an opponent asks that I give only explanations for partner's calls and that my partner does the same.

[blackshoe]

Your way of doing things is not wrong, except for the bit about one player explaining both players' calls. However, if the opponents don't object to that, I don't see a real problem, if the auction's over and the declaring side is doing the explaining.

My suggested way of doing things is not wrong either. Of course, if the opponents want us to go through things bid by bid, we're happy to oblige, at least if they're still entitled to a review of the bidding. I would wonder, if they insisted on this method after they were no longer entitled to a review, if they were trying to get around that.

[wank]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-16, 18:16, said:

My suggested way of doing things is not wrong either.

yes it is. just because you lack the incite to draw inferences from the order in which information is given doesn't mean that also applies to your betters. it's not your job to decide which information your opponents want to hear.

[blackshoe]

I'm not going to play kid games with you, wank. We disagree. Leave it at that.

[Vampyr]

TimG, on 2012-January-16, 11:41, said:

I tend to give explanations for all calls rather than have a back and forth with partner because that seems simpler and easier to follow...

I find it so; sometimes I ask my opponents to do it this way after they have started off by to-ing and fro-ing.