[fito]

I'm siting in North an I open:

♠

---

2♠ is standar weak opening bid.
East asks for the meaning of the opening saking anithing like: is it weak? My pd says yes.
Easte pass and my pd jumps to 4♠.
West start to think and asks anything like: do you play this jump preempt?
I ask for the TD as soon as I heard that, and tell him that his question is not legal, and this question of course is not legal, so TD tells him also.
West passes afterwards, and all pass.
But with the TD at the table, I tell West than, in my opinion, it is not legal also to ask a question over a natural bidding like this.
In this possition South may bid 4♠ with many hands all of then naturals, and opener has no a clear agreement but the 4♠ are to play.
Are you agree??
Thanks a lot

[pran]

fito, on 2012-July-31, 00:01, said:

I'm siting in North an I open:

♠

---

2♠ is standar weak opening bid.
East asks for the meaning of the opening saking anithing like: is it weak? My pd says yes.
Easte pass and my pd jumps to 4♠.
West start to think and asks anything like: do you play this jump preempt?
I ask for the TD as soon as I heard that, and tell him that his question is not legal, and this question of course is not legal, so TD tells him also.
West passes afterwards, and all pass.
But with the TD at the table, I tell West than, in my opinion, it is not legal also to ask a question over a natural bidding like this.
In this possition South may bid 4♠ with many hands all of then naturals, and opener has no a clear agreement but the 4♠ are to play.
Are you agree??
Thanks a lot

No, I don't see why the question can be illegal. What law does it violate?

But both East and West should be recommended to avoid asking leading questions that can be answered with yes or no and instead ask neutral questions like "what is ...?"

[Zelandakh]

You have misunderstood the rules on questions. The opponents are entitled to all of the information that you and your partner have agreed. That applies to natural bidding just as much as artificial calls. In some cases, asking questions may generate UI and constrain partner in their future actions. That is a different matter. In some cases, a question may be asked with the intention of trying to mislead an opponebt. That is also a different matter. However, you may always ask about oppnents' calls at your turn to bid. The relevant Law is 20F1:-

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.


It sounds like your TD also needs to re-familiarise her/himself with the Laws. Notice also that your additional comment, with the TD present, might have resulted in action taken against you in another setting.


You are certainly in breach of

Law 74A2: A. Proper Attitude: A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.

and perhaps even

Law 74B2: As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from making gratuitous comments during the auction and play.

as well.

I hope you understand this now. Your opponents were in the right, you were in the wrong. If the TD acted in the way you report then the TD was also in the wrong. This kind of behaviour is precisely the sort of thing that drives bridge players away from clubs.

[fito]

Sorry Zelandakh, I may express myself bad, when I say than a questions is illegal, I tray to mean that the player who asks is trying to give some UI to his partner with the way the question is made, and it is made "deliberately".
Of course I do agree with you then any player may ask questions in his own turn during the bidding. and of course he may ask for the call actually made and some other didn't made, and all you say, and all the references to the Law 20, law wich deals with the proper way to ask the questions. I'm not talking about that Law. I'm talking about Law 73 B1: "Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous re-marks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them".
Of course I think the player in West may ask anything like: "how do you play this 4♠?" or "what's the diference between bid 4♠ in his first turn or bid 2NT at his first turn and 4♠ later". Both are lawfull for me. When I talk about illegal questions is when West chooses to ask "do you play this jump preempt?", in my opinion, he is trying "deliberately" to say something more than the normal information than he gets of a normal question. I see clearly the diference between those three questions, and the remarks than the last one is trying to give to his partner.
The rest of what you are trying to tell us depends of the way than all the problem goes. In this case, we where talking friendly about a mater of the game, and trying to learn and teach, not to call him or me cheaters.
The last of my opinions may be more questionable, in my opinion, a player who ask for a information about a call (not conventional, not alerted, and not avertable) may not ask questions without break Law 73B1.
More opinios, please, I learn of all of you...

[Zelandakh]

This is worse. If this is what you meant with your comment at the end then you are accusing your opponents of deliberately communicating illegally, aka cheating. This should get you a penalty. Asking questions can indeed provide UI to partner in some cases. The problem is not the transmission of UI, it is the use of it by partner. For example, asking whether a bid by an opponent is natural might well suggest I have length in the suit. Asking when I normally do not suggests I have some values, etc. It is partner's responsibility to operate within the UI Laws.

If, after West's question, East had suddenly sprung to life with a questionable double then the TD might need to be involved. Even then, an accusation of cheating would be inappropriate - most club players do not really understand the UI Laws and breach them unknowingly. And many club players just ask about anything they do not fully understand. Maybe this was last week's lesson from his bridge teacher and he was proud that he knew it could be 2-way. Who knows? If there is damage then it is the TD's job to find out these things, that's why (s)he gets the big bucks.

Once again, the question is not illegal. If UI is transmitted and their partner does not follow the UI Laws then the TD should be called, possibly earlier if there is no agreement about whether UI has been passed. If there also happens to be damage from the misuse of UI then the TD should adjust the score. Accusing an opponent of deliberately cheating at the table is an absolute no-no and should (imho) earn you a penalty almost every time it happens.

[ArtK78]

I agree that the questions are not illegal. However, assuming that the opponents are not novices, the questions IN THIS INSTANCE are out of line, as this is a perfectly normal auction. It is not hard to impute some underhanded intention in the very asking of the questions.

It is not appropriate to ask questions about normal auctions, except if the questions essentially ask if the auction is a normal auction with no unusual inferences.

By the way, the proper answer to West's question is that 4♠ is to play. It may be made with any hand on which responder wishes to play in 4♠. It may be weak, or it may be strong. In other words, it is perfectly normal.

[blackshoe]

ArtK78, on 2012-July-31, 08:09, said:

t is not appropriate to ask questions about normal auctions, except if the questions essentially ask if the auction is a normal auction with no unusual inferences.

Nonsense. It is "appropriate" to do anything that is legal, and asking questions is certainly legal. Whether the auction is, or appears to be (how do you know?) "normal" is irrelevant. Note also that Law 20F1 does not specify the form of questions that may be asked, nor restrict such questions in any way other than that they must be about calls already made or alternative calls that could have been made. Law 20G1 does say that it is illegal to ask questions for partner's benefit, but that's a different issue.

If an opponent, at his turn to call, asks a question, you should tell him everything you know from partnership agreement or experience. "That bid is natural" is a matter of partnership understanding, and is certainly disclosable as part of your explanation.

Leading questions may be, in fact probably are, foolish, but they're not illegal.

fito: accusing opponents of cheating is definitely not right, even if you're absolutely sure. As Zel has pointed out, most foolishly worded questions are not intentional - the player doesn't know any better. Generally, in most situations where you call the TD, but especially when you think someone is cheating, you should simply report the facts to the TD, and keep your opinions about what's going on to yourself. Otherwise, you may find yourself the target of disciplinary action, an ethics hearing, or both.

[ArtK78]

blackshoe, on 2012-July-31, 10:44, said:

Nonsense. It is "appropriate" to do anything that is legal, and asking questions is certainly legal. Whether the auction is, or appears to be (how do you know?) "normal" is irrelevant. Note also that Law 20F1 does not specify the form of questions that may be asked, nor restrict such questions in any way other than that they must be about calls already made or alternative calls that could have been made. Law 20G1 does say that it is illegal to ask questions for partner's benefit, but that's a different issue.

Unlike in a courtroom, it is silly at the bridge table to ask a question to which you already know the answer. What is the purpose of such a question? To kill time? To put the opponents on the spot? Neither of these reasons is appropriate. Is it something else, such as to inform your partner of the meaning of the bid (clearly inappropriate, as you pointed out) or, worse, to indicate that you have a problem over the bid?

Just because the laws give you the right to ask questions about any call, that does not mean it is appropriate to do so.

[blackshoe]

I suppose each player is going to have to examine his motives for asking, and decide on that basis whether to ask. But while a question may be "silly", that doesn't make it illegal, and it doesn't imply that the asker has some nefarious motive*. Also, that a player "should know" (in your opinion) what a bid means does not lead to the conclusion that he does know what it means.

* "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity" — or ignorance.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-July-31, 10:44, said:

[...]
Leading questions may be, in fact probably are, foolish, but they're not illegal.
[...]

My point when discouraging leading questions is:
"What is this?" calls for a complete disclosure of the questioned call.
"Is this ...?" calls for a "yes" or "no" answer and nothing more.

[blackshoe]

Here (in the ACBL), we have a regulation that says that any question should trigger full disclosure, so your point does not apply here. Of course, the regulation notwithstanding, such "yes or no" questions often lead to the one word answer anyway.

[mycroft]

pran, on 2012-July-31, 15:33, said:

My point when discouraging leading questions is:
"What is this?" calls for a complete disclosure of the questioned call.
"Is this ...?" calls for a "yes" or "no" answer and nothing more.

That may be in Norway, and possibly in Madrid as well, but as we've stated many times before, that is not the case in the ACBL, nor in other places that have similar regulations. There, any question about a call is a trigger for complete disclosure (yeah, it doesn't happen, but them's the rules).

One problem with leading questions is that you get insufficient explanations, whether because that's all the questioner (thought they) wanted, or because the question led answerer to simply answer the question asked, true. Another problem with leading questions is that they are much more likely to pass meaningful UI to partner (and, for those trying (even unconsciously) to pass said UI, much more useful).

To the OP: It's a natural weak 2. Okay, what's your style? Do you need 2/top 3 or 3/top 5, or will JTxxxx cut it? How likely are you to open on 5 good (or 5 bad, for that matter)? Do you play Multi 2♦ for your "bad" weak 2s and 2M with your "good" ones? Will you ever, opposite an unpassed partner, have 4 hearts?

Alright, I probably don't need to know *all* of that at any one time, but I might need to know some of it. What am I to do, other than check your CC or ask questions about your "natural, normal" call?

4♠: is that weak? "well, it means he wants to play 4♠. It could be because he thinks we can make it, or it could be because he thinks this is our best minus, or he thinks that that call gives you the biggest problem about what to do." That's my answer; it is not many people I play against's (who won't have the good hand, or who would never do anything but bid 3♠, and then decide whether to bid 4 after it goes X-p-4♥, or some who won't have the bad hand!).

Yes, *if* these questions only seem to come up when they have good hands, or when they have surprisingly good holdings in your bid suits, or if questioner's partner seems to always guess right and the questions don't always come, then noting that with the TD is in order. FOR THE TD TO INVESTIGATE - not for you to accuse.

[bluejak]

I remember a sequence

---

In the next seat I asked what 3♦ showed. Before West could answer, East [her husband, at a guess] told me I was not allowed to ask the question, and so on. The TD was called. East explained to the TD I had asked an improper question, that I had done so to indicate to my partner I had values, and I was deliberately asking a question to which I knew the answer.

The TD listened to all this, did not give me a chance to speak, and then gave me a short lecture on not asking questions to which I knew the answer.

I regret that what I did next was against the Proprieties and should have got me a ZT penalty!

Anyway, after I had lectured the poor TD for about five minutes, asked him to show me in the law book where I could not ask questions, asked him to issue a ZT penalty against East for his offensiveness, suggested to the TD that perhaps he should get his superior so I could issue an official complaint against him, and reduced both East and the TD to nervous wrecks, I then suggested that I be allowed to ask the question again, that I was not going to communicate anything to partner, and should we read the Law book together?

West, who looked to me as though anyone standing up to her husband had her approval, told me it was competitive, and partner stopped trying not to laugh, and peace was restored.

But the point of all this, which East did not realise, is that I had at that time not played very much in the ACBL so I did not know whether 3♦ was a game try or not. Similarly in this case, some posters seem to assume, and certainly the opening poster, that the person who asked about 4♠ knew what the answer was. How do you know? Perhaps he thought is was strong?

One of the interesting differences between North American bridge and English bridge is that North Americans tend much more to assume they know what the bidding means and what the nuances are, English players tend to ask. I think North Americans lose a lot of nuances because they do not appreciate enough that other people do not always play the same way as them.

Going back to the original case, I think, fito, you are making too many assumptions as to your opponents' motives, and you may be wrong.

[fito]

Zelandakh, on 2012-July-31, 07:44, said:

This is worse. If this is what you meant with your comment at the end then you are accusing your opponents of deliberately communicating illegally, aka cheating. This should get you a penalty. Asking questions can indeed provide UI to partner in some cases. The problem is not the transmission of UI, it is the use of it by partner. For example, asking whether a bid by an opponent is natural might well suggest I have length in the suit. Asking when I normally do not suggests I have some values, etc. It is partner's responsibility to operate within the UI Laws.

If, after West's question, East had suddenly sprung to life with a questionable double then the TD might need to be involved. Even then, an accusation of cheating would be inappropriate - most club players do not really understand the UI Laws and breach them unknowingly. And many club players just ask about anything they do not fully understand. Maybe this was last week's lesson from his bridge teacher and he was proud that he knew it could be 2-way. Who knows? If there is damage then it is the TD's job to find out these things, that's why (s)he gets the big bucks.

Once again, the question is not illegal. If UI is transmitted and their partner does not follow the UI Laws then the TD should be called, possibly earlier if there is no agreement about whether UI has been passed. If there also happens to be damage from the misuse of UI then the TD should adjust the score. Accusing an opponent of deliberately cheating at the table is an absolute no-no and should (imho) earn you a penalty almost every time it happens.

[ahydra]

fito, you seem to quote other people's posts without editing it or filling in any of your own text underneath a lot. After you click "reply" you should be able to write stuff under the quote before submitting the post. If you click "add reply" by accident then you can edit your post by clicking the Edit button in the bottom right of each post.

And I do wish TDs would make an effort to rule correctly. It's a bit rubbishy when TDs at county-level events don't bring the Law Book with them and make an incorrect ruling... The problem with saying "Director, are you sure that's correct - would you mind going to get the law book and reading Law X" is that, whether you're correct or not, the image of yourself sent to opponents changes from a friendly bridge player into a pompous ass.

ahydra

[jh51]

I can recall an instance where an opponent told me I could not ask the question I had asked. I had to call the director to force my opponent to answer.

There had been a bid which had been explained by the partner of the person making the bid with such words as "I might be wrong" or "I think it mighr be". I suspected that he was in error, so after the bidding was done and before my opening lead, I asked whether that explanation was correct. The opponents response was that I could not ask that question because he did not have to tell me what was in his hand.

Of course, when the director arrived, he did have to explain the bid as the previous explanation was indeed incorrect. As I understand the rules, I should not have needed to ask, since my opponent was in fact required to correct his partner's explanation at that point.

[Cyberyeti]

Also, I don't know what the rules are where you are, but in the UK, we don't alert anything above 3N (other than opening bids) so 4♠ would be non alertable whatever it meant, admittedly it's very unlikely it means anything unusual, but they're entitled to ask.

They're also very unlikely to be bidding here, and if they do, it's likely but not certain to be ruled in your favour after what they've done.