[Hanoi5]

As we are about to turn the trick over, a defender asks his/her partner if he doesn't have a card in the suit led. 'No' comes the answer. The defender asks again and receives the same answer and then tells his/her partner to look again, and the defender finally finds a cad in the suit that was led.

Is this too much asking or is it legal?

[pran]

Hanoi5, on 2016-September-07, 13:08, said:

As we are about to turn the trick over, a defender asks his/her partner if he doesn't have a card in the suit led. 'No' comes the answer. The defender asks again and receives the same answer and then tells his/her partner to look again, and the defender finally finds a cad in the suit that was led.

Is this too much asking or is it legal?

I don't know how I would rule if the partner really was void, but here as it turned out that the defender by repeatedly asking had indeed prevented a revoke I think his questions must be considered legal.

The player is certainly on more solid ground if he can show inference from auction and play so far that partner cannot possibly be void.

I think Law 74A2 might be the most relevant law here.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps Law 74B1 is more relevant. After all, if revoker had to look three times to discover he had revoked, he's clearly playing insufficient attention to his hand, if not to the game.

A PP under this law (or any law), btw, is not issued against anyone, and in particular not against (or to) any particular player (unless the event is an individual). PPs are issued against contestants, and the contestant is, in a pairs contest the pair, and in a teams contest, the team.

I suppose 74C1 might also be germane, if we consider a revoke to be "a significant occurrence", but given that there seems to be no legal restriction on repeated questions about a possible revoke, this is perhaps too much of a stretch.

[barmar]

While anything is possible, it seems extremely likely that the player's repeated questions will strongly suggest something about his hand that makes him think that partner is not void in the suit. So there's very likely to be UI implications about the questioner's shape, and his partner should be very careful not to take advantage of it.

[peterb001]

As long as the appropriate Regulating Authority (Chile?) allows the initial question (Law 61B3) then I don't see a problem with the repeated asking.

And since partner denies it twice before finally finding a card of the suit that was led, it looks like the questioner is aware of partner's inability to follow suit correctly all the time (and to find relevant cards in their hand!!). Most players would find a card of the suit led at the first time of asking, so this suggests that this is not a game of the highest standard.

The only thing that could be a problem would be if the questioner adopted a discourteous attitude in asking these questions (Law 74A).

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2016-September-07, 14:30, said:

While anything is possible, it seems extremely likely that the player's repeated questions will strongly suggest something about his hand that makes him think that partner is not void in the suit. So there's very likely to be UI implications about the questioner's shape, and his partner should be very careful not to take advantage of it.

Yes, and the TD should be sure to notify the revoker that he has this obligation.

peterb001, on 2016-September-07, 14:44, said:

As long as the appropriate Regulating Authority (Chile?) allows the initial question (Law 61B3) then I don't see a problem with the repeated asking.

Good point!

peterb001, on 2016-September-07, 14:44, said:

And since partner denies it twice before finally finding a card of the suit that was led, it looks like the questioner is aware of partner's inability to follow suit correctly all the time (and to find relevant cards in their hand!!). Most players would find a card of the suit led at the first time of asking, so this suggests that this is not a game of the highest standard.

I don't think that makes any difference in law, though I recognize that many think it should make a difference in practice.

peterb001, on 2016-September-07, 14:44, said:

The only thing that could be a problem would be if the questioner adopted a discourteous attitude in asking these questions (Law 74A).

The only thing? I think that's an overbid.

[barmar]

peterb001, on 2016-September-07, 14:44, said:

As long as the appropriate Regulating Authority (Chile?) allows the initial question (Law 61B3) then I don't see a problem with the repeated asking.

And since partner denies it twice before finally finding a card of the suit that was led, it looks like the questioner is aware of partner's inability to follow suit correctly all the time (and to find relevant cards in their hand!!). Most players would find a card of the suit led at the first time of asking, so this suggests that this is not a game of the highest standard.

The only thing that could be a problem would be if the questioner adopted a discourteous attitude in asking these questions (Law 74A).

Does he regularly ask 3 times? If this is normal, then I agree that there's no problem. But if this was a unique occurrence, then UI seems likely.

If he regularly asks repeatedly, how many tries should it take before he's satisfied that partner has correctly looked at his hand?

[axman]

peterb001, on 2016-September-07, 14:44, said:

The only thing that could be a problem would be if the questioner adopted a discourteous attitude in asking these questions (Law 74A).

I should think that a problem that arises in such a situation is that certain inferences about the asker's holding approach being reliable; which, in turn imply inferences about what asker believes about the opponents' holding. This is L73B1 territory. I think that permitting the partner to ask is bad.

[barmar]

axman, on 2016-September-08, 11:21, said:

I should think that a problem that arises in such a situation is that certain inferences about the asker's holding approach being reliable; which, in turn imply inferences about what asker believes about the opponents' holding. This is L73B1 territory. I think that permitting the partner to ask is bad.

Many people who use this option ask habitually, so there's no inferences. That's my problem with this particular incident -- asking 3 times doesn't sound like normal behavior, so it suggests something about asker's hand.

[Vampyr]

This is hilarious.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2016-September-09, 14:01, said:

This is hilarious.

It is wonderful. I wonder how people would react if CC had to ask three times in the thread "The Rabbit Revokes" before RR saw that the king of clubs had been led and not the king of spades.