[blackshoe]

---

The opening lead was the ♠6; South went down one.
2♦ was explained by N to West's question as "any 4414 or 4405, 11-15 or 19+". 2NT asked for the shortage. 3♥ was explained by North to East's question as "spade shortage". West was the playing director. North is also a club level director.

After East questioned 3♥, West said to East "I told you you're not allowed to ask questions in the bidding". North says "seems to me you asked a question". West replied "I have to protect my partner". North then said "that's illegal — it's against the rules". West said "I will always protect my partner". South then commented "Oh! do you have a different set of rules to the rest of us?" The auction and play then proceeded with no further discussion. No rulings were requested or made at the table. Both West and North are experienced club level directors (about 35 and 40 years, respectively) and are decent to excellent players. Their partners are perhaps club average (South) and somewhat less than that (East). West has a reputation for um, "inventive" rulings, and for rarely, if ever, changing his mind once he's decided to do something, come what may.

North, as stated, felt that West's "restriction" on East is against the rules. West, apparently, felt otherwise. There were no other problems. Comments?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-27, 11:36, said:

---

The opening lead was the ♠6; South went down one.
2♦ was explained by N to West's question as "any 4414 or 4405, 11-15 or 19+". 2NT asked for the shortage. 3♥ was explained by North to East's question as "spade shortage". West was the playing director. North is also a club level director.

After East questioned 3♥, West said to East "I told you you're not allowed to ask questions in the bidding". North says "seems to me you asked a question". West replied "I have to protect my partner". North then said "that's illegal — it's against the rules". West said "I will always protect my partner". South then commented "Oh! do you have a different set of rules to the rest of us?" The auction and play then proceeded with no further discussion. No rulings were requested or made at the table. Both West and North are experienced club level directors (about 35 and 40 years, respectively) and are decent to excellent players. Their partners are perhaps club average (South) and somewhat less than that (East). West has a reputation for um, "inventive" rulings, and for rarely, if ever, changing his mind once he's decided to do something, come what may.

North, as stated, felt that West's "restriction" on East is against the rules. West, apparently, felt otherwise. There were no other problems. Comments?

I think the following laws answer the question?

Law 9A1 said:

Unless prohibited by Law, any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call.

Law 9A3 said:

[...] However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43).

Law 74A said:

1. A player should maintain a courteous attitude at all times.

2. 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.

3.[...]

[blackshoe]

Not at all sure where you're coming from with the references to law 9. And what of Law 20F?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-27, 18:16, said:

Not at all sure where you're coming from with the references to law 9. And what of Law 20F?

Nowhere, Law 9 stands on its own.

After East questioned 3♥, West said to East "I told you you're not allowed to ask questions in the bidding". North says "seems to me you asked a question".
What West did here was drawing attention to Easts irregularity. Did West ask any question?

West said "I will always protect my partner".
This remark from West is unfortunate because his action (although legal) cannot be described as an attempt to prevent another player's committing an irregularity, it was drawing attention to an irregularity.

Law 20F was of course the Law that East (but not West!) violated.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2013-May-27, 18:28, said:

Nowhere, Law 9 stands on its own.

After East questioned 3♥, West said to East "I told you you're not allowed to ask questions in the bidding". North says "seems to me you asked a question".
What West did here was drawing attention to Easts irregularity. Did West ask any question?

West said "I will always protect my partner".
This remark from West is unfortunate because his action (although legal) cannot be described as an attempt to prevent another player's committing an irregularity, it was drawing attention to an irregularity.

Law 20F was of course the Law that East (but not West!) violated.

I think you misunderstand the situation. West, the better player, does not want East to ask any questions in the bidding, ever. And East's question about 3♥ came at his turn to call after 4♥, so it's not an irregularity.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-27, 18:41, said:

I think you misunderstand the situation. West, the better player, does not want East to ask any questions in the bidding, ever. And East's question about 3♥ came at his turn to call after 4♥, so it's not an irregularity.

There is a prohibition somewhere on asking questions for partner's benefit. I am not sure if it is in the Laws or the Orange Book, and cannot search for it now. I don't think West can ask East not to ask any questions either, but not sure which Law is breached there.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2013-May-27, 18:47, said:

There is a prohibition somewhere on asking questions for partner's benefit. I am not sure if it is in the Laws or the Orange Book, and cannot search for it now. I don't think West can ask East not to ask any questions either, but not sure which Law is breached there.

Quote

Law 20G1: It is improper to ask a question solely for partner’s benefit.

Quote

Law 20F1: 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.

"I will always protect partner" is willful violation of Law 20G1. In particular I expect a director of 35 years' experience to be aware of this law.

I read "may" in 20F1 in the sense of "has permission (of the laws) to". This law establishes the player's right to ask. No law allows his partner to negate that right.

[barmar]

It sounds like West has dictated a "Let me do all the talking" rule for their partnership, at least as far as asking questions go. This might not be a violation of 20G1 -- you only violate that if you ask a question that you already know the answer to, because you think partner doesn't know. But if he asks when he doesn't know, and expects that to suffice for partner as well, it's not a violation.

And while no law allows a player to take away his partner's right to ask a question, this is more of a "partnership harmony" thing. There's nothing in the laws that says that you can't break up a partnership because of this.

[gnasher]

I think you should find yourself another bridge club. This one has too many awful people.

West seems to have said that he asks questions in order to protect his partner. If that is ever his sole purpose, it's against the rules. If he always has some other reason as well, it's not. It's almost certain that sometimes he asks solely for his partner's benefit.

It appears from West's actions on this deal that he is selective about when he asks his questions. He asked about 2♦, but not about 3♥. That means that he decided that East didn't require protection with respect to the meaning of 3♥, so he doesn't think that East should consider bidding. To me that sounds like inappropriate communication, and a breach of Law 73B.

If West's verbal instruction to East occurred during the bidding, that was also a breach of Law 73B.

North's comments broke various parts of Laws 74. They were also inappropriate. It is the director's job to "administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder". Players should not attempt to usurp that responsibility.

[mycroft]

There's no law that says you can't agree not to ask during the bidding. I've played the Mitchell Nuttin' System against some pretty weird systems, and the only problem is that sometimes you have to Alert bids because they're the "wrong" side of "natural vs conventional" against some potential meanings for a call (which, of course, you don't know and choose not to find out about).

Yes, I've had some "it's natural. That may or may not be Alertable, depending on what your bids mean. No, don't tell me, thanks; I'll ask when I need to." explanations.

There is, as many have pointed out, a law against "protecting partner", if the protecting partner wouldn't need to ask on his own hook. There also is, as some have pointed out, a law banning improper communication, which could easily be infracted by "you don't need to know what this one means" not asking.

But of course, unless you're friendly enough to explain that you're violating this at the table, it's really hard to catch people violating those laws.

I've been known to ask "to make sure they're playing it the same way I do when I play it" - especially with supplementary questions when I get incomplete answers. Yes, those tend to be questions partner (who doesn't play it) would never have thought to ask. Yes, I expect she's listening. I wonder - when it's "information we should already have got", especially when it's a pair known to give "as little answer as they can get away with" - how that fights with L20G1.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2013-May-28, 12:41, said:

But of course, unless you're friendly enough to explain that you're violating this at the table, it's really hard to catch people violating those laws.

I've been known to ask "to make sure they're playing it the same way I do when I play it" - especially with supplementary questions when I get incomplete answers. Yes, those tend to be questions partner (who doesn't play it) would never have thought to ask. Yes, I expect she's listening. I wonder - when it's "information we should already have got",

Yes, this Law is very hard to enforce, since violations are not easily detected. The pair in question are, of course, breaking more than L20 but they will still be hard to punish, unless they are asking after every alerted bid.

Quote

especially when it's a pair known to give "as little answer as they can get away with" - how that fights with L20G1.

If you know the information that is not given, you are not supposed to ask. I am very sure that you are not allowed to ask again even when you know (from reading the convention card or through another source) that the answer you were given is wrong.

[campboy]

If the answer given doesn't match what it says on the convention card then I think pointing this out constitutes drawing attention to an irregularity, so you are allowed to do so.

[ArtK78]

There is certainly no law on a partnership agreeing that one of the partnership cannot ask any questions of the other side. On the other hand, it is clearly not permitted to ask questions for the benefit of one's partner (I cannot at this time cite chapter and verse on this, but it is common knowledge).

Funny thing, some years ago when I was playing with Dave Treadwell, the opponents had an auction in which there was a clear break in tempo. I called the director and we dealt with the sitaution. Afterwards, Dave pulled me aside and told me in no uncertain terms that he did not want me to call the director at any time for infractions of that type, and if we are going to call the director, then he would be the one who did the calling. I thought it was a peculiar stance to take, but I deferred to Dave.

[mycroft]

mycroft, on 2013-May-28, 12:41, said:

especially when it's a pair known to give "as little answer as they can get away with" - how that fights with L20G1.

Vampyr, on 2013-May-28, 13:10, said:

If you know the information that is not given, you are not supposed to ask. I am very sure that you are not allowed to ask again even when you know (from reading the convention card or through another source) that the answer you were given is wrong.

Ah, but I don't. For instance, the auction goes 1♣! (Precision)-1♦!; 1♥ Alerted, explained as a relay. I'm pretty certain, especially after 1♠ (not Alerted, but you know), that they're playing that call "hearts or big NT", the same way I do when I play Precision, but I can't be sure.

The auction continues: 2♦-AP. I ask about 1♠, and whether 2♦ promises hearts, and get "I don't know". I also get, of course, dummy down with an "of course it promises hearts, partner, everything not NT does."

As I said, they hate playing against me because I don't consider their explanations "complete", and ensure I have complete information; frequently they "know" but don't know they know the answer to my question. Also, I dislike that the rest of the room is getting rooked by these incomplete explanations because they don't know enough to know there's anything missing. They're getting better explaining to me; I need to find out from others if it's just because I'm obnoxious about it or whether they've realized that "full disclosure" actually means full disclosure. Frankly, they're too good as players to need that extra help; it frustrates me that they they don't seem to care about avoiding getting that extra, illegal, edge.

[akwoo]

mycroft, on 2013-May-28, 13:45, said:

Ah, but I don't. For instance, the auction goes 1♣! (Precision)-1♦!; 1♥ Alerted, explained as a relay. I'm pretty certain, especially after 1♠ (not Alerted, but you know), that they're playing that call "hearts or big NT", the same way I do when I play Precision, but I can't be sure.

The auction continues: 2♦-AP. I ask about 1♠, and whether 2♦ promises hearts, and get "I don't know". I also get, of course, dummy down with an "of course it promises hearts, partner, everything not NT does."

As I said, they hate playing against me because I don't consider their explanations "complete", and ensure I have complete information; frequently they "know" but don't know they know the answer to my question. Also, I dislike that the rest of the room is getting rooked by these incomplete explanations because they don't know enough to know there's anything missing. They're getting better explaining to me; I need to find out from others if it's just because I'm obnoxious about it or whether they've realized that "full disclosure" actually means full disclosure. Frankly, they're too good as players to need that extra help; it frustrates me that they they don't seem to care about avoiding getting that extra, illegal, edge.

Is the rest of the room really getting rooked by these incomplete explanations? Novices and intermediates (including lifetime novices and intermediates) frequently do better with less explanation from opponents, because they can't think well enough (at the table) to take advantage of all the implications and the extra information is just confusing them.

At the club where I have a good idea of everyone's skill levels, a player who is not skilled enough to count defenders' hands when playing 3N wouldn't get the full explanation of an Asptro 2♣ (overcall over 1N) from me. They get told hearts and another suit and that there are some subtleties they can ask further about. For some of them it's doubtful they can even process that. Better players also get told it's 5-4 or better, with some further subtleties about spades and six card suits they can ask about, and the best pair gets told straight off that if the other suit is spades, the spades are longer, and that many 6-4 hands ignore the 4 card suit.

[Vampyr]

akwoo, on 2013-May-28, 15:31, said:

At the club where I have a good idea of everyone's skill levels, a player who is not skilled enough to count defenders' hands when playing 3N wouldn't get the full explanation of an Asptro 2♣ (overcall over 1N) from me. They get told hearts and another suit and that there are some subtleties they can ask further about. For some of them it's doubtful they can even process that. Better players also get told it's 5-4 or better, with some further subtleties about spades and six card suits they can ask about, and the best pair gets told straight off that if the other suit is spades, the spades are longer, and that many 6-4 hands ignore the 4 card suit.

Wow, this is incredibly evil.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2013-May-28, 01:42, said:

North's comments broke various parts of Laws 74. They were also inappropriate. It is the director's job to "administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder". Players should not attempt to usurp that responsibility.

Regarding Law 74, maybe. Which parts? I do not think this player was doing what you suggest - she was telling West-the-player that what he was doing is wrong.

Regarding the permissibility of a partnership agreement that one partner will not ask questions, I think such an agreement may be permissible, though the question of inappropriate communication mentioned about does concern me. But agreement is not what happened here. One player, a qualified (one would assume; I have my doubts) club director, instructed his partner that he is "not allowed" to ask questions. That doesn't sound like an agreement to me, it sounds like one player browbeating the other. Or like a director misapplying the law.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-28, 16:24, said:

Regarding Law 74, maybe. Which parts? I do not think this player was doing what you suggest - she was telling West-the-player that what he was doing is wrong.

I think North failed to maintain a courteous attitude (74A1), didn't carefully avoid any remark that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to West (74A2), and made a gratuitous comment during the auction (74B2). I think there should be anther law that says "Don't lecture the opponents on the rules", but in the absence of a specific rule a general one will do.

Quote

Regarding the permissibility of a partnership agreement that one partner will not ask questions, I think such an agreement may be permissible, though the question of inappropriate communication mentioned about does concern me. But agreement is not what happened here. One player, a qualified (one would assume; I have my doubts) club director, instructed his partner that he is "not allowed" to ask questions. That doesn't sound like an agreement to me, it sounds like one player browbeating the other. Or like a director misapplying the law.

True, but that doesn't make it illegal. Nobody forces East to play with West. it's legal for West to make it a condition of playing that East isn't allowed to ask questions. Obviously East should tell West to stick it where the sun don't shine, but If he chooses not to I don't see why anyone else should get involved.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2013-May-28, 17:04, said:

I think North failed to maintain a courteous attitude (74A1), didn't carefully avoid any remark that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to West (74A2), and made a gratuitous comment during the auction (74B2). I think there should be anther law that says "Don't lecture the opponents on the rules", but in the absence of a specific rule a general one will do.

Knowing North as well as I do, I would disagree regarding 74A1 - she is unfailingly courteous at the table. As for 74B2 I'm not sure the comment was uncalled for or unreasonable in the circumstances. 74A2 I'll grant, particularly given how wide ranging it is. I think "lecturing on the rules" would fall under 74A2, but she wasn't lecturing, she made one statement and stopped there. South's comment was discourteous and gratuitous, I think.

gnasher, on 2013-May-28, 17:04, said:

True, but that doesn't make it illegal. Nobody forces East to play with West. it's legal for West to make it a condition of playing that East isn't allowed to ask questions. Obviously East should tell West to stick it where the sun don't shine, but If he chooses not to I don't see why anyone else should get involved.

Had I been called to the table I think I would have explored what West meant by "not allowed". If he meant "I don't want you to do that", fine — although I agree East should tell West to stick it — but if he meant "it's against the rules", he's … mistaken and his partner should be told so.

[barmar]

Is it really likely that West, a director, thinks there's a rule in the game that allows him to ask questions but prohibits his partner? How would such a biased rule be written? Is this what was meant by having a reputation for "inventive rulings"?