[jules101]

LAW 41B "Review of Auction and Questions" says

"Declarer or either defender may, at his first turn to play a card, require a review of the auction; this expires when he plays a card." (my emphasis)


LAW 41C "Opening Lead Faced" says

"Following this Clarification Period, the opening lead is faced, the play period begins irrevocably, and dummy’s hand is spread. After it is too late to have previous calls restated (see B), ...............


Please could someone clarify for me the exact point the right to have auction RESTATED expires. ("Restatement" being a list all the bids made and by whom).


Is this:

a) once the opening lead is faced?

Or

b) may the the partner of the defender on lead request the RESTATING of the auction before he plays a card? (ie after the faced lead is made, and after dummy is tabled).


41B says he is entitled to a REVIEW, but does this include a RESTATEMENT, or merely a general overview of the auction?

Many thanks

[blackshoe]

"Review" and "restatement" in these laws mean the same thing. So.

For the opening leader, the right to request a review or restatement of the auction expires when he makes the (face down) opening lead. For his partner, the right expires when he plays to the first trick. For declarer, the right expires when he plays a card from dummy (unless he has accepted an OLOOT and will first play from his own hand, in which case it expires when he plays from his hand).

There is no "general overview of the auction". An explanation of the auction may be requested by any player except dummy throughout the play of the hand, at his turn to play. For declarer "at his turn" means "from either hand". Note that an explanation of the auction need not (and probably should not, because it includes a review to which they may not be entitled) proceed "Well, partner bid A, showing X, and then I bid B…" "… Showing Y, and then I bid C…" from his partner, and so on. An explanation of the aggregate of what each player has shown is all that's needed: "Opener showed a balanced 15 to 17 with four hearts" coupled with "responder showed some ten to fifteen points and a five card heart suit" (the auction having proceeded, unopposed, 1NT-2♦-3♥-4♥).

[paulg]

I think Law 20 D also suggests that review and restatement are the same and it is just sloppy editing, using different terms so that some may infer that there is a difference.

Quote

LAW 20 - REVIEW AND EXPLANATION OF CALLS

D. Who May Review the Auction

A request to have calls restated* shall be responded to only by an opponent.

[jules101]

I had assumed "review" and "restatement" were different.

Silly me. Wonder why on earth I thought that.

[gnasher]

paulg, on 2017-February-13, 03:39, said:

I think Law 20 D also suggests that review and restatement are the same and it is just sloppy editing, using different terms so that some may infer that there is a difference.

[/size]

I agree that "review" and "restatement" are intended to refer to the same thing, but don't think it's sloppy editing. I suspect that whoever wrote this intentionally varied the wording for aesthetic reasons. There are too many instances of this sort of thing for it to be mere editing error.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2017-February-14, 07:19, said:

I agree that "review" and "restatement" are intended to refer to the same thing, but don't think it's sloppy editing. I suspect that whoever wrote this intentionally varied the wording for aesthetic reasons. There are too many instances of this sort of thing for it to be mere editing error.

Yes, I guess it was Kaplan who started the tradition of aiming for elegant prose rather than clarity in the Laws. And of course, listing a sequence of events in chronological order was far too simplistic. But anyway the use of different words intended to mean the same thing must be hellish for those who need to translate and use the Laws in another language.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2017-February-14, 07:19, said:

I agree that "review" and "restatement" are intended to refer to the same thing, but don't think it's sloppy editing. I suspect that whoever wrote this intentionally varied the wording for aesthetic reasons. There are too many instances of this sort of thing for it to be mere editing error.

I suspect we can thank Edgar Kaplan for that. Note: posted before I read Vampyr saying the same thing.

[jules101]

English is my first language and yet I interpreted these two words meaning different things.

Will there be more clarity/less confusion in the 2017 version?

[pran]

jules101, on 2017-February-15, 06:36, said:

English is my first language and yet I interpreted these two words meaning different things.

Will there be more clarity/less confusion in the 2017 version?

With English being my "second" languge, may I offer my understandings?

Review (of the auction) is (a summary of) the information provided with the auction.

Restatement (of the auction) is an exact repetition of every call during the auction without explaining their meanings.

[paulg]

pran, on 2017-February-15, 07:49, said:

Restatement (of the auction) is an exact repetition of every call during the auction without explaining their meanings.

This should probably include hesitations and original emphasis

[barmar]

jules101, on 2017-February-15, 06:36, said:

English is my first language and yet I interpreted these two words meaning different things.

Will there be more clarity/less confusion in the 2017 version?

Not in the latest draft. The only changes to Law 41 are an additional cross reference in 41A, and 41D now says that dummy puts his cards into separate columns. I searched the Yahoo message board and can't find any discussion of this law.

I guess few people consider this sufficiently confusing.

[pran]

paulg, on 2017-February-15, 08:28, said:

This should probably include hesitations and original emphasis

I suppose so:

Law 20B said:

During the auction period, a player is entitled to have all previous calls restated* when it is his turn to call, unless he is required by law to pass. Alerts should be included when responding to the request. A player may not ask for a partial review of previous calls and may not halt the review before it is completed.

(My Enhancement)
Although not explicitly mentioned it seems likely that all special features of each call (like STOP and Break in Tempo) should also be included in a restatement.

(It is unclear to me why the second part of this Law uses the word "review" rather than "restatement" when the first part only says "restate" without mentioning explanations?)

[barmar]

pran, on 2017-February-15, 10:14, said:

I suppose so:
(My Enhancement)
Although not explicitly mentioned it seems likely that all special features of each call (like STOP and Break in Tempo) should also be included in a restatement.

If that's true, then everyone, in my experience, has been doing it wrong forever. I've never heard anyone mention the STOP card. And I think it would be eggregious to mention a BIT, except maybe if someone had already brought attention to it and it was agreed; otherwise, the restater is expressing an opinion about the auction.

I think that if they wanted all these details included, they would have written something more general than just "Alerts should be included".

[jules101]

pran, on 2017-February-15, 07:49, said:

With English being my "second" languge, may I offer my understandings?

Review (of the auction) is (a summary of) the information provided with the auction.

Restatement (of the auction) is an exact repetition of every call during the auction without explaining their meanings.

This is exactly how I had distinguished the two words/meanings, but Law 41B reads "Declarer or either defender may, at his first turn to play a card, require a review of the auction; this expires when he plays a card."


I mistakenly thought that once the opening lead was faced that defenders (and declarer) are merely entitled to "a review" but not entitled to have every call in the auction restated. It seems from what many others are saying this "full restatement of calls" allowed up until they play their first card. After this they are entitled to "review" as you describe above.

Clarification from you all is helpful to me, but I feel the wording is tangled and unclear. Is it too late for this to be "tidied up" for 2017 edition of the laws?

[mycroft]

"I'd like a review of the bidding with all the original inflections."

That has been a joke (and a valid question) forever...

[barmar]

jules101, on 2017-February-15, 11:15, said:

Clarification from you all is helpful to me, but I feel the wording is tangled and unclear. Is it too late for this to be "tidied up" for 2017 edition of the laws?

I've sent email to the ACBL LC asking suggesting this.

After someone plays to the first trick. They can ask (at their own turn to play) what the contract is and they can ask for explanations of specific calls. But whether you think "restate" and "review" mean the same or different things, you can't ask for them after that point.

I personally think it's pretty obvious that they refer to the same thing. 41C says "after it is too late to have previous calls restated" and then refers back to 41B. The only mention of a time limit in B is regarding expiration of the right to a review of the auction, so they must be equivalent.

[pran]

barmar, on 2017-February-15, 14:18, said:

I've sent email to the ACBL LC asking suggesting this.

After someone plays to the first trick. They can ask (at their own turn to play) what the contract is and they can ask for explanations of specific calls. But whether you think "restate" and "review" mean the same or different things, you can't ask for them after that point.

I personally think it's pretty obvious that they refer to the same thing. 41C says "after it is too late to have previous calls restated" and then refers back to 41B. The only mention of a time limit in B is regarding expiration of the right to a review of the auction, so they must be equivalent.

No, the point there is that when it is too late to have the auction restated you are still entitled (at your turn to play) to an explanation of a specific call provided you know (remember) that the call in question was actually part of the auction.

[barmar]

pran, on 2017-February-15, 15:15, said:

No, the point there is that when it is too late to have the auction restated you are still entitled (at your turn to play) to an explanation of a specific call provided you know (remember) that the call in question was actually part of the auction.

What does that have to do with the inconsistent use of the words "review" and "restate"?

[barmar]

Law 20F2 is also relevant here.

Quote

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.

So you can ask for a general explanation of the auction -- the response might include something like "North showed 5+ spades, 4+ hearts, and 12-14 HCP". They don't have to restate the calls for this.

[pran]

barmar, on 2017-February-16, 09:44, said:

What does that have to do with the inconsistent use of the words "review" and "restate"?

When it is too late to have the auction restated you may still (at your turn to play) ask for a review (i.e. explanation) of a particular call, but you may not ask whether this call was actually used and you are not entitled to an explanation unless the call was indeed used.