[Wcool]

In a recent game the bidding went:

p (p) 1NT (X)*
p (2h) ppp

* alerted as both minors

I don't think it matters but the dummy came down with
xx
Kx
KJxxx
KTxx

Because the declarer doesn't see the alert of his partner, I wanted to know if he knew X was both minors (suggesting no support in the minors) or if he maybe thought it was something other (like a penalty double or a takeout).
After 2 tricks played, I ask him (PRIVATELY): "what is X?". He gave me the answer but later said that he shouldn't have done that as I am not allowed to ask that question until the game ends.
I think I am because in a live situation:

A) I can inspect the CC
and B) opp will correct the explanation before we make a lead but now with self alert you can't do that as you can't see the alert.

To which my opponent argued: you are only allowed knowledge of the system not how partner has taken it.
But I think I don't ask him what he has in his hands but what the understanding is.

A friend suggested that my question maybe is a bit "rude" as I could have asked the declarer directly if there was a bid misunderstanding (as I could do if this was a screen partner)

Thoughts?

[barmar]

From Laws 20F2 and 20F3:

Quote

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 1 and by the partner of the player whose action is explained.

3. Under 1 and 2 above a player may ask concerning a single call but Law 16B1 may apply.

I don't think this authorizes asking each player for the meaning, so you can uncover a bidding misunderstanding. But if one player explained the bid, and his partner thinks the explanation was incorrect, they're supposed to correct it at the first legal opportunity: For the declaring side, this is after the final pass (before the opening lead); for the defending side, this is at the end of play.

However, if this was online, where players self-explain and partner doesn't see the explanation, it's not possible to correct a misexplanation until the hand is over and you can see the auction with explanations added.

[blackshoe]

Yet another way in which the online game does not conform to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge.

[Wcool]

It's gettting weirder, my opponent - an EBU (English Bridge Union) TD - sent me a link:

https://www.ebu.co.u...bu-online-games

Highlight from there:

-- quote
All EBU online events (those organized by the EBU, rather than organized by clubs or counties) use self-alerting on RealBridge and on BBO.
All calls which are announced or alerted face to face are explained by the player making the call, with that player typing a written explanation when making the call. That explanation goes to the opponents without the alerter's partner seeing it.

If the opponents have questions about a call, they should be typed to the player who made the call, for that player to provide an answer, also typed.
No player should ask a question verbally or answer a question verbally. A player should not answer a question about the meaning of a call made by the player’s partner.
-- end quote

By these rules it seems I can't find out what the CC says and can't do anything unil the end of the game (if I pay attention!).

To me this seems ill considered as on BBO, the declarer hasn't seen his/her partners bid so can't correct anything. There should be a way to correct the explanation to what the system says before play ends in my opinion.
I have a feeling these rules were a lazy copy and paste from screen regulations AND notice that Realbridge actually does allow 'normal' alerting like a live match. (i.e. no self alert)


I also think that seperate rules should be made now for online games, just like they did for screens. It isn't the same at all because there is no concept of a screenmate in online bridge while it is self alert.

[pescetom]

 blackshoe, on 2023-November-27, 05:24, said:

Yet another way in which the online game does not conform to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge.

Or vice versa, according to how you look at it.
The Laws don't conform well even to face to face with screens (which is closer to the BBO situation than play without screens, although different yet again), and yet they have had 66 years to recognise this novity.

[pescetom]

 Wcool, on 2023-November-27, 09:54, said:

I also think that seperate rules should be made now for online games, just like they did for screens. It isn't the same at all because there is no concept of a screenmate in online bridge while it is self alert.

Online/electronic is what 2027 should be all about and this is a good example. Should audio visual screens be mandatory (yes, Realbridge without them is madness), is the concept of screen mate useful (no), should explanations of agreements about calls be taken contextually from the Systems Card when possible (yes), when not possible should they be supplied by the caller, his partner or by both (both), etc.

[blackshoe]

 Wcool, on 2023-November-27, 09:54, said:

By these rules it seems I can't find out what the CC says and can't do anything unil the end of the game (if I pay attention!).

You can always look at your opponent's system card, at your turn to call or play, subject to a regulation that specifically says you can't. EBU does not have such a regulation (saving that you can't generally ask when it's not your turn to call or play). See EBU Blue Book Section 9.

[Wcool]

 blackshoe, on 2023-November-27, 18:18, said:

You can always look at your opponent's system card, at your turn to call or play, subject to a regulation that specifically says you can't. EBU does not have such a regulation (saving that you can't generally ask when it's not your turn to call or play). See EBU Blue Book Section 9.

I think the problem is that most of the time the CC isn't posted on BBO, so I can only ask opps. But the EBU rules on online bridge alerting DO explicitly forbid me (see the link)

[pescetom]

 Wcool, on 2023-November-28, 09:33, said:

I think the problem is that most of the time the CC isn't posted on BBO, so I can only ask opps. But the EBU rules on online bridge alerting DO explicitly forbid me (see the link)

I read the rules you linked and unless I missed something they simply fail to mention CCs, which is not good but does not forbid you to consult a CC.
Maybe there is some other EBU document about online tournaments that covers CC availability and usage (I seem to remember a Sky Blue Book or similar that was controversial because it permitted reading one's own CC during play).

The BBO CC format is very limited and Realbridge does not even have one (IIRC), but on both platforms it is simple and practical to paste the URL of your full CC in chat to table at start of round (having uploaded it to imgur or Google docs or whatever for sharing).

[helene_t]

If opps are required to post a cc but failed to do so, the least they can do is to answer any questions that could be answered by inspecting a cc.

[pescetom]

 helene_t, on 2023-November-28, 13:37, said:

If opps are required to post a cc but failed to do so, the least they can do is to answer any questions that could be answered by inspecting a cc.

Quite right, but the problem is at least in part opposite here: that document doesn't mention requiring a CC (although other documents may do) and it explicitly disallows asking the opp who did not make the call (which might be the only evidence that you have been misinformed, both to you and to TD later).

[blackshoe]

The sky blue book was assimilated into the latest blue book. Or perhaps an earlier one, but the blue book now covers what the sky blue book used to cover.

[mycroft]

I'm sure a lot of this is repeat, but I'm just being complete. I'm also ACBL- and BBO- native, so my interpretation of the EBU and RealBridge regulations is just that - my interpretation.

• The answer to the question in your subtitle and the first question in the OP is "no, you are not entitled to know if declarer understood the call the same way as their partner." That applies both to self-alerting and partner-alerting tables, RL and online. You are entitled to their agreement (or dis-) and if you didn't get it, you may have been damaged - but NOT to "how I took it" (self-alerting) or "how I meant it" (partner-alerting).
  
• During the play is one thing, during the auction is a real issue - if I can find out the opponents are having a miscommunication, that could affect the calls I make (in a not-authorized way). Doubling an "8-card fit" because you know (rather than guess) it isn't, for example.
  
• my interpretation of the online regulation is explicitly to discourage attempts to do this. It's in the same vein as the (new to 2017) "if the sole purpose is to elicit an incorrect response from an opponent" illegal question - arguably is a specific example of that Law.
  
• Yes, in partner-alerting situations, the bidder must correct their partner's misexplanation. But notice:
  • only if they won the contract. If they're defending, you don't get the information until the end of the hand.
    
  • only if partner misexplained their agreement. If I bid Landy and partner explains Pottage - and we play Pottage, and the explanation reminds me of that - you're never going to hear anything (if they know and follow the Laws). Even in a (1NT)-2♣!-2♦!-2♥-p auction (where all the explanations will be Pottage, but the 2♣ bidder will bid as if Landy). Again, you don't get to find out if they're having a disagreement until the cards fall.
• As mentioned, you are entitled to look at their CC at your turn to call (online, where you can't pass information to partner with the look, I think the timing is relaxed in practise if not in regulation).
  
• If it turns out afterward there is a disagreement, or a forget, or a misexplanation, the director can determine what their agreement (or lack thereof) actually is, and if you were misinformed as to their agreement, and you were damaged, adjust the score.

As to the objections:

• If they don't have a CC, that's also a problem - but one for the Director, not for you to "work out another way to get the information".
  
• I'm guessing that if the person being asked is an EBU director, they are much more likely to be "one of the few" that have a CC. ICBW, I have been before.
  
• there is no reason why self-alerting online should pattern more after FtF with partner alerts rather than FtF with screens (in fact, there are reasons why it should, and has been historically, be patterned more after screen play). There, too, disagreements about meanings of calls can't be worked out until the end of the hand. In fact, self-alerting has the "advantage" that both players get the same information (even if incorrect), thus avoiding the "I doubled a splinter"/"partner doubled a natural game try" issue that we all have been reminded of recently.
  
• "The only way to find out after if there has been misinformation is to ask declarer during the play how they took the call." So, somehow the answer will change if asked afterward? When the evidence of the hands is right there? And the Director will be totally taken in? Call me biased, but I have more faith in EBU directors than that.
  
• Just to be clear, it's not "at the end of the game", it's "at the end of the hand". If you had to wait until the end of the game, yeah, I'd be right there with you on "if I remember". If you forget to check on something you're this worked up about at trick 3, after trick 13, you'll be the first to my knowledge.
  
• ...and it's likely (it certainly is in ACBL-land, likely to the frustration of the "nobody has a card, so why should we have one" people here) that "oh, you don't have a CC, or any more evidence that X was right and Y just forgot?" is less likely to lead to a positive ruling than otherwise.[1] After all, Laws 21B1b/75D(2,3) are right there.
  
• As for "rude", "I'm just checking because I don't think you know your system." Yeah, that's polite. And if there's any hint of "...and I think you'll lie to the director if we wait until the end of the hand, to try to get away with it." - even if it wasn't spoken, or even consciously thought, yeah, that's rude. Deliberate? Of course not.

I put this one right up there with the "I thought they were having a misunderstanding, but now that I know they were on the same page, I'm claiming damage for the failure to make the obvious Alert" crowd. Who, I have to say at least on this side of the Pond, have more of an argument post 2021 change to the ACBL Alert Procedure.[2] There is just nothing in the Laws or Regulations that gives a player or pair the right to know (rather than guess) that the opponents are having a misunderstanding, or that a player misbid/took their partner's call a different way from agreement, during the play.

[1] I tell people frequently that "yes, people violate this Law/Regulation all the time. Almost always, there's no issue with it. The one time in 1000 there is, though, you violated the Law/Regulation, you get the appropriate rectification." Usually it's not about CCs, but I have no sympathy when it does either.
[2] I'm still unhappy with the removal of the "experienced players are expected to protect themselves" language from the Alert procedure. I do understand the reasoning; many directors (usually at the club level) did take that as a default response to "they didn't Alert" from the experienced players, partially because it was just easier, partly because keeping the less experienced players happy meant it was more likely they'd come back ("being bullied by the players that could beat us straight up, but figure they need that extra" being a common complaint). But they still have to show *damage from the missed Alert*, and "I was hoping they were going to have an oopsie, now that I find out that they're on the same page, I want to do something different" is not in itself damage.

[barmar]

 pescetom, on 2023-November-28, 14:59, said:

Quite right, but the problem is at least in part opposite here: that document doesn't mention requiring a CC (although other documents may do) and it explicitly disallows asking the opp who did not make the call (which might be the only evidence that you have been misinformed, both to you and to TD later).

The rule seems well-intentioned -- you don't want to clue the opponent into the fact that they may not be on the same page as their partner. This is supposedly a feature of online bridge and screens, since you don't know how partner explained their call.

The Laws require you to do the mental gymnastics of "unhearing" an explanation that doesn't accord with your understanding. Online alerting removes this, but at the cost of not being able to correct.

[pescetom]

 barmar, on 2023-December-06, 12:40, said:

The rule seems well-intentioned -- you don't want to clue the opponent into the fact that they may not be on the same page as their partner.

I might not want to at any cost, or I might decide that knowing both sides of the agreement is worth that risk.
I concede that there are ethical issues related to clueing an opponent in, which is another reason why I prefer (unless convinced otherwise) that both are obliged to explain independently any request (and that no such request should be possible if an explanation was provided from CC).