[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 Pass  1♣    1♠    2♦
 Pass  3♣    Pass  5♣
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

SA S8 S5 ST
S2 S9 C4 SQ
D2 D7 C3 D6



The TD was called after the board was complete to look at the query of 2D and subsequent play of the hand.

After the auction was complete and before the lead, opps query 2D, I do not know which opp made the query. The lead was not made until after the query was answered.

Does this warrant further investigation?

[glen]

"UI?" - vague, possible, but not clear.

"Does this warrant further investigation?" - no, not at this level.

"Poor contract?" - yes.

"Sour grapes?" - not if just called the TD and let it go at that. However note that sour grapes make the best whine.

[jtfanclub]

South is dummy, North can see 12 diamonds. I assume that the 2♠ demands a diamond return (7♠ demands a heart, middle says he doesn't care). Even if it doesn't the diamond return is obvious.

I think the opponents assume that the diamond could lose a diamond trick, but that's not true- if North is the hand with the void, then the ruffing finesse is the only way to play it, so you haven't lost anything by playing a diamond.

If they're good players, then it's sour grapes. If they aren't, then they didn't think it through.

[blackshoe]

Novices (including perpetual novices) often ask silly questions, or ask questions when (as here) it is not proper to do so. I would caution EW not to ask questions until the legal moment, but I don't think there was any hanky-panky here, unless EW are more than novices.

[hrothgar]

As is oft the case, there are a few points that need to be made here

1. (Unfortunately) we really need more information about which player was asking questions about the Diamond suit before making any jundgements about UI. For example, I would be hard pressed to claim that West asking questions about South's Diamond suit suggests a Spade lead or Spade continuation. In contrast, if East started making pointed questions about the Diamond overcall this might be considered UI when West was chosing what to return on trick three.

2. Absent UI, the defense looks pretty standard. East bangs an Ace to get a look see. West's 5 of Spades is unmistakeably low. The 2 of Clubs asks for a Diamond return. The defense get their Ace and 2 ruffs. As jtfanclub notes, the ruffing finesse in Diamonds is pretty well marked.

If East was asking questions about the Diamond bid then I think some sort of action is appropriate. I'm not sure if I would provide an adjusted score. N-S deserve their bad result. However a PP might be warranted

[jillybean]

E/W were self rated ‘experts’ for what that’s worth. I don’t know who requested the information about the 2D bid but the fact that the opening lead was not made until after the explanation was given made me wonder if East was the one to make the query.

Quote

I would caution EW not to ask questions until the legal moment,

When is the legal moment? It seems Law20F1 allows a full explanation of calls during the auction, 20F2 allows defender to request an explanation of the opposing auction at her turn to play.

As an aside, during play does law 20F2 allow defender to review the auction by having declarer restate the bidding but declarer can only ask for explanation of individual calls (or card play) but not have to defenders restate their bidding?

I realize all of this may not warrant further investigation “at this level” but I’m just interested to see how the laws should be applied.

[blackshoe]

Okay. First, until the final pass, any player at his turn to call may ask for a complete review (you can't abort it, or request that it be aborted, you have to listen to the whole thing). Second, once the final pass is made, declarer or either defender may, at his first turn to play, ask for a review (declarer plays first from dummy; once he's done so, he can no longer ask for a review).

20F2 allows a defender to ask for an explanation of the auction. The complete auction. One can only pinpoint a particular call after the complete auction is explained. Declarer, OTOH, is permitted to ask directly about defenders' conventional calls or plays.

During the auction, the alert procedure (in the ACBL certainly, and in most other jurisdictions of which I'm aware) complicates the principle of explanation of the entire auction, as it explicitly allows questions about an alerted call without first hearing an explanation of the auction (as required by 20F1). TPTB have apparently decided that this regulation does not violate the SO's duty to make regulations "not in conflict with these laws" (Law 80F). Amen.

[inquiry]

Sour grapes.

♠A and ♠ looks normal

After the suit preference small ♠ lead at trick two, ♦ back at trick 3 is automatic.

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on Feb 12 2007, 09:12 AM, said:

20F2 allows a defender to ask for an explanation of the auction. The complete auction. One can only pinpoint a particular call after the complete auction is explained. Declarer, OTOH, is permitted to ask directly about defenders' conventional calls or plays.

And this is allowed anytime during the play of the hand?

[cherdano]

As East, I would also ask about the auction. If 2♦ was non-forcing, then there is a strong case for a trump lead, but if it was forcing, I would lead the ♠A.

If West asked, then according to the laws he shouldn't have done this before the opening lead (you can only ask questions while it is your turn to bid or play). But then again, it is absolutely normal online to click on bids just anytime, and if this law should be enforced, the right solution would be a software solution: make it impossible to click on bids unless it is your turn.
However, I would just ignore this part of the law online.

(It might be somewhat superior if, after West asks for an explanation of a bid, the explanation won't show up for East unless he asks for it himself, and then only with a delay. This would solve much of the UI problems I think.)

[fred]

Sorry if I am missing something, but my take on this is different from that of most posters.

I would not be impressed if the 1S bidder asked about 2D. An expert would never do this (unless he was experiencing either a temporary coma or an ethically challenged moment).

As a player I would certainly call the TD regardless of the result (and I am not the sort of person who calls the TD a lot).

If I was the TD and the Laws allowed I would try to punish the 1S bidder for his completely inappropriate question.

In this case I believe the Laws would not allow me to make a score adjustment because no damage resulted.

Maybe the Laws would let me impose some kind of procedural penalty. If so I would do that. If not I would give the 1S bidder a stern lecture.

If the partner of the 1S bidder was the one who asked about 2D, I would not feel the same way - I would just think he was being stupid. I might give him a short lecture (and not a stern one).

Even if the Laws allow you to ask whatever questions you want whenever you want, there are some questions that should not be asked.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[blackshoe]

jillybean2, on Feb 12 2007, 01:02 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Feb 12 2007, 09:12 AM, said:

20F2 allows a defender to ask for an explanation of the auction. The complete auction. One can only pinpoint a particular call after the complete auction is explained. Declarer, OTOH, is permitted to ask directly about defenders' conventional calls or plays.

And this is allowed anytime during the play of the hand?

No, at the player's turn to play. Sorry, I should have included that.

[mrdct]

If the lead was being delayed until the question was answered, then one would presume that east was the one asking. Silly east could've avoided passing UI and still satisfied his curiosity about the 2♦ bid by asking south in private chat.

Perhaps the way alerts and explanations work in BBO could be revisited such that if a bid is alerted the answer to any query goes against the bid as per the current method, but if a question is asked about a bid that hasn't been alerted the person who made the bid has an option to respond only to the person who asked (in which case the bid remain unalerted) or responded to both opps (in which case the bid becomes alerted).

[jikl]

I am with Fred on this one, if E asked then there is a serious problem. If W asked it is really silly, you have just told declarer that ♦s are breaking really badly and that is an asset to your side until it is known.

Sean

[glen]

fred, on Feb 12 2007, 01:28 PM, said:

...I would not be impressed if the 1S bidder asked about 2D. ...If the partner of the 1S bidder was the one who asked about 2D, I would not feel the same way

Does the software let the TD know who asked the question?

Anyway as I stated above, one calls the TD and lets them handle it.

[jtfanclub]

I'm sorry, Fred, but I have to disagree with you on this one. If you called me for the reasons you stated, I would be very, very, upset.

Let me give a similar situation:

Bidding goes 1♥-P-(long pause) 2♥-P-3♥-4♥. Play goes on, and they make 4.
Turns out, the pauser had 10 hcp.

A: If you called me when the hesitation happened, no problem, you're just protecting yourself.

B: If you called me as the hand ended because you believe that opener would have passed without the hesitiation, I might be mildly annoyed that you didn't call me during the hesitation, but I would still rule appropriately.

C: If you called me and started with 'I know he would have been 3♥ even without the pause, but...' I would give you a very stern warning, and throw you out if this was the second or later time you had done this.

Why?
Case A is trying to avoid use of Unauthorized information. Case B is a claim that somebody used Unauthorized information- unethical, yes, but not cheating.

Case C is accusing somebody of cheating, of deliberately pausing in order to convey information.

You NEVER accuse somebody of cheating at the bridge table. Ever. Period. You talk to the director away from the table or after the game, or you write it up, but you don't call the director and say "Excuse me, but I think my opponents are cheating". And the way I see it, claiming that a pause which didn't cause damage was illegal is accusing them of cheating.

This is the same issue.

A: If you call the director when he's asking strange questions, that's fine. You're protecting yourself.

B: If you call the director because you think the question influenced his partner's play, that's protecting yourself from UI, and that's fine too. In this case, it's not going to get you anything, but no harm done.

C: If you call the director even though you don't think the question influenced his partner's play, that's accusing him of cheating- of his asking about diamonds for the sole purpose of directling his partner to play diamonds. This is not equivalent to reading something into a pause, this is equivalent to claiming your opponent is tugging his ear or point his pen a certain direction to request a certain suit. The penalty for doing this is not a procedural penalty, the penalty for this is banishment.

I can't think of any case where it's a good idea to call the director after a hand is over and declare that something happened during the hand but that there was no damage. That's not something to be discussed at the table.

Just my opinion- I am an ACBL director, but not a particularly skillful or experienced one.

[fred]

I don't think I said I would accuse my opponents of cheating.

I would tell the TD that I thought that my opp had asked a highly inappropriate question and let the TD take it from there.

Maybe I was not clear as to why it is really bad to ask what 2D means when you have a diamond void.

This is a question you would never ever ask under normal circumstances (because you should know that, since 2D was not alerted, it was natural and forcing).

Suppose you have experienced the auction 1C-1S-2D 100 times in your bridge career. On how many of those 100 do you think someone asked "what is 2D?".

Once? Twice? 5 Times? Zero?

Whatever the number I don't think it is a lot. That's why asking such a question when you have void in diamonds is such a bad thing to do.

Your partner knows you have asked a very strange question that naturally draws his attention to DIAMONDS.

On some hands you thereby force to your poor partner to decide between taking advantage of your stupid UI or burying the partnership and intentionally getting a bad result.

This is not much different than the famous "how many club does that show?" question in response to an opponents 1C opening bid.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

jtfanclub, on Feb 13 2007, 03:02 AM, said:

I can't think of any case where it's a good idea to call the director after a hand is over and declare that something happened during the hand but that there was no damage. That's not something to be discussed at the table.

I agree with Fred on this one.

I've seen far too many cases where players are cheating. For the most, these are social players who really don't know the proprieties of the game and don't recognize that they are doing something illegal. Moreover, they are going to keep doing it until someone points out that what they are doing is very, very wrong.

Its important to recognize that this doesn't need to be unduely confrontational. Its possible to call for the Director and ask him to deal with this issue without directly accuse the players of cheating.

Speaking as a player, I woud MUCH rather that the opponents showed me the courtsey and respect to bring up whatever issues that might have in front of me, where I hear what they have to say and respond in real time. Moreover, I might actually learn something.

I would be much more upset about people scurying arround behind my pack and bitching about me when I can't defend myself.

[fred]

I mean really - if your opp asked you "what is 2D?" wouldn't you think "what a strange question!"?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[1eyedjack]

I also believe that if a player has an opportunity to ask privately and neglects to do so in favour of asking publicly (and thereby unnecessarily risking UI) there SHOULD be a higher burden of responsibility on the side that enquires, to ensure that there is no possible advantage taken from the UI. In other words, there should be a more pronounced presumption of breach. That is not to say that is a presumption impossible to overcome ... just requiring more justification to do so.

I don't think there is anything in the laws or site rules to support my preference here, although I suppose a tourney host could adopt the idea into rules-of-the-day specific to the tourney.

Anyway, others may disagree.