[dosxtres]

One rule here says:


What ever player can, during his turn of bidding and his turn of play a card in whatever trick, can ask about the meaning of whatever bid, alerted or not and other bids that were really bid or could have been bid.

This all can be done if your request are not passing incorrect messages.

[hrothgar]

dosxtres, on Nov 5 2007, 07:09 PM, said:

One rule here says:


What ever player can, during his turn of bidding and his turn of play a card in whatever trick, can ask about the meaning of whatever bid, alerted or not and other bids that were really bid or could have been bid.

This all can be done if your request are not passing incorrect messages.

My understanding is that individual sponsoring organizations ave adopted different regulations in this area.

As I recall, some sponsoring organizations permit players to ask about the meaning of available bids that were not made. Other organizations ban the practice.

[blackshoe]

hrothgar, on Nov 5 2007, 11:23 AM, said:

As I recall, some sponsoring organizations permit players to ask about the meaning of available bids that were not made.  Other organizations ban the practice.

Law 20F1 says

Quote

(questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made)

This law applies to questions asked during the auction. Law 20F2, which deals with questions during the play, does not contain this clause, saying simply

Quote

either defender at his own turn to play may request  an explanation of opposing auction.

However, in keeping with the principle of full disclosure, it seems to me that if a defender is still unclear about the meanings of one or more of the opponents' bids, a supplementary question, inluding one about "calls available but not made" should be legal.

IAC, an SO reguilation banning such questions during the auction would certainly be illegal. One might debate about the legality of a regulation banning such questions during the play.

What you can't ask about are hypothetical later bids in the auction when it hasn't yet reached that point. For example:

1♣ (Precision), and then you ask LHO "suppose you respond 1♦. What then would <some call> by opener mean?"

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on Nov 5 2007, 10:23 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Nov 5 2007, 11:23 AM, said:

As I recall, some sponsoring organizations permit players to ask about the meaning of available bids that were not made.  Other organizations ban the practice.

Law 20F1 says

Quote

(questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made)

This law applies to questions asked during the auction. Law 20F2, which deals with questions during the play, does not contain this clause, saying simply

Quote

either defender at his own turn to play may request  an explanation of opposing auction.

However, in keeping with the principle of full disclosure, it seems to me that if a defender is still unclear about the meanings of one or more of the opponents' bids, a supplementary question, inluding one about "calls available but not made" should be legal.

IAC, an SO reguilation banning such questions during the auction would certainly be illegal. One might debate about the legality of a regulation banning such questions during the play.

What you can't ask about are hypothetical later bids in the auction when it hasn't yet reached that point. For example:

1♣ (Precision), and then you ask LHO "suppose you respond 1♦. What then would <some call> by opener mean?"

Be that as it may, any number of sponsoring organizations pass illegal regulations.

Why should this law be any different?

[blackshoe]

Quote

Be that as it may, any number of sponsoring organizations pass illegal regulations. 

Why should this law be any different?

<sigh> We've been through this before. If we're discussing games played under the "International Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge (1997 Edition)" and legal regulations made pursuant to those laws, then the regulation in question would be illegal. I said so. I still say so.

If SOs do things that don't conform to the laws, and their players don't care, so be it. But don't tell me that SOs are justifiied in making illegal regulations just because their players don't complain, or because "everybody does it".