[blackshoe]

Were you damaged in the end? If so, did the director adjust the score?

[jeffford76]

 blackshoe, on 2014-July-30, 15:59, said:

Were you damaged in the end? If so, did the director adjust the score?

No, the hand was otherwise uninteresting. Partner had a clear pass and I had a clear takeout double. I don't remember exactly where we ended up.

[blackshoe]

Hm. While I might well say something about 20G1 to a player who did as you did, I would also, I hope, deal with the other side's infraction as the law requires. But at least in this case it didn't seem to matter that he didn't.

[jeffford76]

 blackshoe, on 2014-July-30, 17:26, said:

Hm. While I might well say something about 20G1 to a player who did as you did, I would also, I hope, deal with the other side's infraction as the law requires. But at least in this case it didn't seem to matter that he didn't.

I hope you're kidding. What do you think a player is supposed to do in the face of strong evidence that the opponents failed to alert an alertable call?

[barmar]

 jeffford76, on 2014-July-30, 17:42, said:

I hope you're kidding. What do you think a player is supposed to do in the face of strong evidence that the opponents failed to alert an alertable call?

Especially in light of regulations that say that players are expected to protect themselves if they believe that the opponents have failed to alert. Is blackshoe saying that if you're sure they failed to alert, you should not ask "Was there a failure to alert?" if it will be for partner's benefit?

I think we've had this discussion before. While you may strongly suspect they failed to alert, it's possible that they recently changed their system, and your suspicions were based on out-of-date information. So unless they had a similar auction earlier in the round, where they did alert, it's unlikely you can be so sure that you know that the question will only benefit partner (and wasn't partner there when they had the earlier auction?).

[blackshoe]

No, I'm saying that if a player asks a question solely for partner's benefit, he's done something he shouldn't do, and should be educated about that. But even if that was his reason for asking, rather than that he's trying to find out if his side has been given misinformation, if his side has been given misinformation, that's an infraction that the director should deal with in the way the laws instruct him to do.

In the case at hand, if there was no intent to ask solely for partner's benefit, then the asker has done nothing wrong. The fact that partner might benefit from the answer to the question (such as by being given a chance to change his last call) is not relevant.

[biggerclub]

 jeffford76, on 2014-July-30, 17:42, said:

I hope you're kidding. What do you think a player is supposed to do in the face of strong evidence that the opponents failed to alert an alertable call?

Once opener passes, it seems clear that 2♠ is not forcing. Or else Opener unilaterally went off-system.

Now, are you asking because the answer you get will affect your call?

If not, it seems that the only reason to ask is to back up the auction and give partner a chance to do something over 2♠. And that is not allowed. Unless you are asking in part to humiliate (some people say educate) the opponents. Which doesn't seem to be something that the Laws should sanction either.

[blackshoe]

I wonder what people would say if the scenario was that there was a failure to alert, and Jefford didn't call because "it would be for partner's benefit" and his side were damaged (because his partner would have bid or doubled had he but known), and then the director declines to do anything because "you should have called me at the time". Don't tell me it can't happen. It certainly can.

[biggerclub]

 blackshoe, on 2014-July-30, 21:17, said:

I wonder what people would say if the scenario was that there was a failure to alert, and Jefford didn't call because "it would be for partner's benefit" and his side were damaged (because his partner would have bid or doubled had he but known), and then the director declines to do anything because "you should have called me at the time". Don't tell me it can't happen. It certainly can.

You can call the director. When the director arrives, you can request to leave the table for a sidebar. You can explain the situation away from partner's hearing. I think that there's a fair chance that partner's pass is binding on the partnership despite the failure to alert . . . that partner had a duty to protect himself . . . without assistance.

Nevertheless, there is a method to involve the director without alerting partner.

[blackshoe]

 biggerclub, on 2014-July-30, 21:31, said:

You can call the director. When the director arrives, you can request to leave the table for a sidebar. You can explain the situation away from partner's hearing. I think that there's a fair chance that partner's pass is binding on the partnership despite the failure to alert . . . that partner had a duty to protect himself . . . without assistance.

Nevertheless, there is a method to involve the director without alerting partner.

Asking for a "sidebar" is an unusual procedure invented out of whole cloth. There's nothing in law or regulation to support it. Equally so, the idea that partner's pass is "binding" on the partnership has no basis in law or regulation.

[biggerclub]

 blackshoe, on 2014-July-30, 21:37, said:

Asking for a "sidebar" is an unusual procedure invented out of whole cloth.

It has happened to me at a recent regional. (by happened to me, I mean the opponent called the director and then asked to step away from the table to discuss her complaint with the director)

[pran]

 campboy, on 2014-July-29, 18:01, said:

But 20G1 (it is improper to ask a question solely for partner's benefit) still does apply.

 jeffford76, on 2014-July-30, 14:47, said:

Amusingly (?) I was given a talking to by a director at the recent NABC for not following this law. The auction had proceeded with a weak 2H on my right, and a 2S advance on my left passed back around to me. I asked whether 2S was non-forcing, and upon being told it was called the director about the failure to alert. He seemed far more concerned with the fact that I called him to give partner another chance to bid than that the opponents had failed to follow the regulations.

Well,
had it been me in your position I would have most strongly objected to any allegation that my question was solely for my partner's benefit.

The main purpose of the question is obviously to establish whether an irregularity has taken place, and that is at least as much in my interest as for my partner's benefit.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2014-July-31, 01:08, said:

The main purpose of the question is obviously to establish whether an irregularity has taken place, and that is at least as much in my interest as for my partner's benefit.

Precisely!

[aguahombre]

 pran, on 2014-July-31, 01:08, said:

Well,
had it been me in your position I would have most strongly objected to any allegation that my question was solely for my partner's benefit.

The main purpose of the question is obviously to establish whether an irregularity has taken place, and that is at least as much in my interest as for my partner's benefit.

Yes..and unfortunately there is no redress when the Director makes an unfounded allegation "for the sole benefit" of letting us all know he can misapply 20G1.

[pran]

♣

 aguahombre, on 2014-July-31, 05:50, said:

Yes..and unfortunately there is no redress when the Director makes an unfounded allegation "for the sole benefit" of letting us all know he can misapply 20G1.

A director's abuse of Law 20G1 can (of course) be appealed, if neccessary all the way up to the national authority.
(And I think it should!)

[helene_t]

 gnasher, on 2014-July-30, 06:40, said:

Law 20F tells us when you are allowed to ask questions.

1.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...
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...

This situation doesn't meet any of these conditions, so South isn't allowed to ask.

This seems to ommit the defender-not-on-lead's right to ask questions after the opening lead has been mede face-down (not that it is relevant to this case, though).

[pran]

 gnasher, on 2014-July-30, 06:40, said:

Law 20F tells us when you are allowed to ask questions.

1.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...
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...

This situation doesn't meet any of these conditions, so South isn't allowed to ask.

 helene_t, on 2014-July-31, 07:28, said:

This seems to ommit the defender-not-on-lead's right to ask questions after the opening lead has been mede face-down (not that it is relevant to this case, though).

Well,
that is just another consequence of (ab-)using Law 20F while forgetting or ignoring Law 41B.

[RMB1]

 helene_t, on 2014-July-31, 07:28, said:

This seems to ommit the defender-not-on-lead's right to ask questions after the opening lead has been mede face-down (not that it is relevant to this case, though).

Isn't that common practice: defender on lead leads face down, asks "questions parther", partner asks questions and then the lead is faced.

[aguahombre]

 gnasher, on 2014-July-30, 06:40, said:

Law 20F tells us when you are allowed to ask questions.

1.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...
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...

This situation doesn't meet any of these conditions, so South isn't allowed to ask.

Number 1 meets the conditions. South inquired at his turn to call, received an answer, properly called the TD re failure to alert at the right time, and then balanced with a double.

A poster's contention that South already knew the answer because of RHO's pass and therefore is asking solely for partner's benefit is just wrong. There is still a violation from failure to alert if it were not forcing, and South has a right to know whether that is their agreement or whether RHO has broken with their forcing agreement.

[pran]

 aguahombre, on 2014-July-31, 09:00, said:

Number 1 meets the conditions. South inquired at his turn to call, received an answer, properly called the TD re failure to alert at the right time, and then balanced with a double.

A poster's contention that South already knew the answer because of RHO's pass and therefore is asking solely for partner's benefit is just wrong. There is still a violation from failure to alert if it were not forcing, and South has a right to know whether that is their agreement or whether RHO has broken with their forcing agreement.

I am sorry, but you are wrong: Law 20F literally prevents South from asking.

Number 1 (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...) does not meet the conditions because we have already had the final pass - and South will in fact not get another turn to call unless the auction is rolled back.

As I have already stated more than once: The Director must apply Law 41B!

Aside from that your comment is of course correct.