[jeffford76]

I think I have contributed to the confusion between aguahombre and pran, as I think aguahombre is referring to my anecdote and pran to the original post.

[aguahombre]

jeffford76, on 2014-July-31, 14:27, said:

I think I have contributed to the confusion between aguahombre and pran, as I think aguahombre is referring to my anecdote and pran to the original post.

Yep. I thought we had moved on from the OP to your thing; and since I was South in the OP and didn't ask anything anyway, I have no idea what Pran is talking about.

[gnasher]

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.

I was answering the question in your original post, which was "1) With the lead face down, may the person about to become dummy ask a question about our auction?"

[blackshoe]

Hm.

Quote

Law 41A: After a bid, double or redouble has been followed by three passes in rotation, the defender on presumed declarer’s left makes the opening lead face down. The face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director after an irregularity (see Law 47E2); the withdrawn card must be returned to the defender’s hand.

Quote

Law 41B: Before the opening lead is faced, the leader’s partner and the presumed declarer (but not the presumed dummy) each may require a review of the auction
or request an explanation of an opponent’s call (see Law 20F2 and 20F3). Declarer or either defender may, at his first turn to play a card, require a review of the auction; this right expires when he plays a card. The defenders (subject to Law 16) and the declarer retain the right to request explanations throughout the play period, each at his own turn to play.

I have always assumed (silly me) that the opening leader may request an explanation of the auction, or of any single call, "at his turn to play," which I would have thought would be before he places the opening lead face down. But that's still, technically, in the auction period, so it's not "his turn to play". The play period starts when the opening lead is faced (Law 41C). Law 41C, in the same sentence where it defines when the play period starts, calls the period discussed in 41B, i.e., from the time the opening lead is made face down to the time when it is turned face up, the "Clarification Period". Custom is for the opening leader, after making his lead face down, to ask his partner if he has any questions (he should ask declarer too, but never mind that). So my question is, at what point(s) may the opening leader ask questions?

1) during the auction period, before his final call (how does he know it's going to be his final call?)
2) during the auction period (the clarification period hasn't started yet) before he chooses his opening lead
3) during the clarification period, after he makes the opening lead face down, but before anyone else asks questions
4) during the clarification period, at any time before he faces the lead
5) during the play period, after he faces the opening lead (because the play period starts when the opening lead is faced)

I would say that 1 is certainly valid, because it's still during the auction, and he's allowed to ask questions at his turn during the auction.
2 is less clear, particularly if the opening leader did not make the final pass in the auction.
3 seems unlikely to be right. Certainly I've never seen anyone do it, and I don't see anything in the law that seems to support it.
4 also seems unlikely to be right. Things could get really confusing.
5. No, because once he faces the lead, his turn to play is over.

I think 2 should be the right time for the opening leader to ask questions, but it's not clear to me that the law gives him that right. Law 41A doesn't seem to leave much room for questions.

Comments?

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2014-July-31, 14:57, said:

I was answering the question in your original post, which was "1) With the lead face down, may the person about to become dummy ask a question about our auction?"

O.K. The fact that "South" was not the one about to become dummy confused me.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-July-31, 14:58, said:

Hm.




I have always assumed (silly me) that the opening leader may request an explanation of the auction, or of any single call, "at his turn to play," which I would have thought would be before he places the opening lead face down. But that's still, technically, in the auction period, so it's not "his turn to play". The play period starts when the opening lead is faced (Law 41C). Law 41C, in the same sentence where it defines when the play period starts, calls the period discussed in 41B, i.e., from the time the opening lead is made face down to the time when it is turned face up, the "Clarification Period". Custom is for the opening leader, after making his lead face down, to ask his partner if he has any questions (he should ask declarer too, but never mind that). So my question is, at what point(s) may the opening leader ask questions?

1) during the auction period, before his final call (how does he know it's going to be his final call?)
2) during the auction period (the clarification period hasn't started yet) before he chooses his opening lead
3) during the clarification period, after he makes the opening lead face down, but before anyone else asks questions
4) during the clarification period, at any time before he faces the lead
5) during the play period, after he faces the opening lead (because the play period starts when the opening lead is faced)

I would say that 1 is certainly valid, because it's still during the auction, and he's allowed to ask questions at his turn during the auction.
2 is less clear, particularly if the opening leader did not make the final pass in the auction.
3 seems unlikely to be right. Certainly I've never seen anyone do it, and I don't see anything in the law that seems to support it.
4 also seems unlikely to be right. Things could get really confusing.
5. No, because once he faces the lead, his turn to play is over.

I think 2 should be the right time for the opening leader to ask questions, but it's not clear to me that the law gives him that right. Law 41A doesn't seem to leave much room for questions.

Comments?

Without now bothering about Law quotations here is how we in Norway teach correct procedures following the end of the auction. (Three consecutive passes after at least one bid has been made):
1: Presumed declarer's LHO asks whatever question(s) he might have related to the auction.
2: Presumed declarer's LHO selects his opening lead and places this card face down on the table in front of himself.
3: Presumed declarer's RHO asks whatever question(s) he might have related to the auction.
4: Presumed declarer's RHO indicates to his partner that the opening lead should be faced, which is then done.
5: Dummy faces his cards.

Note that the opening leader should not ask his partner if he has any questions, and that neither presumed declarer nor presumed dummy should in any way indicate that the opening lead may be faced.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2014-July-31, 16:26, said:

Without now bothering about Law quotations here is how we in Norway teach correct procedures following the end of the auction. (Three consecutive passes after at least one bid has been made):
1: Presumed declarer's LHO asks whatever question(s) he might have related to the auction.
2: Presumed declarer's LHO selects his opening lead and places this card face down on the table in front of himself.
3: Presumed declarer's RHO asks whatever question(s) he might have related to the auction.
4: Presumed declarer's RHO indicates to his partner that the opening lead should be faced, which is then done.
5: Dummy faces his cards.

Note that the opening leader should not ask his partner if he has any questions, and that neither presumed declarer nor presumed dummy should in any way indicate that the opening lead may be faced.

That procedure is a good try, Sven, but whoever devised it left out one thing:

Quote

Law 41B: Before the opening lead is faced, the leader’s partner and the presumed declarer (but not the presumed dummy) each may require a review of the auction or request an explanation of an opponent’s call (see Law 20F2 and 20F3).

I will grant that I don't think I've ever seen a declarer want to ask questions at this time, probably because he knows he's also going to be able to ask (again?) in about five seconds - as soon as dummy faces his cards.

I would add: "3.5: Presumed declarer asks whatever question(s) he might have related to the auction", and change 4 to "Presumed declarer indicates to his LHO that the opening lead should be faced, which is then done." Then you can renumber 5 to 6, 4 to 5, and 3.5 to 4.

Of course, retraining players like this won't be easy.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-July-31, 16:57, said:

That procedure is a good try, Sven, but whoever devised it left out one thing:

Quote

Law 41B: Before the opening lead is faced, the leader’s partner and the presumed declarer (but not the presumed dummy) each may require a review of the auction or request an explanation of an opponent’s call (see Law 20F2 and 20F3).

I will grant that I don't think I've ever seen a declarer want to ask questions at this time, probably because he knows he's also going to be able to ask (again?) in about five seconds - as soon as dummy faces his cards.

I would add: "3.5: Presumed declarer asks whatever question(s) he might have related to the auction", and change 4 to "Presumed declarer indicates to his LHO that the opening lead should be faced, which is then done." Then you can renumber 5 to 6, 4 to 5, and 3.5 to 4.

Of course, retraining players like this won't be easy.

No, I don't think we left out anything.
(Presumed) declarer is really free to ask whatever he wants at any time (because he has no partner that can make any use of UI). He is only forbidden to make misleading questions or remarks.

The important thing is that RHO must be very careful and should not say anything until LHO has made his opening lead face down.
Thereafter it is RHO (and neither declarer nor dummy) who should give LHO clearance to face the opening lead with the indication that he has nothing (more) to ask.

What we really try to rectify with our procedure is the common misunderstanding that the purpose of making the opening lead face down is to prevent opening leads from the wrong defender. That is not the purpose, and therefore neither declarer nor dummy has any business saying "yes it is your lead" or words to that effect.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2014-July-31, 22:27, said:

No, I don't think we left out anything.
(Presumed) declarer is really free to ask whatever he wants at any time (because he has no partner that can make any use of UI). He is only forbidden to make misleading questions or remarks.

The important thing is that RHO must be very careful and should not say anything until LHO has made his opening lead face down.
Thereafter it is RHO (and neither declarer nor dummy) who should give LHO clearance to face the opening lead with the indication that he has nothing (more) to ask.

What we really try to rectify with our procedure is the common misunderstanding that the purpose of making the opening lead face down is to prevent opening leads from the wrong defender. That is not the purpose, and therefore neither declarer nor dummy has any business saying "yes it is your lead" or words to that effect.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about proper procedure. The laws define proper procedure, and in this case the laws say that it is proper procedure for declarer to ask before the opening lead is faced. Setting up a procedure that ignores the declarer's right to ask questions during the clarification period does not support the proper procedure.

Y'all will do what you want, but you can't claim you didn't leave out anything.

The purpose of face down opening leads is to ensure that any questions about the auction are cleared up before the play period starts, and so that if there has been MI, at least there's some possibility of rectification in the auction. If you want people to learn that, you should tell them that.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-July-31, 23:11, said:

The purpose of face down opening leads is to ensure that any questions about the auction are cleared up before the play period starts, and so that if there has been MI, at least there's some possibility of rectification in the auction. If you want people to learn that, you should tell them that.

Yes, and in a manner that as far as possible (without jeopardizing their rights) prevents passing (lead directing) UI between defenders.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2014-July-31, 14:58, said:

I have always assumed (silly me) that the opening leader may request an explanation of the auction, or of any single call, "at his turn to play," which I would have thought would be before he places the opening lead face down. But that's still, technically, in the auction period, so it's not "his turn to play". The play period starts when the opening lead is faced (Law 41C). Law 41C, in the same sentence where it defines when the play period starts, calls the period discussed in 41B, i.e., from the time the opening lead is made face down to the time when it is turned face up, the "Clarification Period".

Of course it's his turn to play. Apart from common sense and common English, we also have the definition of "Play" from the laws: "1. The contribution of a card from one’s hand to a trick, including the first card, which is the lead."

The definition of "Play period" is irrelevant, because nothing in the Laws says that a "turn to play" occurs in the "Play period".

Quote

Comments?

If I may say so, this is the sort of stuff that usually causes you to start ranting about BLML.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2014-July-31, 16:57, said:

I will grant that I don't think I've ever seen a declarer want to ask questions at this time, probably because he knows he's also going to be able to ask (again?) in about five seconds - as soon as dummy faces his cards.

I routinely ask questions at this point (during the clarification period), because
- That's when the laws suggest that I should ask
- Asking at this stage reduces the risk of misleading an opponent about why I'm asking
- It makes it less likely that the answers will be coloured by the sight of dummy.

[barmar]

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

Asking for a "sidebar" is an unusual procedure invented out of whole cloth. There's nothing in law or regulation to support it.

Does the law specifically say that when you call the TD you have to explain the reason within earshot of the other players? If not, why can't you discuss it away from the table?

it's certainly common for the TD to ask players to step away from the table. This is very often done when they want to ask the player if they would have taken different action with a correct explanation.

[mycroft]

It's certainly common for the TD to ask players to step away from the table (at least in the ACBL; in England much less so, from my memory of conversations). However, when *a player* asks if they can talk to *me, the TD* away from the table, it's almost always a bad idea. Maybe less bad than not doing so, but bad nonetheless.

I'd suggest that 80% of the time I'm going to hear "partner misexplained..." or "I misbid, and..." and it's the end of the auction. Now, if they won the contract, we're all good. But usually they didn't, and now - well, if partner was going to wake up, the only thing that would make it easier is if the actual explanation was given at the table. It's not exactly hard.

So, usually, I come back to the table with the player, and say "Anything <the opposition> can work out from the fact that <player> wanted to talk to me away from the table is Authorized. Anything <partner> can work out is unAuthorized and they may not use that information. I will stick around to pay attention to the play." Which is a drag, no matter what happens.

I realize they're in a bind as to what to do, so I remind everyone, as often as I can:

• If your partner's explanation is right, even though it's not what you thought the agreement was when you bid, say nothing (but be prepared for an indignant TD call at the end of the hand);
  
• If your partner's explanation is wrong, and you're declarer or dummy, you must correct it before the opening lead;
  
• If your partner's expalanation is wrong, and you're defending, you must only correct it after the play (but be prepared for an indignant TD call before you get a chance);
  
• If *your* explanation is wrong, and you figure it out, you must call the TD and correct it immediately on realizing it.

(yes, I know all our readers know all of this already)

[RMB1]

mycroft, on 2014-August-01, 14:13, said:

I realize they're in a bind as to what to do, so I remind everyone, as often as I can:

• If your partner's explanation is right, even though it's not what you thought the agreement was when you bid, say nothing (but be prepared for an indignant TD call at the end of the hand);
  
• If your partner's explanation is wrong, and you're declarer or dummy, you must correct it before the opening lead;
  
• If your partner'sexpalanation is wrong, and you're defending, you must only correct it after the play (but be prepared for an indignant TD call before you get a chance);
  
• If *your* explanation is wrong, and you figure it out, you must call the TD and correct it immediately on realizing it.

There is a wrinkle to the last bullet which I suspect may depend on where you play.
In England, you can add "even if you used unauthorised information from partner to figure it out";
but then you have to add "but of course you can not use the unauthorised information in your choice of calls/plays".

This is EBU Blue Book 2D7

Quote

It is proper to use any unauthorised information which has been made available by partner to help a player to alert and explain the partnership understanding accurately, but this information must not be used to help in the bidding and play.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2014-August-01, 06:15, said:

If I may say so, this is the sort of stuff that usually causes you to start ranting about BLML.

I know. Maybe I'm just having a bad week.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2014-August-01, 06:19, said:

I routinely ask questions at this point (during the clarification period), because
- That's when the laws suggest that I should ask
- Asking at this stage reduces the risk of misleading an opponent about why I'm asking
- It makes it less likely that the answers will be coloured by the sight of dummy.

Good idea, and good reasons. I should probably start doing the same.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2014-August-01, 10:40, said:

Does the law specifically say that when you call the TD you have to explain the reason within earshot of the other players? If not, why can't you discuss it away from the table?

it's certainly common for the TD to ask players to step away from the table. This is very often done when they want to ask the player if they would have taken different action with a correct explanation.

There are, I grant, times when it's appropriate to ask the player to step away from the table. Not sure there are times when it's appropriate for a player to ask the director to do so. For one thing, a desire to avoid UI to partner does not, as far as I can see, give a player that right.

[blackshoe]

RMB1, on 2014-August-01, 14:36, said:

There is a wrinkle to the last bullet which I suspect may depend on where you play.
In England, you can add "even if you used unauthorised information from partner to figure it out";
but then you have to add "but of course you can not use the unauthorised information in your choice of calls/plays".

This is EBU Blue Book 2D7

I would think the law would have the same interpretation everywhere. I applaud the EBU for codifying it.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2014-August-01, 14:13, said:

It's certainly common for the TD to ask players to step away from the table (at least in the ACBL; in England much less so, from my memory of conversations). However, when *a player* asks if they can talk to *me, the TD* away from the table, it's almost always a bad idea. Maybe less bad than not doing so, but bad nonetheless.

If it's less bad than not talking away from the table, what's the preferred alternative? Not calling the TD at all? But shouldn't players always be allowed, even encouraged, to call the TD when they're unsure of their rights and/or obligations? And once they call the TD, shouldn't they choose the least bad way of explaining the situation?

There are some situations where giving UI to partner is inevitable, such as ordinary spoken alerts, announcements, and questions/answers to opponents. But if there's a simple way to minimize UI, what's wrong with using it? I realize that there's UI just from calling the TD and asking to speak to him away from the table -- that's another of the inevitable situations. But it's less UI than partner actually hearing the conversation.