[barmar]

 VixTD, on 2014-December-17, 07:08, said:

If the answer to a question cannot affect a player's action they are discouraged from asking at that point. A player forced to pass could ask questions at the end of the auction.

I was thinking that he might need to know the meaning of the opponents' calls so he can explain his partner's calls. But then I realized that a player whose partner is barred is not going to make any artificial bids (unless he's crazy or forgets partner is barred), so there's nothing to explain.

[blackshoe]

I do not think the lawmakers envision that a player required to pass is also required to turn off his brain for the rest of the auction.

Bidding boxes are ubiquitous today. Players don't have to ask for a review during the auction, because they can see it right in front of them. Or is a player required to pass also required to close his eyes for the duration of the auction?

I suspect that the prohibition against asking for a review during the auction derives from some incident in which an opponent of a player required to pass alleged that the request for a review conveyed UI to his partner, which the partner may have then used to arrive at a good (for his side) contract. IAC, as I said, when using bidding boxes the prohibition is irrelevant.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2014-December-17, 11:31, said:

I do not think the lawmakers envision that a player required to pass is also required to turn off his brain for the rest of the auction.

Bidding boxes are ubiquitous today. Players don't have to ask for a review during the auction, because they can see it right in front of them. Or is a player required to pass also required to close his eyes for the duration of the auction?

I suspect that the prohibition against asking for a review during the auction derives from some incident in which an opponent of a player required to pass alleged that the request for a review conveyed UI to his partner, which the partner may have then used to arrive at a good (for his side) contract. IAC, as I said, when using bidding boxes the prohibition is irrelevant.

A player who is required to pass has no need for understanding the auction in order to select his own call.

If he is asked by an opponent to explain his partner's call then it is perfectly legal (in case) to answer that it depends on the meaning of an opponent's call and give the individual explanations for the relevant alternatives.

I don't think it is proper by an opponent in such situations to uninvited (by the barred player's partner) clarifying his own or his partner's call in question.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2014-December-17, 15:50, said:

A player who is required to pass has no need for understanding the auction in order to select his own call.

No, but he may need to understand it in order to plan his defense, and there's nothing in the laws that says he can't start doing that during the auction.

 pran, on 2014-December-17, 15:50, said:

If he is asked by an opponent to explain his partner's call then it is perfectly legal (in case) to answer that it depends on the meaning of an opponent's call and give the individual explanations for the relevant alternatives.

Agreed.

 pran, on 2014-December-17, 15:50, said:

I don't think it is proper by an opponent in such situations to uninvited (by the barred player's partner) clarifying his own or his partner's call in question.

Such an extraneous comment might violate Law 73B1, I think. Or it might not. It seems to be not strictly in accord with the procedures in Laws 20F, and so I suppose that makes it improper. But if it's not deemed a violation of 73B1, what should the TD do about it? Explain the proper procedure, I suppose, the first time it happens, but what if the player persists in doing this?

If your procedure above is followed, then the question is usually irrelevant, because the opponent will not have occasion to clarify anything — unless the meaning of his or his partner's call is not among the possibilities covered by the explanation. What then?

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2014-December-17, 17:08, said:

 pran, on 2014-December-17, 15:50, said:

A player who is required to pass has no need for understanding the auction in order to select his own call.

No, but he may need to understand it in order to plan his defense, and there's nothing in the laws that says he can't start doing that during the auction.

True, but nor is there anything in the laws that gives him the right to start planning his defense before he has any legal possibility to do so by choosing his actions among alternatives, i.e. when he is no longer barred. And that is after the end of the auction. (When he is free to ask at his first time to play.)

 blackshoe, on 2014-December-17, 17:08, said:

 pran, on 2014-December-17, 15:50, said:

If he is asked by an opponent to explain his partner's call then it is perfectly legal (in case) to answer that it depends on the meaning of an opponent's call and give the individual explanations for the relevant alternatives.

Agreed.

 pran, on 2014-December-17, 15:50, said:

I don't think it is proper by an opponent in such situations to uninvited (by the barred player's partner) clarifying his own or his partner's call in question.

Such an extraneous comment might violate Law 73B1, I think. Or it might not. It seems to be not strictly in accord with the procedures in Laws 20F, and so I suppose that makes it improper. But if it's not deemed a violation of 73B1, what should the TD do about it? Explain the proper procedure, I suppose, the first time it happens, but what if the player persists in doing this?

If your procedure above is followed, then the question is usually irrelevant, because the opponent will not have occasion to clarify anything — unless the meaning of his or his partner's call is not among the possibilities covered by the explanation. What then?

It seems to me that we agree here as well?

PS.: "If your call means X then partner's call means AX; if your call means Y then partner's call means AY".
If opponents have the understanding that their call means Z and say so then chances are that the player must say: "Oh, sorry, then partner's call means AZ".

[VixTD]

 blackshoe, on 2014-December-17, 11:31, said:

Bidding boxes are ubiquitous today. Players don't have to ask for a review during the auction, because they can see it right in front of them.

Then why does law 20B permit a player to have all calls restated? Do you think that law is for the benefit of blind players? We know the laws are about 30 years behind developments in the modern game, and do not take account of bidding boxes, dealing machines and electronic scoring devices.

[barmar]

 VixTD, on 2014-December-18, 07:31, said:

Then why does law 20B permit a player to have all calls restated? Do you think that law is for the benefit of blind players? We know the laws are about 30 years behind developments in the modern game, and do not take account of bidding boxes, dealing machines and electronic scoring devices.

There's nothing in the Laws requiring the use of bidding boxes. So they're written more generally. Bidding boxes may be almost ubiquitous these days, but you can still have a perfectly adequate game without them (I've mentioned my club in the past, where we depend on players to bring their own, so we can't guarantee that every table will have them).

It would indeed be silly for a sighted player to request a review of the auction when the bidding cards are sitting on the table. There's no law against being silly, unless you consider it a violation of the proprieties.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2014-December-18, 03:25, said:

True, but nor is there anything in the laws that gives him the right to start planning his defense before he has any legal possibility to do so by choosing his actions among alternatives, i.e. when he is no longer barred. And that is after the end of the auction. (When he is free to ask at his first time to play.)

Taking an action is not "planning" it is "acting".

 pran, on 2014-December-18, 03:25, said:

PS.: "If your call means X then partner's call means AX; if your call means Y then partner's call means AY".
If opponents have the understanding that their call means Z and say so then chances are that the player must say: "Oh, sorry, then partner's call means AZ".

True, but then the opponent who says that has made a comment that you said he should not make.

Aside: why should a player apologize for not knowing some obscure part of his opponents' system? People do make this kind of apology, but I've never understood why.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2014-December-18, 10:20, said:

Taking an action is not "planning" it is "acting".

And a player who is required by Law to pass during the auction is also prohibited from asking questions until end of the auction.

If that makes him unable to plan his play earlier (during the auction) then so sorry, he will just have to postpone his planning until he can obtain the information he needs. And that time wikk certainly come before he has to play any card at all.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2014-December-18, 10:20, said:

Aside: why should a player apologize for not knowing some obscure part of his opponents' system? People do make this kind of apology, but I've never understood why.

Don't you think that "sorry" here implies "sorry, I overlooked that alternative".

I do indeed understand why polite people apologize for the possibility of a mistake; it is IMHO a matter of courtesy.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2014-December-18, 10:37, said:

And a player who is required by Law to pass during the auction is also prohibited from asking questions until end of the auction.

By which law?

[gnasher]

 VixTD, on 2014-December-17, 07:08, said:

If the answer to a question cannot affect a player's action they are discouraged from asking at that point.

Discouraged by whom or by what?

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2014-December-18, 15:47, said:

 pran, on 2014-December-18, 10:37, said:

And a player who is required by Law to pass during the auction is also prohibited from asking questions until end of the auction.

By which law?

Sorry

 pran, on 2014-December-18, 10:42, said:

I do indeed understand why polite people apologize for the possibility of a mistake; it is IMHO a matter of courtesy.

I obviously stretched Law 20B too far, it applies to requesting restatements, not to asking questions.

But I still think the barred player should be extremely careful to avoid suspicion of asking questions solely for partner’s benefit. (Law 20G1)

[gnasher]

 aguahombre, on 2014-December-17, 05:07, said:

Is a director call "heard" by the other side of the screen so that they do not act?

Probably. If the director can hear the call from somewhere else in the room, it's probably also audible on the other side of the screen.

[VixTD]

 gnasher, on 2014-December-18, 16:24, said:

Discouraged by whom or by what?

Blue Book regulation 2E1:

Quote

A player has the right to ask questions at his turn to call or play, but exercising this right may have consequences. If a player shows unusual interest in one or more calls of the auction, then this may give rise to unauthorised information. His partner must avoid taking advantage. It may be in a player’s interests to defer questions until either he is about to make the opening lead or his partner’s lead is face-down on the table.

[aguahombre]

 gnasher, on 2014-December-18, 16:28, said:

Probably. If the director can hear the call from somewhere else in the room, it's probably also audible on the other side of the screen.

O.K., I am not experienced with screen procedures other than watching videos. For some reason I thought no verbalization occurred which could be heard by the other side during an auction, and the "TD" card was just raised...unless coughs are considered verbalization.

[barmar]

 aguahombre, on 2014-December-19, 09:44, said:

O.K., I am not experienced with screen procedures other than watching videos. For some reason I thought no verbalization occurred which could be heard by the other side during an auction, and the "TD" card was just raised...unless coughs are considered verbalization.

Maybe other events are more formal, but I've operated Vugraph for NABC+ events with screens, and there often isn't a TD actively watching, so there's no way to call the TD quietly. Sometimes he isn't even in the room, a player would have to get up from the table and leave the room to call him.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2014-December-19, 10:36, said:

Maybe other events are more formal, but I've operated Vugraph for NABC+ events with screens, and there often isn't a TD actively watching, so there's no way to call the TD quietly. Sometimes he isn't even in the room, a player would have to get up from the table and leave the room to call him.

A player can (and should) leave the table when needed without the players on the other side of the screen noticing.

[barmar]

 pran, on 2014-December-19, 11:01, said:

A player can (and should) leave the table when needed without the players on the other side of the screen noticing.

How? Do you think the screen extends across the entire width of the room? The door might even be on the other side of the screen.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2014-December-19, 11:07, said:

How? Do you think the screen extends across the entire width of the room? The door might even be on the other side of the screen.

I have seen screens in operations and also seen players leave the table without the other side being aware of it.