[relpar]

In a recent ACBL game the following arose: West opened 1♦, and North overcalled 1NT which was alerted by South. East requested an explanation which was given -10-15 points with a 4 card major and a longer minor. East then passed and before South could bid, West strongly insisted in knowing what explanation had been given to East - presumably because she did not hear it. South informed her that she would explain again when it was West's turn to bid. This was not satisfactory to West who called the Director. The Director conformed that West had a right to know the explanation that had been given even though it was not her turn to bid. Correct ruling? This issue would not have arisen if South and West were on amicable terms with each other!!! Apparently South's explanation to East was clearly spoken but West claimed not to have heard it.

[Mbodell]

I think it is correct that West might need to know since it is possible that East's call needs to be alerted depending on what the North call showed. Noting that East has already made a call and will not likely be subject to any UI from West wanting a repeat of an explanation.

[bluejak]

Sounds like handbags at twenty paces to me.