[Echognome]

Edit: If it's unclear from the subtitle, this took place in the ACBL.

I don't remember the exact auction, but let's say East was dealer and the auction went as follows:

E - S - W - N
P - 1♦ - 1♠ - Dbl;
3♣(A) - 3♥ - Pass - 4♥;
All Pass

(A)3♣ was alerted by West. South asked West when he alerted and West said "I'm not sure, but I think it shows clubs and spades."*

West chooses his lead and puts it face down.

North (who is dummy) then asks East "What did the 3♣ call show?"

East tells North that he cannot ask questions.

North says that South has the right to know the meaning of 3♣.

East calls the director.

The director reminds North that he has no rights and cannot ask any questions. The director then says to South, "Of course you can ask any questions you like."

Thoughts?

*E/W are a first time partnership and had discussed "All jumps in competition are fitted." West's uncertainty was over trying to remember what they had discussed.

[blackshoe]

North doesn't trust his partner to ask when he needs to know?

East is obligated, at this point, to keep quiet about whether West's explanation was correct. East is correct that the dummy's rights do not include asking questions at this time (that right extends to East and South only).

North's question is extraneous, and is UI to his partner. I don't think the laws extend to limiting declarer's right to ask questions, though.

I would read Law 20G1 to North:

Quote

It is improper to ask a question solely for partner’s benefit.

I would warn him that if he does it again, he will get a PP — and if he does it again, I'll give him one.

The interesting question is whether the TD should investigate if, under Law 21, he thinks NS have been misinformed, and give S the option to change his final pass. This would seem to obviate the idea that E is not supposed to say anything (yet) about possible MI from W. In this case, IAC, I can't imagine East wanting to change his final pass, anyway, so I wouldn't pursue it — but there may be cases where one should, I don't know.

So, at the time of the TD call, admonition to N, discussion of the proper procedure, tell the players to play out the hand, and remind East of his obligation, should he disagree with West's explanation, to call the director at the end of play and explain his disagreement. It appears that he doesn't disagree, though, so he won't call.

[Echognome]

What do you think of the TD reminding declarer that she has the right to ask questions?

[blackshoe]

I think that rather than address declarer specifically, I would read Law 41B to the table:

Quote

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).

If they then want to know what 20F2 and 20F3 say, I'll read those too, but this is the law that says who can and can't ask questions at this time. Declarer is entitled to know his legal rights.

IAC, unless the TD (wrongly and stupidly, IMO) directs East to answer questions about his own bid, it's still West who will answer — and he's already given his answer. I'm not gonna let South badger him.

[jdonn]

Echognome, on Mar 29 2010, 04:09 PM, said:

What do you think of the TD reminding declarer that she has the right to ask questions?

Seems fine to me. There may have been some confusion and the director is always fair to remind a player of his rights if he feels they might not be aware of them.

As for the PP for failing to follow the law that says you can't ask questions for partner's benefit, I would probably just give it with no warning. The damage has already been done since he gave his partner UI that suggests asking more questions, plus he admitted he asked for partner's benefit (not that it isn't obvious since he is dummy.)

[Echognome]

Just to clarify if it wasn't already abundantly obvious, I was East on the hand. My hand matched the description my partner gave as well as our agreement. I didn't think there was any damage caused.

It just felt wrong to me that dummy is trying to direct his partner first by asking questions himself and then by instructing his partner to ask them. Then the director comes around and completes the job for him by reminding declarer that she can ask questions.

[blackshoe]

If North is an experienced player, then a PP in points rather than a warning is appropriate even for a first offense. If North is a beginner, I'd cut him some slack.

[dburn]

blackshoe, on Mar 29 2010, 05:59 PM, said:

If North is an experienced player, then a PP in points rather than a warning is appropriate even for a first offense. If North is a beginner, I'd cut him some slack.

Oh, I don't know. This is an example of what used to be called the "pro question" or perhaps the "Kaplan question", where a player asks a question not for his own benefit but for his partner's. I can understand, given its provenance, why the belief might persist that such questions are permitted, and I would hesitate to fine even an experienced North who so believed.

[bluejak]

It is illegal to ask a question for partner's benefit. A warning may be fair enough.

But I do not think the TD should tell the player that he can ask: furthermore, I think the TD should tell the player he should not ask unless he was going to anyway as otherwise the abuse this Law is trying to control has occurred.

It is not good enough to say in effect "A player may not communicate with his partner but once he has he can use the information."

[peachy]

Echognome, on Mar 29 2010, 04:59 PM, said:

Just to clarify if it wasn't already abundantly obvious, I was East on the hand. My hand matched the description my partner gave as well as our agreement. I didn't think there was any damage caused.

It just felt wrong to me that dummy is trying to direct his partner first by asking questions himself and then by instructing his partner to ask them. Then the director comes around and completes the job for him by reminding declarer that she can ask questions.

I wasn't at the table. It is not only wrong, it is illegal to ask for partner's benefit or direct partner to ask. I think TD did right to remind that declarer can ask questions, if he thought the declarer was in anyway unsure about that. The TD did not go far enough [no PP] in getting the point through that the dummy-to-be was in violation of at least two laws.

[cherdanno]

dburn, on Mar 29 2010, 06:30 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Mar 29 2010, 05:59 PM, said:

If North is an experienced player, then a PP in points rather than a warning is appropriate even for a first offense. If North is a beginner, I'd cut him some slack.

Oh, I don't know. This is an example of what used to be called the "pro question" or perhaps the "Kaplan question", where a player asks a question not for his own benefit but for his partner's. I can understand, given its provenance, why the belief might persist that such questions are permitted, and I would hesitate to fine even an experienced North who so believed.

Hmm. Did Kaplan really advocate to (or raise the question of whether one should) ask questions as dummy? I would have thought the "Kaplan question" is asking a question during the auction while it is your turn to bid.

[aguahombre]

Don't pick on Adam, he isn't posting lately

[dburn]

cherdanno, on Mar 29 2010, 09:59 PM, said:

Hmm. Did Kaplan really advocate to (or raise the question of whether one should) ask questions as dummy? I would have thought the "Kaplan question" is asking a question during the auction while it is your turn to bid.

Certainly the original "Kaplan question" arose in the course of an auction where Kaplan, who knew what the opponents' bidding meant, asked (at his turn, and before the end of the auction) a question solely in order that Norman Kay should know it also.

Moreover, Kaplan had reason to believe that the explanations so far given to him and to Kay (no screens in those days) were at best incomplete and at worst erroneous; he wanted to ensure that the game proceeded with everyone in full possession of those facts of which the Law states that they should have been in possession.

Notwithstanding which, it was then and remains now the case that: [a] players should not take the Law into their own hands, even if they wrote the Law in the first place; [b] players should not communicate with their partners other than by means of legal calls and plays.

Trivially, dummy should not go around asking questions in order to help declarer with the play - as others have correctly said, dummy has no right to go around asking questions anyway. More generally, no one has at any point the right to ask a question solely to assist partner. This is not as widely known as it should be, though, and I was suggesting only not sentencing a man to death - or worse (the shame, the shame) a procedural penalty - for a first offence.

[Mbodell]

I think a lot of this depends on context. If N is not that experienced they may be just curious and want to figure out what is going on while they watch the hand. I have one regular partner who not infrequently asks about opponents bids as she's laying down the dummy (not infrequently when she should have asked before making her last call which might well have been different if she understood what was going on!). Against such a player a warning (which I guess could well be a PP since a warning can be a PP, no?) seems more than enough.

But if N is the only experienced/pro at the table then N may be trying to brow beat E/W to tell what the person bidding actually had in their hand rather than what the agreements are. I know a lot of people aren't sure when to correct MI or volunteer on the opening lead information like "my partner explained our agreements but I forgot and don't hold that hand".

[Mbodell]

dburn, on Mar 29 2010, 08:49 PM, said:

Moreover, Kaplan had reason to believe that the explanations so far given to him and to Kay (no screens in those days) were at best incomplete and at worst erroneous; he wanted to ensure that the game proceeded with everyone in full possession of those facts of which the Law states that they should have been in possession.

This is the part that I think is key that would give me sympathy to such a professional question. There are a few people locally due to language issues or due to the inability to explain things clearly that "explain" their agreements in ways that are completely opaque. If you know they aren't explaining their bids right in response to your partner's questions and your partner is confused and can't figure out what is the right question to ask to get the magic information it feels like you should be able to ask the clarifying questions. You can't, of course, but it feels like you should be able to.

[aguahombre]

Not sure Norman ever had trouble with comprehension or shyness at the table, but that certainly could apply if one's partner is uncomfortable with the language.

So, it does feel like there should be some reasonable exceptions to the prohibition against asking questions for partner's benefit.