[Shugart23]

Partner and I were silent in the auction which went something like : 1C -3C -3H-3S -3NT.....I put my card face down and asked partner if she had any questions and my partner asked the person who bids 3H, "what is your agreement as to the meaning of your 3H bid?" For whatever reason, the 3H bidder got all upset and said " I don't have to tell you; you can ask my partner?"

Now, during the auction, we believe that this is true so as to avoid unauthorized information being passed. But once the auction is over, aren't the defenders entitled to know what the partnership agreement is and can't the defenders ask either opponent as the partnership agreement on any bid ?

As further support for the way I think, had my partner asked the other opponent what the agreement was to the 3H bid and had a wrong explanation been given, then the 3H bidder would have to explain the correct agreement...Hence, what difference does it make to whom my partner asks what the agreement is on a bid, once the auction is over ? If that is true (which I think it is), is also seems like it might be a better strategy to ask the person who made the bid what it means (post auction) rather than the partner.

Thank you

[gordontd]

Here are a few extracts from Law 20:

Quote

F. Explanation of Calls
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. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant
alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant
inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of
partnership understanding. Except on the instruction of the Director
replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call
in question.
<snip>
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.
<snip>
Explanations should be given on a like basis to 1 and by the partner of
the player whose action is explained.
<snip>
5. (a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not
correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any
manner that a mistake has been made.‘Mistaken explanation’ here
includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an
alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require.
(b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in
his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75)
but only at his first legal opportunity, which is:
(i) for a defender, at the end of the play.
(ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction.

Actually it's more likely to be to your advantage to follow the correct procedure than to try to short-circuit it. You'll hear what the partner thought it meant and then get a correction if appropriate, which tells you more than if you just ask the player who made the call what they think is their agreement.

[Shugart23]

Thanks...I think in general and in theory your advice is good....in the specific hand that we were playing, my partner wanted to know whether the person (declarer) who bid 3H was showing a Heart Stop or whether the declarer was asking for a Heart Stop.....Now, the problem with asking the dummy the meaning of the 3H bid is a) the dummy might not know b)not everyone is ethical and will volunteer that a wrong explanation was given and c) maybe the partnership is on the wrong page.

The only logical reason for rule 2 that you copied , after the bidding has finished is to prevent UA being passed between the defenders. I think Rule 2 only advantages the declarer and makes no sense to be applied to a declarer post bidding....(.although rule 2 uses the word "should" and not "must)

As it turned out, the declarer was asking for a Heart Stop whilst the dummy thought declarer was showing a Stop.....they were confused as to their agreement.....The information defenders needed was what the 3H bidder thought their agreement was..

So, playing the scenario out, had my partner asked dummy what the 3H bid meant, dummy would or could say that "we don't have any agreement, but I'm assuming she is showing a Heart stop." which would then require no correction

So basically, we got screwed

[wanoff]

Shugart23, on 2015-April-19, 04:53, said:

The information defenders needed was what the 3H bidder thought their agreement was..

I'm not sure you're entitled to that information which is why you'd normally ask the partner of the 3H bidder.

[Shugart23]

I don't disagree as to whether or not I am entitled to it...don't really know....But I think the reason you ask the other partner during the bidding is to avoid UA, which isn't an issue after the bidding is done.....only the defenders are hurt by the rule post bidding, it seems to me

[P_Marlowe]

Suppose I bluff / psych the heart stopper, and I end up being as declarer,
what am I supposed to tell you, what my bid means?

Sry, you ask the partner, get an explanantion, and declarer clarifies,
anything else does not work.

Keep in mind a World Champion got bad press / a ruling against her, as she
corrected partners misexplanation of her bid, ... unfortunately the
misexplanation matched the holding.
If I have misrepresented my holding in the bidding, should I tell you?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[RMB1]

Asking the 3♥ bidder directly/initially can appear to be an attempt to get the bidder to describe their hand rather than their agreements, and could be used to intimidate an unknowledgeable opponent into saying more than they should.

[Shugart23]

I know I am on the wrong side of the argument here, so maybe a last word on the topic.......bluffing is fine, I am definitely not entitled to know what you are thinking but I am entitled to know what the partnership agreement is and I think I should be able to ask either declarer or dummy AFTER the bidding is over, what is the partnership agreement, and since I should get the same answer, there is no valid reason (that I see) to restrict whom I ask

[blackshoe]

Shugart23, on 2015-April-19, 12:06, said:

I know I am on the wrong side of the argument here, so maybe a last word on the topic.......bluffing is fine, I am definitely not entitled to know what you are thinking but I am entitled to know what the partnership agreement is and I think I should be able to ask either declarer or dummy AFTER the bidding is over, what is the partnership agreement, and since I should get the same answer, there is no valid reason (that I see) to restrict whom I ask

The valid reason is that the law tells you that answers to questions about the meaning of a player's call should come from his partner.

BTW, the distinction between "should" and "must" lies only in the law's approach to procedural penalties: violation of a "should" law would rarely garner a PP, while violation of a "must" law would garner a PP almost always (save that directors, at least in North America, are extremely reluctant to issue any procedural penalties at all). "Should" or "must", failure to do what you're supposed to do is an infraction in either case.

[Shugart23]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-19, 19:01, said:

The valid reason is that the law tells you that answers to questions about the meaning of a player's call should come from his partner.

BTW, the distinction between "should" and "must" lies only in the law's approach to procedural penalties: violation of a "should" law would rarely garner a PP, while violation of a "must" law would garner a PP almost always (save that directors, at least in North America, are extremely reluctant to issue any procedural penalties at all). "Should" or "must", failure to do what you're supposed to do is an infraction in either case.

Yes, You are correct. That is the valid reason. I should have said 'logical" reason. The reason the rule exists is to prevent UA from being shared between the partnership. Once the bidding has been completed, there is no possibility of UA being shared between declarer and dummy, so the foundation upon which this law stands no longer exists for declarer and dummy once the bidding is over.

However, I will be a good ACBL citizen and follow the rule. There are a lot bigger problems I have with ACBL rules then this one

[blackshoe]

Shugart23, on 2015-April-20, 05:58, said:

Once the bidding has been completed, there is no possibility of UA being shared between declarer and dummy, so the foundation upon which this law stands no longer exists for declarer and dummy once the bidding is over.

That turns out not to be the case. For one thing, dummy isn't dummy until his hand comes down. So in between "the bidding is over" and "the hand comes down" the auction can still possibly be reopened. For another, the answer to a question about the bidding might affect declarer's play, and dummy (once he actually is dummy) is not allowed such communication (Law 43A1{c}).

It's "UI" (Unauthorized Information) not "UA" (where I come from this means "Unauthorized Absence").

[PhilG007]

Shugart23, on 2015-April-19, 04:53, said:

Thanks...I think in general and in theory your advice is good....in the specific hand that we were playing, my partner wanted to know whether the person (declarer) who bid 3H was showing a Heart Stop or whether the declarer was asking for a Heart Stop.....Now, the problem with asking the dummy the meaning of the 3H bid is a) the dummy might not know b)not everyone is ethical and will volunteer that a wrong explanation was given and c) maybe the partnership is on the wrong page.

The only logical reason for rule 2 that you copied , after the bidding has finished is to prevent UA being passed between the defenders. I think Rule 2 only advantages the declarer and makes no sense to be applied to a declarer post bidding....(.although rule 2 uses the word "should" and not "must)

As it turned out, the declarer was asking for a Heart Stop whilst the dummy thought declarer was showing a Stop.....they were confused as to their agreement.....The information defenders needed was what the 3H bidder thought their agreement was..

So, playing the scenario out, had my partner asked dummy what the 3H bid meant, dummy would or could say that "we don't have any agreement, but I'm assuming she is showing a Heart stop." which would then require no correction

So basically, we got screwed

You shouldn't have got "screwed" The laws of duplicate bridge make it abundantly clear that all partnership agreements must be freely and fully available to the opponents
on request. No covert agreements are allowed. In case of any doubt, or if the opponents refuse to divulge the meaning of any conventional bid, the Tournament Director should always be summoned for a ruling.

[Shugart23]

Yeah, no one is arguing what the rule is...It is pretty clear and I appreciate being shown the rule.

I still believe that the singular purpose of the rule is to prevent unauthorized information from being shared by the partnership. Once the bidding is done and the defender has placed a card face down and play is about to begin, giving UI about the meaning of a bid is no longer an issue between declarer and dummy (I have never been involved where bidding is re-opened at this stage). Thus, there is no reason for the rule other than, it exists.

[barmar]

Shugart23, on 2015-April-21, 08:10, said:

Thus, there is no reason for the rule other than, it exists.

Consistency and simplicity are also virtues. Who answers after the auction is the same as who answers during the auction.

However, often when a defender asks for a full review of the auction with explanations, one of the players on the declaring side will do the whole thing -- it's easier than each of them taking turns.

[mycroft]

1) You are entitled to their agreements, not either the contents of the opponent's hand nor what he thought his agreement was when he bid. (Note that you may need to know that afterward, for TD/UI/MI ruling matters, but it's not a legal requirement during the play unless you're been misinformed).

1a) note that if you learn about the contents of an opponent's hand or what he thought his agreement was through legal or volunteered means, it is authorized information.

2) I will now tell the thread two stories.

[4, 5 round auction to 6♥.]
East: Please explain the auction.
North: What do you want to know?
East: I'd like you to explain the auction. "Natural" or "Standard" is acceptable if correct.
North: What call?
East: All of them, please.
South: Well, 1♥ is normal... [unspoken ", idiot"]
East: And?
South: You'll have to ask her.
East: Okay, and?
North: 2♣ is natural game forcing [same unspoken finish]
East: And?
....

North: You know, it would have been much easier just to ask what you needed to know.
East: Possibly. [unspoken "especially for you, who is very good at figuring out what people have from what they ask."]

vs:

1NT (12-14)-2♣!; 2♦!-3♣!; 3NT

Declarer: "So, his sequence shows an invitational hand in clubs, say 10, 11 or so with a club suit that runs with some help. 2♦ by me was forced, doesn't mean anything."

(having said that, frequently we get "what does 2♣ show?" Unfortunately there isn't a great answer to that, and "a wide variety of hands. 2♣, then 3♣ shows the club invite" doesn't help as much as one would hope. Sometimes, we even get "so, what would anything but 2♦ say?" "She psyched, or forgot." Ah well.)

Now I realize both are technical violations of the Laws. Which one do you prefer? (Also, would you prefer the correct, sing-song, bounce back of each call? I know I wouldn't).

3) I guess a third story. There was a pair that played a complicated relay system. They would always be scrupulous about telling the opponents what each bid meant, if asked. In fact, they quite enjoyed explaining that they had showed "spades, and diamonds, and longer second suit, and low shortage, and a three-card fragment, and 5 ZZ points, and either two top honours in the longest suit or none, and either two top honours in the third suit or none (but not the second), and,..."

Technically correct or not, I think "my bids are all relays. He's shown 5=3=4=1 with A and K, A and QQ, KKQ, or KQQQ in the three long suits, and (yes, I know DCB isn't easy, but certainly you can mention the *suits*)" is more conducive to "explaining to the opponents such that they have the same knowledge you have" than describing every bid and "expecting them to work it out" (you know, I think they expect the opponents won't bother. Anybody with me?)

NOTE: I am not saying that complicated systems players, including relay system players, do this in general. In fact, as a general rule, they are *more* concerned about full disclosure than most standard players, because they know the opponents won't be able to fill in the blanks. But I do remember *one* RP pair that did (same as I remember *one* pair that, before EBU Announcements, played and marked on their card:
"12-14 1NT VUL
15-17 NV"
and several other "minimal disclosure" stories).

[blackshoe]

Shugart23, on 2015-April-21, 08:10, said:

(I have never been involved where bidding is re-opened at this stage).

That doesn't matter. What matters is that it can be reopened.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2015-April-21, 10:51, said:

1NT (12-14)-2♣!; 2♦!-3♣!; 3NT

Declarer: "So, his sequence shows an invitational hand in clubs, say 10, 11 or so with a club suit that runs with some help. 2♦ by me was forced, doesn't mean anything."

While I'm generally happy with summaries like that, there are credible arguments that it's not sufficient. Telling them what each bid means allows the opponents to figure out some inferences based on what information the asker had each time he chose to make another asking bid rather than break out of the relay. The above explanation describes one player's hand, but makes it hard for the opponents to infer what the other player has.

[Zelandakh]

mycroft, on 2015-April-21, 10:51, said:

Technically correct or not, I think "my bids are all relays. He's shown 5=3=4=1 with A and K, A and QQ, KKQ, or KQQQ in the three long suits, and (yes, I know DCB isn't easy, but certainly you can mention the *suits*)" is more conducive to "explaining to the opponents such that they have the same knowledge you have" than describing every bid and "expecting them to work it out" (you know, I think they expect the opponents won't bother. Anybody with me?"

You are not completely correct unless the pair concerned is particularly ethical. The order in which the suits are shown can make a large difference in the hands that the Relayer is likely to hold. It is these subtleties that are precisely the things that a non-relay pair is likely to miss so "my bids are not relays" is often not enough here.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2015-April-23, 09:09, said:

The above explanation describes one player's hand, but makes it hard for the opponents to infer what the other player has.

Since, after the opening 1NT bid, only Responder has done any describing, what could possibly be missing???

Oh, I know. Declarer should have said that his "3NT" showed a desire to play 3NT opposite what Responder has shown. Further, there is an implication Opener didn't Psych 1NT because he didn't pass 2C; the opponents should have that inference spelled out for them as well.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2015-April-23, 16:42, said:

Since, after the opening 1NT bid, only Responder has done any describing, what could possibly be missing???

First of all, I was speaking of relay auctions in general, not any particular auction, so there's no 1NT bid to refer to. Second, I explained what's missing: the inferences drawn from when the relayer chooses to ask versus when he breaks out of the relay.