[Shugart23]

In the middle of the game, is the opponent allowed to ask what one of our bids meant?

[jdiana]

Under ACBL rules, I think the short answer is "yes". See Law 20.F.2. https://web2.acbl.or...cate-Bridge.pdf

Sorry - never mind. Didn't notice which forum I was in.

[jillybean]

Shugart23, on 2025-February-24, 07:24, said:

In the middle of the game, is the opponent allowed to ask what one of our bids meant?

Who is running the game?

[shugart24]

jillybean, on 2025-February-24, 10:48, said:

Who is running the game?

not sure what you mean. An ACBL game, say a sectional

[jillybean]

I ask "who" is running it because it may vary between governing bodies.

ACBL. At your turn to play you can ask for a review of the auction, Jim posted the link above.


20 F 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. At his turn to play from his hand or from dummy declarer may request an explanation of a defender’s call or card play understandings. Explanations should be given on a like basis to 1 and by the partner of the player whose action is explained.

I think a key point here is that you are allowed to request an explanation of the auction, not a specific bid.
Can someone please clarify?

[axman]

jillybean, on 2025-February-24, 11:31, said:

I ask "who" is running it because it may vary between governing bodies.

ACBL. At your turn to play you can ask for a review of the auction, Jim posted the link above.


20 F 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. At his turn to play from his hand or from dummy declarer may request an explanation of a defender’s call or card play understandings. Explanations should be given on a like basis to 1 and by the partner of the player whose action is explained.

I think a key point here is that you are allowed to request an explanation of the auction, not a specific bid.
Can someone please clarify?

>> allowed to request an explanation of the auction, not a specific bid.

THis provision speaks to the nature of 'placing emphasis' with regard to UI.

In f2f questions and responses are extraneous communications to partner and inferences may well be derived that shift fair play. Restraining queries to the complete auction (to date) has an effect of (likely) masking which inferences are particularly material. Well, not exactly likely- more like possibly (there is some hope, isn't there?).

And that suggests that the better thing to do is use the CC.

[shugart24]

axman, on 2025-February-24, 12:01, said:

>> allowed to request an explanation of the auction, not a specific bid.

THis provision speaks to the nature of 'placing emphasis' with regard to UI.

In f2f questions and responses are extraneous communications to partner and inferences may well be derived that shift fair play. Restraining queries to the complete auction (to date) has an effect of (likely) masking which inferences are particularly material. Well, not exactly likely- more like possibly (there is some hope, isn't there?).

And that suggests that the better thing to do is use the CC.

Not quite sure I understand, so with an example Bidding goes (unopposed) -1S-1NT -2C- 2D(alert) -3C(alert) -3D(alert) -3S (alert)-4S all pass. Assume for this example there were no questions and the opening lead is made ...4 cards in can a defender aske the declare what his 3C bid meant ?

[jillybean]

shugart24, on 2025-February-24, 12:38, said:

Not quite sure I understand, so with an example Bidding goes (unopposed) -1S-1NT -2C- 2D(alert) -3C(alert) -3D(alert) -3S (alert)-4S all pass. Assume for this example there were no questions and the opening lead is made ...4 cards in can a defender aske the declare what his 3C bid meant ?

It is best to ask for a complete review and explanation of the auction.
Wait until the entire review is complete, don't zone out and lose interest after the 3C explanation.

[smerriman]

Yes, you *can* ask. But it will often work out badly for you, because if you waited that long it will probably be clear to your partner why you are asking, and they'll then have to bend over backwards to avoid making use of that information, potentially leading to poor defense.

[jillybean]

smerriman, on 2025-February-24, 12:58, said:

Yes, you *can* ask. But it will often work out badly for you, because if you waited that long it will probably be clear to your partner why you are asking, and they'll then have to bend over backwards to avoid making use of that information, potentially leading to poor defense.

This is assuming everyone is aware of their responsibilities concerning UI. In reality, players will ask, partner's are free to use the UI.

[Shugart23]

I guess I must be dense today . I’m still not getting an answer if in the middle of the game , can the defender ask what the specific meaning of a bid meant? I know before the first card is led , the auction and meanings of the bids can be reviewed. What about after play has commenced? What can the defender ask? Sometimes it. Isn’t going to be on the convention card as in the above example demonstrates

[Shugart23]

If they are indeed allowed to ask what a bid meant, they would be able to direct the question to the dummy , I suppose on one of the declarers bid.

[smerriman]

jillybean, on 2025-February-24, 13:00, said:

This is assuming everyone is aware of their responsibilities concerning UI. In reality, players will ask, partner's are free to use the UI.

It makes no difference if *they* are aware of their responsibilities, as long as you are. If they continue to defend normally, blissfully unaware of their responsibilities, you can go back over the hand afterwards, and if you find the slightest reason they might have made use of the UI and it damaged you, you have the right to claim a better score. The reason those who are aware have to "bend over backwards" is to make sure you have no chance of finding one.

jillybean, on 2025-February-24, 11:31, said:

I think a key point here is that you are allowed to request an explanation of the auction, not a specific bid.
Can someone please clarify?

It's in the next law:

Quote

20 F 3. Under 1 and 2 above a player may ask concerning a single call but Law 16B1 may apply.

[axman]

shugart24, on 2025-February-24, 12:38, said:

Not quite sure I understand, so with an example Bidding goes (unopposed) -1S-1NT -2C- 2D(alert) -3C(alert) -3D(alert) -3S (alert)-4S all pass. Assume for this example there were no questions and the opening lead is made ...4 cards in can a defender aske the declare what his 3C bid meant ?

>> 4 cards in can a defender ask

A better procedure is upon conclusion of the auction is for the declaring side (automatically) to give the meaning of their calls. No extraneous information, everyone gets practice knowing the system; and becomes more skillful, more faster.

[jillybean]

smerriman, on 2025-February-24, 13:20, said:

It makes no difference if *they* are aware of their responsibilities, as long as you are. If they continue to defend normally, blissfully unaware of their responsibilities, you can go back over the hand afterwards, and if you find the slightest reason they might have made use of the UI and it damaged you, you have the right to claim a better score. The reason those who are aware have to "bend over backwards" is to make sure you have no chance of finding one.

Good luck. It's much easier to break the Laws than have them applied.

[shyams]

1. You are allowed to ask about a specific bid in the middle of the play.

2. Yes, there are UI considerations that partner will be constrained with, as a consequence. However, the laws permit you to ask.

3. It has happened to me (playing F2F). I don't fully recall the exact question but I think declarer asked me about my partner's overcalling tendency (e.g. "does he do a weak jump overcall with 5-card suits?" after partner had weak jumped over their opening).

4. I suspect such occurrences are very rare in F2F play, but I am sure they are allowed.

[blackshoe]

People seem to have missed this:

Quote

Law 20F3: Under 1 and 2 above a player may ask concerning a single call but Law 16B1 may apply.

Quote

Law 16B1: Any extraneous information from partner that might suggest a call or play is unauthorized. This includes remarks, questions, replies to questions, unexpected alerts or failures to alert, unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement or mannerism.
(a) A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative.
(b) A logical alternative is an action that a significant proportion of the class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and some might select.

[axman]

shyams, on 2025-February-24, 20:06, said:

1. You are allowed to ask about a specific bid in the middle of the play.

>>20 F 3. Under 1 and 2 above a player may ask concerning a single call but Law 16B1 may apply.

I had to do a double take. When parsing ‘under’ its meaning is that ‘these words mean X’. Therefore, L20F3 parses as if a footnote analyzing /advising F1&2. Namely, F1&2 includes providing for players to inquire about a particular call keeping in mind there are repercussions.

However, such is advice (which fabricates conflict and thus repugnant to the law.) I see no parsing of F1&2 that grants such permission; and further, F1&2 forbids F3.

Addendum:
F3 gives its authority as F1&2 which is a false assertion due to the fact that F1&2 forbids F3. As such, F3 being a nullity merely lays a trap for they that don’t read so good (which I suspect include TDs).

This post has been edited by axman: Today, 07:11