[jules101]

Auction starts (with silent opps)

1♣     1♥
1N*    4♣**
4♥***  6N
Pass

1♣ = natural, 4+ cards
1N rebid = 15-17ish
4♣ = was intended by responder as some sort of ace asking bid rather than natural, or....?
4♥ = this was alerted (in error one assumes) by responder, thus rather highlighting that 4♣ wasn't intended as natural!

Partner asked about the auction before leading. 4♥ was interpreted as 2 Aces, but when dummy was tabled he had 3 aces!

When it was my turn to play at Trick 1 I asked declarer "how he had interpreted the 4♣ bid". That would help us as defenders sort out what 4♥ was. ie - natural, a cue bid accepting slam interest in ♣, etc.

He said he wasn't sure I was allowed to know the answer to this question. He said I might be but her wasn't sure.

[Declarer is a National Director, and more qualified than anyone else in the room so we left it at that.]

Am I entitled to know the answer to questions such as these when "wires have become crossed in the auction?

And - would I then be entitled to ask declarer of the meaning of 4♥ - eg was in a cue, was it delayed support for ♥, etc?


It made no difference here, but on other circumstances one partner may cue bid 4♣ and the other may interpret as Ace asking and reply accordingly. If this hand goes on to be declarer are we entitled to know the question that declarer thought he was being asked (even if he wasn't!)?

Sorry this sounds very convoluted.


Cheers!

[paulg]

Jules forgot to add that this is from Scotland where calls above 3NT are not alertable unless it is the first round of the auction.

[mjj29]

Quote

When it was my turn to play at Trick 1 I asked declarer "how he had interpreted the 4♣ bid". That would help us as defenders sort out what 4♥ was. ie - natural, a cue bid accepting slam interest in ♣, etc.

Am I entitled to know the answer to questions such as these when "wires have become crossed in the auction?

And - would I then be entitled to ask declarer of the meaning of 4♥ - eg was in a cue, was it delayed support for ♥, etc?

You are entitled to a full description of their agreements including relevant other bids (such as "we haven't agreed this sequence but this similar sequence would mean X" or "He could also have bid Y, which would have meant Z"). You're not entitled to know what either player is "taking" the bid as, or what they have in their hands.

If "no agreement" is the right answer, that's all you're entitled to know. However, if both partners think they have an agreement, but disagree about what that is, you're likely to get both opinions before the opening lead when one of them tries to correct the other as they are required to correct misexplanations at this point.

[blackshoe]

When someone is playing at the table, he is a player, not a director. Even if he's the ghost of Edgar Kaplan. As to questions asked, I agree with mjj29.

[pran]

mjj29, on 2010-November-02, 04:47, said:

You are entitled to a full description of their agreements including relevant other bids (such as "we haven't agreed this sequence but this similar sequence would mean X" or "He could also have bid Y, which would have meant Z"). You're not entitled to know what either player is "taking" the bid as, or what they have in their hands.

If "no agreement" is the right answer, that's all you're entitled to know. However, if both partners think they have an agreement, but disagree about what that is, you're likely to get both opinions before the opening lead when one of them tries to correct the other as they are required to correct misexplanations at this point.

This answer is correct (you are entitled to the agreements, not to the actual cards held), but as it can easily be misunderstood I shall enhance:

Declarer and dummy must each on request explain their partners' calls according to their partnership agreements. If either of them disagrees with an explanation given by their partner they must immediately (but not before the closing pass in the auction) offer their own (different) understanding to opponents without being asked.

[nige1]

jules101, on 2010-November-02, 03:48, said:

Auction starts (with silent opps)
1♣     1♥
1N*    4♣**
4♥***  6N
Pass
1♣ = natural, 4+ cards
1N rebid = 15-17ish
4♣ = was intended by responder as some sort of ace asking bid rather than natural, or....?
4♥ = this was alerted (in error one assumes) by responder, thus rather highlighting that 4♣ wasn't intended as natural!
Partner asked about the auction before leading. 4♥ was interpreted as 2 Aces, but when dummy was tabled he had 3 aces!
When it was my turn to play at Trick 1 I asked declarer "how he had interpreted the 4♣ bid". That would help us as defenders sort out what 4♥ was. ie - natural, a cue bid accepting slam interest in ♣, etc.
He said he wasn't sure I was allowed to know the answer to this question. He said I might be but her wasn't sure.
[Declarer is a National Director, and more qualified than anyone else in the room so we left it at that.]
Am I entitled to know the answer to questions such as these when "wires have become crossed in the auction?
And - would I then be entitled to ask declarer of the meaning of 4♥ - eg was in a cue, was it delayed support for ♥, etc?
It made no difference here, but on other circumstances one partner may cue bid 4♣ and the other may interpret as Ace asking and reply accordingly. If this hand goes on to be declarer are we entitled to know the question that declarer thought he was being asked (even if he wasn't!)?

Obviously, you may ask opponents what is the systemic meaning of a call...

• Presumably, 4♣ and 4♥ have systemic meanings to which the NOS are entitled.
• If their agreement is that 4♣ is not ace-asking then the OS should volunteer the real meanings of 4♣ and 4♥ before the opening lead
• Dummy (holding three aces) knows that a wheel had come off as soon as opener apparently advertises two aces. Presumably this information is authorised to him and he is entitled to use it in his subsequent bidding. For example -- by making non-systemic calls based on his partner's likely interpretation; but the NOS are not privy to that information and it seems unfair that the OS may legally add to NOS confusion without much danger to themselves. Or are such calls "controlled psyches"? or even "encrypted calls"?
• Even worse, if none of the subsequent auction is systemic, then, presumably the NOS are never entitled to its meaning, however much the OS are on the same wave-length
• It seems to be a legal anomaly that if an opponent asks about a bid, immediately after it is made, then he gleans more information from ethical opponents than he does by waiting until the end of the auction and asking about the whole auction, when it is clearer that a wheel has come off. (But a problem is that, more often, asking during the auction helps less ethical opponents extract themselves from the mess).
• Here it is not clear whether there is a mis-bid or mis-information.
• Arguably, the national director, himself, should draw attention to potential infractions by his side.
• Ideally, perhaps, as soon as the NOS have called attention to potential infractions, the national director should

• Call an independent arbiter,
• Present his version of the facts, and
• Recuse himself from the ruling.

But in a club, that may be impractical and over-the-top

[jules101]

Thanks all.

I realise I can't ask declarer what cards are in his hand, but thought I could ask about his interpretation of his partner's bid.

If we know he's interpreted it in a particular way, then we as defenders may draw some inference about the 4♥ might be.

If I understand correctly replies to the post correctly then I am entitled to know their agreements, but not how opener interpreted the bid.


What is the situation when agreements have been forgotten?!

It seems they had recently agreed that 4♣ would be ace asking over 1N and 2N rebids.

Given the first bid in the auction was 1♣ opener thought 4♣ chose to believe it must be natural. [He also said later that he'd forgotten the recent agreement, so we'll never know which was really the case.]

It really made no difference on this particular hand. No damage was done. It was the principle I was try to establish for future reference.


PS to Nigel - we didn't ask any questions during the auction period. We know better!

[iviehoff]

jules101, on 2010-November-02, 08:43, said:

What is the situation when agreements have been forgotten?!
...
It really made no difference on this particular hand. No damage was done. It was the principle I was try to establish for future reference.

Players are under no obligation to remember their agreements, nor to bid without error. They are only obliged to inform you of their agreements, not "how I am taking that". But disclosing ones agreements includes any ability magically to understand each other when apparently not bidding according to the published agreements. It is important to call the director as soon as any possible misinformation is exposed because he has powers to let the non-offending side change their last call. This includes after the end of the auction and before the opening lead - the final pass by the non-offending side can be changed reopening the auction. It is also important to call him to check for other possible offences, which are common in such situations. These include abuse of unauthorised information and concealed partnership agreements (which in England explicitly includes the concept of "fielded misbid" - that magical and undisclosed ability to recover from bidding misunderstandings).

I agree with you in the present case that there has been no damage from misinformation. I also think that the 4H caller did not abuse the unauthorised information from the illegal alert of that call - if he had called 7N making, that would have been an illegal abuse. But I at least a little suspicious about two things. First, the illegal alert: was it really an inadvertant irregularity, or might it have been deliberate communication? And I might have a little suspicion about the 6N call. Was this a clearcut call, or was this the 4C caller picking up cues in mannerisms that his call had been misinterpreted, and thus closing down the auction with 6N before something unpleasant happened.

[blackshoe]

You are entitled to ask questions during the auction period. Nigel's fear that doing so will be advantageous to opponents more often than to one's own side is in my experience overrated. That said, in the middle of a possibly confused auction is probably not the time. Before the opening lead, or at your first turn to play if in 3rd seat is probably best, as you did here. I'd ask "please explain your auction". Of course, reactions to that question can include blank looks, a reprise of the bidding, or calls for the director.

The situation when agreements have been forgotten is that either the (correct) explanation will not match the forgetter's hand, or the forgetter will misexplain the agreement. In the former case, opponents are not entitled to redress (there has been no infraction of law), in the latter they are so entitled (misexplanation is a violation of law).

It doesn't matter much whether the opener had forgotten their agreement. I will say, though, that if he had forgotten it, he'd be more likely to "choose to believe" 4♣ was natural. More precisely, if he had remembered it, he'd have been less likely to so choose.

Consider this: if your partnership has no agreement about a particular call, then the correct answer to a question about that call is "we have no agreement". Anything else may give away information to which opponents are not entitled, and will subject your side to a misinformation ruling.

[bluejak]

nige1, on 2010-November-02, 07:46, said:

Presumably this information is authorised to him and he is entitled to use it in his subsequent bidding. For example -- by making non-systemic calls based on his partner's likely interpretation; but the NOS are not privy to that information and it seems unfair that the OS may legally add to NOS confusion without much danger to themselves. Or are such calls "controlled psyches"? or even "encrypted calls"?

No, controlled psyches are where there is a psyche - which there is none here - and an agreement controlling it - there is none here.

As for encrypted calls, which sounds to me like blethering , that involves agreements which this pair do not have. But so what? Since when have encrypted calls been illegal?

[jules101]

Paul was correct in clarifying that over 3N we don't alert in Scotland (unless in first round of bidding).

..... the "new alerting regulations" came in a few years ago, but many club players regularly alert many things that shouldn't be alerted, eg their partner's weak 2 openers, Gerber bids (in suit contracts) and responses, etc.

I used to point it out such infractions, but as you can imagine it doesn't make you popular, so I don't bother any more. [Maybe it's "not my place" to comment anyway.] Last week I did, however, suggest to someone that self-alerting her own Gerber bid at the bridge table which was accompanied by a "Oh, I can't remember if I should alert that, or not?" was highly inappropriate!]

Anyway - back to discussion of my post.

My impression was that responder's alert of 4♥ was on auto pilot (as per old procedures), and was not intended to send any message to his partner.

[I wasn't meaning to imply this auction/alert was dodgy, and hope noone thought that. Sometimes it might be, but I think not on this occasion.]

Responder had a control rich 16 count with a good 5 card ♥ suit. He knew the wheels had come off somewhere. 6N is a reasonable bid opposite partner's 15-16/15-17 1N rebid.

They can - and did - make all 13 tricks. We were not disadvantaged.

As I said earlier, I was merely using this auction as a case study. I wanted to be clear about a principle here so I know for the future.

[blackshoe]

I have pretty much given up trying to "teach" anything at the table. If a problem arises, such as a player alerting their own bid, I either decide I don't give a damn what they do, or I call the director. The latter generally annoys my opponents, the former sometimes annoys my partner. Can't win, don't want to quit, so I guess I'm stuck.

[mycroft]

Well, if the former annoys your partner, I'm guessing she has a mouth and a brain, too, and can use them. Not your fault.

I do try to "teach", but only if it looks like the opponents want to learn. And if I think I need redress, that is not a teaching moment. Of course, it helps that I'm the highest ranked TD in 150 miles, except when I'm in my "purple" carapace (mine's black).

The ones that explicitly don't care - there's one, in particular, who has had "telling partner what hand she's in every trick as dummy goes far beyond attempting to prevent irregularities by declarer" mentioned more than once, and who has proceeded to thank the TD, and then *go on doing it next hand* - those bother me, and I've given up on them. Of course, I'm looking forward to the time that I can say "You're doing something wrong, and have been called on it by the opponents, and I know you know better, because I, and other people, have told you. Knowingly violating the Laws, even if willing to accept rectification, is a violation of the Proprieties, and here's your Procedural Penalty for violation of Procedure."

[blackshoe]

Heh. If my partner gets annoyed in that situation it's usually because I've decided I don't give a damn. She's perfectly capable of calling the TD herself.