[Jinksy]

This has happened to me a few times now:

P bids something. I alert. LHO (usually, though not always an inexperienced player) asks me what the bid means.

I respond that they shouldn't ask when it's not their turn to act (I normally avoid telling the opps the laws of bridge - not least because I barely know them myself - but I don't think it's right to say 'I'm not allowed to answer', and I'm just not willing to call a director at this point).

My RHO, (also usually though not always inexperienced) who until now showed no interest in asking about the alert now pointedly asks me what the alert meant. Usually this is done in a 'helpful' spirit, occasionally peevishly, but either way I'm not sure what to do about the position it puts me in. I assume that RHO is perfectly entitled in theory to ask about the meaning of the bid (?), but this is obviously (and often explicitly) advocating behaviour that the laws at least 'discourage'.

So what should I do at this point? If the answer is 'call the director' (which still feels very heavy handed unless the opps were really being obnoxious about this), what instructions would you give as director when thus summoned?

[ggwhiz]

I would answer LHO's first inquiry with a disclaimer along the lines of why they need to wait till their turn (UI to rho) and a but I'm sure you don't mean to take advantage.

I'll call the Director after the fact if they do, improper I know but I like to pick my battles and am prepared to lose this one against inexperienced players that we probably beat anyway.

I would only call beforehand if they are experienced and I don't like them or trust their ethics or if it's a Regional or higher rated event and even that's a maybe. Care and feeding of newer players trumps the letter of the law for me.

[PrecisionL]

I reply: "I'll be happy to answer when it is your turn to bid."

[blackshoe]

When you say "I don't want to call the director" you're saying "I don't want to follow the rules". Just call him. Or her.

"Care and feeding of new players" is not their opponents' job. It's the director's job. However he can't do that job if he's not called when these things happen.

Calling the director because you don't like someone should be anathema. As for not trusting their ethics, if they've given you reason for not trusting, you should call the director, tell him the facts of the current situation, leave out your mistrust, and let him deal with it. If they haven't given you reason, you ought to be asking yourself why you don't trust them.

There is no "battle" here. An irregularity has occurred. Call the TD, let him deal with it, and move on.

[barmar]

In my experience, this is a very innocent infraction. Most players (even those who have been playing for decades) don't know about this detail of the laws. They're not trying to get away with anything, they just assume that once there's been alert everyone is entitled to an explanation. So you should try to be as pleasant as possible about dealing with it.

Yes, RHO asking after LHO tries to ask is hinky, because there's also the law that says you can't ask just for partner's benefit; this is another law that they probably have no idea exists. But the point of that law is to prevent you from asking when you think partner doesn't know enough to ask, but that's obviously not the case here, because RHO heard his partner try to ask, so he knows he would ask when it's his turn.

[nige1]

ggwhiz, on 2017-March-04, 09:25, said:

I would answer LHO's first inquiry with a disclaimer along the lines of why they need to wait till their turn (UI to rho) and a but I'm sure you don't mean to take advantage.
I'll call the Director after the fact if they do, improper I know but I like to pick my battles and am prepared to lose this one against inexperienced players that we probably beat anyway.
I would only call beforehand if they are experienced and I don't like them or trust their ethics or if it's a Regional or higher rated event and even that's a maybe. Care and feeding of newer players trumps the letter of the law for me.

When attention has been drawn to an infraction, it's incumbent on all players to call the director. Hence, it seems wrong for ggwhiz to deliberately break this law. There are many world-class players, however, who hardly ever call the director, no matter what happens.

Players and directors are in a losing struggle with Bridge rules. The legal trend is to sophistication and fragmentation rather than simplicity and co-ordination.

Capricious enforcement of the rules aggravates the mess. e.g. in "zero tolerance" cases and here.

[Jinksy]

So I don't feel like I've had a clear answer here - a couple of 'call the directors' (which I still disagree with. Fundamentally that mentally is trying to achieve something that is not my primary goal at the bridge table, to wit ensuring that the game played is bridge, rather than ensuring that the game played is fun. The laws can state as explicitly as they like that "Care and feeding of new players" is not their opponents' job,' but that is precisely why I will never follow them to the letter in club bridge.

But let's presume a director got there nonetheless (or that I happened to be the playing director, Thor save us all). What would happen next?

[blackshoe]

Jinksy, on 2017-March-04, 19:14, said:

But let's presume a director got there nonetheless (or that I happened to be the playing director, Thor save us all). What would happen next?

Let's assume for the sake of this discussion that the director is familiar with all four players at the table. Also, that you have not answered LHO's question, but simply called the director. The director will explain the relevant Law:

Quote

Law 20F1: 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. The partner of a player who asks a question may not ask a supplementary question until his turn to call or play. Law 16 may apply and the Regulating Authority may establish regulations for written explanations.

Also germane is

Quote

Law 20F3: Under F1 and F2 above, a player may ask concerning a single call, but Law 16B1 may apply.

The TD will explain that it is improper to ask about the auction when it is not your turn to call, and that if (in this case) alerter's RHO, whose turn it is to call, is aware of the meaning of the alert, he may not ask for an explanation at his turn, because that would violate

Quote

Law 20G1: It is improper to ask a question solely for partner’s benefit.

The TD will also explain that at his proper turn, alerter's LHO can repeat his question, and alerter shall answer it. Then the TD will require that the auction proceed.

If the LHO is inexperienced, this should be sufficient. He (and everyone else at the table) now knows the correct procedure. If the LHO is sufficiently experienced that he should know better, the TD should warn him that future infractions of this type will result in procedural penalties.

The TD should proceed in much the same way if the question has been answered before he gets to the table, though he might mention that Law 11 provides that the NOS side (who answered the question in this case) might lose their right to rectification by doing so.

The point to all this, really, is education, not punishment. There could be redress for damage, but it seems unlikely that this case would result in damage, so there should be no need for redress.

[gnasher]

If LHO is inexperienced, I just answer the question. Bridge is already quite intimidating for new players, and I don't wish to make it more so.

If he's experienced. I tell him that it's his partner's turn to bid. If he doesn't understand the significance of that, I explain. I generally don't like players lecturing other players on the rules, but when it's just a matter of stating correct procedure, without any implication of impropriety, I think it's OK. If it starts getting difficult of if the opponents seem unhappy, I suggest getting the director, or actually call him myself.

If RHO now asks the same question, I answer it, of course. I don't see what advantage LHO has gained from having RHO ask now rather than LHO ask in 30 seconds' time, but anyway the rules require me to answer.

If an experienced pair made a habit of this, I might call the director, just t get them to follow correct procedure.

I realise that not all of this is legal. but it's practical. A better solution, which is legal but may not be practical, is to find a better game.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-March-04, 22:34, said:

If the LHO is sufficiently experienced that he should know better, the TD should warn him that future infractions of this type will result in procedural penalties.

That's the point I was trying to address above: I think hardly any players are sufficiently experienced that they should know better. Very few players, even experienced ones, know about this detail. When someone violates it, their opponent does not know to make a point of it, so they never get educated, and they just keep doing it. Even if the opponent does know about it, they'll often not point out the error, thinking that it's not that big a deal (just like few players complain when players scoop up their bidding cards instead of pulling the last Pass card).

There's simply not a critical enough mass of pedantic players for the knowledge of this to spread through the bridge community.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2017-March-05, 11:55, said:

There's simply not a critical enough mass of pedantic players for the knowledge of this to spread through the bridge community.

So what can we do about that? What should we do about it?

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2017-March-05, 11:55, said:

That's the point I was trying to address above: I think hardly any players are sufficiently experienced that they should know better. Very few players, even experienced ones, know about this detail. When someone violates it, their opponent does not know to make a point of it, so they never get educated, and they just keep doing it. Even if the opponent does know about it, they'll often not point out the error, thinking that it's not that big a deal (just like few players complain when players scoop up their bidding cards instead of pulling the last Pass card).

There's simply not a critical enough mass of pedantic players for the knowledge of this to spread through the bridge community.

What are you talking about? Are you saying that players where you play routinely ask about an auction in progress when it is not their turn? This is something I have witnessed maybe twice in my life.

The exception is when your partner makes a call and you need to know the meaning of LHO's last call in order to know whether to alert/announce.

About scooping up the cards, i should, if I lived in ACBL territory, lobby for a regulation that the bidding cards should be left on view until the dummy is faced.

[VixTD]

I agree with Gnasher.

I would probably point out (nicely) what correct procedure is (an explain why if they are interested), but just answer the question. If they did it again, I'd call the director, and have them explain why they should wait until it is their turn.

If I were called as TD I would explain the law and the reasons for it, how it can cause problems sometimes, and ask them to try to follow the correct procedure in future.

I play occasionally at a club that's not affiliated to the EBU where the players habitually ask out of turn, clear away the bidding cards early, redeal boards that were passed out on the first round. I just remind myself I'm not on my own turf, hold my tongue and try to enjoy the game.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2017-March-06, 01:40, said:

What are you talking about? Are you saying that players where you play routinely ask about an auction in progress when it is not their turn? This is something I have witnessed maybe twice in my life.

It's pretty common among life novice LOLs.

[mycroft]

I would say that not only does this happen *routinely* (I would suggest once or twice a session; having said that, we play a *lot* of Alertable calls in places where, basically, "nobody" does) when the Alert is "unexpected"; that also there are several people that do this that I would lay odds on their doing so explicitly because they expect their partner won't ask, and she "needs to know about this one" before she calls.

The routine ones are all "inexperienced" (in that they aren't A players, but they have been playing for 15 years+). The ones I suspect are assisting their partners - aren't "inexperienced".

But yes, the pattern of "Alert." LHO: "Yes?" "I'll answer when it's your call." RHO:"Oh, can you explain?" is surprisingly common.

My area could be worse than most, however. I do in fact believe that it is; well, at least I hope it is.

[Jinksy]

mycroft, on 2017-March-06, 17:21, said:

But yes, the pattern of "Alert." LHO: "Yes?" "I'll answer when it's your call." RHO:"Oh, can you explain?" is surprisingly common.

Have you come up with a comfortable stock response?

[mycroft]

Not really.

If I believe it's innocence, I explain that "that's why you're not allowed to ask until it's your call. Having said that, she has..." The fact that I am who I am tends to make it clear that I'm pointing out something Legal, rather than just trying to teach the opponents, I hope.

If I think they are actually attempting to violate Law 20G1, or if it's a game where it is expected that everyone knows better (National LM Pairs or the like), I will refrain from commenting, call the TD, explain what happened, and ask her what to do. Which will almost certainly lead to answering the question, but a) the TD now knows that this UI was transferred if it turns out to matter; b) if the person *is* in fact guiding his partner about questions she really needs to ask, I'm aiding or starting the TD's investigation; and c) if the person does have some shady practises, I am putting him on notice that I will not put up with them.

But 90% of the time it's innocence and ignorance, and like many other things that happen at the table, I just eat it. If it happens multiple times in a round, even if it's clueless, I'll still call the TD, just so they hear from someone other than their opponents what the rules are (and potentially why).