[SimonFa]

Thank you for the informative discussion of my previous thread on questions at the end of bidding. I have another end of bidding question, this time hypothetical, but based on a real world experience. It also has links to the discussion about 1NTx.

Here in the UK, or at least where I play, Lucas 2 is very popular amongst stronger pairs. This is a two level opening showing a 5-card major and a minor suit. From what I gather the values are generally pre-emptive, but depending on partnership agreement and this bid is alerted as opposed to a weak 2 bid which is announced.

Furthermore, a weak bid in Benji Acol, the most popular system most likely to be played by those using Lucas 2, shows 6-card major.

At the end of the bidding can I ask for clarification of the alert and an explanation of Lucas 2 ensuring it is a 5-card major if I think partner may not fully understand what Lucas 2 means, even of I do?

Following on, can I also legitimately ask under what conditions they would open a 5-card weak 2?

The reason I ask is that I was on the receiving end of not understanding the alert and didn't realise partner was trying to knock-out declarers 5 trumps, not 6, and we got a bottom.

Thanks in advance,

Simon

[campboy]

Law 20G1: it is improper to ask a question soley for partner's benefit.

[bluejak]

campboy has answered your substantive question fully, however, I am curious why you did not understand the Lucas bid?

If it is because you did not ask, or because you thought you understood it without checking, then that is your own fault and partner cannot do anything legally to correct your misunderstanding. But if the bid was not explained correctly, especially if the explanation was "Lucas" or something unhelpful, then you might have a case for an adjustment.

[Zelandakh]

A Lucas 2 bid does not mean the same thing to everyone. For some it shows the major bid plus a minor, for others the second suit can also be the other major. Similarly, the primary suit can be 5+ cards or can be specifically 5 cards, the latter being particularly popular when combined with a multi 2D opening (the whole scheme sometimes called Dutch 2s). Even the second suit is not certain; while Lucas should mean that the second suit can be 4 cards I have heard Lucas described for hands that must be at least 5-5. Generally you should not accept a convention name as an explanation - even common conventions have multiple treatments. Instead ask the opps to describe what their bids actually mean.

[barmar]

Could the OP please provide more details? What was the exact sequence of events?

You said that the opponents alerted the bid. Did either of you ask for an explanation? If so, did they explain it properly, or did they just say "Lucas"?

Since the bid was alerted rather than announced, it seems like you should have been aware that it wasn't an ordinary weak 2, but something else.

[mrdct]

A tactic quite often used to ruffle inexperienced opponents is to simply use convention names as the explanation (my pet hate is people describing 2X over a 1NT as Cappeletti) and gain an edge against opponents who are too shy or too embarrassed to ask what the bid actually means for fear of appearing ignorant. If the explanation was simply, "that's a Lucas 2" then that would be completely inadequate disclosure in my opinion.

It would be interesting to see the actual hand you are talking about (I wish it would become a forum rule that hands must be posted with problems) but it may well be that the defence were damaged by the inadequate explanation.

When playing with a beginner, my usual work-around for Law 20G1 when an opponent has merely named a convention as their explanation, is to make a comment along the lines that naming a convention isn't an explanation and a description of what the bid means is what has been requested. If I was then accused of asking questions solely for partner's benefit (which hasn't ever happended to me) I would say that I didn't acutally ask a question; I merely pointed out that my opponent had failed to provide an explanation when asked for one.

In a somewhat analogous situation, I was having a chat to one of Australia's leading players on the weekend about the situation where you know your opponents' system back to front (perhaps you were the author of it) and your partner has never played against it before. An auction takes places where there is a very important negative inference that is quite specific to this system which was not mentioned in the explanation of the auction. The auction isn't over yet, but it looks like partner will be on lead and really needs to know what's going on. I'm told that this very situation arose in a Bermuda Bowl many years ago in an Italy vs USA match where one of the Americans had been intricatly involved in his team's development of counter-measures to the Italian methods, but his partner was less familiar with many of the finer nuances. In that case, the American with the detailed knowledge of the Italian system asked a few probing question to eventually tease-out the full explanation of the auction such that everyone was now on the same page.

I'm not aware of any appeals cases involving Law 20G1, so I'm not sure how the concept of "solely for partner's benefit" gets practically applied but I imagine the intent was directed at people making lead-directing question and the like rather than people people picking up their opponents on lazy or inadequate disclosure. If someone ever did try to get a ruling on a Law 20G1 situation, I think they would have a hard time arguing that getting the opponents to fully explain their bids was not for the benefit of both defenders.

[barmar]

I think that BB example you gave is precisely the kind of situation that the "solely for partner's benefit" Law is targeted at. If you know the answer, you can't ask a question because you believe your partner doesn't and he doesn't know enough to ask. If you know the answers, how can you argue that asking the questions was for your benefit as well as partner's?

If you think the disclosure they provided was inadequante, and your partner was misled as a result, I think you have to wait until the end of the hand and call the director for a ruling.

[pran]

barmar, on 2011-October-10, 00:46, said:

I think that BB example you gave is precisely the kind of situation that the "solely for partner's benefit" Law is targeted at. If you know the answer, you can't ask a question because you believe your partner doesn't and he doesn't know enough to ask. If you know the answers, how can you argue that asking the questions was for your benefit as well as partner's?

If you think the disclosure they provided was inadequante, and your partner was misled as a result, I think you have to wait until the end of the hand and call the director for a ruling.

Law 9A1 said:

Unless prohibited by Law, any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call.

You may not ask a question to which you know the answer but suspect that your partner does not.

But if your partner asks a question and you know that the answer he receives is incomplete then that is a violation (by opponents) of Law 20F1, and Law 9A1 (quoted above) allows you to immediately call attention to this irregularity.

Incidentally, if you know that a call made by your LHO is alertable and your RHO fails to alert it then Law 9A1 even allows you to call attention to that irregularity (the failure to alert) before your partner calls!

[bluejak]

mrdct, on 2011-October-09, 23:05, said:

In a somewhat analogous situation, I was having a chat to one of Australia's leading players on the weekend about the situation where you know your opponents' system back to front (perhaps you were the author of it) and your partner has never played against it before. An auction takes places where there is a very important negative inference that is quite specific to this system which was not mentioned in the explanation of the auction. The auction isn't over yet, but it looks like partner will be on lead and really needs to know what's going on. I'm told that this very situation arose in a Bermuda Bowl many years ago in an Italy vs USA match where one of the Americans had been intricatly involved in his team's development of counter-measures to the Italian methods, but his partner was less familiar with many of the finer nuances. In that case, the American with the detailed knowledge of the Italian system asked a few probing question to eventually tease-out the full explanation of the auction such that everyone was now on the same page.

I'm not aware of any appeals cases involving Law 20G1, so I'm not sure how the concept of "solely for partner's benefit" gets practically applied but I imagine the intent was directed at people making lead-directing question and the like rather than people people picking up their opponents on lazy or inadequate disclosure. If someone ever did try to get a ruling on a Law 20G1 situation, I think they would have a hard time arguing that getting the opponents to fully explain their bids was not for the benefit of both defenders.

The case you are referring to would definitely be ruled illegal under the current Law book. My guess has always been that the perpetrator knew what he was doing was technically illegal and did it anyway assuming correctly that his opponents would not object.

As to having a hard time arguing, yet again we are in the area of wondering how many people tell direct lies to ACs. I am still unconvinced that the majority will lie if asked a direct question. Furthermore, a lot of players are ethical, so knowing a question is illegal they will not ask it.

You may not like the principle that in such a case it should be dealt with at the end of the hand but we are meant to follow Laws even ones we do not agree with.

[mrdct]

The word "solely" is pretty important in Law 20G1 as I'm struggling to think of a situation where partner being better informed about the auction won't be for my benefit also, as even if I think I know the meaning of my opponents' auction you never can be 100% sure and "solely" is a pretty black and white concept.

As an aside, what sort of penalties ought to be imposed for a breach of Law 20G1? The subheading is "Incorrect Procedure" and the prohibition is referred to as "it is improper", so I'm guessing it would wind up in the basket of "establishes correct procedure without suggesting that violation be penalised" so nothing more than a slap on the wrist and a "please don't do it again".

I like pran's approach of invoking Law 9A1 when an opponent has given an inadequate explanation of a bid queried by partner, but you would certainly come across as an SB-type if you followed it through with a TD call each time it happened. It would be nice if immediately after an inadequate explanation and before partner bids, you say "I don't think that explanation was detailed enough" (which is legal as all you are doing is drawing attention to an irregularity) after which the opponents would hopefully rectify the situation with a better explanation and things move-on without a TD call.

[jallerton]

campboy, on 2011-September-30, 19:03, said:

Law 20G1: it is improper to ask a question soley for partner's benefit.

True, but if you believe that an opponent's inadequate answer to partner's question constitutes misinformation, then perhaps the question is at least partly for the opponents' benefit: it helps to prevent damage from the original misinformation.