[campboy]

If you know that the answer as given is MI, there is no need to ask a question at all. You are permitted to draw attention to the irregularity.

[bluejak]

barmar, on 2012-August-01, 15:00, said:

And it's really hard to tell the difference between you asking for the opponents' benefit (not really prohibited) and asking for partner's benefit (prohibited).

Really hard for whom? It is easy for me.

While the main aim of these forums is to help people with rulings, not unreasonably threads often go off at a tangent. One of the things that happens is that people discuss what players should do and do do, rather than how you rule.

Now this thread has moved somewhat towards what you actually do. It is like not putting out a pass card for the last pass: sure the TD may be called and will tell the "perp" he has done wrong, but in practice it is a fairly harmless thing. In the case of asking because an answer is confusing it is fairly harmless to clarify it at the time and no-one minds. I am not suggesting that if the TD is called he will not tell me off or even check to see if I am communicating with partner. Fair enough, that is his job. But that does not mean that this matters.

I know that I am not asking for partner's benefit, therefore I am not breaking the important Law. Since no-one ever challenges this, I doubt that anyone else thinks I am breaking any Laws that matter.

Protecting? Me? The opponents? Partner? No, I am making the game run smoothly at my table, that's all. If I am protecting anything it is the game, and making sure that the TDs are not disturbed.

[gnasher]

The lawmakers don't seem to agree with you about the relative importance of these laws:

"It is improper to ask a question solely for partner’s benefit."
"The partner of a player who asks a question may not ask a supplementary question until his turn to call or play."

According to the introduction to the laws, "may not" is almost the sternest prohibition, so presumably of greater weight than a mere "it is improper to".

[bluejak]

And your point is?

[nige1]

blackshoe quoted Law 73C, which, on 2012-August-01, 10:14, said:

When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information.

IMO

• The director should impose a pp on your partner for illegally asking a supplementary question when it isn't his turn to call
• Partner's question is UI to you and you must carefully avoid taking any advantage from it. .
• Hence, if you ask the same question, the director should impose a second pp on you, because you are blatantly taking advantage.
• Players should not feel free to pick and choose with which laws they comply; nor directors which laws they bother to enforce.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2012-August-02, 15:32, said:

Now this thread has moved somewhat towards what you actually do. It is like not putting out a pass card for the last pass: sure the TD may be called and will tell the "perp" he has done wrong, but in practice it is a fairly harmless thing. In the case of asking because an answer is confusing it is fairly harmless to clarify it at the time and no-one minds. I am not suggesting that if the TD is called he will not tell me off or even check to see if I am communicating with partner. Fair enough, that is his job. But that does not mean that this matters.

I didn't think we were talking about confusing answers. If the answer is confusing, it's reasonable to ask for clarification, and the fact that you do it at the wrong time is a minor deviation from correct procedure (IMHO).

What I thought we were talking about is when the asker thinks that the explanation was incomplete, presumably from another source of information (e.g. glancing at the opp's CC). Now asking for the additional information that he already knows is not really for his own benefit, it's either for partner's benefit or to save the opponent from himself.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2012-August-02, 18:36, said:

And your point is?

My point was that your view of the relative importance of these two rules appears to be different from the view of the lawmakers.

You described asking a followup question at partner's turn as "reasonable", a "slight bending of the rules" and "not breaking the important Law".

You said that "The question is whether anyone else asks at such a time for their own benefit: I never ask for partner's benefit because that is clearly and unambiguously against the rules". Perhaps I misunderstood, but you seemed to be implying that asking for clarification at partner's turn (but not for his benefit) was not "clearly and unambiguously against the rules".

When you make statements like these, it seems relevant to quote an authority that appears to disagree with you.

[jallerton]

WellSpyder, on 2012-August-01, 10:16, said:

It would actually be designed to help the opponents by preventing them from being guilty of MI - after all, partner can always get redress later for being mis-informed. Nevertheless, it feels like the safest approach is to continue not to ask such questions on the grounds that it could be seen to be for partner's benefit, except perhaps against inexperienced opponents in informal settings where a call for an MI ruling will seem out of order anyway.

barmar, on 2012-August-01, 15:00, said:

That's nice of you, but it's not really your place to protect the opponents. And it's really hard to tell the difference between you asking for the opponents' benefit (not really prohibited) and asking for partner's benefit (prohibited).

Law 20G1 says "It is improper to ask a question solely for partner’s benefit." (my italics). So which Law precludes asking a question (at your own turn to call or play) partly for your opponents' benefit?

[blackshoe]

None. Which doesn't make what Barry said wrong.

[barmar]

jallerton, on 2012-August-04, 15:44, said:

Law 20G1 says "It is improper to ask a question solely for partner’s benefit." (my italics). So which Law precludes asking a question (at your own turn to call or play) partly for your opponents' benefit?

What part of "not really prohibited" suggests that a law precludes this?