Too many questions A hypothetical scenario
#1
Posted 2012-July-31, 10:56
During the auction, at East's turn to call, East asks for an explanation of the auction. After the explanation is given, West asks a supplementary question. After it is pointed out that it is not West's turn to call, East asks the same question. NS call the director, and when you arrive, simply explain these facts and add that the supplementary question has not been answered. What is your ruling? Which laws apply?
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#2
Posted 2012-July-31, 11:11
#3
Posted 2012-July-31, 13:28
If W is deemed to be asking a question purely for partner's benefit (20G1) you can do him for that.
Possible PP if W should know better, otherwise difficult to treat as any different to W asking at his own turn if he has reason to ask for his own benefit.
#4
Posted 2012-July-31, 13:36
Cyberyeti, on 2012-July-31, 13:28, said:
Possible PP if W should know better...
Did you mean E? And yes I would also probably class this as "asking a question solely for partner's benefit", though of course it depends on whether East has a valid reason to ask and the level of experience of E/W (and perhaps, to some extent, the manner of N/S...)
ahydra
#5
Posted 2012-July-31, 14:59
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#6
Posted 2012-July-31, 15:02
It is possible that East will benefit from learning the answer to the question a round earlier than he would have if the laws had been followed, or from realizing that the question is an important one and drawing the appropriate inferences from that.
If the opponents are damaged as a result, they can get an adjustment. Otherwise I would just remind them of the law, tell them not to do it again, and let play continue with East asking the question.
#7
Posted 2012-July-31, 17:57
What happens all too often is that the answer is very poor, or inaudible, or something. Now the question has been asked, it seems reasonable to get a full and accurate answer, and I have never known an opponent who did not think so.
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
#8
Posted 2012-July-31, 20:35
bluejak, on 2012-July-31, 17:57, said:
What happens all too often is that the answer is very poor, or inaudible, or something. Now the question has been asked, it seems reasonable to get a full and accurate answer, and I have never known an opponent who did not think so.
I would consider it East's (in this case) responsibility to ask again if he felt the answer wasn't sufficiently clear while it was still his turn. I would expect West to wait until his partner's lead is face down for clarification if he still needs it.
I would consider giving West a PP in this case if I felt he should know better, and a warning otherwise.
East also has UI, though whether it is meaningful depends on West's question.
#9
Posted 2012-August-01, 05:07
I can see a situation where W is more experienced than E or has looked at the CC and he knows very well what's happening, but reckons E doesn't (because the explanation was correct but could be interpreted another way for example), that he might want E to be aware of this before E bids (this can be altruistic as he may see a murky director call coming if E misinterprets), but think this would be very uncommon.
I'd consider a PP if I didn't think it was being done with good intentions.
#10
Posted 2012-August-01, 05:48
bluejak, on 2012-July-31, 17:57, said:
What happens all too often is that the answer is very poor, or inaudible, or something. Now the question has been asked, it seems reasonable to get a full and accurate answer, and I have never known an opponent who did not think so.
Fascinating. I have found myself in this position sometimes, and have always felt constrained not to intervene until my turn to bid, even if I can see a clear risk of misunderstanding from a poor explanation to my partner. Are other TDs in agreement that it is better to ask straight away if the purpose is simply to make sure my partner understands the opponent's bid correctly?
#11
Posted 2012-August-01, 05:54
blackshoe, on 2012-July-31, 14:59, said:
The fact that East asked the question when his attention was called to it suggests it was pertinent. That means N/S disclosure hasn't been good enough. In that case there is some fault on both sides. Of course if the question wasn't pertinent then it doesn't imply that N/S disclosure was lacking. How to rule is another matter and I don't know the answer.
#12
Posted 2012-August-01, 07:33
#13
Posted 2012-August-01, 07:51
The auction is over, with South about to declare. East asks for a review. It being West's turn to act, East is told that it is not his turn and is not given a review. West now asks for a review.
#14
Posted 2012-August-01, 08:23
Zelandakh, on 2012-August-01, 07:33, said:
Emphasis mine. If you mean that LHO's question opens RHO's mind, isn't that illegal communication between partners?
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#15
Posted 2012-August-01, 08:30
WellSpyder, on 2012-August-01, 05:48, said:
In agreement with whom? Of course I do not ask for partner's benefit, and if you think I do, I am very surprised. There seems a growing problem on this forum with the real world.
The question is whether one asks for one's own benefit in these situations, not for partner's. As with many slight bending of the rules, it is a question of getting the game to run more smoothly and thus more enjoyably for everyone.
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, and rightly so.
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
#16
Posted 2012-August-01, 08:31
blackshoe, on 2012-August-01, 08:23, said:
Sorry, I meant that the full disclosure answer opens their mind to new ideas. Sort of like a form of the concept that the more answers you have, the more questions you can ask.
#17
Posted 2012-August-01, 09:34
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#18
Posted 2012-August-01, 10:14
Quote
In view of this law, and assuming the question is a legitimate one, I will instruct NS to answer it.
Quote
Quote
In view of these provisions, I will issue a PP(Warning) to West, unless I have previously done so for this offense. If I have, West gets a "standard" PP.
Quote
Quote
In view of these laws, I will instruct East that the fact that West asked the question is UI to him (East), and that he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from it.
Quote
In view of this law, I would instruct NS to call me after the play if they believe the conditions in it have been met.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#19
Posted 2012-August-01, 10:16
bluejak, on 2012-August-01, 08:30, said:
The question is whether one asks for one's own benefit in these situations, not for partner's. As with many slight bending of the rules, it is a question of getting the game to run more smoothly and thus more enjoyably for everyone.
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, and rightly so.
I stand corrected. Looking back, nothing that you said was in the least ambiguous, so I don't know why I failed to interpret it correctly - sorry.
I guess at the back on my mind was the situation I have found myself in before now when I know what the bid means, and I also know that the opponents haven't actually said what they meant to say. Now if I ask a question of clarification it certainly has nothing to do with what is in my hand, and it isn't really designed to help my partner. 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.
#20
Posted 2012-August-01, 15:00
WellSpyder, on 2012-August-01, 10:16, 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).