[weejonnie]

In view of Law 20G1 "It is improper to ask a question solely for partner's benefit" - should we encourage pairs not to ask this question?

[Vampyr]

weejonnie, on 2016-March-24, 04:21, said:

In view of Law 20G1 "It is improper to ask a question solely for partner's benefit" - should we encourage pairs not to ask this question?

You don't have to ask this if you don't want to. Just lead your card face down, and if partner wishes to ask questions while the bidding cards are still on display, he can do so without prompting.

[helene_t]

IME, most players who ask that question do it consistently so it doesn't really tell partner that the particular auction may call for questions. It is just another way of making sure that you don't lead prematurely or out of turn. It also gives declarer a couple of seconds to mention missing alerts etc.

[mycroft]

Well, as (as I say in rulings) my partner's most common question is "Why [] are you leading?" (with various entries into [] depending on the time of day and location of game), I would think the question isn't solely for partner's benefit :-).

Having said that, I think this is qualitatively different from "does this auction deny 8 high?" (translation: I play precision, too, but partner doesn't; she really does need to know what the Alert of 1♦ was) unless players only ask (rather than just face-down leading) when the intent is "yes, partner, you do have a question. You really need to ask it". I think that behaviour should become obvious relatively quickly, however (not sure the opposite (ask unless I want to prompt partner into a question) would - at least as fast. Equally illegal though).

[weejonnie]

mycroft, on 2016-March-24, 09:14, said:

Well, as (as I say in rulings) my partner's most common question is "Why [] are you leading?" (with various entries into [] depending on the time of day and location of game), I would think the question isn't solely for partner's benefit :-).

Having said that, I think this is qualitatively different from "does this auction deny 8 high?" (translation: I play precision, too, but partner doesn't; she really does need to know what the Alert of 1♦ was) unless players only ask (rather than just face-down leading) when the intent is "yes, partner, you do have a question. You really need to ask it". I think that behaviour should become obvious relatively quickly, however (not sure the opposite (ask unless I want to prompt partner into a question) would - at least as fast. Equally illegal though).

I had a look at this in conjunction to Law 16/73C. Suppose partner is 'woken up' and realises, even just by the question, that he really should find out what that alert means. Can he ask? (Either immediately or later in the play period.)

[ggwhiz]

weejonnie, on 2016-March-24, 10:03, said:

I had a look at this in conjunction to Law 16/73C. Suppose partner is 'woken up' and realises, even just by the question, that he really should find out what that alert means. Can he ask? (Either immediately or later in the play period.)

Can you not ask about an alert regardless of being "pretty" sure of it's meaning? Or ask for a general explanation of the whole auction. I don't understand using "any questions partner" to prompt them to ask when I can do the Nike thing, just do it.

[barmar]

weejonnie, on 2016-March-24, 10:03, said:

I had a look at this in conjunction to Law 16/73C. Suppose partner is 'woken up' and realises, even just by the question, that he really should find out what that alert means. Can he ask? (Either immediately or later in the play period.)

I can only imagine that being an issue if you consider asking "Any questions, partner?" to be UI. But as mentioned above, if the player is consistent about saying this, effectively no information is passed by it (it's the same information that comes from seeing him lead face down). If there's no I, there can't be any UI.

As an analogy, imagine you see someone carrying an umbrella. This might prompt you to check the weather forecast, find out that rain is predicted, so you'll take your own umbrella. But suppose the person was Mr. Steed of the Avengers, who always carried his umbrella -- it doesn't actually suggest anything about rain (unless you mean a rain of bullets). If you do the weather check and it gets you to grab an umbrella, it's just a coincidence.

Maybe this isn't a great analogy, but I thought it was fun to come up with.

[blackshoe]

If you know the meaning of an alert, you cannot ask, because you would be asking solely for partner's benefit, and that's illegal (Law 20G1).

The purpose of "any questions, partner" when you have made the opening lead face down is solely to give both partner and declarer* the chance to ask questions before you turn the lead face up.

*Yes, declarer too (Law 41B). Actually the question would more properly be "are there any questions?" without specifying a particular target for the question.

[barmar]

Right. 41B says that after opening leader makes his face-down lead, and before it's faced, his partner and the presumed declarer may request a review of auction or ask questions. "Any questions?" is simply a courtesy that reminds them that this is the time they may to take advantage of that right. It has no more semantics than the common "thank you, partner" and "good luck, partner" exchange when dummy is faced. These are all just habitual remarks. Maybe SB could find a way to use them against the opponents, but in the real world they're meaningless.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2016-March-24, 04:40, said:

You don't have to ask this if you don't want to. Just lead your card face down, and if partner wishes to ask questions while the bidding cards are still on display, he can do so without prompting.

I have not seen a case where the bidding cards were still on display when the face down lead was made since I got back to the States from England twenty three years ago.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2016-March-24, 22:35, said:

I have not seen a case where the bidding cards were still on display when the face down lead was made since I got back to the States from England twenty three years ago.

Well, OK. This eliminates much of the purpose of leading face down. Also there is not much point in opening leader's asking questions now; he can just wait until his turn, except in rare cases where he thinks that the sight of dummy will influence declarer's answers.

[kevperk]

I have always thought the law quoted was referring to asking the opponents a question for the benefit of partner. Never even thought it was relevant to the issue being discussed.

[Vampyr]

kevperk, on 2016-March-25, 02:00, said:

I have always thought the law quoted was referring to asking the opponents a question for the benefit of partner. Never even thought it was relevant to the issue being discussed.

No, it doesn't seem to be. I think that the OP was trying to highlight a flaw in the laws, but found one of the few that is OK!

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2016-March-24, 16:12, said:

If you know the meaning of an alert, you cannot ask, because you would be asking solely for partner's benefit, and that's illegal (Law 20G1).

This must simply be plain wrong. The meaning of an alert is (only) that you may have an interest in asking for the meaning of the alerted call. (In fact I seriously consider a regulation to be illegal if it implies that it is wrong to alert a call with a meaning which does not require an alert.)

And I have no count of how many times I (believed I) knew the meaning of an alerted call only to discover from the answer to my question that I was mistaken. Whenever I ask it is for my own reassurance, not for my partner's benefit.

It is never wrong to ask about the reason for an alert.

[barmar]

pran, on 2016-March-25, 03:37, said:

This must simply be plain wrong. The meaning of an alert is (only) that you may have an interest in asking for the meaning of the alerted call.

Obviously he meant "meaning of the alerted call", not "meaning of 'Alert'".

Quote

(In fact I seriously consider a regulation to be illegal if it implies that it is wrong to alert a call with a meaning which does not require an alert.)

The Laws say that regulators specify the details of alerting. How can it be illegal for them to perform their duty?

If it's OK to alert non-alertable calls, a pair could alert all their calls, which would probably confuse most of their opponents since it would seem like they're playing an exceptionally artificial system. And even if not, the opponents would need to ask about all these calls, since they'd never know which ones are really warning them about calls with unusual meanings.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2016-March-25, 03:37, said:

This must simply be plain wrong. The meaning of an alert is (only) that you may have an interest in asking for the meaning of the alerted call. (In fact I seriously consider a regulation to be illegal if it implies that it is wrong to alert a call with a meaning which does not require an alert.)

And I have no count of how many times I (believed I) knew the meaning of an alerted call only to discover from the answer to my question that I was mistaken. Whenever I ask it is for my own reassurance, not for my partner's benefit.

It is never wrong to ask about the reason for an alert.

You sit down. You look at opponent's card, and see that they are playing Jacoby 2NT. You know that this bid shows 4 of opener's major, and opening hand and, if minimum, no side shortage (you know this because this is the only way players in your area play this convention). LHO opens 1♠, partner passes, RHO bids 2NT, LHO alerts. You're going to have a very hard time convincing yourself, if you're honest with yourself, that asking here is not for partner's benefit.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2016-March-25, 09:14, said:

You sit down. You look at opponent's card, and see that they are playing Jacoby 2NT. You know that this bid shows 4 of opener's major, and opening hand and, if minimum, no side shortage (you know this because this is the only way players in your area play this convention). LHO opens 1♠, partner passes, RHO bids 2NT, LHO alerts. You're going to have a very hard time convincing yourself, if you're honest with yourself, that asking here is not for partner's benefit.

Since you bring this example I assume you accept my explanation for asking that I know some players use this bid as forcing to game (in which case the weakest rebid by opener is 4M) while others use it as invitation to game (in which case the weakest rebid by opener is 3M).

I very seldom remember which variant my opponents in the actual situation use, nor do I know if they might have changed their system since last time we met.

Will this satisfy you as a valid reason for asking?

[blackshoe]

Sure. That's quite a different scenario though. I did say that everybody in the area plays it the same way for a reason.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2016-March-25, 15:17, said:

Sure. That's quite a different scenario though. I did say that everybody in the area plays it the same way for a reason.

I have yet to experience "everybody in the (same) area" (even down to as little as 5 tables) playing the same agreements on any particular call.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2016-March-25, 19:34, said:

I have yet to experience "everybody in the (same) area" (even down to as little as 5 tables) playing the same agreements on any particular call.

You don't live in Rochester, NY.