[arepo24]

I bid 1S and my partner bid 2NT. I jumped to 4S and became the declarer.
I asked my partner (after all bidding was over) "was that a Jacoby 2NT bid?" To which she replied in an angry voice, "You CANNOT ask that question!" Yet in all the sanctioned tournaments I play during the week it seems a common thing to do. Was I really wrong to ask that question?

[ggwhiz]

If 2nt was Jacoby and alertable you are subject to a penalty if your partner does not inform the opponents before the opening lead and if it causes damage to them. An opening leader may go wrong thinking you face a bad trump break instead of a big fit.

You avoided that scenario and it's your partners obligation under the law, not yours. If you had called the Director I'm sure they would set your partner straight.

[ahydra]

You shouldn't ask just out of interest (that can wait). But you should definitely ask if you're not sure the opponents have been informed correctly in a previous explanation or if you think there has been a wrong alert or failure to alert. It's important the opps get the right information.

If you're on defence, on the other hand, that's different. You can't talk about your auction because it might give your partner information she isn't entitled to.

Partner was very much in the wrong to snap at you like that - not sure which jurisdiction you play in but most have a "best behaviour" code or similar which says you should treat the other players at the table with respect.

ahydra

[PhilG007]

arepo24, on 2018-September-01, 11:54, said:

I bid 1S and my partner bid 2NT. I jumped to 4S and became the declarer.
I asked my partner (after all bidding was over) "was that a Jacoby 2NT bid?" To which she replied in an angry voice, "You CANNOT ask that question!" Yet in all the sanctioned tournaments I play during the week it seems a common thing to do. Was I really wrong to ask that question?

Law 41B "Before the opening lead is faced,the opening leader's partner and the presumed declarer each may require a review of the auction
or request an explanation of an opponent's call. Declarer or either defender,may,at his first turn to play a card.may require a review
of the auction but this right expires once he has played a card. The defenders(subject to Law 16)and declarer retain the right to
request explanations throughout the play period,each at his turn to play"


If the 2NT bid was not alerted then you should have assumed it was not conventional. This is why you should always
make agreements beforehand before the tournament starts to avoid confusion.

[pescetom]

PhilG007, on 2018-September-02, 07:52, said:

If the 2NT bid was not alerted then you should have assumed it was not conventional. This is why you should always
make agreements beforehand before the tournament starts to avoid confusion.

The OP implies that the bid was not alerted and therefore (unless they are playing under some bizarre jurisdriction rules) the poster himself expected it to be natural (it was his task to alert). If so, it's rather strange that he subsequently felt the need to ask if it was not natural. Either he couldn't remember the agreement (in which case his partner has some reason to be annoyed) or they didn't have one (in which case the opponents have good reason to be annoyed).

[rmnka447]

The main question is whether OP (opener) acted on the 2 NT bid because of the assumption that it was a Jacoby 2 NT raise.

If so, then opener is required to alert the bid to the opponents. If asked by an opponent, in turn, then opener must give his understanding of what the bid meant. After the auction is over and before the opening lead, OP's partner must clarify the partnership's agreement about the bid if it differs from opener's explanation. But during the remainder of the auction, if opener's original alert and explanation were mistaken, then opener's partner (responder) has received unauthorized information about opener's rebid and can't base further bidding on that information. Responder also cannot reveal that there was a misunderstanding during the auction. Also, if opener and responder become defenders, they can't say anything until the hand is over.

If opener has not alerted the 2 NT bid as Jacoby, but the bidding agreement is that it is Jacoby, then responder must reveal the failure to alert and bidding misunderstanding to the opponents AFTER the auction is over, but before the opening lead. During the auction, responder may have received unauthorized information about opener's hand because of the failure to alert and can't base further bidding on that information.

The problematic case is where opener is not sure whether it is Jacoby or not. If opener doesn't alert 2 NT as Jacoby and takes action consistent with 2 NT being natural, then I don't think any further problem exists for opener. But if opener takes action over 2 NT that is inconsistent with not alerting and 2 NT being natural, then the board may be subject to review and adjustment by the director. So say opener has a 7 card ♠ and jumps to 4 ♠, it would be OK whether 2 NT was natural or Jacoby. If opener wasn't sure and jumped to 4 ♠ with a 5 card suit without alerting that likely would be subject to possible adjustment because it is a bid that isn't consistent with 2 NT being natural.

Where it could get sticky is if opener makes a rebid that means different things if 2 NT is natural or Jacoby. Say, for example, that opener didn't alert but rebid 3 ♦ which in standard Jacoby responses shows shortness (alertable), but over a natural 2 NT shows a suit. Then the best course for responder may be to get the director and speak with the director away from the table to explain the situation and get help understanding how to proceed.

[msjennifer]

I wonder why you wanted to ask any question to your partner(dummy) as that hand was going to be put down in a second.If you wanted to know if your partner plays Jacoby or not could have asked after the deal.As per the rules Dummy has to keep quiet during the play of the deal.Dummy may call the director only if his proprietary rights are being violated ( for example opponents forbid him from seeing a card played to a trick although his card is still face up.)Since you were the declarer you could have waited till the dummy was spread when you would have seen it all.Senior partners are likely to feel irritated.In general once the bidding is over none of the players may utter a word till the end if the deal is normally played.Any one of course may ask to see cards played to the trick if his card is still face up.Also if they wish to reject any claim or to make a claim oneself.Dummy may point out any irregularity e.g. a revoke only to the director when all 52 cards have been played.

[msjennifer]

I wonder why you wanted to ask any question to your partner(dummy) as that hand was going to be put down in a second.If you wanted to know if your partner plays Jacoby or not could have asked after the deal.As per the rules Dummy has to keep quiet during the play of the deal.Dummy may call the director only if his proprietary rights are being violated ( for example opponents forbid him from seeing a card played to a trick although his card is still face up.)Since you were the declarer you could have waited till the dummy was spread when you would have seen it all.Senior partners are likely to feel irritated.In general once the bidding is over none of the players may not utter a word till the end if the deal is normally played.Any one of course may ask to see cards played to the trick if his card is still face up.Also if one wishes to reject any claim or to make a claim oneself.Dummy may point out any irregularity e.g. a revoke only to the director when all 52 cards have been played.

[pescetom]

rmnka447, on 2018-September-02, 17:42, said:

The main question is whether OP (opener) acted on the 2 NT bid because of the assumption that it was a Jacoby 2 NT raise.

If he did then his OP is even less clear... why would he not alert the Jacoby, then act on the Jacoby, then ask if it was Jacoby?
Clarifications are due

[Vampyr]

arepo24, on 2018-September-01, 11:54, said:

I bid 1S and my partner bid 2NT. I jumped to 4S and became the declarer.
I asked my partner (after all bidding was over) "was that a Jacoby 2NT bid?" To which she replied in an angry voice, "You CANNOT ask that question!" Yet in all the sanctioned tournaments I play during the week it seems a common thing to do. Was I really wrong to ask that question?

What some of the previous posters seem not to understand is that OP’s partner may not be aware that she is required to inform the opponents of misinformation before the opening lead is faced. Sure, everyone who reads or writes on these forums knows this, but a random player may well be unaware.

[barmar]

Did you ask the question between the end of the auction and the opening lead, or after the opening lead was faced? Once the lead is faced, there's no possibility of unauthorized information between you and your partner, so there's no problem with asking a question like that.

But if you assumed it was Jacoby, and bid 4♠ based on that, you should have alerted during the auction. Then if this alert was incorrect, your partner should have corrected it after the auction was over (since your side became the declaring side).

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2018-September-03, 11:45, said:

Then if this alert was incorrect, your partner should have corrected it after the auction was over (since your side became the declaring side).

and he must call the Director before making that correction.

[rmnka447]

pescetom, on 2018-September-03, 05:58, said:

If he did then his OP is even less clear... why would he not alert the Jacoby, then act on the Jacoby, then ask if it was Jacoby?
Clarifications are due

Certainly the opponents are due a clarification of what the bidding agreements are before the opening lead, but after the auction.

[TylerE]

barmar, on 2018-September-03, 11:45, said:

Did you ask the question between the end of the auction and the opening lead, or after the opening lead was faced? Once the lead is faced, there's no possibility of unauthorized information between you and your partner, so there's no problem with asking a question like that.

He's declarer. Partner is soon-to-be-dummy. There is no UI issue.

[miamijd]

There are three cases I can see:

1. The declarer knew the partnership had agreed to play Jacoby 2NT. In that case, declarer should have alerted the bid during the auction. Having failed to do so, either declarer or dummy should alert the opponents as to the failure to alert (and as to what 2NT and any subsequent bids are agreed to mean) before the opponents make their opening lead. The opponents don't have the right to know what declarer and dummy actually intended. They do have the right to know what the agreements were.

2. The declarer knew the partner had agreed to play 2NT as natural, but feared his partner might have mistakenly thought they were playing it. In that case, it's better to wait until after the hand is over to discuss things. Asking questions now risks confusing the opponents.

3. The declarer wasn't sure what the partnership had agreed to, and was asking his partner. This is fine, but the question should not really be "Was that Jacoby 2NT." It should be "Opponents, wait one second please before you lead. Partner, did we agree to play Jacoby 2NT?" If the answer is "yes," then your side has the duty to alert the opponents as to what the 2NT bid and all subsequent bids (if non-natural) mean. If the answer is that 2NT was some other conventional call, same thing. If the answer is that 2NT is a natural bid, then the opponents can lead, with no further information required.

Cheers,
Mike

[barmar]

TylerE, on 2018-September-03, 17:28, said:

He's declarer. Partner is soon-to-be-dummy. There is no UI issue.

After a correction, the opponent who made the last pass is allowed to change their call. This could result in the declaring side becoming defenders. Then there are UI issues.

[pescetom]

rmnka447, on 2018-September-03, 16:01, said:

Certainly the opponents are due a clarification of what the bidding agreements are before the opening lead, but after the auction.

My point was that clarifications are due to us, contributors to and readers of this topic, from the original poster.
Many of us have asked pertinent questions but so far we received no replies.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2018-September-05, 06:49, said:

My point was that clarifications are due to us, contributors to and readers of this topic, from the original poster.
Many of us have asked pertinent questions but so far we received no replies.

The OP hasn't logged into the forum since the day he posted the original question.