September 2021 - 35

RULING the Game
Q
At a club game last week, we
had a competitive auction,
and I was not sure how strong
my opponent's hand was. I asked my
opponent how he took his partner's 3k
bid, and he told me I wasn't entitled to
the answer to that question. I called the
director. The director got the facts and
explained to us that I'm legally entitled
to know the opponents' agreement. I
told her I thought that's what I asked
for; most people in the club ask me how
I take my partner's bids when they ask
a question. She said that the question
I asked sounded like I was asking for
an interpretation of the bid. I felt hurt,
and that the director and my opponent
were ganging up on me. I just wanted
to know what 3k was. How do I avoid
this next time?
A
The short answer is that a
better question is, " What is
your agreement about 3k? "
Your opponent and club director are
correct, although it sounds in this
case as if a little sugar might have
helped the medicine go down. In
the online bridge environment with
self-Alerting, players have become
accustomed to being able, in essence,
to ask a bidder to describe her own
hand. The Law does not grant this
privilege; you are entitled to know
the opponents' agreement about the
bid, not the cards the player holds.
Law 20F covers this. It says that any
player (provided he is not the dummy,
or about to be dummy, or required by
Law to pass) may request at his own
turn an explanation of his opponents'
auction. It explicitly adds that he is
entitled to know about calls actually
made and relevant alternative calls
available that were not made. A player
could ask the difference between 3k,
a cuebid, and double, to understand
how their system handles different
hands in this situation. The Law goes
on to say a player is entitled to know
about inferences from the choice of
action where these are matters of
partnership understanding.
That's the relevant excerpt for
your situation at the club. Your
opponent was correct that you are
entitled to know what he knows, if it
is something he knows because of his
partnership understandings. If this
partnership has discussed the meaning
of 3k, then you are entitled to
know what they have agreed it means,
and you are entitled to know how it
is different from other choices. Many
partnerships have not discussed
anything beyond simple agreements.
When this is the case, the best answer
is to tell you that.
Now you can see why there is a difference
between the question of how
someone takes or interprets a bid and
what their agreement is. In your example,
it might well be the opponents
have simply never discussed what 3k
shows. They can still share with you
what they know from implicit partnership
understandings. If in similar
auctions, 3k is weaker than double,
which is weaker than a cuebid, the
opponent is to share that information.
A good answer might be, " We haven't
talked about this particular sequence,
but in similar auctions, competing in
our suit is weaker than double. A cuebid
is usually the strongest hand. " For
less-experienced players or irregular
partnerships, the player might well
not know such things from partnership
experience. In a case like that,
the correct answer is to say they've
never discussed it. Answering a question
by explaining how they interpreted
their partner's bid is improper.
When it misdescribes the partnership
understanding, such as when there is
no understanding at all, it is misinMODERATOR:
MATT KOLTNOW
NATIONAL TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR
rulings@acbl.org
formation. If that misinformation
damages the opponents, the director
would adjust the score.
Our Alert procedure gives a great
recommendation for the best way to
ask about an Alerted call. Just say,
" Please explain. " Law 20F3 reminds
players that asking about a single
call in the auction can be considered
unauthorized information. ACBL
regulation normally permits a player
to ask about an Alerted call at their
first turn after the Alert without that
question being unauthorized information.
At the end of the auction, the
way to ask without creating UI is to
ask for an explanation of the whole
auction.
___________________________
While we are on the subject of how
we " take " bids, we would like to add a
public service announcement about
the Alert procedure. The proper way
to Alert is to say, " Alert, " not, " I'm
going to Alert that bid. " We've made
some changes to Announcements. We
have set aside " May be short, " replacing
it with " May be 0/1/2, " depending
on your partnership's agreement. We
also changed the way transfers are
Announced. The proper way to Announce
a call that shows another suit
is to say the suit. This rule now also
includes calls other than transfers
which show a single suit. That means
for a 2k call which shows spades,
partner says, " spades, " not, " transfer, "
and definitely not, " I'm taking that as
a transfer. "
September 2021 | Bridge Bulletin |
35
September 2021

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of September 2021
