[peachy]

At an ACBl sectional, opponents married couple, regular partnership, and good players. Their auction was simple and uncontested 1NT-2C-2D-2S-PPP. At my turn to play at trick one, I asked an explanation of 2S. Dummy said "weak with 5 spades and 4 hearts". I detected a vibe from my left and I asked LHO "Is that your agreement?" to which he said "That is an inappropriate question" and there was no more comment from me or them. I now realize it was an inappropriate question. We finished the hand. After the hand the declarer said to his partner "It is not really weak, just not game forcing". Exactly what I thought it might be, based on the hitch I detected. Also, exactly what he had [not weak, by any means]. There was no damage from this MI, but should I have called the director? And for what - to have TD tell this declarer to be more forthcoming with the truth? And cause more unpleasantness than already existed? I let it go but this is just one of about a dozen similar type of things that just keep happening at the table. I think I have had my fill of live bridge for a while LOL

[NickRW]

peachy, on 2010-October-21, 17:16, said:

There was no damage from this MI, but should I have called the director?

If you believe there was no damage I don't see why you'd bother the director - what are you going to get out of it except a sense of rightness?

Quote

And for what - to have TD tell this declarer to be more forthcoming with the truth?

Declarer is under no obligation to explain what is in his/her hand before or during the play - but should advise you of the (possible) MI (depends on what their agreement was - it seems that they have disagreement to me at the moment) at the completion of the hand - which declarer apparently did - even if obliquely.

Nick

[Phil]

I'm obtuse but I do not see why this was an inappropriate question.

You asked dummy at T1 and detected discomfort from declarer. At the very least, unless declarer simply forgot what their agreement was, they need to be more forthcoming and less defensive. Declarer does not have to reveal what is in their hand, but a simple 'we have no agreement' or 'this has not come up in awhile' would be called for. It's not like you don't already know there is a problem from the reaction, and I would bet you wouldn't have dug deeper if declarer didn't flinch.

No need to call the director. People of this nature are not going to be cured of this demeanor anytime soon.

[bluejak]

If he believes there is MI then he is under an obligation to correct before the opening lead is faced. The question is only inappropriate insofar as you are reminding an opponent of his ethical obligations in a position where a lot of players forget [to put it very politely] their obligations.

What would be the point of calling the TD? Maybe to help this pair to play the game according to the rules in future? If you let this sort of thing go it will continue to happen.

[matmat]

I'm terrible at this sort of stuff, but my understanding is that you should not have to ask. If dummy gives an incorrect explanation of the agreement, declarer is obliged (or close to obliged) to correct the explanation to what the agreement is before the opening lead is made (or as soon as the issue comes up).

[blackshoe]

Law 75B: … After the final pass, South [whose partner has misexplained their agreement], if he is to be declarer or dummy, should call the director and must volunteer a correction of the explanation. if South becomes a defender, he calls the director and corrects the explanation when play ends.

Note that this law uses "should" when referring to South calling the TD, and "must" when referring to volunteering a correction. This makes failure to call the TD relatively minor, and failure to volunteer a correction a serious offense.

The opponent does not have to ask; the onus is on the side which has given an incorrect explanation to correct it at the appropriate time.

Players frequently think there's no point in calling the director unless they've clearly been damaged, but David is right — players who are unaware of their obligations will remain unaware of them unless those obligations are explained to them, and that's the TD's job, not their opponents'.

[bluejak]

matmat, on 2010-October-21, 20:31, said:

I'm terrible at this sort of stuff, but my understanding is that you should not have to ask. If dummy gives an incorrect explanation of the agreement, declarer is obliged (or close to obliged) to correct the explanation to what the agreement is before the opening lead is made (or as soon as the issue comes up).

Your understanding is perfectly correct, but does not answer the question, namely what to do if they do not correct as obliged?

[NickRW]

blackshoe, on 2010-October-21, 21:30, said:

Law 75B: … After the final pass, South [whose partner has misexplained their agreement], if he is to be declarer or dummy, should call the director and must volunteer a correction of the explanation. if South becomes a defender, he calls the director and corrects the explanation when play ends.

Well, you learn something every day. For some reason I was under the impression that declarer was in the same position as the defenders and it was merely dummy that had the obligation to speak before the openning lead. Meh. Apologise for the earlier gibberish.

Nick

[nigel_k]

blackshoe, on 2010-October-21, 21:30, said:

Law 75B: … After the final pass, South [whose partner has misexplained their agreement], if he is to be declarer or dummy, should call the director and must volunteer a correction of the explanation. if South becomes a defender, he calls the director and corrects the explanation when play ends.

Since the OP referred to LHO as declarer it sounds like the misexplanation happened after the final pass and dummy had been tabled. Probably declarer or dummy should still correct the misexplanation immediately but the law is maybe not 100% clear.

[gwnn]

Almost no question is improper at the bridge table

[nige1]

peachy, on 2010-October-21, 17:16, said:

At an ACBl sectional, opponents married couple, regular partnership, and good players. Their auction was simple and uncontested 1NT-2C-2D-2S-PPP. At my turn to play at trick one, I asked an explanation of 2S. Dummy said "weak with 5 spades and 4 hearts". I detected a vibe from my left and I asked LHO "Is that your agreement?" to which he said "That is an inappropriate question" and there was no more comment from me or them. I now realize it was an inappropriate question. We finished the hand. After the hand the declarer said to his partner "It is not really weak, just not game forcing". Exactly what I thought it might be, based on the hitch I detected. Also, exactly what he had [not weak, by any means]. There was no damage from this MI, but should I have called the director? And for what - to have TD tell this declarer to be more forthcoming with the truth? And cause more unpleasantness than already existed? I let it go but this is just one of about a dozen similar type of things that just keep happening at the table. I think I have had my fill of live bridge for a while LOL

Declarer drew attention to his inadequate disclosure at the end of the hand. Hence, arguably, all players have a duty to call the director. My experience is that it is pointless, however, in such circumstances. When I've done so, opponents become angry. The director asks how we've been damaged. We explain that we think there may have been an infraction but we don't think we we've been damaged. The director rules that we haven't been damaged and leaves. The opponents cheer up at the clear implication that if anybody is at fault, we are, for time-wasting.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2010-October-21, 21:30, said:

Law 75B: … After the final pass, South [whose partner has misexplained their agreement], if he is to be declarer or dummy, should call the director and must volunteer a correction of the explanation. if South becomes a defender, he calls the director and corrects the explanation when play ends.

Note that this law uses "should" when referring to South calling the TD, and "must" when referring to volunteering a correction. This makes failure to call the TD relatively minor, and failure to volunteer a correction a serious offense.

The opponent does not have to ask; the onus is on the side which has given an incorrect explanation to correct it at the appropriate time.

Players frequently think there's no point in calling the director unless they've clearly been damaged, but David is right — players who are unaware of their obligations will remain unaware of them unless those obligations are explained to them, and that's the TD's job, not their opponents'.

If I understand the scenario, the MI wasn't given until after the opening lead. I think the above Law only applies to MI given during the auction period.

Law 20F5( explains when MI may be corrected, but it also seems only to apply to explanations given during the auction. Law 20F2 says that questions may be asked during the play period, but there doesn't seem to be a subsequent law that says what to do if an incorrect explanation is given.

Intuitiively, it seems that if a defender asks a question, and an incorrect answer is given by declarer or dummy, it should be OK for his partner to correct it immediately. This isn't allowed during the auction because of UI problems, but there's no such concern during the play (but the UI issue means that defenders can't correct each other when responding to declarer).

[blackshoe]

I would rule, I think, that the declaring side should correct an erroneous explanation given during the play period immediately, and the defending side should do so after the play is concluded. It's true that the Laws don't directly address this situation, but we have no guidance from higher authority, either, and that means it's up to the TD to interpret the law.

[ggwhiz]

I agree completely with blackshoe but I thought it WAS a part of the laws?

No damage during the auction in this and many other cases but the line of defence could sustain damage, easily preventable by the declaring side before the fact.

The defending side must wait until play is over and suffer the consequences as must the declaring side if they fail to live up to this obligation.

Getting snarked at for trying to help them avoid a possible ruling against is certainly aggravating but I would let it go and put a few extra red cards in my pocket for future rounds against them.

[blackshoe]

The relevant Law is 75, and the relevant part of that law says "the responsibilities of the players (and the director) are as illustrated by the consequences of this following example." Unfortunately, the example makes the tacit assumption that the explanation was given when the call was made. It does not address the question what to do when the explanation was given (as requested) during the play period. Nor, for that matter, does it address the question of explanation of agreements regarding cards played. But Law 75 explicitly states the legal situation by example, and does not say that the example is exhaustive. So the TD should, IMO, use the power given him by Law 81C2 to interpret this law in the way I stated upthread.

[mycroft]

I have been known to¹ say after "not really weak, just not game forcing"²:
"Thank you for correcting your partner's explanation. I don't think we were damaged. Partner?"
...as if they did everything correctly, except for forgetting the correct time to make that correction³.

Partner never seems to think he was damaged, either - but if he pipes up, then I will call the TD...

If I get attitude in response - like "that wasn't for you, that was for partner!" - then I tend to explain the situation to the TD later, in case she thinks this pair is due for a full disclosure refresher.

The OP is right, it is an inappropriate question - because the answer should always be "that is a good description of our agreement"
¹ It always seems that "I have been known to" is the introduction to another passive-aggressive behaviour story. Funny, that.
² Especially if it's aimed explicitly at partner, and not to us. Of course, it always is.
³ Which, being non-P-A serious for a minute, many people do. For some reason it is hard to remember "when declarer or dummy, before the opening lead. When defending, at the end of the hand. If it's your misexplanation (and not partner's), immediately upon recognising it. In all cases, you should call the TD; in the latter two, don't bother with should."