[barmar]

iviehoff, on 2012-May-04, 11:08, said:

Saying "having none, partner" is trying to prevent a (further) irregularity of a revoke being uncorrected. It is something that has from time to time been explicitly permitted, or explicitly prohibited. Under the present laws of it being explicitly permitted (with possible regional election otherwise), we may still be concerned about the UI which arises from why partner chose to ask at that moment. Many partners only ask when their count suggests what they see is "impossible".

This seems like another case where I must be the luckiest player around, or maybe just oblivious. My experience with people who ask this is that they're very consistent: they almost always ask the first time their partner shows out of each suit. The reason I DON'T ask is because I've never been able to get myself in the habit of doing it regularly, and I don't want to do it only in cases where I'm surprised.

Of course, there are some poor players who indicate surprise when partner shows out in other ways: facial expressions or exclamations. I hope I don't do this.

[pran]

iviehoff, on 2012-May-04, 11:08, said:

[...] Inappropriate communication, including trying to prevent an irregularity, gives rise to unauthorised information. Sometimes that UI may be significant.
[...]

"Trying to prevent an irregularity" as specified in Law 9A3 is explicitly legal and therefore not inappropriate communication! The same applies to asking questions as specified in Law 20F and elsewhere.

However, all such actions are likely to create UI (which itself is not illegal!), and it is the responsibility of any players receiving such UI to avoid violating Law 16 by letting their choices of actions be influenced from it.

[blackshoe]

iviehoff, on 2012-May-04, 08:05, said:

I agree, it does look just rather like that. But the law only talks about attempts to prevent irregularities when it is dummy that does it.

Nonsense.

Quote

Law 9A3, in part: Any player, however, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43).

Edit: I see Sven already pointed this out.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2012-May-04, 10:54, said:

You cannot prevent an irregularity after it has been comitted (and completed). What you do then is calling attention to the irregularity.

The potential irregularity we're talking about here is a call out of turn, which has not yet happened.

[mjj29]

Zelandakh, on 2012-May-04, 03:23, said:

How about "Call me back if you feel there might have been any damage"? That way you are asking them to call you back even if they are not sure, so (hopefully) no accusation is even suggested.

I usually go with "Call me back if you'd like me to have a look at the hand afterwards"

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-May-04, 16:25, said:

The potential irregularity we're talking about here is a call out of turn, which has not yet happened.

Finding the relevant post initiating this part of the thread I see that the irregularity was showing the STOP card rather than a bid card. You are right, this was indeed an attempt to prevent a call out of turn.