[arepo24]

Someone mentioned that you were legally permitted to ask the opposition "what did you mean by 'such and such bid?'" after the bidding was over but before play of hand has begun.
I always thought that you must ask that question at your turn while the bidding was taking place and not after it was over.

[paulg]

The laws are quite clear on this. You may ask at your turn and, after the auction, at your first turn to play.

You should also ask about the complete auction and not specific calls.

LAW 20 - REVIEW AND EXPLANATION OF CALLS
A. Call Not Clearly Recognized
A player may require clarification forthwith if in doubt about what call has been made.

B. Review of Auction during Auction Period
During the auction period, a player is entitled to have all previous calls restated at their turn to call, unless required by law to pass. Alerts should be included when responding to the request. A player may not ask for a partial review of previous calls and may not halt the review before it is completed.

C. Review after Final Pass
1. After the final pass either defender has the right to ask if it is their opening lead (see Laws 47E and 41).
2. Declarer or either defender may, at their first turn to play, require all previous calls to be restated. (See Laws 41B and 41C). As in B the player may not ask for only a partial restatement or halt the review.

[arepo24]

paulg, on 2020-November-05, 11:26, said:

The laws are quite clear on this. You may ask at your turn and, after the auction, at your first turn to play.

You should also ask about the complete auction and not specific calls.

LAW 20 - REVIEW AND EXPLANATION OF CALLS
A. Call Not Clearly Recognized
A player may require clarification forthwith if in doubt about what call has been made.

B. Review of Auction during Auction Period
During the auction period, a player is entitled to have all previous calls restated at their turn to call, unless required by law to pass. Alerts should be included when responding to the request. A player may not ask for a partial review of previous calls and may not halt the review before it is completed.

C. Review after Final Pass
1. After the final pass either defender has the right to ask if it is their opening lead (see Laws 47E and 41).
2. Declarer or either defender may, at their first turn to play, require all previous calls to be restated. (See Laws 41B and 41C). As in B the player may not ask for only a partial restatement or halt the review.

Thank you for your explanation. Speaking simply, I see that both ways are correct.

[PrecisionL]

The proper question is "Please explain the auction."

From Duplicate Decisions: Explanation of opponents' calls:1. During the auction and before the final pass, any player at their own turn to call may ask for an explanation of the opponent's auction (unless required by Law to pass). Also, after a face-down opening lead, leader's partner and/or declarer may ask for and receive a review of the bidding or an explanation of the opponent's auction. Replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question unless the Director instructs otherwise. If the partner does not remember the meaning of a call, they should not try to guess. "I don't remember" should prompt the Director to establish whether or not an agreement actually exists, and in that case send them away from the table and ask the bidder to explain. If the player says something like "I don't think that we ever discussed this," it seems that there is probably no agreement, and the explanation that the opponents are entitled to is: "Undiscussed."

[pescetom]

paulg, on 2020-November-05, 11:26, said:

The laws are quite clear on this. You may ask at your turn and, after the auction, at your first turn to play.

You should also ask about the complete auction and not specific calls.

The laws do not say that you should not ask about specific calls, however.
In fact they explicitly authorise you to do so, under 20F, Explanation of Calls:
20F.3. Under 1 and 2 above a player may ask concerning a single call but Law 16B1 may apply.

The problem is that by asking about a specific call face to face, you draw your partner's attention to it. This is generally undesirable and may limit his actions. But it is not forbidden (whereas it is to ask a question with the sole purpose to benefit partner or to elicit an incorrect response from an opponent).

[mycroft]

In addition to what PaulG gave you:

• The clarification period exists for a number of reasons, but this is one. Pass-pass-pass, face-down lead, "any questions?" "Yes, what was 3♥?" Unfortunately, this isn't stated explicitly when they named the period between the last pass and the faced opening lead "the clarification period" (I had to figure it out backtracking from Law 41C), but it's in Law 41B:

  Quote

  [After the face down opening lead] Before the opening lead is faced, the leader’s partner and the presumed declarer (but not the presumed dummy) each may require a review of the auction, or request explanation of an opponent’s call (see Law 20F2 and 20F3).
  And L23F2 says:

  Quote

  After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at their turn to play may request an explanation of the opposing auction.
  (another wonderful "could read it two ways" passage, but it is intended that opening leader can ask before leading (face down) and third hand can ask before lead is face up).
  
• In addition, third hand can ask for a *review of the auction* before their first play (which is useful when partner "forgets" to lead face down). Continuing L41B:

  Quote

  Declarer either defender may require a review of the auction at their first turn to play a card. This right expires when this hand plays a card.
  
  
• Further yet to what Paul mentioned, requests for explanations of specific calls (or other system inferences: "would 1NT rebid have denied 4 spades?", but not "what did you respond to Blackwood?") remain available to defenders at every turn to play, not just the first trick. Finishing off L41B:

  Quote

  The defenders (subject to Law 16) and the declarer retain the right to request explanations throughout the play period, each at their turn to play

Related to his comment about "you should ask about the complete auction", it's a preference but not a requirement. The issue is, as others have stated, UI. Others have quoted this, but to keep everything in one comment, L20F3:

Quote

[When allowed to ask] a player may ask concerning a single call but Law 16B1 may apply.

So, continuing the example hinted at above, partner can't ask what the Blackwood response was (that I doubled). If I, instead, ask at my turn, for no real reason, "what was 5♦?" and suddenly I get the diamond lead I asked for with the double, I should expect a director call.

[nige1]

Thank you PaulG, PrecisionL, Pescetom, and Mycroft. A useful guide It seems you can ask for an auction-review and explanation at any stage during the play.


f2f, what does the director do when

• One side asks about the auction as a whole (carefully avoiding drawing attention to specific calls)
• The other side can't remember the auction? or
• Neither side can remember the auction?

IMO, this makes a case for written bidding (or recording on a tablet, bridge-mate or whatever). Especially if there is dispute about an alleged infraction during the bidding.
Also, AFAIR, Sven Pran suggested that, rather than seeking an explanation for each call, instead, you should be allowed to ask a question like

"What do partner's calls tell you about his hand?"


I think that's a good suggestion and merits inclusion in the law-book itself.

[mycroft]

No review after your first play. But an explanation of things you are unclear of about an auction you are clear of.

If neither side can remember the auction, it's time to get the TD involved. I've had that happen once or twice, and we managed to reconstruct it.

I've certainly used that phrasing in some long relay- or asking bid-type auctions, intended to get a distillation rather than all the moving parts. There are many who don't work that way; they need to hear what all the bids mean. There are also those who need to know what each bid means as well as the gestalt, because that helps them work out (from what each player knew when, and their decision to ask about this/continue to relay) more about the hand. All these things are appropriate and relevant, and it's the opponent's wishes about how things are presented that should be honoured, not what's easiest for, or "best" in the opinion of, the explaining side (even if they're right!).

And I see myself going wrong in this, but I believe when called on it, I go and do what's asked. For instance, after 1NT-2♣!; 2♦!-2NT!; 3♦!-3NT, I'll usually explain "this sequence [wave at 2♣ and 2NT] shows a GF Stayman or Puppet Stayman type hand; 3♦ shows any 4333; partner decided not to ask." I frequently get "but what does 2♣ mean? What does 2♦ mean?" at which point I'll explain (2♣ is "to play 2♦ or various INV or better hands, to be resolved next round; 2♦ is forced." If they then ask "what if he doesn't bid 2♦?" we have several stock answers of various levels of humour, depending on the opponent, ranging from "no other call is systemic" to "well, I guess he's walking home").

[pescetom]

nige1, on 2020-November-06, 10:17, said:

f2f, what does the director do when

• One side ask about the auction as a whole (carefully avoiding drawing attention to specific calls)
• The other side can't remember the auction? or
• Neither side can remember the auction?

IMO, this makes a case for written bidding (or recording on a tablet, bridge-mate or whatever). Especially if there is dispute about an alleged infraction during the bidding.

You're right in theory but usually somebody remembers: in my experience the only such disputes are about the level of the final contract (if people have been drinking) or about whether it was doubled (even when all are apparently sober). To eliminate these disputes it would be sufficient to leave the appropriate bidding card(s) on the table after the auction, as often discussed. This would also render superfluous the the coy rules which govern asking about the contract and eliminate the placement of dummy's trumps on the right, also paving the way to a standard suit order which would deny dummy the dubious right to encode memory aids (opponents' suit on left) or worse.

[nige1]

pescetom, on 2020-November-06, 12:09, said:

This would also render superfluous the the coy rules which govern asking about the contract and eliminate the placement of dummy's trumps on the right, also paving the way to a standard suit order which would deny dummy the dubious right to encode memory aids (opponents' suit on left) or worse.

I had not been aware of that cunning convention. It should be illegal, but the laws should specify the exact order in which dummy displays suits.

An ex-partner suggested another weird convention but I've forgotten its name. Declarer peters from equals in one of dummy's suits, to reassure dummy that the contract is making so that only overtricks are at stake. Is this convention legal? if not, why not?

[mycroft]

There was a long thread on this a few years ago.

• Trumps on declarer's left is a law (41D).
  
• Any memory aids not permitted (or required) by Law or regulation (such as *by agreement or request* putting the suit of the opening lead on declarer's right) are not legal (40B2d). This was the subject of an indignant email to the ACBL Bulletin's "Ruling Box" a while back, when a tournament director (who was playing at the club) pointed this out (to the surprise of the entire club, who had been training each other to do it). The response was a stereotypically Matt Smith version of "She's right. Here's why."
  
• Confidence echo, or beer card echo, or Grazie responses for that matter, if known and available to the opponents like any other carding convention would, are Just Fine. If it's concealed from the opponents, well, given that UI deliberately transmitted to dummy may be an infraction, but not one that could possibly cause damage, for practical purposes there's no problem. Most good opponents will work it out in time anyway. But if the opponents don't know you play beer card echo, what use is false-carding it? :-)

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2020-November-06, 13:55, said:

[list=1][*]Trumps on declarer's left is a law (41D).

But not a good or necessary law, I would argue. It is a constant source of error for some dummies (and the BBO programmers), it is a somewhat arbitrary choice of legal memory aid (the level of contract and any double are not shown and asking who doubled is not even legal), there is no obligatory order for the remaining suits and no way to tell if we are playing in trumps or NT.

mycroft, on 2020-November-06, 13:55, said:

[*]Any memory aids not permitted (or required) by Law or regulation (such as *by agreement or request* putting the suit of the opening lead on declarer's right) are not legal (40B2d). This was the subject of an indignant email to the ACBL Bulletin's "Ruling Box" a while back, when a tournament director (who was playing at the club) pointed this out (to the surprise of the entire club, who had been training each other to do it). The response was a stereotypically Matt Smith version of "She's right. Here's why."

IIRC (and if not I will quickly be corrected here) I learned about the "suit of the opening lead on declarer's right" convention from a discussion on the EBU Directors Forum, where the consensus seemed to be that it was tolerable, to my surprise. Of course suit order has the potential for dummy to provide messages which go beyond a simple memory aid, in the case that dummy often possesses (one way or another) information that declarer may not.

[Vampyr]

pescetom, on 2020-November-06, 12:09, said:

To eliminate these disputes it would be sufficient to leave the appropriate bidding card(s) on the table after the auction, as often discussed.

Nigel is aware of this, as he plays mainly in jurisdictions where this is proper procedure.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2020-November-07, 10:07, said:

Nigel is aware of this, as he plays mainly in jurisdictions where this is proper procedure.

I was discussing reviewing the auction during the play.

[mikeh]

At least in NA the OP question was simply wrong. One is NEVER entitled to ask any opponent ‘what did you mean by that bid’

Playing in real life, without screens, one should not ask anything during the auction, if there was no alert, unless something unexpected has happened. I’ve had an opponent ask, when partner opened 1C, how many clubs that promised, and my answer was ‘not as many as you hold’. Sure enough, asker held 6 clubs.

Asking questions about non-alerted and normal-sounding bids risks giving improper information to your partner.

If you are asking, ask in the form of ‘do you have an agreement about ‘x’?

If the answer is yes, then ask (if not volunteered) what the agreement is. Ask the partner, not the bidder. Be aware that asking needless questions, during the auction, is a bad idea. You may let the opps learn that they’ve had a misunderstanding. You may (hopefully inadvertently) do what my ‘how many clubs does he promise’ opponent did...tell everyone at the table something about your hand.

With screens or online you can of course ask the bidder (with screens, one asks one’s screen mate, who may or may not be the bidder) but, again, you aren’t entitled to know what the bidder meant. You are only entitled to know the opps’s partnership agreements. Now, much of the time there is no difference, but players forget agreements (and sometimes remember them only after making an erroneous bid) and sometimes they don’t have an agreement and are winging it.

An example might be someone thinking they were playing 1430 keycard, but belatedly realizes that with this partner 5D showed 1 or 4 keycards: when they bid it, they meant to show 3, but they had a forget. If you asked the bidder ‘what does 5D show’, you should be told, by either opp, that it showed 1 or 4, even tho the bidder is looking at 3.

A good rule is, unless you’re thinking of bidding and are worried that you don’t understand their auction, don’t ask any questions until the auction is over. And, if partner is on lead, not until he or she has selected the lead.

[mycroft]

Mike, while I agree with you (although usually it's 1 EHAA ♥ for me), I wouldn't go as far as say "never ask about unAlerted bids". Never mind the classic unAlerted, unAnnounced 1NT (although that might be considered "unexpected", as there is no such thing, legally); there are auctions where things get alerted all down the pike and then one doesn't, and it is sometimes important to know the forcing-or-not nature of it.

I, for one, always ask about preempt style of new-to-me pairs, and 2♥ is totally not Alertable. But the information passed to partner is exactly that, not "my hearts are better than opener's".

Currently, arguably (and it's the argument the regulators made at the time), if it goes 1♦-(2♦) to you, you're expected to ask if you care if it's majors or top-and-bottom (thankfully, that's going away soon). Of course, if you do, you should always ask unless you know, but still.

Coming with the new Alert Procedures, there are a fair number more sequences where "as long as it's natural (as opposed to Natural - fit jump shifts are Natural-and-Alertable as they show another suit as well), it's not Alertable no matter the strength". With the disappearance of any "light opening" Pre-Alerts (that were never made in practise anyway), if you want to know what their minimum is for 1♠ (or 2♠), you have to ask.

Other regulatory authorities lean more toward consistency than "Alert what's unusual", and there, there will be more calls that "if you need to know, you have to ask".

All of that is a very small nitpick to "you're entitled to their agreement, not 'what did you mean'", and "if you ask about a call, that question is UI to partner, especially if it's not Alerted".

Note that in the ACBL, the following is from the "TD Resource Doc" (successor to tech notes):

Quote

The tournament director will rule that no unauthorized information has been transmitted by a player who asks in the proper manner about an alerted call at his or turn immediately following the alert (unless that player shows a pattern of being selective about which alertable calls are questioned).

Which doesn't talk about non-Alerted calls, of course.

[pescetom]

mikeh, on 2020-November-08, 00:34, said:

At least in NA the OP question was simply wrong. One is NEVER entitled to ask any opponent ‘what did you mean by that bid’

Playing in real life, without screens, one should not ask anything during the auction, if there was no alert, unless something unexpected has happened. I’ve had an opponent ask, when partner opened 1C, how many clubs that promised, and my answer was ‘not as many as you hold’. Sure enough, asker held 6 clubs.

Asking questions about non-alerted and normal-sounding bids risks giving improper information to your partner.

If you are asking, ask in the form of ‘do you have an agreement about ‘x’?

What you say is quite specific to NA however, where the underlying philosophy seems to be "alert anything not common in NA".
Some other RAs take a different tack, faithful to the historic WBF philosophy of "alert anything not natural".
In which case a non-alerted bid may not sound normal (strong 2-level openings or jump overcalls anyone?), and a good recommendation is to ask in the form of "all natural so far?".
Often in f2f without screens they have announcements to mitigate such problems, not always effectively however.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2020-November-07, 17:10, said:

I was discussing reviewing the auction during the play.

A player's right to a review of the auction expires when he plays to the first trick, including, for declarer, the play from dummy. A player's right to an explanation of the auction expires when the play period ends. Nothing in the laws suggests that an explanation of the auction should include a review of the auction.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2020-November-09, 18:40, said:

A player's right to a review of the auction expires when he plays to the first trick, including, for declarer, the play from dummy. A player's right to an explanation of the auction expires when the play period ends. Nothing in the laws suggests that an explanation of the auction should include a review of the auction.

Perhaps I should have repeated what was said yet again, to make my question clear: during the play, you shouldn't ask about specific calls but you're entitled to the meaning of the auction The meaning of the auction depends on the meaning and order of calls How do opponents answer without reviewing the auction?

[shyams]

nige1, on 2020-November-11, 16:04, said:

Perhaps I should have repeated what was said yet again, to make my question clear: during the play, you shouldn't ask about specific calls but you're entitled to the meaning of the auction The meaning of the auction depends on the meaning and order of calls How do opponents answer without reviewing the auction?

It is indeed possible to ask about a specific call without repeating the entire sequence (or indeed any part of the bidding sequence except the call in question). A vanilla example could be when opponent opens 1♣ followed by your side bidding to an uninterrupted contract. You are allowed to ask the opener's partner (e.g.) "If your partner had 5-card ♠ and 6-card ♣, would he open 1♠ or 1♣?" --- a perfectly legitimate question given that some partnerships may have an agreement to always open 1M over 1m.

I vividly recall an instance where LHO opened 2♦ multi, partner passed, RHO bid 2♥ followed by me entering the auction and eventually becoming declarer. During the play I asked the multi bidder what options his partner had to show a good ♥ fit. The (somewhat unexpected) response led me to choose one line of play in preference to another.