[jillybean]

akwoo, on 2025-February-25, 14:10, said:

Doesn't always help, since defenders may forget the explanation 4 tricks in, and are indeed entitled to ask again at that point.

As for giving partner UI, for me, if I'm asking, it's because I have some difficult decision that depends on the answer, and, to figure out that my decision depends on the answer, I'll have already tanked for long enough to give partner UI just from that.

The UI is unavoidable, if your partner is ethical it will not create a problem.
edit; it creates a problem of course, for your partner. Your partner may be forced to choose a play that was not suggested by the UI.

[barmar]

jillybean, on 2025-February-25, 15:14, said:

The UI is unavoidable, if your partner is ethical it will not create a problem.
edit; it creates a problem of course, for your partner. Your partner may be forced to choose a play that was not suggested by the UI.

Only if there are other logical alternatives.

By the time you're several tricks into the play, the AI from the play will usually outweigh any potential UI from the question.

[smerriman]

blackshoe, on 2025-February-24, 21:21, said:

People seem to have missed this:

I specifically quoted it, and most others referred to the UI aspect mentioned within, so most responders didn't seem to miss it..

axman, on 2025-February-25, 06:55, said:

I had to do a double take. When parsing ‘under’ its meaning is that ‘these words mean X’. Therefore, L20F3 parses as if a footnote analyzing /advising F1&2. Namely, F1&2 includes providing for players to inquire about a particular call keeping in mind there are repercussions.

However, such is advice (which fabricates conflict and thus repugnant to the law.) I see no parsing of F1&2 that grants such permission; and further, F1&2 forbids F3.

I don't see anything in F1&2 that forbids F3? F2 in fact specifically refers to declarer asking about a call, and F1 refers to supplementary questions; if you're interpreting "may request an explanation of the auction" as "the only question you're allowed to ask is please explain the auction as a whole", then there is no such thing as supplementary questions, nor does the bit about what you're entitled to know make sense..

[jillybean]

barmar, on 2025-February-25, 16:29, said:

Only if there are other logical alternatives.

By the time you're several tricks into the play, the AI from the play will usually outweigh any potential UI from the question.

Yes, that is why I said your partner may be forced...

[blackshoe]

axman, on 2025-February-25, 06:55, said:

Addendum:
F3 gives its authority as F1&2 which is a false assertion due to the fact that F1&2 forbids F3. As such, F3 being a nullity merely lays a trap for they that don’t read so good (which I suspect include TDs).

F1 and F2 give players permission to ask about the auction. They do not forbid asking about a single call.

[mycroft]

The most common time this applies is when the intent of a call is clearly not what the explanation was - "What was 3♣? Oh, a Bergen raise? Should we not have been Alerted?"

Occasionally, the misunderstanding is totally of the opponent's making - "Oh, so it *wasn't* a Bergen raise? [Alerted, didn't bother to ask, because "everybody" plays either natural or Bergen] What was 3♣, then?"

What they are not allowed after their first play is a review of the auction. So if they want to know what a bid meant, they have to remember what the bid *was*.

And yes, it does pass UI - but at least in the two situations I posit, the UI is pretty much the AI or is pretty irrelevant. Yeah, asking about [Alerted call] when playing fourth to a trick partner is going to take, magically getting that suit led, might prompt an investigation; but that rarely happens. Mostly because they're so much in a hurry to get the leading question made as soon as possible that that situation rarely arises :-).

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2025-February-25, 21:21, said:

F1 and F2 give players permission to ask about the auction. They do not forbid asking about a single call.

Actually, the use of forbid was improvident. The privilege was enumerated, and in doing so restricts the extent of the privilege. The creation of F3 emphasizes that restriction (distinguishes the distinction between auction and a particular call of an auction). As F1 et al does not encompass the extent of F3 makes F3 a nullity.

[jillybean]

[Coelacanth]

axman, on 2025-February-26, 08:07, said:

Actually, the use of forbid was improvident. The privilege was enumerated, and in doing so restricts the extent of the privilege. The creation of F3 emphasizes that restriction (distinguishes the distinction between auction and a particular call of an auction). As F1 et al does not encompass the extent of F3 makes F3 a nullity.

This...does not follow.

F1 says you are entitled to 'an explanation of the opponents' auction' at your turn during the auction. It does not require that you ask only about the entire auction. It does not say anything about how you ask or what you may ask about. It lists the kinds of information you are entitled to, and obviously you ask whatever you need to ask to get that information.

F2 says much the same, except during the play.

F3 explicitly says you may ask about a single call, and warns of the UI implications of doing so. I think this means exactly what it says.

[blackshoe]

axman, on 2025-February-26, 08:07, said:

Actually, the use of forbid was improvident. The privilege was enumerated, and in doing so restricts the extent of the privilege. The creation of F3 emphasizes that restriction (distinguishes the distinction between auction and a particular call of an auction). As F1 et al does not encompass the extent of F3 makes F3 a nullity.

Nope.

[barmar]

I think Law 20 is usually understood as being exhaustive: you can only ask the specific types of questions at the specific times stated.

B and C describe the specific occasions when you're allowed to ask for a review of the entire auction (they use the words "all previous calls to be restated"), which implies that you can't ask for a review at other times.

F1 and 2 say that players can request "an explanation of the opponents' auction" at various times. I don't think this is meant to be the same as "all calls to be restated" (but there's overlap between B and F1, they both refer to the auction period). A review is the list of calls that were made, an explanation is what was shown about the players' hands.

F3 means "Remember in F1 and F2 where we said you can request an explanation of the entire auction? You can also request an explanation of a specific call rather than the entire auction, and everything else is similar."

[blackshoe]

Why does F1 say "Law 16 may apply" while F3 says "Law 16B1 may apply"? What's the difference?

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2025-February-28, 09:50, said:

Why does F1 say "Law 16 may apply" while F3 says "Law 16B1 may apply"? What's the difference?

I don't think there's much difference. F3 is more precise, but the precision may be redundant because the rest of 16 doesn't really apply.