Asking Questions

First of all, most importantly, the right to ask a question only applies when it is your turn to make a call or play. If you do so at any other time your opponents (or indeed your partner) is fully entitled to call the Director, who may issue a procedural penalty.

Quotations from the 2017 laws are in blue.

Review of the Auction - Law 20b and 20c

Note that this is not the same as asking for an explanation of calls made.

"During the auction period, a player is entitled to have all previous calls restated when it is his turn to call, unless he is 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."

1. After the final pass either defender has the right to ask if it is his opening lead (see Laws 47E and 41).

2. Declarer (before he plays from dummy) or either defender may, at his 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.

3. After it is too late to have previous calls restated (see B), declarer or either defender, at his own turn to play, is entitled to be informed as to what the contract is and whether, but not by whom, it was doubled or redoubled. - Law 41C

Explanation of Calls (or card play - signals/ discards)- Law 20F

"During the auction and before the final pass any player may request7, at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ auction"... "The partner of a player who asks a question may not ask a supplementary question until his turn to call or play."

"After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at his own turn to play may request an explanation of the opposing auction."

"At his turn to play from his hand or from dummy declarer may request an explanation of a defender’s call or card play understandings."

"A player may ask concerning a single call but Law 16B1 may apply."

The last note is a specific warning of the dangers of providing unauthorised information by showing interest in a single denomination. Note that unauthorised information may be present if a defender asks for an explanation of the whole auction.

What you can ask - and what you must provide when asked

Players are entitled to a lot of informaton when asking about a call - and in many cases they do not actually receive what they should be told. (Law 20F)

"He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding."

And just in case Law 40B applies

5. (a) When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to an opponent’s enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

Thus: If you alert a 2NT call in the auction 1NT : 2♥ : 2NT (Lebenshol) and when asked state "Shows either a single suited hand wishing to compete the part score or a raise to 3NT with a stop in Hearts" you may need to add "partner has been known to forget this convention" - Note you don't say 'Lebensohl' and you don't say what the call demands you do (if it does) - as that may result in UI (partner knows you do not have the suit shown. Note that you should not assume that the opponents know the ins and outs of conventional replies.

Why you must NOT ask questions. Law 20G

1. A player may not ask a question if his sole purpose is to benefit partner.

2. A player may not ask a question if his sole purpose is to elicit an incorrect response from an opponent.

It is obviously very difficult to determine that this is the 'sole purpose' of asking a question. It is easy enough to think of circumstances where partner will benefit - for example: if you already know the answer. The second reason is new to the 2017 Laws. It tries and prevent players from forcing their opponents into making an error and thereby making them liable to a score adjustment due to the rectifications for misinformation or acting on unauthorised information. NB A 'May Not' rule is very strict and a breach of it would probably give rise to a procedural penalty.

Law 73C - woe betide you if you breach this one!

Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked, or alerts and explanations given or not given.

This law applies in addition to Law 16B about the dangers of passing on unauthorised information from partner. Passing on unauthorised information is not an infraction - only if partner makes use of it - and it is usually inadvertent. This is deliberate.

Example: Opponent opens 1♠ - if you have an agreement that asking the question "Does that guarantee 5 spades?" shows a very poor hand whilst not saying anything shows a hand with reasonable values (but insufficient to take action) then this is basically cheating.

In case this seems to drastic and rare - consider the 'French Defence' or WONT 'convention'

French Defence
Although not an ethical defense method, the formerly permitted French Defense conventional method is included. In the United States and within the jurisdiction of the American Contract Bridge League it is referred to colloquially as Weasel Over No Trumps. Since the concept is easily understood a short description follows:

During the evolution of the game of bridge it was possible, owing to the lack of Laws and/or basic regulations, for unethical players to devise certain mannerisms, especially following an opening No Trump bid by the opposing partner. If the next player in rotation inquired about the range of the No Trump and then pass with about 10 to 14 points and pass, without asking, is holding weaker values. Asking about the range and then doubling the No Trump promised partner held values for a minimum double, which was then considered 15 to 17 points. However, if the next player in rotation doubled without inquiring as to the range of the No Trump, then this action would show more values of 17 points plus.

As the reader can readily understand this action is presented considered as unauthorized information and it is classified as cheating. This action has become eradicated by new Laws and the introduction of announcements, which did not permit the next player in rotation to inquire at all about the range of the No Trump bid.

The designation of French Defense most likely stems from the fact that the French and English bridge players competed with/against one another at bridge tournaments, at which time several loopholes in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge were not closed so that several unethical actions were not considered illegal, only unethical, for which there was no penalty

(Bridgeguys.com)

Other questions asked during the play of a hand. - revokes

1. Dummy can ask declarer, when they fail to follow suit, whether they have any cards of the suit led. (NB if dummy has lost his rights then this would result in the penalty for an established revoke)
2. Declarer may ask defenders, when they fail to follow suit, whether they have any cards of the suit led. (NB This is a 'may' rule- failure to do so is not wrong and not doing it does not prejudice declarer's rights.)
3. Defenders can ask declarer and one-another (although this may result in the provision of unauthorised information)
4. Dummy cannot ask a defender. If he does so then this risks providing unauthorised information to declarer.

Answering Questions

Be very careful when answering questions. Opponents are entitled to know what the call actually means - see Law 40B above. Providing additional information could almost certainly convey unauthorised information to partner.

So DO NOT EVER, EVER, say 'I am taking it as meaning.....' That is not in the remit of Law 40B and tells your partner what your response will be based on - and he is not entitled to know that. Is that clear?

Your response will fall into one of several categories

Your partnership has an agreement and you know what it is.

Give the explanation (including possible relevant calls that were not made). e.g. "Shows a weak raise to 2♠, could be on a 3-card suit and fewer than 6 points - we have alternative methods going via 1NT that show a better raise."

Your partnership has an agreement but you have a brain freeze and forget it

Don't burble or prevaricate. Simply say "We have an agreement but I don't know what it is". (Opponents can call the TD who will probably send you away from the table and get your partner to explain what the call means (which of course may not be his actual hand). Your partner must not use the information that you don't know what his call means - this is unauthorised.

Your partnership has no agreement (of which you are aware) - you should alert this situation automatically since opponents are entitled to know it.

State that you have no partnership agreement - if you can think of similar positions where you do have an agreement then say so: e.g. "No partnership agreement. If the double hadn't been made this would be 4th suit forcing based on 12+ points and asking for more information."

2. It is a condition of any partnership agreement that both players possess the same mutual understanding, and it is an infraction to describe an agreement where the same mutual understanding does not exist. If the Director determines that the misleading explanation was not based upon a partnership agreement, he applies Law 21B.

Summary

Be aware of both your rights and obligations. Players should not ask questions out of turn and you have every right to refuse to answer them) even in a 'friendly club'. When answering questions, be factual and be careful of passing on unauthorised information - opponents may use it - but not your partner.