[pescetom]

NS are playing vanilla 2/1 with 15-17 1NT excluding a 5 card major.
North is dealer.

1NT P 2♣ P
2♠ P 3NT P
P P

After the final pass, West asks South "why did you bid Stayman" ?
South replies "you have no right to ask that question" and calls you (the Director) to table.

How do you proceed?

[jillybean]

What is West's skill level and experience?

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2026-October-15, 18:31, said:

What is West's skill level and experience?

Twenty years experience, competition player.
First time partnership with East who has forty years experience but only plays occasionally and at club level.

[blackshoe]

First thing, to West: If you have questions after the final pass, and your partner is on lead, you are not permitted to ask your questions until your partner has chosen his lead and placed it face down on the table. If your partner asks questions before choosing his lead, you are not permitted to ask supplemental questions until the lead is chosen and placed face down on the table. This procedure is intended to prevent illegal communications between partners, or even the appearance of illegal communications.

To East: your partner's question is Unauthorized Information for you. If it suggests anything to you, in particular about what you should lead, but also anything in the later defence, you must carefully avoid taking advantage of that suggestion, even if you think "but I already knew that".

To the table: proper procedure here would be for East to choose his lead without any aids from West, make the lead face down, and then give West and North (declarer) the opportunity to ask questions before facing the lead. West may now ask; the form of the ask should be "please explain your auction." Now NS explain the entire auction, including "calls actually made, relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding".

It really looks like West here asked the question for his partner's benefit. He is not permitted to do this. Violation rates a procedural penalty. Given their level of experience, I'd give 'em one.

[pescetom]

I applaud your intervention so far.


I would only add that I would take note of the auction and stay at the table and watch East's lead and plays, if possible. I would then study the diagram to see if West might have been aware and if East really did carefully avoid.

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2026-October-16, 09:02, said:

It really looks like West here asked the question for his partner's benefit. He is not permitted to do this. Violation rates a procedural penalty. Given their level of experience, I'd give 'em one.

Is it really fair to suddenly apply the Laws of the game? The bridge organizations should make an announcement if this is the case: 'These games will be played in accordance with the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, and penalties will be applied to those who break them."

pescetom, on 2026-October-16, 09:14, said:

I applaud your intervention so far.


I would only add that I would take note of the auction and stay at the table and watch East's lead and plays, if possible. I would then study the diagram to see if West might have been aware and if East really did carefully avoid.

Yes, and thank South for calling you.
Also, be ready to step in if there is any hint of bullying, although it doesn't sound like South was at all intimidated.

[mycroft]

Well, apart from the wrong time for the question, about which I would be *slightly* less aggressive than blackshoe (but also probably brusquer), the question is not one the defence is entitled to an answer to. Having said that, if West was wanting to get an equivalent message across, they could ask *North* "does partner's auction promise 4 hearts?" - which is a question about agreements, not one of intent, and has the added benefit of having the information-to-pass-to-partner already there. But (especially given my recent history here with "but if I don't ask now, I won't get to" people who Really Should Know Better), I actually don't think there's any intent to 20G1. I think West is just clueless. I would disallow East's wakeup question, though, just in case.

Now, in the ACBL, which I realize isn't the FIGB, given the inability of players to understand anything with an intervening if clause(*), or - for that matter - how their own system works, I would expect that West's question isn't intended-for-partner at all; it's "do you promise a 4cM here - can I trust your failure to Alert 3NT?" Which, you know, could easily be "I have no clue how either 4-suit transfers or the Alert Procedure work" just as easily as it could be "I have a truckload of hearts here; I bet South doesn't have either 4-card Major."

If I knew the South player was on the ball (and could pull it off, and was okay with me playing games too. I know a few), after East led, I'd ask South if he wanted to answer that question. I know my answer would be "I wanted to know if partner had a 4-card Major. If he didn't, I'd probably be looking at something like 6♦" (as I put down my 3=4=2=4 10 count).

(*) Why 1NT-3♣ 5-card Stayman is Alertable even though 2NT-3♣ isn't; why 1♦-1♠; 4♦ Picture Raise (and 1♦-1♠; 4♥ Splinter too) is Definitely Alertable, but Not Now; why my 4♥ opener is Alertable, even though yours isn't but means the "same thing" (my 4♣ is Announced "Hearts" and yours isn't);...