[blackshoe]

Partner hears you call the TD, and ask to speak to him away from the table. What are the odds he's not going to figure out why you asked to do that?

[gordontd]

 blackshoe, on 2014-July-30, 21:37, said:

Asking for a "sidebar" is an unusual procedure invented out of whole cloth. There's nothing in law or regulation to support it. Equally so, the idea that partner's pass is "binding" on the partnership has no basis in law or regulation.

I would normally agree to a player's request to talk to me away from the table, primarily because until I hear what that question is I won't know whether or not it will have been helpful to everyone for it not to have been said in front of the table. If they do all need to hear it I can go back and tell them, but if it's right for them not to have been told, I couldn't untell them if it had already been said to them.

[gordontd]

 blackshoe, on 2014-August-02, 22:02, said:

Partner hears you call the TD, and ask to speak to him away from the table. What are the odds he's not going to figure out why you asked to do that?

In this specific situation? I don't know. In general, quite high.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2014-August-02, 22:02, said:

Partner hears you call the TD, and ask to speak to him away from the table. What are the odds he's not going to figure out why you asked to do that?

Partner hears you call the TD, and you speak to the TD at the table. What are the odds he's not going to figure out why you asked to do that?

Which one transmits more UI? The only way to not transmit any UI is to not call the TD in the first place, but players are supposed to call the TD when they need his assistance.

[blackshoe]

"Strange game. The only way to win is not to play." -- Joshua, aka the WOPR, in War Games.

[blackshoe]

 gordontd, on 2014-August-03, 02:02, said:

I would normally agree to a player's request to talk to me away from the table, primarily because until I hear what that question is I won't know whether or not it will have been helpful to everyone for it not to have been said in front of the table. If they do all need to hear it I can go back and tell them, but if it's right for them not to have been told, I couldn't untell them if it had already been said to them.

Good point.

[aguahombre]

 gordontd, on 2014-August-03, 02:02, said:

I would normally agree to a player's request to talk to me away from the table, primarily because until I hear what that question is I won't know whether or not it will have been helpful to everyone for it not to have been said in front of the table. If they do all need to hear it I can go back and tell them, but if it's right for them not to have been told, I couldn't untell them if it had already been said to them.

Yes. I can't unring the bell of the possible UI of the mere request anyway; and maybe, just maybe, there is a good reason.

Of particular note: on more than one occasion, I have been asked HOW to properly explain an agreement or lack thereof & and at the appropriate time.

[RMB1]

Players can receive advice from the TD away from the table, including whether the player is required/permitted to draw attention to a particular irregularity.

If there has been an irregularity [that the player is permitted to draw attention to] then the TD should deal with that at the table.

If the player talks to the TD away from the table, and there is no action to be taken at the table, the TD could explain that he had advised the player of their rights and responsibilities (quoting Law 81C2) and ask to recalled at the end of the hand.

[blackshoe]

 RMB1, on 2014-August-03, 10:14, said:

If there has been an irregularity [that the player is permitted to draw attention to] then the TD should deal with that at the table.

Um. If a player who is not permitted to draw attention to an irregularity draws the TD's attention to an irregularity, the TD now has two irregularities to deal with, and he should deal with both of them (Law 81C3).

[aguahombre]

Perhaps that is why RMB1 worded his post correctly.

[RMB1]

 blackshoe, on 2014-August-03, 11:13, said:

Um. If a player who is not permitted to draw attention to an irregularity draws the TD's attention to an irregularity, the TD now has two irregularities to deal with, and he should deal with both of them (Law 81C3).

I am thinking of the situation that the player asks the TD (away from the table) if he should correct partner's misexplanation. The TD tells the player (away from the table) that he may not, yet (Law 20F5). There has been an irregularity (the misexplanation) but the player should not be drawing the table's attention to it and the TD will not deal with it now.

[blackshoe]

 RMB1, on 2014-August-03, 11:49, said:

I am thinking of the situation that the player asks the TD (away from the table) if he should correct partner's misexplanation. The TD tells the player (away from the table) that he may not, yet (Law 20F5). There has been an irregularity (the misexplanation) but the player should not be drawing the table's attention to it and the TD will not deal with it now.

Ah, okay. Yeah, in that case you're absolutely right.