[dan_ehh]

Hi everyone,

Following Elianna's link to this thread: http://forums.bridge...showtopic=23651, I realized this is a very interesting theoretical discussion.

The problem illustrated in as follows -
1D-(3C)*-X
The partner of the 3C bidder said he forgot their agreement, and was then sent away from the table while the 3C bidder informed the opponents as to their agreement. 3C was a natural preemptive bid, but the forgetful player thought it showed the majors (but admittedly he wasn't sure). Upon returning, he inquired about the meaning of the X, and the question was whether his opponents are allowed to respond with "if 3C is natural X is takeout, but if 3C shows the majors X shows a club suit", or in other words, whether the forgetful player was allowed to use his opponents' disclosure of their own agreements to solve his memory problem.

In the original thread, there was some emphasis about the fact that a director was not present, and the forgetful player was sent away by the other players. But since this is something that directors do as well, I am curious as to which of the solutions would be best. Personally I think the "if 3C is A then X is B, if 3C is C then X is D" solution works nicely and in accordance with the rules, but credentialed responses would be nice.

[Elianna]

I don't remember if I said this in the other thread, but I did email it to Jeff Goldsmith. He basically said that there's no basis in the laws to send people away, and that he used to argue with directors not to do it, but they would do it anyway, and that this is a good example why they shouldn't.

His point of view was that if directors do things that aren't allowed for in the laws, then it's their fault that something happens that the laws don't cover.

[blackshoe]

This seems more appropriate to our "Changes" forum, so I'll move it there.

Okay. Suppose this happens. North alerts South's bid, but when asked says he's not sure what it mean. The TD is called. What is he to do? Law 20F1 says EW are entitled to know what it means. It also says

Quote

except on the instruction of the director, replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question.

The director could, on the basis of that last, require North to explain the meaning of the call. However, that will give South information to which he was not previously privy. Is this information unauthorized? Law 16A1{c} says, in part, that it may be authorized if

Quote

it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these Laws and in
regulations (but see B1 below)

The relevant part of this is "arising from the legal procedures authorized in these Laws". The TD is authorized by Law 20F1 to require North to answer the question, so one could argue that this makes the information authorized, but that's going to sit well with just about nobody. No matter — we've been referred to 16B1, and that says that information made available by a player's answer to a question is unauthorized to his partner. That the Director required him to answer makes no difference. But that willl not sit well with some, because "why should we be penalized (by having to take into account that we have UI) when it's the Director's fault we have it?" Requiring South to step away from the table, so he will not hear North's explanation, while it may not be explicitly authorized in the laws, at least alleviates this problem.

Suppose that South steps away, and when he comes back asks about, in the example, the meaning of the double. Are EW allowed to avoid giving away the show by the "if 3♣ is A, then X, if 3♣ is B, then Y" construct? Certainly. South is entitled to know EW's agreement, and they've told him what it is. What if EW mess up, and do give away the meaning of North's 3♣ bid? Well, sorry, but that's AI to South, because it came from EW, not from North.

While Jeff Goldsmith had a point, I think the problem here is that the strictly legal response (for the TD) to this situation is bound to make somebody unhappy. While my general response to that personally is "So what? It's the law' I do recognize that sometimes extra-legal reponses arise and become "custom and practice". Whether that's a good or bad thing in this particular case (or for that matter in general) I don't know. David will know more about the history of this kind of thing, particularly the "custom and practice" aspect, than I do. I'll be interested in his response.

[MFA]

If this procedure is to make any sense, then E-W can't be required to reveal what they were just told by answering creative questions from S about actual or hypothetical bids.

So implicitely it's ok for EW to give the multiway explanation.

[PeterE]

Elianna, on Sep 4 2009, 09:39 PM, said:

I don't remember if I said this in the other thread, but I did email it to Jeff Goldsmith.  He basically said that there's no basis in the laws to send people away, and that he used to argue with directors not to do it, but they would do it anyway, and that this is a good example why they shouldn't.

Here's the legal basis for it:

Minute of the WBF LC, on Lille 1998, said:

If a player knows that his partner’s call is conventional but says he cannot recall what was actually agreed the Director may in his discretion send the player away from the table and allow the partner to tell opponents in his absence what the agreement is. The Director must be called and no action may be taken before he arrives.
The partner continues in the action on the basis that the player has understood his call, and does not use the unauthorized information that his partner is uncertain of the meaning.
The Director is strongly urged to remain at the table whilst the hand is completed.
This procedure is only for the exact circumstances described; it does not apply when the player says that the position is undiscussed or there is no agreement.

And yes, afterwards opponents explain their subsequent calls in the multiway style shown upthread.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on Sep 4 2009, 10:41 PM, said:

This seems more appropriate to our "Changes" forum, so I'll move it there.

LOL. Blue thought we hijacked his earlier post. but now we have kidnapping by black. I think it is a good thing, just amusing.

[bluejak]

I was going to post that our TDs are trained to send a player away from the table at such times: I had forgotten it was in the White book [#75.8]!

I believe that the answer to the opening post is as suggested: an perfectly adequate answer is "If X then .., if Y then ...".

[iviehoff]

If I
- couldn't quite remember if 3C was majors or something else I'm not sure what
- was taken away from the table for a bit
- then came back asked what double meant,
- and got the answer "if 3C is natural X is takeout, but if 3C shows the majors X shows a club suit"

then I think I am now pretty sure 3C is natural. If you say that is info I'm not allowed to use, then it was odd to tell me something ("if 3C is natural...") that I'm never allowed to use.

Wouldn't it be better just to be told double is take-out of whatever is shown by the 3C bid?

[dan_ehh]

Thanks to everyone for answering.

To iviehoff, in the unlikely event that this actually happens, I will begin with the "if 3C is majors" explanation.