[mamos]

I was TD in charge of a smallish teams Congress In North Wales at the weekend. It's a regional event with several teams from the nearby North West area of England. Merseyside, Manchester and beyond. The standard of the event is quite varied but there are a dozen or so highly experienced teams, with international trialists and players who have taken part in international events at Senior, Women's and indeed Open level.

Two rulings cropped up during the weekend which I thought of sufficient interest to share with you. In both cases I'll start you off with the first part of the story and when you've had a chance to respond to that, I'll follow-up with what happened next.

---

It was indeed Board 1 - a hand played during the first match.

I won't give you the hands at this point because I think that as TD you wouldn't have seen them yet.

West alerts East's 2♣ bid and before selecting his opening lead the North player asks the meaning of that bid. He is told "Diamonds"

His card is placed face-down on the table. Now, East says "I think that my partner's explanation is wrong. 2♣ asks about partner's majors".

Quite correctly you are now called by the North player, who says "I've been given misinformation. May I change my opening lead?"

I ask for the information given by East-West and check their convention card. Although they are not a pair well-known to me they have clear and fully completed convention cards. (The Welsh Bridge Union uses the Convention Cards designed by the English Bridge Union) In the "Defence to 1NT" box is clearly written "Transfers". West is clear in his view that this is the correct explanation.

Will you let North change his opening lead?

Mike Amos

[blackshoe]

Nope. The misinformation came after he chose the lead, from East. He made the lead with the correct information, which came from West.

[CamHenry]

I'm with Blackshoe on this one: a player is entitled to a description of the methods, not what E has in his hand. Unless W has a very strange hand for his bid (e.g. xxx/x/AKxxx/AKQx) and should have looked at a diamond game/slam, EW are fine here.

[Phil]

So if North waited a few seconds, looked at East (a player is generally uncomfortable when partner is giving what he believes is wrong information) and said "is this correct", he could have received the benefit of the misbid from East?

It would appear that the dummy is better off correcting partner's explanation if he is in doubt until after a face down opening lead is made. If you are wrong, and partner is right, RHO doesn't have the benefit of your misbid. If you are right, and partner is wrong, well, there might be an adjustment based on MI.

[barmar]

20F5bii says that East must call the TD and inform the opponents about the (believed) misexplanation after the final pass of the auction. Is there any rectification allowed if East is not quick enough and North makes his lead before he does this? Is North really required to allow time for this or forfeit some advantage? If he glanced at the E/W CC and saw that it confirmed the explanation given, why would he wait (unless he was able to discern that East's discomfort was due to this)?

A number of laws refer to action taken due to a mistaken explanation, but there don't seem to be any that talk about mistaken corrections.

[FrancesHinden]

There's been a lot of discussion in the EBU recently about the generic position:


- NS are the declaring side
- EW receive an explanation from North during the auction
- South believes the explanation is wrong, but says nothing about this at the point when he's supposed to (after the final pass of the auction)
- It transpires that in fact the explanation was correct all along, so EW have not been misinformed
- However, if EW had known about South's misunderstanding earlier they would/might have done better

There are various WBF & (now) EBU minutes confirming that EW are not actually entitled to know about the misunderstanding as such i.e. all they are entitled to know is the partnership agreement.
Thus North isn't allowed to change his opening lead here (as an example).

However, as Phil points out, this is a strong incentive to cheat.

In the case that came to attention recently, South thought they were playing 1430 rather than 3041, and gave the wrong reply to blackwood. His partner bid a grand which was off an ace. South didn't correct partner's explanation before the opening lead, and got a trump lead, making the contract - while if the defence knew it was off an ace they at least had a chance to beat it on the go. It was observed that if South's only penalty for failing to "correct" the explanation is a slap on the wrist (a procedural penalty) then no-one in this position will ever voluntarily correct an explanation if it might cause a game (or slam) swing otherwise.

So we said that, in summary, you can't change your lead but the TD can adjust under L23 as much as he likes as well as, possibly, penalising for not calling the TD when he should have done.

[barmar]

This seems like a difficult thing to get right in the Laws -- no matter how they're written or interpreted, there will be cases where someone is screwed by the technicalities, not their actions. My understanding is that the ideal of full disclosure is to mimic the situation where the opponents have full access to all your system notes, as well as your partnership history, so they know what all your bids are supposed to mean. But this is obviously not feasible, so we make do with explanations, as well as corrections to explanations.

To get closest to the ideal, the Laws treat equity as being restored if the opponents are given an explanation consistent with the pair's agreements. We're not aiming for something equivalent to telepathy, where you know what's in the minds of the opponents.

Most of the time, misbids and confusion will hurt the side at fault; on the occasions where they come out ahead as a result, that's rub of the green.

[c_corgi]

Frances, I am trying to get my head round this: does it add up to: there needs to be evidence that the mistake was your call rather than partner's explanation, otherwise the TD will/may assume that you should have called him and given your version of the explanation. Thus the existence of a misunderstanding should have come to light and been available to the opponents?

[bluejak]

25B2 is a Law, which has to be followed, yes? In fact the word "must" appears in 25B2? Is not failure to follow it an infraction?

[barmar]

I don't see the word "must" in 25B2.

Quote

Except as in 1 a substitution not permitted by A is cancelled. The original call stands and the auction continues.

Did you mistype the law number? There's no "must" anywhere in Law 25 (Legal and Illegal Changes of Call).

[FrancesHinden]

barmar, on 2012-April-03, 13:58, said:

I don't see the word "must" in 25B2.

Did you mistype the law number? There's no "must" anywhere in Law 25 (Legal and Illegal Changes of Call).

I think he means 20F5bii

[FrancesHinden]

c_corgi, on 2012-April-02, 16:23, said:

Frances, I am trying to get my head round this: does it add up to: there needs to be evidence that the mistake was your call rather than partner's explanation, otherwise the TD will/may assume that you should have called him and given your version of the explanation. Thus the existence of a misunderstanding should have come to light and been available to the opponents?

Yes.

It's remarkably common to find someone saying afterwards "oh as soon as I heard my partner's explanation I knew I'd got the system wrong so I didn't need to say anything", but simply hearing partner give a different explanation to the one you thought you were playing shouldn't usually be enough to convince you that you were wrong. instead, people have an instinctive reaction to keep quiet and say nothing because they think that is "safer" and will stop them getting a bad board.

The TD isn't obliged to adjust on this basis, but he can do.

[bluejak]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-April-03, 14:52, said:

I think he means 20F5bii

Exactly.

[blackshoe]

The word "must" in Law 20F5{b} signifies not only that failure to follow it is an infraction, but that it is one which should draw a procedural penalty "more often than not". Despite which it does not draw a procedural penalty very often at all, if ever.

I forget at the moment which particular law it is, but when I pointed out to a local director that whichever one it was gave the declarer some option or other, her response was "that's not gonna happen". It's not just players who think they can pick and choose which laws to follow and which to ignore.

[TimG]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-April-02, 14:22, said:

In the case that came to attention recently, South thought they were playing 1430 rather than 3041, and gave the wrong reply to blackwood. His partner bid a grand which was off an ace. South didn't correct partner's explanation before the opening lead, and got a trump lead, making the contract - while if the defence knew it was off an ace they at least had a chance to beat it on the go. It was observed that if South's only penalty for failing to "correct" the explanation is a slap on the wrist (a procedural penalty) then no-one in this position will ever voluntarily correct an explanation if it might cause a game (or slam) swing otherwise.

This isn't really a failure to correct, but a failure to disclose a misbid, isn't it? North correctly explains the partnership agreement which wakes South up to the fact that he misbid. The Laws don't require disclosure of a misbid, do they? Just disclosure of partnership agreement.

Now, if South bid according to agreement and let the opponents think that North's incorrect explanation accurately described the partnership agreement, then South is liable to penalty beyond restoration of equity. This means that there is incentive for South to speak up whenever he thinks he bid correctly according to partnership agreement, but little or no incentive to speak up when he thinks he has made an error and deviated from partnership agreement.

Are you saying that you want South to be encouraged to disclose the misbid?

[barmar]

20F5 only applies when a mistaken explanation has been given. But in this case, there was no mistaken explanation. I know 20F5b says "in his opinion", but this seems to be subsequent to the mistaken explanation actually occurring, as mentioned in 20F5a. Although if his opinion didn't matter for the need to call the TD, why mention it at all?

Perhaps for a "Changes to Laws" thread, I'd suggest that 20F5 be rearranged. FIRST say that when you believe your partner has given an incorrect explanation, you must call the TD at the appropriate time, and not earlier or later. THEN describe the appropriate times, depending on whether you become the declaring or defending side.

It seems like this situation gives the defenders an automatic double shot. When they've been given two explanations, one of them must be incorrect, and they can claim damage from it.

[bluejak]

The point about this hand is that the lead may be changed if it is based on MI. The TD ruled there was no MI so the lead was not allowed to be changed. Fair enough.

The player argued that Law 20F2B or whatever it is [please correct me again!] was breached because the player failed to do what the player shoud have done. There was no argument that if the player had said "My 2♣ asked partner for his major, it did not show diamonds" the opening leader would have led a diamond [being 3=3=4=3] even though his partner would have disagreed and convinced the TD that the explanation was correct. A diamond lead beats 3NT.

The player asked for an adjustment under Law 12A1 since there was a breach of the above Law and no rectification was provided by that Law.

What do you think? Should the TD have adjusted?

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2012-April-05, 06:19, said:

The point about this hand is that the lead may be changed if it is based on MI. The TD ruled there was no MI so the lead was not allowed to be changed. Fair enough.

The player argued that Law 20F2B or whatever it is [please correct me again!] was breached because the player failed to do what the player shoud have done. There was no argument that if the player had said "My 2♣ asked partner for his major, it did not show diamonds" the opening leader would have led a diamond [being 3=3=4=3] even though his partner would have disagreed and convinced the TD that the explanation was correct. A diamond lead beats 3NT.

The player asked for an adjustment under Law 12A1 since there was a breach of the above Law and no rectification was provided by that Law.

What do you think? Should the TD have adjusted?

Yes, I think it's clear to adjust. A rule was broken, the offender gained as a result, and the non-offenders suffered. That's what 12A1 is for.

[blackshoe]

20F5{b}{ii}.

No. The rectification is provided in Law 20F6, and depends on the TD determining that there was MI. As the TD determined there was no MI, there is nothing to rectify. The player concerned, however, has failed to do what he "must" do, so normally he should get a PP. OTOH, Frances pointed out that

Quote

It's remarkably common to find someone saying afterwards "oh as soon as I heard my partner's explanation I knew I'd got the system wrong so I didn't need to say anything", but simply hearing partner give a different explanation to the one you thought you were playing shouldn't usually be enough to convince you that you were wrong. instead, people have an instinctive reaction to keep quiet and say nothing because they think that is "safer" and will stop them getting a bad board

so the TD is going to have to judge whether there is enough evidence to believe that the player was indeed convinced he was wrong.

[gnasher]

There's nothing new under the sun:

http://groups.google...f70ed877ee3e976