[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-April-22, 10:39, said:

- Almost everybody else thinks that LAs are determined by considering only the authorised information.

So, I presume you would alert 3D and, if asked, explain it as a transfer to hearts. If so, you are a member of the de Wael school, which also has very few members. Or do you think that the partnership methods are AI for alerting purposes but not for choosing LAs?

[PhilKing]

lamford, on 2013-April-22, 11:03, said:

So, I presume you would alert 3D and, if asked, explain it as a transfer to hearts.

I would alert, since I am not allowed to breach 73C.

Alerting screws partner, generally, so WTP?

[aguahombre]

PhilKing, on 2013-April-22, 11:12, said:

I would alert, since I am not allowed to breach 73C.

Alerting screws partner, generally, so WTP?

All alerting (or announcing) the transfer does is make partner also subject to sanctions about acting upon UI; he can't use it either, and it shouldn't change his next bid.

[PhilKing]

aguahombre, on 2013-April-22, 11:46, said:

All alerting (or announcing) the transfer does is make partner also subject to sanctions about acting upon UI; he can't use it either, and it shouldn't change his next bid.

But it reduces his scope for bailing us out. For instance, in this case, when we alert 3♦ giving partner UI, if he now bids 3NT the opponents will claim foul (incorrectly imo, but bear with me). Where we don't alert and bid 3♥, an intelligent partner should work out what has happened anyway, since the opponents silence makes it impossible for us to have a "Hastings" (a 1-0-6-6), but now there is no sanction for bidding 3NT.

The argument usually, goes "he might have worked it out, but your alert made it easy", so you get ruled against. Therefore, I believe we are obliged to alert to maximise the chances of getting screwed by officialdom.

[blackshoe]

If your partner alerts your 2NT bid and explains it as both minors, and that wakes you up to the fact that you have misbid and your partner has given a correct explanation of your partnership understanding, then to alert 3♦ and explain it as a transfer is illegal.

[PhilKing]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-22, 13:12, said:

If your partner alerts your 2NT bid and explains it as both minors, and that wakes you up to the fact that you have misbid and your partner has given a correct explanation of your partnership understanding, then to alert 3♦ and explain it as a transfer is illegal.

Not saying you are wrong, but under which law?

[blackshoe]

20F1

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-22, 13:25, said:

20F1

Try again. It shouldn't be legal to alert/announce a bid which you know is not systemic, even though you have to assume it is systemic when you continue. But, 20F1 aint it.

[jallerton]

The EBU's interpretation of this part of the Law is described in the EBU Orange Book, which says:

Quote

3 D 6 If a player realises that he has given an incorrect or incomplete explanation, or has not alerted one of partner’s alertable calls (or has alerted a call which is not alertable), then he must immediately call the TD to explain the situation. However, if he is now unsure who is correct he should leave it until the end of the hand and explain then.
3 D 7 It is proper to use any unauthorised information which has been made available by partner to help a player to decide to alert and explain the partnership agreement as accurately as he can, but of course unauthorised information must not be used to help in the bidding and play.
3 D 8 If as a result of partner’s explanation a player realises he has forgotten the partnership agreement and has therefore misbid, he must continue to call as if in ignorance of the correct meaning of the call, until it is obvious from the auction that something is amiss.(Law 73C)
3 D 9 Suppose an opponent opens 1♦ and a player overcalls with 1NT, which he believes to be natural. Partner alerts and explains correctly that this shows longer Clubs and a shorter major (called Raptor). Now partner bids 2♥ which is ‘pass or correct’ according to the partnership agreement as part of Raptor. The player should alert, and explain it as ‘pass or correct’ if asked, since this is the agreed system. However, the player would have taken it as a transfer if partner’s alert had not ‘woken him up’, so he must complete the transfer, not taking any advantage from the unauthorised information provided by partner’s alert and explanation.
3 D 10 If partner has given an incorrect or incomplete explanation, or one of a player’s alertable calls has not been alerted (or a call which is not alertable has been alerted),or an incorrect announcement made, the player must not take any advantage. He must not choose any call suggested by the fact that he knows there may be a problem with
the auction, either because he realises that partner’s bidding may be wrong, or because he is now unsure whether it is he or his partner who has gone wrong.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2013-April-22, 13:33, said:

Try again. It shouldn't be legal to alert/announce a bid which you know is not systemic, even though you have to assume it is systemic when you continue. But, 20F1 aint it.

What we have here is a... failure... to communicate.

You misbid. Partner's explanation (or alert, I don't care which) woke you up, and you now know that your partnership agreement is that partner's 3♦ bid shows preference for diamonds, and no interest in game opposite a weak 5-5. What you have in your hand is irrelevant to this — you must explain partner's 3♦ bid according to the partnership agreement. And 20F1 is the relevant law.

You may still disagree. If so, all I can say is "20F1 ain't it" is not an adequate counterargument.

[aguahombre]

20F1 tells us what to explain when asked to explain. It doesn't tell us whether to alert or announce something.

[blackshoe]

I was talking about explanations, not alerts. The alert regulation covers those. Does a "pass or correct" 3♦ (if that's what this is) require an alert? If so, you alert it. If not, you do not alert it. The fact that 3♦ meaning "transfer to hearts" requires an announcement is irrelevant.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-April-22, 10:39, said:

Anyway, maybe your post on BLML will give us some idea of the legislators' intent.

It did. There is a WBFLC minute of 2009 that "a more specific law overrides a general law". Therefore Law 75A, which nobody seems to have picked up on for some reason, overrides Law 16B, and "whether or not the explanation is correct", a player has to act as though, in this example, his partner is making a transfer. I have now changed my view entirely, and now agree with campboy and gnasher.

[nige1]

On BLML, Richard Hills says the specific law 75 over-rides the general 16B1:

TFLB L75 said:

LAW 75 - MISTAKEN EXPLANATION OR MISTAKEN CALL
After a misleading explanation has been given to opponents the responsibilities of the players (and the Director) are as illustrated by the consequences of this following example:
North has opened 1NT and South, who holds a weak hand with long diamonds, has bid 2♦, intending to sign off; North explains, however, in answer to West's inquiry, that South's bid is strong and artificial, asking for major suits.
A. Mistake Causing Unauthorized Information
Whether or not North's explanation is a correct statement of partnership agreement, South, having heard North's explanation, knows that his own 2♦ bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is unauthorized information (see Law 16A), so South must be careful to avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information (see Law 73C). (If he does, the Director shall award an adjusted score.) For instance, if North rebids two no trump, South has the unauthorized information that this bid merely denies a four-card holding in either major suit; but South's responsibility is to act as though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak response, showing maximum values.
B. Mistaken Explanation
The actual partnership agreement is that 2♦ is a natural signoff; the mistake was in North's explanation. This explanation is an infraction of Law, since East-West are entitled to an accurate description of the North-South agreement (when this infraction results in damage to East-West, the Director shall award an adjusted score). If North subsequently becomes aware of his mistake, he must immediately notify the Director. South must do nothing to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues; after the final pass, South, if he is to be declarer or dummy, should call the Director and must volunteer a correction of the explanation. If South becomes a defender, he calls the Director and corrects the explanation when play ends.
C. Mistaken Call
The partnership agreement is as explained 2♦ is strong and artificial; the mistake was in South's call. Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands. (Regardless of damage, the Director shall allow the result to stand; but the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.) South must not correct North's explanation (or notify the Director) immediately, and he has no responsibility to do so subsequently.

General sigh of relief and triple cherry-brandies all round

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-22, 13:12, said:

then to alert 3♦ and explain it as a transfer is illegal.

PhilKing, on 2013-April-22, 13:17, said:

under which law?

aguahombre, on 2013-April-22, 13:33, said:

Try again. It shouldn't be legal to alert/announce a bid which you know is not systemic, even though you have to assume it is systemic when you continue. But, 20F1 aint it.

blackshoe, on 2013-April-22, 14:56, said:

What we have here is a... failure... to communicate.

blackshoe, on 2013-April-22, 15:18, said:

I was talking about explanations, not alerts.

I agree on our failure to communicate. You wrote about alerts, cited 20FI which doesn't address alerts, and then said you weren't talking about alerts.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-April-20, 13:22, said:

It's perhaps worth pointing out that there are several other Laws which are not interpreted as written by any bridge authority anywhere. The best example is 74A2, "A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game." If we applied this literally that would sometimes make it illegal to make a penalty double, bid a thin slam, endplay an opponent, or call the director in the face of a potential infraction.

I think that the WBFLC minute of 2009 suggests that the more specific Laws which allow the actions in question would override that general law. Just as:
"Law 40 A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is
not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding"
has to be overriden by the various more specific Laws governing UI and forced passes.
It might be sensible to include that minute in the Laws. Some think that the general 73C overrides other Laws but I don't think it does.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2013-April-22, 17:03, said:

I agree on our failure to communicate. You wrote about alerts, cited 20FI which doesn't address alerts, and then said you weren't talking about alerts.

Well, if that's the case, apparently I'm too senile to be posting here.

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2013-April-22, 16:50, said:

It did. There is a WBFLC minute of 2009 that "a more specific law overrides a general law". Therefore Law 75A, which nobody seems to have picked up on for some reason, overrides Law 16B, and "whether or not the explanation is correct", a player has to act as though, in this example, his partner is making a transfer. I have now changed my view entirely, and now agree with campboy and gnasher.

Does this mean that you now agree with Mike Swanson's suggested ruling in the scenario you mentioned in the opening post to this topic?

Maybe no-one mentioned Law 75A becuase they stopped at Law 73, by which time they had already come to the correct conclusion. Law 75 seems to be explaining how Laws 16, 20 and 73C fit together, for the benefit of anybody who has not worked this out already.

[Cascade]

PhilKing, on 2013-April-22, 13:17, said:

Not saying you are wrong, but under which law?

You are deliberately giving misinformation to the opponents. I haven't looked but I am sure you are not entitled to deliberately give the opponents false information. You are also deliberately giving partner unauthorised information that you have forgotten your agreement.

[Cascade]

lamford, on 2013-April-22, 16:50, said:

It did. There is a WBFLC minute of 2009 that "a more specific law overrides a general law". Therefore Law 75A, which nobody seems to have picked up on for some reason, overrides Law 16B, and "whether or not the explanation is correct", a player has to act as though, in this example, his partner is making a transfer. I have now changed my view entirely, and now agree with campboy and gnasher.

Law 16 seems pretty specific on how logical alternatives are determined. Perhaps a procedural penalty or adjustment can be awarded under L75A but one cannot make a Law 16 adjustment based on logical alternatives when what is ruled is not a logical alternative in the partnerships methods.