Hypothetical ruling
John R. Mayne
Andy Bowles wrote:
>
> North makes a bid which he is sure, in his partnership's methods, means
> X. South explains North's bid as meaning Y. North becomes declarer.
> North does not correct South's explanation, even though he is sure that
> in the partnership's methods his bid means X rather than Y. After the
> hand is over, North-South are able to prove that in their system North's
> bid means Y.
>
> Should North be penalised for his actions?
Good question! I'd educate North. If it were clear that North was just
hoping the director wouldn't be called or the like, I might entertain a
PP.
>
> Suppose that East-West would have improved their score if they had known
> that North intended his bid as meaning X. Are they entitled to any
> redress?
No. Opponents are entitled to the actual agreement only. If North has
done this a couple of times before, his forgetfulness may be part of an
implicit agreement, however.
--JRM
John R. Mayne
David Stevenson wrote:
>
> John R. Mayne <jrm...@mindspring.com> wrote
> >Andy Bowles wrote:
>
> >> North makes a bid which he is sure, in his partnership's methods, means
> >> X. South explains North's bid as meaning Y. North becomes declarer.
> >> North does not correct South's explanation, even though he is sure that
> >> in the partnership's methods his bid means X rather than Y. After the
> >> hand is over, North-South are able to prove that in their system North's
> >> bid means Y.
> >>
> >> Should North be penalised for his actions?
>
> >Good question! I'd educate North. If it were clear that North was just
> >hoping the director wouldn't be called or the like, I might entertain a
> >PP.
>
> NP so far. North has certainly committed an infraction by not telling
> the oppos that the agreement is X because the Laws require this.
>
> >> Suppose that East-West would have improved their score if they had known
> >> that North intended his bid as meaning X. Are they entitled to any
> >> redress?
>
> >No. Opponents are entitled to the actual agreement only. If North has
> >done this a couple of times before, his forgetfulness may be part of an
> >implicit agreement, however.
>
> You know, I think this is wrong. Surely you have a right to the oppos
> following the Laws of Bridge? So why no redress if they do not follow
> the Laws?
>
What law have they violated? This was an attempted violation, not an
actual one.
If I intend to vandalize my neighbors car, but inadvertantly key my own,
my neighbor has no civil redress available (I don't owe him cash.)
However, I may be susceptible to criminal penalties for doing so.
(Attempted vandalism)
I submit that this is analagous. The opponents have no right to N's
*wrong* belief.
--JRM
Andy Bowles
X. South explains North's bid as meaning Y. North becomes declarer.
North does not correct South's explanation, even though he is sure that
in the partnership's methods his bid means X rather than Y. After the
hand is over, North-South are able to prove that in their system North's
bid means Y.
Should North be penalised for his actions?
Suppose that East-West would have improved their score if they had known
David Stevenson
>Andy Bowles wrote:
>> North makes a bid which he is sure, in his partnership's methods, means
>> X. South explains North's bid as meaning Y. North becomes declarer.
>> North does not correct South's explanation, even though he is sure that
>> in the partnership's methods his bid means X rather than Y. After the
>> hand is over, North-South are able to prove that in their system North's
>> bid means Y.
>>
>> Should North be penalised for his actions?
>Good question! I'd educate North. If it were clear that North was just
>hoping the director wouldn't be called or the like, I might entertain a
>PP.
NP so far. North has certainly committed an infraction by not telling
the oppos that the agreement is X because the Laws require this.
>> Suppose that East-West would have improved their score if they had known
>> that North intended his bid as meaning X. Are they entitled to any
>> redress?
>No. Opponents are entitled to the actual agreement only. If North has
>done this a couple of times before, his forgetfulness may be part of an
>implicit agreement, however.
You know, I think this is wrong. Surely you have a right to the oppos
following the Laws of Bridge? So why no redress if they do not follow
the Laws?
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @
<bri...@blakjak.com> ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )=
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~
Sven Pran
rules on this matter being rather strictly enforced here in Norway:
1: When auction has been completed and before any opening lead has
been made both Declarer and Dummy must alert defenders of any
explanation error (including missing alert!) that has occurred from their
side during the auction. (Defenders must not offer such information on
errors from their side until the play of the board has been completed).
Thus, in the situation described North must alert the defenders that
when South explained the bid to mean X this was wrong, the
meaning was Y. If South now agrees he just apologies, but if North is
in error (and the explanation was in fact correct) this should be clarified
before the play begins.
The purpose of this procedure is to protect defenders as much as
possible from damage due to procedural errors by opponents.
2: If players can (after the play), with some significant probability, claim
that they have been damaged due to error(s) from opponents then TD
should adjust the score on the board to the best result that would have
been likely for the non failing side had the error(s) not occurred.
However no redress shall be given for (additional) damage that has been
caused from negligent or bad play by the otherwise non-failing side.
(Players shall not be permitted to both eat their cake and have it!).
3: TD has additional powers to adjust score for the failing side for
"punishment" to the failing side if he finds that justified.
I have a feeling that this clarifies the case?
regards Sven
Andy Bowles <andy....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:x_A%4.1666$z.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> North makes a bid which he is sure, in his partnership's methods, means
> X. South explains North's bid as meaning Y. North becomes declarer.
> North does not correct South's explanation, even though he is sure that
> in the partnership's methods his bid means X rather than Y. After the
> hand is over, North-South are able to prove that in their system North's
> bid means Y.
>
> Should North be penalised for his actions?
>
Jens Brix Christiansen
> >> X. South explains North's bid as meaning Y. North becomes declarer.
> >> North does not correct South's explanation, even though he is sure that
> >> in the partnership's methods his bid means X rather than Y. After the
> >> hand is over, North-South are able to prove that in their system North's
> >> bid means Y.
> >>
> >> Should North be penalised for his actions?
>
> >hoping the director wouldn't be called or the like, I might entertain a
> >PP.
>
> NP so far. North has certainly committed an infraction by not telling
> the oppos that the agreement is X because the Laws require this.
Certainly. L75D2 requires North to speak up when, *in his opinion*, his
partner's explanation is erroneous. Failure to do so is an infraction.
> >> Suppose that East-West would have improved their score if they had known
> >> that North intended his bid as meaning X. Are they entitled to any
> >> redress?
>
> >No. Opponents are entitled to the actual agreement only. If North has
> >done this a couple of times before, his forgetfulness may be part of an
> >implicit agreement, however.
>
> You know, I think this is wrong. Surely you have a right to the oppos
> following the Laws of Bridge? So why no redress if they do not follow
> the Laws?
To be formal about it:
1. N has committed an infraction
2. EW would have had a better score if he had not committed that
infraction
3. The laws don't explicitly mention what to do in this particular case
It is now appropriate to adjust the score under L12A1:
The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges that
these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for
the particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent.
Jonathan R. Siegel
> North makes a bid which he is sure, in his partnership's methods, means
> X. South explains North's bid as meaning Y. North becomes declarer.
> North does not correct South's explanation, even though he is sure that
> in the partnership's methods his bid means X rather than Y. After the
> hand is over, North-South are able to prove that in their system North's
> bid means Y.
>
> Should North be penalised for his actions?
>
> Suppose that East-West would have improved their score if they had known
> that North intended his bid as meaning X. Are they entitled to any
> redress?
Of course David Stevenson is usually right about Law matters, but here I
have a different opinion.
The Laws entitle the opponents to a correct explanation of your agreements,
not to an explanation of what you intended by any particular bid. The
footnote to Law 75D makes clear, I think, what the Law is in this case. In
quoting the footnote, I will reverse the directions to fit with the
hypothetical given in the original post here.
The footnote says: "South has opened 1NT and North, who holds a weak hand
with long diamonds,
has bid 2D, intending to sign off; South explains, however, in answer to
East's inquiry, that North's bid is strong and artificial, asking for major
suits."
So, in the language of the original post, "X" is "weak sign-off" and "Y" is
"strong and artificial, asking for major suits." North thought the bid
meant X; South explained that it meant Y.
The footnote goes on to consider what happens if Y is the correct
explanation. In this case, "The partnership agreement is as explained - 2D
is strong and artificial; the mistake was in North's bid. 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."
So if, as in the question asked in the post, the actual agreement is Y, as
South explained, then there is no infraction. East-West are entitled to no
redress.
The fact that North thought the bid meant something other than what it meant
according to partnership agreements is irrelevant. The opponents are
entitled to the agreements, not to North's mental processes. In the example
given in the Law 75D footnote, North thought 2D meant sign-off and this was
wrong, but the footnote states that there is no infraction.
Now a couple of comments on what others have said so far. Stevenson:
> North has certainly committed an infraction by not telling
> the oppos that the agreement is X because the Laws require this.
>
How can the Laws require that North give an *incorrect* explanation? The
Laws require a correct explanation. If North told the opponents that the
agreement was X, that would be misinformation.
Christiansen:
> L75D2 requires North to speak up when, *in his opinion*, his
> partner's explanation is erroneous. Failure to do so is an infraction.
>
Law 75D2 does use the words "in his opinion," but the condition for that
sentence to apply is that there have been a mistaken explanation. In the
hypothetical here, there is no mistaken explanation. While the question of
North's behavior is not quite as clear as the question of whether East-West
are entitled to redress, I would say that North's obligations are ultimately
a product of North-South's actual agreements, not North's beliefs about
those agreements.
In accordance with the fundamental principle that the opponents are entitled
to an explanation of the actual partnership agreements, not to a description
of anyone's hand on a particular deal, North's failure to "correct" South's
already-correct explanation was not an infraction.
Of course, there is the possibility of a different infraction, because
South's explanation was unauthorized information for North. If North woke
up and made different bids because of hearing South's explanation, there
could be a UI problem. But that is different from the question asked.
Jon Siegel
Mike Vaughn
<bne...@blakjak.com> wrote:
> John R. Mayne <jrm...@mindspring.com> wrote
> >Andy Bowles wrote:
>
> >> North makes a bid which he is sure, in his partnership's methods, means
> >> X. South explains North's bid as meaning Y. North becomes declarer.
> >> North does not correct South's explanation, even though he is sure that
> >> in the partnership's methods his bid means X rather than Y. After the
> >> hand is over, North-South are able to prove that in their system North's
> >> bid means Y.
> >>
> >> Should North be penalised for his actions?
> >Good question! I'd educate North. If it were clear that North was just
> >hoping the director wouldn't be called or the like, I might entertain a
> >PP.
> NP so far. North has certainly committed an infraction by not telling
> the oppos that the agreement is X because the Laws require this.
The Laws require disclosure of partnership agreements. In particular,
I suspect this means that opponents are entitled to what S understands
to be the meaning of the N bid. If S actions are consistent with his
explanations of the understanding, then isn't S the one to explain the
agreement with regard to N bidding?
> >> Suppose that East-West would have improved their score if they had known
> >> that North intended his bid as meaning X. Are they entitled to any
> >> redress?
> >No. Opponents are entitled to the actual agreement only. If North has
> >done this a couple of times before, his forgetfulness may be part of an
> >implicit agreement, however.
> You know, I think this is wrong. Surely you have a right to the oppos
> following the Laws of Bridge? So why no redress if they do not follow
> the Laws?
If S has given an accurate and consistent explanation of the agreement
as s/he understands it, doesn't that comply with the laws? Assuming
also, of course, that N does not wake up on hearing S explanation.
If the two assumptions above are incorreect, then the matter is more
serious.
Jens Brix Christiansen
> Christiansen:
>
> > L75D2 requires North to speak up when, *in his opinion*, his
> > partner's explanation is erroneous. Failure to do so is an infraction.
> >
> Law 75D2 does use the words "in his opinion," but the condition for that
> sentence to apply is that there have been a mistaken explanation.
I agree that my interpretation would be much more clear-cut if "in his
opinion" had been part of the first clause of L75D1. I suppose I ought
to submit that as a request for change to the WBF Laws Committee.
> In the
> hypothetical here, there is no mistaken explanation. While the question of
> North's behavior is not quite as clear as the question of whether East-West
> are entitled to redress, I would say that North's obligations are ultimately
> a product of North-South's actual agreements, not North's beliefs about
> those agreements.
I see your point, but I disagree. I have seen too many cases where
players who neglected to correct a discrepancy between partner's
explanation and their own interpretation fielded the excuse that
"partner's recollection of our agreement is as likely to be right as my
own." I don't buy that excuse; I throw the book at them, telling them
that the principle of full disclosure is there to ensure that the
opponents get whatever information is relevant about your agreements,
not to provide holes where you can hide information about your
agreements.
I interpret L75D2 as follows: If you disagree with partner's
explanation of your agreements, you must draw attention to this
disagreement at the time stipulated. You can only refrain from drawing
attention to the disagreement if you become certain, on hearing
partner's explanation, that you have indeed misbid. Of course, if you
have misbid intentionally, you have known your agreement all along, and
there is no disagreement about your methods in the first place.
I therefore maintain that North's silence is an infraction of Law 75D2.
> In accordance with the fundamental principle that the opponents are entitled
> to an explanation of the actual partnership agreements, not to a description
> of anyone's hand on a particular deal, North's failure to "correct" South's
> already-correct explanation was not an infraction.
This fundamental principle is useful for determining that North's misbid
is not an infraction and that North's failure to call attention to his
misbid is not an infraction. However, in my opinion, North's failure to
call attention to what he believes to be a mistaken explanation is an
infraction, regardless of the fundamental principle.
> Of course, there is the possibility of a different infraction, because
> South's explanation was unauthorized information for North. If North woke
> up and made different bids because of hearing South's explanation, there
> could be a UI problem. But that is different from the question asked.
Of course. Let us not let that cloud the issue here.
Dave
<j...@dksin.dk> wrote:
>
>I interpret L75D2 as follows: If you disagree with partner's
>explanation of your agreements, you must draw attention to this
>disagreement at the time stipulated. You can only refrain from drawing
>attention to the disagreement if you become certain, on hearing
>partner's explanation, that you have indeed misbid. Of course, if you
>have misbid intentionally, you have known your agreement all along, and
>there is no disagreement about your methods in the first place.
>
>I therefore maintain that North's silence is an infraction of Law 75D2.
As a the practical matter, isn't it difficult to establish North's
infraction because the only evidence that can distinguish a misbid
from the infraction you describe is to divine North's state of mind
after South's explanation? The testimony of a North who deliberately
violates the this Law is likely to be self-serving and there does not
seem to be any way of disproving this testimony.
Also, should the penalty benefit E/W when North's silence did not keep
any information from them that they were entitled to had North just
misbid? To a layman like me, it seems more appropriate to penalize
North, with the penalty not changing E/W's score.
Jens Brix Christiansen
>
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 17:46:38 +0200, Jens Brix Christiansen
> <j...@dksin.dk> wrote:
>
> >
> >I interpret L75D2 as follows: If you disagree with partner's
> >explanation of your agreements, you must draw attention to this
> >disagreement at the time stipulated. You can only refrain from drawing
> >attention to the disagreement if you become certain, on hearing
> >partner's explanation, that you have indeed misbid. Of course, if you
> >have misbid intentionally, you have known your agreement all along, and
> >there is no disagreement about your methods in the first place.
> >
> >I therefore maintain that North's silence is an infraction of Law 75D2.
>
> As a the practical matter, isn't it difficult to establish North's
> infraction because the only evidence that can distinguish a misbid
> from the infraction you describe is to divine North's state of mind
> after South's explanation? The testimony of a North who deliberately
> violates the this Law is likely to be self-serving and there does not
> seem to be any way of disproving this testimony.
Although the testimony can be self-serving, it is still often possible
to find out why North did not say anything. Even though we all make
self-serving statements from time to time, most of us don't usually lie
outright.
> Also, should the penalty benefit E/W when North's silence did not keep
> any information from them that they were entitled to had North just
> misbid? To a layman like me, it seems more appropriate to penalize
> North, with the penalty not changing E/W's score.
Well, there is a counter to that argument. For the purpose of that
counter-argument, please take for granted that North is obliged to
mention his disagreement with South.
Now assume that North at table one and at North table two land in
exactly the same situation.
At table one, North explains at the stipulated time that he disagrees
with his partner's explanation. EW understand what is going on and they
get a good score.
At table two, North violates the law and remains silent, and EW do not
get a good score. So EW were damaged by North's infraction. The
overall purpose of adjusting scores is to give non-offenders
compensation for damage caused by their opponents' infractions.
Stu Goodgold
j...@dksin.dk wrote:
>
> I interpret L75D2 as follows: If you disagree with partner's
> explanation of your agreements, you must draw attention to this
> disagreement at the time stipulated. You can only refrain from
drawing
> attention to the disagreement if you become certain, on hearing
> partner's explanation, that you have indeed misbid. Of course, if you
> have misbid intentionally, you have known your agreement all along,
and
> there is no disagreement about your methods in the first place.
>
> I therefore maintain that North's silence is an infraction of Law
75D2.
>
Therefore, if the explanation woke him up to the possibility of a
misbid, then North is not allowed to use that information and must
proceed on the assumption that his original understanding is correct.
Hence, he is obligated to offer E/W what he first perceived as a correct
explanation.
--
-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
David Stevenson
>> >> North makes a bid which he is sure, in his partnership's methods, means
>> >> X. South explains North's bid as meaning Y. North becomes declarer.
>> >> North does not correct South's explanation, even though he is sure that
>> >> in the partnership's methods his bid means X rather than Y. After the
>> >> hand is over, North-South are able to prove that in their system North's
>> >> bid means Y.
>> >>
>> >> Should North be penalised for his actions?
>> >Good question! I'd educate North. If it were clear that North was just
>> >hoping the director wouldn't be called or the like, I might entertain a
>> >PP.
>> NP so far. North has certainly committed an infraction by not telling
>> the oppos that the agreement is X because the Laws require this.
>> >> Suppose that East-West would have improved their score if they had known
>> >> that North intended his bid as meaning X. Are they entitled to any
>> >> redress?
>> >No. Opponents are entitled to the actual agreement only. If North has
>> >done this a couple of times before, his forgetfulness may be part of an
>> >implicit agreement, however.
>> You know, I think this is wrong. Surely you have a right to the oppos
>> following the Laws of Bridge? So why no redress if they do not follow
>> the Laws?
>What law have they violated? This was an attempted violation, not an
>actual one.
Sorry, it was a violation of L75D2:
A player whose partner has given a
mistaken explanation may not correct the
error before the final pass, nor may he
indicate in any manner that a mistake
has been made; a defender may not
correct the error until play ends. After
calling the Director at the earliest
legal opportunity (after the final pass,
if he is to be declarer or dummy; after
play ends, if he is to be a defender),
the player must inform the opponents
that, in his opinion, his partner's
explanation was erroneous.
Note especially the words "must" and "in his opinion".
>If I intend to vandalize my neighbors car, but inadvertantly key my own,
>my neighbor has no civil redress available (I don't owe him cash.)
>However, I may be susceptible to criminal penalties for doing so.
>(Attempted vandalism)
>
>I submit that this is analagous. The opponents have no right to N's
>*wrong* belief.
They have a right to him telling them that because L75D2 says he must.
David Stevenson
>Now a couple of comments on what others have said so far. Stevenson:
>
>> North has certainly committed an infraction by not telling
>> the oppos that the agreement is X because the Laws require this.
>>
>How can the Laws require that North give an *incorrect* explanation? The
>Laws require a correct explanation. If North told the opponents that the
>agreement was X, that would be misinformation.
>
>Christiansen:
>
>> L75D2 requires North to speak up when, *in his opinion*, his
>> partner's explanation is erroneous. Failure to do so is an infraction.
>>
>Law 75D2 does use the words "in his opinion," but the condition for that
>sentence to apply is that there have been a mistaken explanation. In the
>hypothetical here, there is no mistaken explanation. While the question of
>North's behavior is not quite as clear as the question of whether East-West
>are entitled to redress, I would say that North's obligations are ultimately
>a product of North-South's actual agreements, not North's beliefs about
>those agreements.
This is wrong. Just read the actual wording of L75D2. Sure, the
footnote deals with cases where the actual meaning becomes known, but
the Law itself is clear: the player "must" correct it so failure to do
so is an infraction. It does not have to be a wrong explanation - you
have assumed that but the Law does not say so: it has to be a wrong
explanation *in the player's opinion*.
David Stevenson
>On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 17:46:38 +0200, Jens Brix Christiansen
>
>>
>>I interpret L75D2 as follows: If you disagree with partner's
>>explanation of your agreements, you must draw attention to this
>>disagreement at the time stipulated. You can only refrain from drawing
>>attention to the disagreement if you become certain, on hearing
>>partner's explanation, that you have indeed misbid. Of course, if you
>>have misbid intentionally, you have known your agreement all along, and
>>there is no disagreement about your methods in the first place.
>>
>>I therefore maintain that North's silence is an infraction of Law 75D2.
>
>infraction because the only evidence that can distinguish a misbid
>from the infraction you describe is to divine North's state of mind
>after South's explanation? The testimony of a North who deliberately
>violates the this Law is likely to be self-serving and there does not
>seem to be any way of disproving this testimony.
We keep seeing comments like this on RGB in many cases. The truth is
that not many people lie directly in answer to a question of fact. Yes,
they will tell you indirect little lies: a 20-second pause is always
admitted to as a 5-second pause by one side and a 60-second pause by the
other. Players always convince *themselves* that they would take out
partner's slow penalty double so they are not lying when they tell the
TD so.
But this is way different from deliberately lying and very few people
do it. So, in a case like this, I just ask the player. furthermore,
any player who does actually tell direct lies gets known for it, and TDs
and ACs take that into consideration in their judgements.
One of the main skills of a TD is the ability to elicit evidence.
>Also, should the penalty benefit E/W when North's silence did not keep
>any information from them that they were entitled to had North just
>misbid? To a layman like me, it seems more appropriate to penalize
>North, with the penalty not changing E/W's score.
If there had been no infraction then E/W would have got a better
score: therefore they deserve that better score.
Jens Brix Christiansen
> Jens, isn't South's explanation of the agreement UI to North?
> Therefore, if the explanation woke him up to the possibility of a
> misbid, then North is not allowed to use that information and must
> proceed on the assumption that his original understanding is correct.
He must proceed on that assumption when choosing his own calls (and
possibly plays).
> Hence, he is obligated to offer E/W what he first perceived as a correct
> explanation.
No, that does not follow. He is obligated to disclose his agreed
methods.
So when the scenario is like this:
1. N forgets the agreement and misbids.
2. S explains the agreement.
3. N immediately realizes, without any doubt, that he has misbid.
Then N has to carefully avoid using the unauthorized information when
calling and playing, but he has to carefully disclose the real agreement
when alerting and explaining. This is not an easy thing to do!
Jeremy Rickard
> John R. Mayne <jrm...@mindspring.com> wrote
> >David Stevenson wrote:
> >> John R. Mayne <jrm...@mindspring.com> wrote
> >> >Andy Bowles wrote:
>
> >> >> North makes a bid which he is sure, in his partnership's
> >> >> methods, means X. South explains North's bid as meaning Y.
> >> >> North becomes declarer. North does not correct South's
> >> >> explanation, even though he is sure that in the partnership's
> >> >> methods his bid means X rather than Y. After the hand is
> >> >> over, North-South are able to prove that in their system
> >> >> North's bid means Y. > >> >> Should North be penalised for
> >> >> his actions?
>
> >> >Good question! I'd educate North. If it were clear that North
> >> >was just hoping the director wouldn't be called or the like, I
> >> >might entertain a PP.
>
> >> NP so far. North has certainly committed an infraction by not
> >> telling the oppos that the agreement is X because the Laws
> >> require this.
>
But it says:
"A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation [...] must
inform the opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation
was erroneous."
and not (although probably it should):
"A player whose partner has, in his opinion, given a mistaken
explanation [...] must inform the opponents that his partner's
explanation was erroneous."
There's a clear difference, I think.
Jeremy.
--
Jeremy Rickard
Email: j.ri...@bristol.ac.uk
WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/
David Stevenson
>But it says:
>
>"A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation [...] must
>inform the opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation
>was erroneous."
>
>and not (although probably it should):
>
>"A player whose partner has, in his opinion, given a mistaken
>explanation [...] must inform the opponents that his partner's
>explanation was erroneous."
>
>There's a clear difference, I think.
Quite true.
But I think there is an obvious interpretation, and I do not believe
we should rule otherwise.
John (MadDog) Probst
<bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>John R. Mayne <jrm...@mindspring.com> wrote
>>David Stevenson wrote:
>>> John R. Mayne <jrm...@mindspring.com> wrote
>>> >Andy Bowles wrote:
>
>>> >> North makes a bid which he is sure, in his partnership's methods, means
>>> >> X. South explains North's bid as meaning Y. North becomes declarer.
>>> >> North does not correct South's explanation, even though he is sure that
>>> >> in the partnership's methods his bid means X rather than Y. After the
>>> >> hand is over, North-South are able to prove that in their system North's
>>> >> bid means Y.
>>> >>
>
>>What law have they violated? This was an attempted violation, not an
>>actual one.
>
> Sorry, it was a violation of L75D2:
>
> error before the final pass, nor may he
> indicate in any manner that a mistake
> has been made; a defender may not
> correct the error until play ends. After
> calling the Director at the earliest
> legal opportunity (after the final pass,
> if he is to be declarer or dummy; after
> play ends, if he is to be a defender),
> that, in his opinion, his partner's
> explanation was erroneous.
>
>
other player will then say "No, we agreed 'Y' in the car last week. It's
in the notes". Honour is satisfied, as well as the laws. In this case
the defenders are going to benefit from knowledge of a bidding
misunderstanding.
--
John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ !! \^/ |+ phone & fax :20 8980 4947
451 Mile End Road | / @\__ -+- |icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou
London E3 4PA | /\ __) | |e-m jo...@probst.demon.co.uk
+44-(0)20 8983 5818 |/\:\ /-- | |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk
John (MadDog) Probst
<bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
snip
>
> One of the main skills of a TD is the ability to elicit evidence.
>
This aspect of TD'ing is seldom taught to TD's. When I'm working with
less experienced TD's and they come back to me over a ruling I ask them
"What questions did you ask?" I might then suggest how to word certain
questions in order to elicit the facts as accurately, and without
causing offence, as possible. The rulings themselves are much easier if
one is sure of the facts.
cheers john
BillSpight
>> Sorry, it was a violation of L75D2:
>>
>> A player whose partner has given a
>> mistaken explanation may not correct the
>> error before the final pass, nor may he
>> indicate in any manner that a mistake
>> has been made; a defender may not
>> correct the error until play ends. After
>> calling the Director at the earliest
>> legal opportunity (after the final pass,
>> if he is to be declarer or dummy; after
>> play ends, if he is to be a defender),
>> the player must inform the opponents
>> that, in his opinion, his partner's
>> explanation was erroneous.
>>
>> Note especially the words "must" and "in his opinion".
>>
>I agree with this. What should happen is that 'X' is explained and the
>other player will then say "No, we agreed 'Y' in the car last week. It's
>in the notes".
Two things are, I trust, clear to everyone. 1) EW are entitled to know what the
NS agreements are. 2) North's behavior is unethical.
Something else that is also clear, is that there would be no legal problem if
North had simply forgotten their partnership agreement, but remembered after
South's explanation, since he did not make use of the unauthorized information.
I agree with you that North should have offered a correction of South's
explanation after the bidding. North was unethical not to do so.
But North was lucky. The law states that "the player must inform the opponents
that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous." Not "a player",
or "any player", but "the player". What player is that? The previous sentence
tells us. "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation." Since
South gave a correct explanation, North has no obligation under this law. But
he thought that South was wrong. He was lucky that South was right. Too bad.
Best regards,
Bill