Procedure after an auction misunderstanding
jonathan23
have been left out to protect the innocent, and the not-so-innocent.
The details may not be that important, but what I would like to know is
if it was handled properly.
Sitting in 1st or 2nd seat (I can't recall which, but it wasn't 3rd or
4th) Partner One opened a major. Partner Two had a limit raise and bid
3D, Bergen, to which they had agreed some time before but never really
used in the past few sessions. The opener forgot the agreement,
interpreted it as a weak jump shift, and passed. I might add that
Partner Two did not gasp, pull a face, fidget, or do anything else when
Partner One passed 3D. Result: 3D was passed out, leaving Partner Two
to play it.
When the auction was over and before the opening leader had done his
thing, Partner Two said something to the effect of "I have to explain,
there was a misunderstanding. 3D was meant to be a Bergen raise
showing four-card support and 10-12". Partner One was, of course,
mortified, but that's what happened and there you are, no
recriminations or anything. It's just a game, even if it did happen to
be a STAC that evening.
So, my question is, was the action described in the third paragraph of
this post the appropriate way to handle the misunderstanding according
to laws and custom of the game?
Thanks,
--
- Jon Campbell
Ottawa CANADA
Bertel Lund Hansen
> When the auction was over and before the opening leader had done his
> thing, Partner Two said something to the effect of "I have to explain,
> there was a misunderstanding. 3D was meant to be a Bergen raise
> showing four-card support and 10-12". Partner One was, of course,
> mortified, but that's what happened and there you are, no
> recriminations or anything. It's just a game, even if it did happen to
> be a STAC that evening.
> So, my question is, was the action described in the third paragraph of
> this post the appropriate way to handle the misunderstanding according
> to laws and custom of the game?
Yes.
If there has been errors in the explanations or missing alerts
during bidding, there are two scenarios:
1. Declarer's side made the error.
Declarer or dummy must correct the error before the opening lead
is faced. The opponents need to have the information as soon as
possible, and the explanation does not give any information that
declarer could not get from studying dummy's cards (if dummy made
the error).
2. A defender made the error:
A defender cannot give any explanation during play since this
would help his partner. He therefore has to wait until the play
of cards is over.
In either case the error may have damaged the non-offending side,
so a TD may have to adjust the score, but in the present case the
damage (if any) was done only to the offending side.
--
Bertel, Denmark
http://bridge.lundhansen.dk/
Sid
"jonathan23" <camp...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:hec6jr$k9h$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> So, my question is, was the action described in the third paragraph of
> this post the appropriate way to handle the misunderstanding according
> to laws and custom of the game?
Absolutely! The opponents need to be informed if you become declarer or
dummy, and before the opening lead. The person giving the declaration to
the opponents must be congratulated for his ethics and to his following the
law to the letter.
Nice post.
Sid
Stu G
> "jonathan23" <campb...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
Well, the letter of the law says that he should also call the
director. However, I do not know of any local players who so that
under these circumstances. If our side is declaring, after I explain
an irregularity in the bidding, I often follow that up with "you may
call the director if you wish". Against experienced opps I don't even
do that.
Otherwise I agree 100% with declarer's actions in the OP.
-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
Barry Margolin
<20176b82-85ef-4c3e...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Stu G <st...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
One of the reasons you should call the director is that the player who
passed last has the option to change his call. Although in a case like
this, it's extremely unlikely that they would want to do that, since it
would allow the declaring side to get back to the suit they actually
have a fit in.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
jonathan23
That's a good point because I suppose it could matter sometimes.
Is calling the director only permitted to the side that didn't make the
bidding error in this situation? Or can any of the four players make
that call?
Douglas Newlands
Not being an expert on the Laws, I am not sure if this discussion is
entirely correct. The explanation has been given before the lead is
faced so the auction period is not yet over.
Once the MI has been uncovered, cannot the director wind back the
auction to allow either (is this correct) opponent to change their
last call?
I realise it would be to no purpose in the situation described but it
may be elsewhere e.g. they are playing weak jumps and opener mistakenly
takes it as bergen and bids 4H on that basis and this keeps the double
at bay.
Doug,
Tasmania
Bertel Lund Hansen
> Is calling the director only permitted to the side that didn't make the
> bidding error in this situation? Or can any of the four players make
> that call?
Any player has the right to call the TD when an irregularity
happens - until one of them becomes dummy. The three others keep
their right to do so.
Mark Brader
> Is calling the director only permitted to the side that didn't make the
> bidding error in this situation? Or can any of the four players make
> that call?
Anyone. Law 9B:
# 1. (a) The Director should be summoned at once when attention is
# drawn to an irregularity.
#
# (b) Any player, including dummy, may summon the Director after
# attention has been drawn to an irregularity.
#
# (c) Summoning the Director does not cause a player to forfeit
# any rights to which he might otherwise be entitled.
#
# (d) The fact that a player draws attention to an irregularity
# committed by his side does not affect the rights of the
# opponents.
#
# 2. No player shall take any action until the Director has explained
# all matters in regard to rectification.
--
Mark Brader "To err is human, but to really mess things up
Toronto you need a timetable planner!"
m...@vex.net -- Richard Porter
Bertel Lund Hansen
> Not being an expert on the Laws, I am not sure if this discussion is
> entirely correct. The explanation has been given before the lead is
> faced so the auction period is not yet over.
Right.
> Once the MI has been uncovered, cannot the director wind back the
> auction to allow either (is this correct) opponent to change their
> last call?
The laws allow a player to change his call if it was based on
misinformation *and* his partner has not made a subsequent call
(and opening lead is not faced which ends the auction period). In
the present case it means that the last pass could have been
changed. But as someone else noticed, it wouldn't be smart to
give the offending side the chance to find a better contract.
> I realise it would be to no purpose in the situation described but it
> may be elsewhere e.g. they are playing weak jumps and opener mistakenly
> takes it as bergen and bids 4H on that basis and this keeps the double
> at bay.
Yes.
Also it may be necessary to call TD after play because the
misinformation may have caused the non-offending side to miss a
good game or have damaged them in some other way in spite of the
correction having been made before play.
Peter Smulders
news:hecdr4$kgc$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> Is calling the director only permitted to the side that didn't
> make the bidding error in this situation? Or can any of the four
> players make that call?
>
I suppose you mean the side that gave an incorrect explanation,
since bidding errors are not against the law :-). The person who
discovers he or his partner gave the wrong explanation is supposed
to call the director on his own accord after the final pass, only
if his side becomes the declaring side. But if his side is
defending he should keep a pokerface until the game is over and
then call the director.
Alan Malloy
> jonathan23 skrev:
>
>> Is calling the director only permitted to the side that didn't make the
>> bidding error in this situation? Or can any of the four players make
>> that call?
>
> Any player has the right to call the TD when an irregularity
> happens - until one of them becomes dummy. The three others keep
> their right to do so.
>
A commonly-stated misunderstanding. The dummy may call the director too,
once attention has been brought to an irregularity. He may not call
attention to an irregularity himself, but if another player does, he may
call the director. For example, say RHO leads out of turn, and says "Oh
my goodness, it's not my lead, is it?" If none of the other players call
the director, the dummy may do so.
--
Cheers,
Alan (San Jose, California, USA)
Mark Brader
>>>> So, my question is, was the action described in the third paragraph of
>>>> this post the appropriate way to handle the misunderstanding according
>>>> to laws and custom of the game?
"Sid":
>>> Absolutely! ... The person giving the declaration to the opponents
>>> must be congratulated for his ethics and to his following the
>>> law to the letter.
Stu Goodgold:
>> Well, the letter of the law says that he should also call the
>> director. However, I do not know of any local players who so
>> that under these circumstances. If our side is declaring, after
>> I explain an irregularity in the bidding, I often follow that up
>> with "you may call the director if you wish"...
>>
>> Otherwise I agree 100% with declarer's actions in the OP.
Barry Margolin:
> One of the reasons you should call the director is that the player
> who passed last has the option to change his call. Although in a
> case like this, it's extremely unlikely that they would want to...
(I'll use "North" for the opener and "South" for the 3D bidder.)
There's another issue, which depends on where the event was played:
Does the 3D bid require an alert if it is a weak jump shift? And
does it require an alert if it is a Bergen raise?
In the ACBL, both these meanings of 3D require an alert. If North,
who thought 3D was a weak jump shift, alerted it and *neither opponent
asked* what it meant, then there has been *no* irregularity. In that
case, the explanation by South is ethical but not required. The
director does not need to be called and, if called, should not allow
East's final pass to be changed.
If Bergen raises require an alert, which I imagine is true everywhere
that alerts are used, but North did not alert 3D, then strictly
speaking, *all* that South should do at the end of the auction is
say that "3D should have been alerted" and call the director.
What the director should then do is offer East the chance to ask for
an explanation and/or change his final pass. East, of course, may
wish to consult North-South's convention card rather than asking for
an explanation. If East chooses to change his pass, then the auction
is still live and South *must not* explain the correct meaning of 3D
at this point. Further, even if North realizes from all this stuff
going on that 3D was a Bergen raise, he must continue the auction as
if it had been a weak jump shift! (South, however, is allowed to be
fully aware of the circumstances and try to take the contract back
to hearts. Which is why, in practice, East will not change his call.)
If, however, at any point North *says* that 3D is a weak jump shift,
then South *is* required to correct the error at the appropriate time:
if N-S become the declaring side, that is at the end of the auction.
And after that, the procedures are similar to those for a missed alert.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "We are informed many things,
m...@vex.net | some of them correct." --Greg Goss
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Raija D
"jonathan23" <camp...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:hec6jr$k9h$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Well done by Partner Two. He did exactly what the Laws require him to do.
That situation is one of the cases where the Law requires that we call
attention to our side's infraction.
However, this is only corrrct for the declaring side. If the defending side
had a misexplanation, misunderstanding, forgetting, or missed or extraneous
alert or some such thing, they must wait until the hand is played out and
THEN call TD and explain what happened.
David Stevenson
Yes, pretty much. You have to explain misunderstandings where
opponents are misinformed. Since they had agreed Bergen he is required
to tell opponents [technically after calling th eTD, but few people
bother].
The reverse is not true, however. If, after opener's pass, the
responder remembered they had scrapped the Bergen idea, so the agreement
is a weak jump, then there is no reason why he should say anything, the
opponents were not misinformed.
If you are wondering "what misinformation?" it is the failure to alert
3D, which is misinformation if they have agreed Bergen.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<webj...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm