jallerton

....and if that is the rationale, the player is presumably supposed to forget the explanation they heard on the other side of the screen, and so there is no "misexplanation" to correct, either at the end of the auction or at the end of the play.

I don't see this. There is nothing in the screen regulations to say how Law 20F5 might be modified when screens are in use. If Law 20F5 applies (and I'm not convinced that there exists a Law to over-ride it) then as declarer or dummy I am obliged to correct before the opening lead. (This appears to conflict with the principle of the screen regulations, hence my question). If it is decided that Law 20F5 does not apply when screens are in use, then I don't see how that Law can be quoted as an instruction to correct at the end of the hand. (I agree with Paul that it feels morally right to bring a misexplanation which may have caused damage to the opponents' attention as soon as possible, but it also feels morally right to disclose an un-noticed revoke, even though the Law specifically says there is no obligation to do so.) Indeed if you apply your logic to the general case, shouldn't you be asking at the every hand to see all written explanations given on the other side of the screen on the off chance that partner has misexplained something? Law 20F5 says "must" after all.

It's not so relevant whether Pass is a logical alternative. The question for the TD to determine is whether there is any logical alternative other than Pass. You might splinter if 2♥ was natural and forcing, but surely not if 2♥ was merely constructive. We'd need to find out what Opener thought the repsonses to the Weak 2♦ were at the moment when she opened 2♦.

I don't see the logic in that argument. More important is whether players in Scotland (and in particular, this player) normally ask about the strength of jump overcalls whenever they are made, whatever the contents of their own hand.

Thanks for the replies. If you consider that Law 20F5 has been "trumped" by the screen regulations, why do you say 3 rather than 2? Yes, really. All too often when I ask a question in writing, my screenmate will whisper something in response. When I hand my pen to my screenmate, I will usually (but not always) get the explanation written down accompanied by a look of dismay. I can imagine what happens when two of such people are themselves screenmates. Yes, I've had plenty of conversations with my partner about the screen regulations. However, when the auction has ended and our side is about to declare, I am less concerned about this technical breach of the regulations; many people consider that the main point of screens is to prevent the transmission of unauthorised information.

The screen regulations provide that all questions and explanations be communicated between screenmates and in writing. Despite this, many (most?) players seem to give at least some of their explanations verbally. I can recall a few occasions where the auction has ended, my side is about to declare the contract and I hear an incorrect explanation being given by my partner. Yes, I know the two players on the other side of the screen are at fault for asking and answering questions verbally, but what are my obligations? Should I: 1. offer a correct of the explanation before the play start (as Law 20F5b seems to require) so that my opponent on the other side is not damaged during the play; or 2. not say anything on the basis that the screen regulations require my partner to give all explanations to her screenmate; or 3. not say anything at the time but offer a correction of the explanation at the end of the hand?

The IBer's LHO would only be damaged if (i) he believed when he chose not to accept the IB that a correction to call Z would silence the IBer's partner find out and (ii) a correction to call Z did not transpire to silence the IBer's partner after all. In this case the IBer's LHO would find out soon enough because after the correction to call Z the TD would explain to the table that the auction should continue with the IBer's partner being able to make any call he liked.

I know you do not like this Law at all, Robin, but thanks for summarising this guidance. My advice to the LHO of the IBer is as follows: Ask the IBer's partner to explain the meaning of the IB. Case 1.: He gives an explanation of the meaning. I now ask the IBer's partner the meaning of pertinent sufficient bids in this auction and conclude which sufficent bids have the same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid. I use this information when deciding to accept the IB. There are now two possibilties: (a) LHO's explanation of the meaning accords with the intended meaning the IB'er (or at least what the IB'er told the TD the intended meaning was). No problem: I have been told what I needed to know. LHO's explanation of the meaning does not accord with the intended meaning the IB'er (or at least what the IB'er told the TD the intended meaning was). If, unexpectedly to me, a 27B1b replacement call is allowed, and I feel damaged as a result, I call the TD back at the end of the hand and ask for an adjusted score, citing the misinformation Laws. Case 2: He explains that the IB does not have a meaning consistent with any hands at all. As all plausible replacement sufficient bids do mean something, I observe that none of these plausible replacement sufficient bids has the same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid and that therefore none of these bids can be substituted under Law 27B1b. [* the meaning of (information available from) a call is the knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes. ]

David, I believe it was you who recently remarked of a particular partner: "I hate it when he starts thinking. He always does the wrong thing". Presumably this particular partner does not breach this Law other than in the circumstances intended by the lawmakers.

There have been two infractions here: 1. The original misinformation. 2. The failure to correct the explanation as required by Law 20F5. Although knowledge of the misunderstanding may not form part of any adjusted score in relation to the first infraction, why do you think this knowledge cannot be taken into account when assessing rectification for the second infraction?

In the scenario Robin cites, a player has breached Law 20F5. As the player has gained an advantage through failing to comply with Law 20F5, why can't the TD use Law 12A1 and Law 12C to adjust for this infraction? I do find the wording of a lot of these WBFLC minutes surprising. Law 21B [in subsection 1(a)] advises that the TD should only allow a change of call when he judges that "the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given by an opponent". As we must follow the Laws, I agree with mrdct's observations. Also, whilst Law 20F4 does point to Law 21B but it equally points to Law 40B4:

I agree with the AC in one respect: the wording of the WBLC minute is potentally ambiguous. When I first read: "If there are two revokes on the same board by the same side the equity in the case of the second revoke is determined by reference to the position after the first revoke." I did wonder what it was intended to mean and why a few more words (and even, dare I suggest, an example) could not have been added to the text. Fortunately it is not vital to know what the WBFLC meant in this case as a careful application of Laws 64A, 64B and 64C will lead to the conclusion agreed to be correct by most posters to this thread. However, I am less keen on the idea of using Law 23 here. Is it really true to say that East "could have known" that the TD in a European event might not apply the revoke Laws properly? Even if the answer if yes, could East have known that the TD would refer an appeal of his decision to the AC, despite the fact that Law 93B1 requires that "the Director in charge shall hear and rule upon such part of the appeal as deals solely with the Law or regulations."?

Yes, that did occur to me as a theoretical possibility. In that respect, the wording of 1997 Laws 12C2/12C3 was better as under those the TD/AC "may vary an assigned score to do equity" but did not have to. Of course, if the TD judges that the misinformation was deliberate, the player giving the misinformation should be given a PP, which will not help his score in the scenario you cite. Perhaps the TD could also use Law 23 if he feels that the offender has gained from an apparently deliberate infraction.

You weight the basic form of scoring (MPs or IMPs), not the VPs.

It's not the same as a Reveley ruling at all. We adjust to what might/would have happened had the irregualrity not occurred. In UI cases, if the action taken at the table is deemed to be illegal, then the adjusted acore can only take into account legal actions by the player in possession of UI. In MI cases, we are considering what actions might have been taken by the non-offedning side had the irregualarity not occurred. For the non-offending side, all 13 cards are possible legal leads, so (if you believe in weighting scores at all) assigning fair percentages to different plausible opening leads seems the best way to restore "equity" (where "equity" is the expectation without the irregualrity occurring). True, but if the opening lead was not obvious, he has also made sure that he will not receive the full benefit of a less succesful opening lead.

I agree with this. I don't think this is true. Law 23 in the 2007 Laws is the equivalent of what was Law 72B1 in the 1997 Laws (Law 72 in the 1997 Laws was headed "General Principles"). As the 1997 Law 23 was covered by 72B1 it seems that 72B1 was moved and renamed in the 2007 version. Since then the WBLFC has clarified:

In these circumstances, I think 7♦ would be a more appropriate bid to make than 7NT. Surely you want partner to declare the silly final contract!

What system is being employed by the opening side? What strength is a 1NT opener in this position? 4-card or 5-card majors?

I would regard it as natural, i.e. a suggestion that 3NT might be the right contract. I have already constructed a hand that makes 3NT good opposite the North hand. David's 3 ace hand (and variants therof)is another categoty of hand where Opener can envisage 3NT could make opposite a lot of hands which might make a "pre-emptive" 3♣ bid. I hope that your partner is not reading this thread; she should be disappointed to read that you don't even consider the possibility that she might have made an intelligent call. There seem to have been a few surplus words in your last paragraph. I have put a line through the words you need to delete for it to be accurate.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you were playing with your regular partner on this deal. In that case, it's not relevant how David or some other excellent vugraph commentator might interpret this sequence; all that is relevant is how this particular South might interrpret this sequence. As Campboy has already pointed out, in the hypothetical authorised auction where 3NTx is passed round to North, there is some strong evidence that South has intended 3NT as a suggestion to play in that contract: otherwise she would have pulled the double; the fact that South's options were constrained by UI is itself not authorised information to North. With this partner, do you have any agreements or partnership experience of 3NT being save suggesting in any analogous sequences?

That's the problem. When we apply the book, we don't get the answer most people expect. Maybe we also do not get the answer intended by the lawmakers, but that doesn't really matter: we are obliged to follow what the Laws as written tell us to do.

There is a recurring theme in auctions where there has been a misunderstanding, but one or both partners is in possession of UI! If the possible explanations are (i) partner has psyched or made a gross misbid earlier in the auction and (ii) partner did not intend the bidding to mean what we originally thought, but the player has UI, is the player ever permitted to come to the correct conclusion, even when the AI suggests one possibility is orders of magnitude more likely than the other? There is no consensus view. Indeed, some people seem to vary their opinion depending on whether it is they or an opponent who is in possession of the UI. For example, consider to words of the North player on this deal: When this same North player asked for a ruling a couple of years ago when one of his opponents had UI in the auction, he argued as follows: In the present case, there is a perfectly normal explanation for partner's bidding in the authorised auction: partner thinks that she might be able to make 3NT! Suppose that she held ♠AJ10 ♥AJ6 ♦KJ10 ♣9764. Would she not open a weak NT? When North shows a weakish hand with a long club suit, might she not deduce that her hand has improved significantly and that 3NT could easily be making? Even opposite the actual North hand 3NT has an excellent chance of making; and if North has the ace of clubs and/or a seventh card in the suit 3NT will be an even better contract. Moreover, when 3NT does go off, it is not clear that 4♣ will make one more trick than 3NT, let alone the two required to make pulling worthwhile. So as North I would just trust my partner and assume she knew what she was doing when she bid 3NT. Pass looks like the correct call absent UI. With the actual UI, pass is the only legal call as far as I am concerned.

Assuming that you recognise that North and South both have UI demonstrably suggesting pulling over passing, this weighting does not seem legal to me. 1. If pass is judged not to be a logical alternative for South then the table result should stand. 2. If pass is judged to be a logical alternative for South then South is assumed to pass over the double of 3NT and West will pass also. Now either: (i) If pass is judged not to be a logical alternative for North, he will be presumed to pull to 4♣. If the TD cannot be sure what would happen next he can award weightings of 4♣, 4♣x, 4♦(E), 4♥(W) making the appropriate numbers of tricks. However, he should not include a proportion of 3NTx as he has judged that pass of 3NTx would not be seriously considered, let alone actually selected, by as many as 20% of North's peers; or (ii) If pass is judged to be a logical alternative for North then that is North's only legal call, so the ruling for the offending side is based on 100% of 3NTx by South, the only opportunity for weighting coming from the potential for 3NT to make a different number of tricks.

Was 3♣ alerted? At what point did East or West ask about the 3♣ bid and receive the original explanation?

I don't understand why anyone would expect East to pass with 3-card heart support and a void after the auction 2♦-2♥-3♥-3NT.