Is this allowed?

[Free]

As many of the forum users know, me and Toothbrush play relays. Sometimes however you make a mistake and you realise this on your own, or when you're playing without screens when opps ask information.

 

We've found a way to show our partner we made a mistake somewhere (by bidding, not some unauthorized fingersignals or so), but only in some situations. I wonder if this is allowed:

- is this method on its own allowed to play?

- if it is, can you use it behind screens?

- can you use it without screens when partner didn't explain your bids?

- can you use it without screens when partner made the correct explanations (and you made a bidding error)?

[bearmum]

IMHO answers are

NO

NO

NO

NO :P

[whereagles]

I once played a symmetric relay system. Me and pard had agreed that in a relay sequence, a 4♦ bid by any of us meant "pard, I don't have a clue what's going on. Where is the fit?"

 

We would lose a step on the process, but it saved us some embarassments.. LOL. :P No one ever complained about it. Most would just laugh.

[akhare]

I think that an explicit bid that alerts partner about a memory lapse is unethical. Besides if the mistake was realized as a result of opps' query, the partership must ignore any possible UI.

 

If the "relay reset" is initiated by the relayer, the opps usually stand to gain because responder has absolutely no idea of what partner holds and must make his best guess about where to place the contract. However, this is not guaranteed and may not protect the opps' right to benefit from partnership misunderstandings.

 

On a related note, some relays sequences have self correcting mechanisms. For example, if pard shows a certain number of controls and then makes an impossible reply to DCB query, you implicilty know that something is amiss and can quite often infer the most probable holding based on your cards.

 

Atul

[awm]

I think this is actually okay. There are often mechanisms in natural bidding to show that you have forgotten or messed up the methods. I know a pair who used to play that 2NT response to 1NT showed a weak hand with clubs or a strong 4441, but that after partner bids 3♣, a 3NT rebid says "I forgot and just wanted to invite 3NT." This pair was pretty ethical and had okayed this with people on the laws committee.

 

There's also a Norwegian pair who used to play that in relay auctions, 4♣ is always Baron (scramble for 4-card suits up the line) and indicates that the wheels have come off.

 

Of course, the fourth case (where you have heard partner's explanations) will probably bar you from using this "out," since you may have been clued in to the forget by partner's explanation of your actual agreement.

[Free]

One of the most rememberable situations was this:

1NT - 2♣ (11-14 bal - relay)

2♥ - 2♠ (4+♥ - GF relay)

3♣! - 3♦ (4-4♥-♠! - relay)

3♥ - 4♣ (4-4-2-3 - RKC ♥)

... - ... (I made a CAB ♦ on the way to find out ♦K)

... - 7♥

 

I had something like a 2-6-4-1 with ♦A, we had all keycards and ♥Q and I knew we had ♠AK together.

 

Problem was that 3♣ bid: it should've been 3♦. Partner had a 2-4-4-3 but forgot a step which was a disaster: 7♥-1. Lucky it was only a pairs event.

On the RKC, we can just respond 14/30/2-Q/2+Q and everything from 5♣ and up the same but showing p we messed up the relays somewhere. Here it would've been a great save (and it's quite obvious that it's the 3♣ bid imo) but we didn't play this yet!

 

So basicly this would be ok, unless opps asked us what all the bids meant? I thought it would be something like this, but just wanted confirmation B)

[Flame]

With screen - yes

Without screen as long as partner didnt explain or gave a clue by alerting - yes.

When partner explained right and you were wrong - No

[Flame]

IMHO answers are

NO

NO

NO

NO B)

bridge law is not about opinions.

[Finch]

Yes, 99% of the time Yes, Usually yes, Usually No.

 

There are two ways you know that a wheel has come off:

i) From your hand and your partner's (and sometimes opponents') calls.

ii) Due to your partners explanations, or their alerts (lack of alerts), or any source of information other than (i)

 

i) you can use whatever methods you like

ii) you cannot

 

i) and ii) together you can, but you will need to be able to prove absolutely definitely to the TD and the AC that i) is true, as they will tend to rule against you otherwise.

 

This type of thing happens in non-relay auctions as well. It's not usually a technical bid agreed to mean "something has gone wrong" but a sudden jump to 6NT usually gives the message....

[kenrexford]

For what it's worth, I have asked ACBL opinion (Mike Flader) on a specific cinvention of this type. I was told that the "Oh ***** 5NT" call, akin to this, is allowed. "Oh ***** 4D" should be OK also.

[barmar]

bridge law is not about opinions.

But sometimes it's about interpretation.

[Flame]

bridge law is not about opinions.

But sometimes it's about interpretation.

True but you have to know and understand the law and only then can have an opinions about it.