Does dummy have to say his partner gave bad info?

[YesHoney]

Country: Venezuela. We use WBF laws, no changes. Uncontested bidding, no screens in use.

 

1NT 2NT*

3♣* 3♥

3NT

 

2NT alerted as trfr to ♦ and 3♣ as showing ♦ honor.

 

Before opening lead, leader goes through all bids and asks what 3♥ is. Declarer says he thinks it is checking for ♥ stopper. Leader is certain that is not the meaning but doesn't know the true one. He turns to dummy and asks him about 3♥. Dummy says he doesn't have to explain what his partner obviously forgot.

 

Leader leads ♠Q from QJ9xx, dummy goes down revealing a singleton ♣... which was the per-system meaning of 3♥. At this point TD was called but nothing was changed, hand went on, 3NT making 5, the end. On ♣ lead it's -1 as leader had Kxxx and his partner AQxxx. We cannot know if ♣ would have been picked as lead instead of ♠ on full disclosure by opps.

 

My questions:

 

1. Was dummy right when he said he doesn't need to reveal their agreement in a suicidal act?

2. If not, what should have been the action taken by TD?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

#1 My guess: Dummy has to be silent during the play.

The claim "I dont need to explain my bid, what he obviously forgot" is

of course wrong and showes a disregard for full disclosure - you told

the world that you have a club single, and the world has a right to know,

just not now.

After the hand is over, dummy is req. to call the TD, telling him, that

there was a wrong alert explanation.

#2 The TD should most likely adjust, e.g. asking a group of other players,

what they would have lead, if they would have know, that dummy has

a single club.

 

Of course the knowledge of a club single means, that opner should have

a rock solid club stopper, i.e. a club lead does get a lot less attractive

with the right information, and leading spades from this holding is a good

candidate even with the right information.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Sven Pran]

Country: Venezuela.  We use WBF laws, no changes.  Uncontested bidding, no screens in use.

 

1NT  2NT*

3♣*  3♥

3NT

 

2NT alerted as trfr to ♦ and 3♣ as showing ♦ honor.

 

Before opening lead, leader goes through all bids and asks what 3♥ is.  Declarer says he thinks it is checking for ♥ stopper.  Leader is certain that is not the meaning but doesn't know the true one.  He turns to dummy and asks him about 3♥.  Dummy says he doesn't have to explain what his partner obviously forgot.

 

Leader leads ♠Q from QJ9xx, dummy goes down revealing a singleton ♣... which was the per-system meaning of 3♥.  At this point TD was called but nothing was changed, hand went on, 3NT making 5, the end.  On ♣ lead it's -1 as leader had Kxxx and his partner AQxxx.  We cannot know if ♣ would have been picked as lead instead of ♠ on full disclosure by opps.

 

My questions:

 

1.  Was dummy right when he said he doesn't need to reveal their agreement in a suicidal act?

2.  If not, what should have been the action taken by TD?

Law 20F5:

(a ) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. ‘Mistaken explanation’ here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require.

(b ) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is

(i) for a defender, at the end of the play.

(ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction.

 

So you see that not only must Dummy answer the question, but after the final pass (and before the opening lead has been attempted) he must on his own initiative (even without being asked!) call the director and inform opponents that in his opinion his partner has given an incorrect information.

 

The answer to your second question is that the Director should inform dummy this, in grave situations he may impose a procedural penalty, and in any case should he judge whether the defending side has been damaged and in case award an adjusted score.

 

Be also aware of Law 21 B! Until the end of the auction period and provided that his partner has not subsequently called, a player may change a call without other rectification for his side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent .....

 

This implies that the auction can continue until three passes has again been made in sequence, and it is even quite possible for the original defenders to become the declaring side! (That is why Law 41 uses the term "presumed declarer" etc.)l

 

regards Sven

[blackshoe]

Dummy, when opening leader asked him what 3♥ meant, should have called the TD, and kept his mouth shut otherwise until the TD arrived at the table. If there was a significant interval between declarer's incorrect explanation, and leader's question to dummy, dummy should have called the TD during that interval. By "significant" I mean long enough for dummy to do that.

 

Technically, IMO, if opening leader wants an answer from an opponent about that opponent's own call, he should call the TD.

[Sven Pran]

Dummy, when opening leader asked him what 3♥ meant, should have called the TD, and kept his mouth shut otherwise until the TD arrived at the table. If there was a significant interval between declarer's incorrect explanation, and leader's question to dummy, dummy should have called the TD during that interval. By "significant" I mean long enough for dummy to do that.

 

Technically, IMO, if opening leader wants an answer from an opponent about that opponent's own call, he should call the TD.

Technically Dummy should have called the Director immediately after the third pass in sequence without awaiting any question at all.

 

In practice Dummy (or declarer as the case may be) will (if they follow correct procedure this far) point to one or more of his own calls and announce misexplanation. Sometimes defenders will make it clear that they are already aware of this and don't mind, but else the Director is of course to be called right away.

 

regards Sven

[blackshoe]

Technically Dummy should have called the Director immediately after the third pass in sequence without awaiting any question at all.

I did not say dummy should wait for a question. The purpose of my bringing up "interval" is that it can sometimes happen that the question is asked before dummy has a chance to open his mouth. That's not dummy's fault!

[YesHoney]

Besides stating there has been an erroneous explanation, do they have to give the correct one? In this case not "they" but dummy, the bidder of the problematic 3♥, since declarer has trully forgotten the meaning.

[Sven Pran]

Besides stating there has been an erroneous explanation, do they have to give the correct one?  In this case not "they" but dummy, the bidder of the problematic 3♥, since declarer has trully forgotten the meaning.

Technically the duty is to call the Director and let him control the situation.

 

Presumed defenders are, even without asking any question at all during the correction period always entitled to have absolutely all misinformation from the presumed declaring side corrected. (The correction period begins with the third pass is sequence and ends when the opening lead is faced.)

 

That the reason for misinformation is forgetfulness, or even ignorance, is irrelevant.

 

regards Sven

[jeremy69]

So North thinks his side have an agreement but South has forgotten/is unsure. North refuses to give information and says "he doesn't have to explain". Unless he is very inexperienced I think this is a clear case for a procedural penalty.

 

It is far from clear that a club would be led on the right explanation but possible some of the time. I would rule that West might find the right lead some % of the time if given the correct information (but certainly less than 50% of the time)

[greenender]

It is far from clear that a club would be led on the right explanation but possible some of the time. I would rule that West might find the right lead some % of the time if given the correct information (but  certainly less than 50% of the time)

If the correction is given as should be, then the leader knows that:

- dummy has shown a ♣ singleton; and

- declarer thought dummy was asking for a ♥ stopper

 

Whilst players are not in general entitled to know what misunderstanding their oppoonents are having - all they are entitled to is the agreed meaning of the calls - a non-offending player is entitled to use all information that he actually has.

 

In this case he knows about the ♣ singleton, and he knows that declarer doesn't know about it, and that declarer may therefore not have the secure ♣ stopper that the agreed meaning of 3♥ implies.

 

On that basis I reckon that a ♣ lead is more likely than it normally would be for a player with QJ9xx in an unbid major.

[greenender]

(The correction period ...)

The clarification period (the correction period being something quite other).

[Sven Pran]

(The correction period ...)

The clarification period (the correction period being something quite other).

Of course :rolleyes:

 

mea culpa

 

regards Sven

[bluejak]

While I am not suggesting any of the replies are wrong, I found them very confusing, full of "Technically"'s and things. So, perhaps, I might simplify.

 

When declarer gives a wrong explanation, dummy must correct it immediately upon becoming dummy. That is very important, and all experienced players should know it. In practice, while the TD shoudl be called first, he often is not, and it rarely matters.

 

The opening leader showed great naivety, and I strong recommend he learns the following rule:

When an opponent tells you about a rule you are not sure of, and it benefits the opponent, always call the TD and ask whether it is correct.