MI plus MISBID

[bluejak]

East can assume, and has every right to assume, that his partner will interpret his bid according to the CC.

This is what I find extraordinary, though I see that Bluejak more or less seems to agree. Don't you ever play against people who say that their SC is wrong on a particular point? I see it regularly, and it would never occur to me that the spoken explanation was not the definitive explanation that I had been given. In fact, I think I have seen something like this at the table where the director has asked the player to repeat the explanation he has given and turned to the player asking the question and said "there is your answer" or words to that effect.

That's completely different: now the TD has confirmed that that is the agreement, so if it is wrong, it is TD error.

 

It really worries me that you are going to rule against the non-offending side if the partner for whatever reason accepts the word of the SC. I intensely dislike punishing non-offenders for their opponents' mistakes.

 

I have also been told that if I see something on a SC that contradicts what I have been told by a player, then it is entirely at my own risk if I choose not to mention the point to avoid alerting an opponent to the fact that he may have got it wrong, since I could have protected myself by asking for clarification.  But now it appears that I can never really protect myself by asking for clarification anyway, since I still won't know what I am supposed to believe.  Isn't it all a lot simpler if the explanation given in response to a question is regarded as the information provided, with the SC just a convenient shorthand to avoid some of the simpler Q & As?

Of course you can with a competent TD: you draw his attention, and now you are ok.

[WellSpyder]

It really worries me that you are going to rule against the non-offending side if the partner for whatever reason accepts the word of the SC.  I intensely dislike punishing non-offenders for their opponents' mistakes.

Well, I'm sorry but I don't think I am punishing them for their opponents mistakes - I am allowing them to face the consequences of their own mistake.

 

It is hardly unknown, is it, to be handed a SC with a comment along the lines of "sorry, we are not a regular partnership, but we are playing everything as on this card [which has a different name on it] except we are playing x rather than y"? (It is certainly not unknown to me, and you usually seem able to quote from a wider range of experience than most...) Are you now suggesting that if the relevant circumstances arise and I check with the opponents that they really are playing x rather than y, that it would still be reasonable to assume they are actually playing y? Or that I could claim MI if it turns out that they are indeed playing x?

[blackshoe]

So. The player's explanation and the SC are in conflict. The TD is called. How shall he handle this? Take the player and/or his partner, together or separately, away from the table, and ask questions until he is satisfied that the agreement is one of (1) what's on the card, (2) what the player said, (3) no agreement, (4) something else, and then go back to the table and tell the opponents "their agreement is <whichever one it is>"?

 

Several posters here seem convinced they know what the outcome of such an investigation would be. That's fine, their experience seems far greater than mine. For myself, I don't know what the outcome would be.

[WellSpyder]

So. The player's explanation and the SC are in conflict. The TD is called.

Well, what worries me is that it would never have crossed my mind to call the TD in these circumstances. It seems like a really good way to make the game unpleasant for everybody if I call the TD to say "he told me this, but the SC says that", rather than letting the opponent explain the discrepancy himself and then taking his word for it.

 

I still can't really convince myself that next time this happens I'm prepared to say (implicitly or explicitly) to an opponent "yes, of course I believe you, but Bluejak/Blackshoe says I've really got to let the TD decide what he believes, otherwise I could lose any rights over MI."

[bluejak]

It is hardly unknown, is it, to be handed a SC with a comment along the lines of "sorry, we are not a regular partnership, but we are playing everything as on this card [which has a different name on it] except we are playing x rather than y"? (It is certainly not unknown to me, and you usually seem able to quote from a wider range of experience than most...)  Are you now suggesting that if the relevant circumstances arise and I check with the opponents that they really are playing x rather than y, that it would still be reasonable to assume they are actually playing y? Or that I could claim MI if it turns out that they are indeed playing x?

Of course. If you quote a completely different situation it is no wonder that we handle it differently. That is not what happened in this case, so what is your point?

 

Well, what worries me is that it would never have crossed my mind to call the TD in these circumstances.  It seems like a really good way to make the game unpleasant for everybody if I call the TD to say "he told me this, but the SC says that", rather than letting the opponent explain the discrepancy himself and then taking his word for it.

So, we have a situation where a non-offending player did what he thought was right, got messed up by the TD, asked for a ruling, got treated like ht offending side, and all this because the opponents could neither be bothered to learn their system nor write it down correctly, and you and others do not want them to get help in a tricky illegal situation. So did this make the game pleasant for them?

 

Ye gods! :huh:

 

This game will never be pleasant when people who do not follow the rules expect to gain not lose thereby.

[campboy]

I do not understand why this is in any way a tricky situation for East. He hears an explanation which disagrees with the CC, so he queries it. He is told the CC is definitely wrong. End of problem.

[dburn]

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=s85hkdak943cq9754&w=skqj9hq72dj107caj6&e=sa7432ha984d8ck82&s=s106hj10653dq652c103]399|300|Scoring: IMP

1C1 2NT 3H  P

4H  P  P  P

 

2NT alerted and explained as taking it as DIAMONDS plus a MAJOR[/hv]

 

When the explanation for 2NT was given East noticed the NS system card stated the agreement was "Lower unbid suits"  Director called. said why do you want to know?

I imagine he wanted to know because if 2NT showed the red suits, he would bid 3♥ to show spades; if 2NT showed diamonds and a major, he would need to find some other way to describe his hand - perhaps he could bid 3♦, or as a last resort be compelled to adopt a practice nowadays regarded as hopelessly uncool: bidding spades to show spades.

 

But as I understand the case, he was told that 2NT showed diamonds and a major, yet he bid 3♥ anyway. If he did that, he must suffer the consequences, particularly since his pass to 4♥ does not seem to me entirely consistent with his own legal responsibilities. Had he discharged those satisfactorily, he might have been in 4♠ in any event.

 

True, East was no doubt discombobulated by the turn of events (understandably to some extent, since North appeared to be operating under the impression that clubs are either a red suit or a major, or possibly both). Still, you cannot defend yourself against a charge of idiocy by claiming that you were not the only idiot present at the time.

[lamford]

But as I understand the case, he was told that 2NT showed diamonds and a major, yet he bid 3♥ anyway.

The tenses in the original posting suggest that English was not the first language of savphantom, and we are unsure of the chronology of events.

 

He or she wrote that East bid 3H because he saw that the convention card stated "lower unbid suits". Perhaps he means "East had bid 3H because ..."

 

We do not know when an explanation was volunteered, whether East asked before bidding 3H, whether West asked before his turn, and at what point South strongly confirmed the agreeement; even at what point the director was called. And savphantom has not responded since the original post to clarify these issues.

 

Indeed, the question from the director "why do you want to know?" seems very peculiar if East called him at his first turn, not that it would be a particular appropriate question from the director at any time.

 

What I think is most likely to have happened is the following:

2NT was alerted. East looked at the card and bid 3H intending it to show spades. South passed. West asked what 2NT was. South stated he was taking it as diamonds and a major. East had noticed that it was different on the card, and now called the director because of the problem that the difference created. The director's remark "why do you need to know" is probably misphrased, because that really does not make any sense. More likely he was trying to find out why East-West thought they were damaged to establish whether he could allow a bid to be replaced.

 

It would be nice if savphantom could confirm the exact order of events, as the OP does not really add up.

[WellSpyder]

I do not understand why this is in any way a tricky situation for East. He hears an explanation which disagrees with the CC, so he queries it. He is told the CC is definitely wrong. End of problem.

I advise you if you ever find yourself in East's position not to assume that this is the end of the problem, at least if bluejak is directing. Apparently any assumption that the opponents have told you correctly what they are playing is entirely at your own risk if the CC happens to say something else!

[savphantom]

Following Lamford 26 March 2009.

EW are playing 4 card majors with 1C opening at least 3 cards long. 1NT = 15-18 so regret the artifact" 1C1" in original post which could suggest 1C was non natural.

The order of events 1C 2NT(alerted) Ask and explained discussion with SC questions and Director called then East bids 3H. Auction and play continue. Recall Director.

savphantom