Suspicious explanation

[mjj29]

No, you follow the Laws. If you know what their agreement is, and you would only be asking for partner’s sake, you don't ask.

 

There will always be cases where you might feel you have a case for breaking the laws for some reason you can justify to others - you think. Better is to follow the Laws. Sure, it will cost you very occasionally, but the alternative is just not worth it. Do you really want to get a reputation for someone who understands but does not follow the Laws?

As pran says, I'm trying to follow Law 9A1 and looking for guidence as to whether or not this is correct when the irregularity is in failing to give a correct explanation per Law 40B6.

[barmar]

If you're going to take action, I think the right thing to do is say something vague like "I think there's a problem, we need to call the director." Then tell the TD away from the table what you think the issue is, and he can also ask the opponent away from the table what their agreement is. This way, nothing is revealed to your partner until the TD has had a chance to determine if there really was a mistaken explanation. This way, you can resolve the possible infraction without violating the law against asking for partner's benefit.

 

On the other hand, maybe you can argue that the question isn't solely for partner's benefit. The opponent explains X, but you think they're playing Y (either from memory or because you notice it on their card). So you need to ask in order to find out whether they've changed their agreements or have the card filled out incorrectly (or maybe it's the wrong card -- who among us hasn't forgotten to switch cards when changing partners?).

[pran]

If you're going to take action, I think the right thing to do is say something vague like "I think there's a problem, we need to call the director." Then tell the TD away from the table what you think the issue is, and he can also ask the opponent away from the table what their agreement is. This way, nothing is revealed to your partner until the TD has had a chance to determine if there really was a mistaken explanation. This way, you can resolve the possible infraction without violating the law against asking for partner's benefit.

 

On the other hand, maybe you can argue that the question isn't solely for partner's benefit. The opponent explains X, but you think they're playing Y (either from memory or because you notice it on their card). So you need to ask in order to find out whether they've changed their agreements or have the card filled out incorrectly (or maybe it's the wrong card -- who among us hasn't forgotten to switch cards when changing partners?).

If you suspect a violation of Law 40B6 then this is the correct procedure (and you may certainly ask, at your own turn to call, without even involving the director).

 

If you know that there has been a violation of Law 40B6 then (in my opinion) you may immediately draw attention to this irregularity and have the director called whether or not it is your turn to call.

 

Note that "drawing attention" is not the same as "asking"; we must select our words with care here.

[Zelandakh]

Is there anything wrong with asking "Have you changed your agreement since we last discussed this sequence?" You are not passing information to partner nor asking a question for partner's benefit but you are giving the opps a chance to remember the missing inference.

[pran]

Is there anything wrong with asking "Have you changed your agreement since we last discussed this sequence?" You are not passing information to partner nor asking a question for partner's benefit but you are giving the opps a chance to remember the missing inference.

That is (always) OK, but only at your own turn to call! (It is a question about opponents' partnership understandings.)

[barmar]

A problem you may have with asking questions like that is not a legal one, but a strategic one. Suppose the opponent has misremembered their agreement, and is about to misbid as a result. Your question may wake him up.