Fluffy Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 [hv=pc=n&w=s84hakqt943dak6c7&e=sakt932h2dq4cq954&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=2cp2sp3hp4cp4np6nppp]266|200[/hv] after the bidding but before the lead the bidding is asked. 2♣ is game forcing 2♠ natural positive 3[he[ nat 4♣ is explained as cuebid by west, east doesn't say anything NS lead a diamond and latter call director because 4♣ wasn't a cuebid as explained and 6NT goes down on a club lead. Must east explain the missinformation from his partner? Actually EW are not very experienced in serious torunaments and the correct answer for west about 4♣ s that no agreement is in place, cos there was actually no agreement but that's another thing I supose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 When East believes that West has misexplained their partnership understanding (including when East believes they don't have an understanding, but West says they do) and EW are the declaring side, the director should be called, and the misexplanation corrected in his presence. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that East didn't correct the explanation because he thought "partner must be right", but that's not the correct approach. The correct answer to your question is thus "yes, East must call the TD and correct the explanation". If the correct explanation is "we have no agreement", then that's what East should say. This is required by Law 75 and Law 20F5b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 If East can show evidence of "no agreement" I agree, but the question is then: Why did East bid 4♣ in the first place? I can't help feeling that East intended to show a side-suit and that he believed this to be the partnership understanding of his 4♣ bid. East has unauthorized information that West believed differently, but is required by law (with TD present) to inform opponents of this difference, i.e that he believes West has given misinformation (with the "correct" information being that 4♣ shows a side-suit). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 East may have thought they had no agreement, and hoped partner would guess his meaning correctly. Or he may have thought they had the agreement that 4♣ shows a side suit. In either case, he should correct the misinformation. It's also possible that he wasn't sure what their agreement was, and took a chance. When he heard partner's explanation, he assumed that partner must be correct, and that he'd actually misbid. If this was truly the case, then I suppose his silence is appropriate. But usually it's best to trust yourself -- if you thought you had an agreement at the time you bid, stick to your convictions. One of the reasons why the TD should be called is so that he can sort this all out. If EW are not very experienced, and they're just playing "Standard", I think East probably bid correctly, and common treatments of 2♣ followons are implicitly part of their agreements. In this case, West's 3♥ doesn't set trumps, so how can they start cue bidding already? West would be correct if he'd jumped to 3♥ -- that typically shows a self-sufficient suit, sets trumps, and demands that partner start cue bidding. However, we haven't been told where this took place, so I can't be sure what the standard treatments are in their area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMB1 Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 Noone has mentioned one of the G-words: "gerber". You have to bid 4NT before bidding a suit slam - similarly you have to bid 4♣ before bidding 6NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted February 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 noone has mention what would you rule then, but I supose it depends on jurisdiction Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 The question you asked was whether East had to say something. Whatever jurisdiction, if it was MI then yes he does. If it was not MI, ie it was their agreement, no he doesn't. The difficult cases are where it is not clear. You actually say there is no agreement. That is MI and should be corrected. Whatever the jurisdiction, the ruling would depend on the hands, which you have not given us. Would the defence lead a club if they were told that the correct explanation of 4♣ was "no agreement"? Let us say looking at the hands you think they would about one time in four. Then the ruling would be: In the ACBL, for both sides: 6NT -1, NS +50 Elsewhere, for both sides:.. 30% of 6NT -1, NS +50+ 70% of 6NT =, NS -990 Suppose it is less clear and the diamond lead still looks pretty likely, so they might lead a club one time in ten or so. Then: In the ACBL, for E/W: 6NT -1, NS +50 In the ACBL, for N/S: 6NT =, NS -990 Elsewhere, for both sides:.. 15% of 6NT -1, NS +50+ 85% of 6NT =, NS -990 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jh51 Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 East has unauthorized information that West believed differently, but is required by law (with TD present) to inform opponents of this difference, i.e that he believes West has given misinformation (with the "correct" information being that 4♣ shows a side-suit).I don't understand the remark about East having UI, and its relevance to the whole issue. From the OP, it would seem that any information about what his partner thought the bid meant was gleaned after the final pass when one of the opponents asked for an explanation of the bidding. East is about to lay down his hand as dummy. What does it mean for someone whose primary job for the next several minutes is to turn cards at his partners behest to have UI? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 Must east explain the missinformation from his partner? Actually EW are not very experienced in serious torunaments and the correct answer for west about 4♣ s that no agreement is in place, cos there was actually no agreement but that's another thing I supose. Yes. He should say (if this is true) "we haven't discussed the meaning of 4C"As for whether to adjust that depends on the hands. They might be less likely to lead a club through a natural club bid than through a club cue bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 I don't understand the remark about East having UI, and its relevance to the whole issue. From the OP, it would seem that any information about what his partner thought the bid meant was gleaned after the final pass when one of the opponents asked for an explanation of the bidding. East is about to lay down his hand as dummy. What does it mean for someone whose primary job for the next several minutes is to turn cards at his partners behest to have UI?It depends on when the 4♣ bid was explained. If the 4♣ bid was explained after the auction then you are correct and the UI is irrelevant. If however, it was explained before the 6NT bid, one could imagine that the jump to 6NT (rather than showing the number of aces) was inspired by the UI. Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 It depends on when the 4♣ bid was explained.The OP said the explanations were given "after the bidding but before the lead". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 The OP said the explanations were given "after the bidding but before the lead".Thanks. It is very easy to miss the first line of any story. My brain must have automatically assumed that it was "Once upon a time". Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jallerton Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 If East can show evidence of "no agreement" I agree, but the question is then: Why did East bid 4♣ in the first place? I can't help feeling that East intended to show a side-suit and that he believed this to be the partnership understanding of his 4♣ bid. East has unauthorized information that West believed differently, but is required by law (with TD present) to inform opponents of this difference, i.e that he believes West has given misinformation (with the "correct" information being that 4♣ shows a side-suit). How exactly do you recommend East shows evidence of "no agreement", Sven? If he hands the TD a blank piece of paper and says "here are our agreementa about the meaning of Responder's rebids after a 2♣ Opener", is this sufficient evidence for you as TD? Alternatively, if he hands his 66-page system file to the TD and says "this sequence is not mentioned", would you as TD read through all 66 pages to check this assertion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexJonson Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 This is fun, but it is perhaps obvious that 4c was a misbid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Perhaps it isn't. It seems obvious to me that he had clubs, so he bid clubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 How exactly do you recommend East shows evidence of "no agreement", Sven? If he hands the TD a blank piece of paper and says "here are our agreementa about the meaning of Responder's rebids after a 2♣ Opener", is this sufficient evidence for you as TD? Alternatively, if he hands his 66-page system file to the TD and says "this sequence is not mentioned", would you as TD read through all 66 pages to check this assertion?How he will (or can) show evidence is East's problem. A blank piece of paper is no evidence of anything at all, and it is certainly not my job to read through 66 pages. Unless he can convince me that he has no agreement I shall rule that he has (at least in his own opinion). And I am not easy to convince in cases like this: I just do not believe that a player deliberatly makes a call without believing/hoping that his partner will understand (unless of course when he is psyching or has accidentally misbid). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Where in the Laws, Sven, does it say the TD is supposed to sit on his ass while players bring evidence to him? If you ask a player for evidence of a negative, and he hands you 66 (or 800!) pages of system notes and says "this is all our agreements; the one in question is not in here", then either you accept his word on that (in which case why not accept his word without a stack of paper?!) or you read through the 66 (or 800!) pages until you've verified to your satisfaction that he's telling the truth. To do otherwise is IMO at the very least unprofessional. You had better not ever tell me "your opinion is that you have an agreement here". I don't care who you are, you don't get to tell me what my opinion is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 I don't understand the remark about East having UI, and its relevance to the whole issue. From the OP, it would seem that any information about what his partner thought the bid meant was gleaned after the final pass when one of the opponents asked for an explanation of the bidding. East is about to lay down his hand as dummy. What does it mean for someone whose primary job for the next several minutes is to turn cards at his partners behest to have UI?Anything West has told opponents as explanation of East's call is UI to East (but East must inform opponents if he thinks that West has given incorrect information). This can be highly relevant if the alleged misinformation results in the auction being continued as permitted in Law 21B1. Once East becomes Dummy his possession of UI is of course no longer of any interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Where in the Laws, Sven, does it say the TD is supposed to sit on his ass while players bring evidence to him? If you ask a player for evidence of a negative, and he hands you 66 (or 800!) pages of system notes and says "this is all our agreements; the one in question is not in here", then either you accept his word on that (in which case why not accept his word without a stack of paper?!) or you read through the 66 (or 800!) pages until you've verified to your satisfaction that he's telling the truth. To do otherwise is IMO at the very least unprofessional. You had better not ever tell me "your opinion is that you have an agreement here". I don't care who you are, you don't get to tell me what my opinion is.East will have to show me (convincingly) exactly where in his system description the call would have been described if it were described, and show that there is a "hole" in the system description. I shall never tell you what your opinion is, you will have to tell me why you make calls for which you have no agreements. And you had better have a reason that I can believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterAlan Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 If East can show evidence of "no agreement" I agree, but the question is then: Why did East bid 4♣ in the first place?The simple answer to this is because he had to bid something. The problem he has is that, whatever he bids next, you're going to rule that he has an agreement about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 If East can show evidence of "no agreement" I agree, but the question is then: Why did East bid 4♣ in the first place?The simple answer to this is because he had to bid something. The problem he has is that, whatever he bids next, you're going to rule that he has an agreement about it.The very simple answer from looking at his actual hand is that East should have no problem bidding 4♣ if the partnership understanding (in his opinion) is that this shows a side suit in clubs. (In that case he should simply have offered a correction to his partner's explanation of the 4♣ bid before the opening lead.) If instead the partnership understanding is that a 4♣ bid is artificial in any way then it appears to me that his hand is perfect for a 3♠ bid. So what is his real problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 I shall never tell you what your opinion is, you will have to tell me why you make calls for which you have no agreements. And you had better have a reason that I can believe. Frankly, it appears to me unlikely that anyone who pulls a call out of the ether because his system doesn't have a call that meets his current need will ever convince you that's why he did it. As for the opinion thing, that's not what you said in your post #16. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjj29 Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 East will have to show me (convincingly) exactly where in his system description the call would have been described if it were described, and show that there is a "hole" in the system description. I shall never tell you what your opinion is, you will have to tell me why you make calls for which you have no agreements. And you had better have a reason that I can believe.Pran, in none of these threads have you ever said how I could convince you that I do not have an agreement. You seem to be of the opinion that undiscussed sequences can't ever happen - which is demonstrably wrong. I don't have a list of all possible sequences we've not discussed written down. If I did - we would have discussed them! Last night I was playing with a scratch partner. We had discussed (for a scratch partnership) quite a lot of things because we sat out the 2nd round, and assumed others correctly. In a later round we had this auction: 1S-(3H)-X-(P)-4C-(P)-5D-(P)-? I could not imagine a hand where my partner could bid 5D now and shouldn't have bid 4D at either this or the previous round if it were natural (both of which would have been forcing). Had we discussed this sequence, as I have with other partners, it would have been exclusion keycard for clubs - but I wasn't going to put him on having done that without discussion. Do you discuss this kind of sequence with every person you play bridge with? If I'm asked what 5D means, what should I say? If the opponents call you because they've defended wrongly, would you rule I have an agreement? This example is, of course, complicated because I have to decide what to do now. All available calls will give me a cold bottom if I'm wrong. If I guess right and describe it as 'no agreement' would you rule against me? If I guess wrong but the opponents could have gotten a few more undertricks (were it IMPs) from it would you rule against me? My partner had a gambling 3NT opening in diamonds, as it happens, and I guess he had similar problems trying to decide if I definitely would take either of the 4D bids as forcing and if so whether I'd take 5D as natural. I'd really like to know what you think I should say if asked, what my partner should say at the end of the auction and what you would rule if either of them were 'no agreement' and oppo felt they were damaged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Pran, in none of these threads have you ever said how I could convince you that I do not have an agreement. You seem to be of the opinion that undiscussed sequences can't ever happen - which is demonstrably wrong. I don't have a list of all possible sequences we've not discussed written down. If I did - we would have discussed them! Last night I was playing with a scratch partner. We had discussed (for a scratch partnership) quite a lot of things because we sat out the 2nd round, and assumed others correctly. In a later round we had this auction: 1S-(3H)-X-(P)-4C-(P)-5D-(P)-? I could not imagine a hand where my partner could bid 5D now and shouldn't have bid 4D at either this or the previous round if it were natural (both of which would have been forcing). Had we discussed this sequence, as I have with other partners, it would have been exclusion keycard for clubs - but I wasn't going to put him on having done that without discussion. Do you discuss this kind of sequence with every person you play bridge with? If I'm asked what 5D means, what should I say? If the opponents call you because they've defended wrongly, would you rule I have an agreement? This example is, of course, complicated because I have to decide what to do now. All available calls will give me a cold bottom if I'm wrong. If I guess right and describe it as 'no agreement' would you rule against me? If I guess wrong but the opponents could have gotten a few more undertricks (were it IMPs) from it would you rule against me? My partner had a gambling 3NT opening in diamonds, as it happens, and I guess he had similar problems trying to decide if I definitely would take either of the 4D bids as forcing and if so whether I'd take 5D as natural. I'd really like to know what you think I should say if asked, what my partner should say at the end of the auction and what you would rule if either of them were 'no agreement' and oppo felt they were damaged.The prime directive in Bridge is that your opponents shall have the same (or better) foundation as your partner has for understanding your calls. IMHO situations like the one you describe possibly require you to state that you don't know (or words to that effect) but definitely to disclose the interpretation you have chosen for the purpose of selecting your further calls. Simply stating that you have no agreement and then choosing an interpretation that "happens" to be correct without disclosing this interpretation to opponents comes dangerously close to successfully exercising a concealed partnership understanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 The prime directive in Bridge is that your opponents shall have the same (or better) foundation as your partner has for understanding your calls.Correct.IMHO situations like the one you describe possibly require you to state that you don't know (or words to that effect) but definitely to disclose the interpretation you have chosen for the purpose of selecting your further calls. Simply stating that you have no agreement and then choosing an interpretation that "happens" to be correct without disclosing this interpretation to opponents comes dangerously close to successfully exercising a concealed partnership understanding.I don't see how you go from the first statement to the second. If you have to guess, then it's fair for the opponents to do so as well. You have to explain your agreements, not how you've decided to interpret a bid. We're frequently admonished that "I'm taking it as" is NOT the appropriate way to begin a response to a request for an explanation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.