Was the ruling correct?

[Yu18772]

Hi

I just came home from a tournament, where my partner and I got (imo) unfair ruling. Since neither we nor the ops had any chance to win we did not appeal, but I would still like to know if I am wrong. My partner and I played for the first time together tonight. We had limited discussion about agreements, in general agreeing 2/1 and some standard gadgets.

Bidding was:

RHO Me LHO P

2♠ 3♥ 4♠ 4NT

P 5♦ P 6♥

P P P

 

No questions before the lead, LHO leads small spade and the dummy goes down:

♠ Kx

♥ KQTxxx

♦ Qxx

♣ KJ

small is played from the table.

RHO asks dummy what was 5♦, dummy says 3 or 0 (correct by our agreements for RKCB).

The problem was that we did not discuss this auction, and I was not sure at all that 4NT is RKCB, I bid my better minor.

RHO plays J, covered with Q and 6♥ is making, although they have 2 aces to cash. Opponents call the director, because I did not correct the explanation at the table, director explained that ACBL the rules are very strict, and I should have corrected to "we have no agreement" once my partner said 0 or 3, awarding them another trick. In the field the most common score was 680.....

 

So , I have several questions:

1. Is 4NT alertable in ACBL land (whichever meaning you play it)?

 

2. Are opponents allowed to ask questions about the bidding after the lead is made and dummy is revealed?

3. Should I correct the explanation to "we have no agreement" (which in my opinion does transfer specific info to opponents, just because I corrected)?

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

 

 

 

 

[gordontd]

2. Are opponents allowed to ask questions about the bidding after the lead is made and dummy is revealed?

Yes.

3. Should I correct the explanation to "we have no agreement" (which in my opinion does transfer specific info to opponents, just because I corrected)?

Yes - in fact I think you might have gone a bit further and corrected to "it would have shown 0/3 if it were RKCB, but we don't have any agreement whether or not that is the case".

[paulg]

3. Should I correct the explanation to "we have no agreement" (which in my opinion does transfer specific info to opponents, just because I corrected)?

I fully understand how frustrating these rulings can seem at the time, but my view is that it is better to provide the opponents with more specific information rather than leave them with the wrong information. Gordon has covered the best way to do this.

[gnasher]

If the result seems unfair, blame your partner for causing the problem in the first place. He stated a definite agreement when there wasn't one. He should have said "If it was a Keycard response, it showed 3 or 0". Then there would be no misexplanation to correct.

[blackshoe]

My answers:

 

1. 4NT in this auction does not require an alert, whatever it means. See the ACBL Alert Procedure, particularly item 3 under Part II, and Part IX.

 

2. Yes.

Law 20F2: After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at his own turn to play may request an explanation of the opposing auction. At his turn to play from his hand or from dummy declarer may request an explanation of a defender’s call or card-play understandings. Explanations should be given on a like basis to F1 above and by the partner of the player whose action is explained.

Law 20F1 deals with questions during the auction. The relevant part, imo, is

He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding. Except on the instruction of the director, replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question. The partner of a player who asks a question may not ask a supplementary question until his turn to call or play.

Also

Law 20F3: under F1 and F2 above, a player may ask concerning a single call, but Law 16B1 may apply.

and

Law 16B1: (a) After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

(b) A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

 

* i.e., unexpected in relation to the basis of his action.

3. Yes.

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.

The emphasis is mine (most people either don't know they're supposed to call the TD, or know, but don't bother) :(. Law 75 gives examples of when Law 20F5 applies, and is too long to post here. You can look up the laws on the ACBL website. Note: since the question was asked during the play period, if dummy mis-explains, declarer should imo call the TD immediately and correct the explanation. Dummy is in a more difficult position, if he disagrees with declarer's explanation, since he is not allowed to call attention to an irregularity (Law 43A1(b)). He must wait until the end of the play (at which time he is no longer dummy).

 

tl;dr: I agree with the previous posters. The director's ruling was correct.

[barmar]

If the result seems unfair, blame your partner for causing the problem in the first place. He stated a definite agreement when there wasn't one. He should have said "If it was a Keycard response, it showed 3 or 0". Then there would be no misexplanation to correct.

I find it difficult to blame people too much for this. When you don't spend much time discussing system, you generally assume "standard" agreements on many common conventions and treatments. It seems like it would be more misleading to describe most these things as undiscussed, and knowing where to draw the line is difficult. If you think "everyone plays this 4NT as Blackwood", you'll include it among the ones where you give normal, definite explanations. Unfortunately, he was mistaken about his partner in this case (although I'm not sure which one was marching to the beat of a different drummer).

[bluejak]

I fully understand how frustrating these rulings can seem at the time, but my view is that it is better to provide the opponents with more specific information rather than leave them with the wrong information. Gordon has covered the best way to do this.

I don't understand how people get so frustrated by clearly correct rulings when they have gone wrong. To avoid such rulings, follow the Laws.

 

If the result seems unfair, blame your partner for causing the problem in the first place. He stated a definite agreement when there wasn't one. He should have said "If it was a Keycard response, it showed 3 or 0". Then there would be no misexplanation to correct.

Yes, but both partners have erred by not following the Laws.

 

I find it difficult to blame people too much for this. When you don't spend much time discussing system, you generally assume "standard" agreements on many common conventions and treatments. It seems like it would be more misleading to describe most these things as undiscussed, and knowing where to draw the line is difficult. If you think "everyone plays this 4NT as Blackwood", you'll include it among the ones where you give normal, definite explanations. Unfortunately, he was mistaken about his partner in this case (although I'm not sure which one was marching to the beat of a different drummer).

I find it very easy to blame him. Why on earth does he not tell the truth instead of inventing things? The OP said

My partner and I played for the first time together tonight. We had limited discussion about agreements, in general agreeing 2/1 and some standard gadgets.

so why not answer to the question by saying

 

"My partner and I are playing for the first time together tonight. We had limited discussion about agreements, in general agreeing 2/1 and some standard gadgets, including standard RKCB."

[barmar]

so why not answer to the question by saying

 

"My partner and I are playing for the first time together tonight. We had limited discussion about agreements, in general agreeing 2/1 and some standard gadgets, including standard RKCB."

Because it seems disingenuous to answer almost every question with that type of answer, even if it's technically accurate.

 

Example: I sit down with someone and agree to play 2/1, no other discussion. Then we have the auction "1♣-1♠-1NT-2♦", and I alert the 2♦ bid. If asked, should I really say that we didn't discuss whether this was New Minor Forcing or not? As far as I'm concerned, this is implicitly part of the 2/1 system that we agreed to play (the only potential discussion point would have been to play 2-way Checkback instead of normal NMF), and I'm going to explain it as if we agreed on it.

[Vampyr]

Dummy is in a more difficult position, if he disagrees with declarer's explanation, since he is not allowed to call attention to an irregularity (Law 43A1(b)). He must wait until the end of the play (at which time he is no longer dummy).

 

I don't know if the above is supported by the law quoted (it is clearly not the intention of the lawmakers). In any case, most people either don't know about it or do not think that this interpretation is correct it, because dummy usually does correct an erroneous explanation at this time. This is obviously the right thing to do, but if blackshoe's comment above is correct, then players must be careful to address all of their questions to dummy in order to avoid the problem.

[Yu18772]

Thank you.

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

 

 

[blackshoe]

I don't know if the above is supported by the law quoted (it is clearly not the intention of the lawmakers). In any case, most people either don't know about it or do not think that this interpretation is correct it, because dummy usually does correct an erroneous explanation at this time. This is obviously the right thing to do, but if blackshoe's comment above is correct, then players must be careful to address all of their questions to dummy in order to avoid the problem.

I quoted several laws. To which one are you referring?

 

What dummy usually does is not necessarily legal.

 

How does addressing questions to dummy avoid the problem?

[blackshoe]

Example: I sit down with someone and agree to play 2/1, no other discussion. Then we have the auction "1♣-1♠-1NT-2♦", and I alert the 2♦ bid. If asked, should I really say that we didn't discuss whether this was New Minor Forcing or not? As far as I'm concerned, this is implicitly part of the 2/1 system that we agreed to play (the only potential discussion point would have been to play 2-way Checkback instead of normal NMF), and I'm going to explain it as if we agreed on it.

And if your partner is not on the same wavelength?

 

I imagine it's not happening more, just that I'm noticing it more. And what is "it"? The tendency of players — and directors, apparently — to ignore the law and do what they want to do instead. :( :o

[Vampyr]

How does addressing questions to dummy avoid the problem?

 

Corrections, if necessary, are then made by declarer.

[blackshoe]

Corrections, if necessary, are then made by declarer.

Of course! I must have been asleep. :blink: :lol:

[barmar]

And if your partner is not on the same wavelength?

Then I'm going to misunderstand his bid, since I'm going to interpret it the way I explained.

 

If I were planning on hedging my bet in how I continued the auction, then of course I should also be less definite in the explanation.

[blackshoe]

You are, it seems to me, advocating the "deWael School" approach, which has been specifically deprecated by the WBFLC. I don't have the minute handy, or I'd quote it here.

[blackshoe]

I just figured out what's been bothering me about my recent exchange with Stefanie upthread. She suggested the defenders should address all their questions, during the play, to dummy, so that it would be declarer who is supposed to call the TD and correct an erroneous explanation, not dummy. However, we both (I think) neglected to consider "explanations should be given by the partner of the player whose action is explained". This means that dummy explaining the meaning of one of his own calls is an irregularity.

[c_corgi]

It would help in this situation if there were an onus on the defenders to ask about dummy's 4NT before declarer's 5D, but I don't think there is :(

[Vampyr]

"explanations should be given by the partner of the player whose action is explained". This means that dummy explaining the meaning of one of his own calls is an irregularity.

 

Maybe you ignored it, but I did not. According to L20F1, explanations should normally be given by the partner of the player whose action is explained applies during the auction period only. And even if this were not the case, "normally" implies that it is done unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, as there would be here.

[blackshoe]

Maybe you ignored it, but I did not. According to L20F1, explanations should normally be given by the partner of the player whose action is explained applies during the auction period only. And even if this were not the case, "normally" implies that it is done unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, as there would be here.

Perhaps I should have said I didn't think about it, rather than that I ignored it.

 

Edit: In fact, what I said was that I, at least, neglected to consider it. That's not the same thing as ignoring it.

 

The word "normally" does not appear in that sentence in my (ACBL) copy of TFLB. So I looked at the WBF version. Same words, no "normally". The actual words in Law 20F1 are

Except on the instruction of the Director replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question.

Law 20F2 says of this

Explanations should be given on a like basis to 1 and by the partner of the player whose action is explained.

So if you want dummy to explain the meaning of his own call(s), you'd best call the TD and get his permission.

 

Earlier I said that dummy explaining his own calls would be an irregularity. I will go further: even if "normally" were included as you suggest, the word "should" indicates that a player explaining the meanings of his own calls is an infraction of law, and again I would get the TD's permission before asking a player to do that - and if I was the player asked, I would call the TD myself.

Edited July 5, 2012 by blackshoe
correctly refer to what I said upthread.

[Vampyr]

Earlier I said that dummy explaining his own calls would be an irregularity. I will go further: even if "normally" were included as you suggest, the word "should" indicates that a player explaining the meanings of his own calls is an infraction of law, and again I would get the TD's permission before asking a player to do that - and if I was the player asked, I would call the TD myself.

 

It's very odd; I remembered that the law said "normally", and looked it up and found that it was there; now it is not.

 

But if you want to call the director, you will have to do it every time one of the declaring side explains the auction after it is over. Is that really practical?

[mjj29]

It's very odd; I remembered that the law said "normally", and looked it up and found that it was there; now it is not.

 

But if you want to call the director, you will have to do it every time one of the declaring side explains the auction after it is over. Is that really practical?

Given that (for the declaring side) if a mistake is made in the explanations then it must be corrected by the other player immediately, everyone shortcuts this to allow them just to explain straight away. Is it technically incorrect? Sure. Does it make the game run more smoothly to just have one player run through the whole thing rather than have to alternate? Definitely. Or allow dummy to answer and let declarer think (dummy hasn't got anything else to do). Or even to have the more eloquent of the pair give the answer. I certainly know I've played in partnerships where oppo are better informed if I give the explanations than if partner does.

[gnasher]

Does it make the game run more smoothly to just have one player run through the whole thing rather than have to alternate?

Sometimes this can disadvantage the opponents. For example:

 

Player A bids 4NT, systemically a spade cue-bid, intended as a spade cue-bid, but interpreted by Player B as Keycard.

After the auction, Player A explains both partner's own bids.

Player B hears the explanation of 4NT, and realises that he has got the system wrong.

Player B has no legal obligation to tell anyone about his misunderstanding, so he doesn't.

 

If the players had each explained their partner's bids, the misunderstanding would have come to light. Hence the failure to follow proper procedure has benefited the explaining side.

[barmar]

It's very odd; I remembered that the law said "normally", and looked it up and found that it was there; now it is not.

It was in the 1997 version of the Law.

[bluejak]

Because it seems disingenuous to answer almost every question with that type of answer, even if it's technically accurate.

 

Example: I sit down with someone and agree to play 2/1, no other discussion. Then we have the auction "1♣-1♠-1NT-2♦", and I alert the 2♦ bid. If asked, should I really say that we didn't discuss whether this was New Minor Forcing or not? As far as I'm concerned, this is implicitly part of the 2/1 system that we agreed to play (the only potential discussion point would have been to play 2-way Checkback instead of normal NMF), and I'm going to explain it as if we agreed on it.

Disingenuous, hey? Using long words to confuse poor little me. :o

 

I don't care whether it is disingenuous, whatever that means, I just dislike misinforming opponents. And I think the Laws are on my side in this matter.

 

Maybe you ignored it, but I did not. According to L20F1, explanations should normally be given by the partner of the player whose action is explained applies during the auction period only. And even if this were not the case, "normally" implies that it is done unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, as there would be here.

I was going to say - before someone pointed out it has disappeared from the Laws - that "normally" means in the opinion of the TD, so you should call him. It appears that the new Law has merely clarified this.

 

Of course there are times when you do not follow the Laws and no-one cares. But if I play against you, and I am declarer, and you refer all questions about our bidding to my partner whether they are calls I have made or she has made, I shall call the TD and say that you are being blatantly rude. Perhaps this is disingenuous of me, whatever that means, but why should you do so if not to upset declarer?