what to tell?

[pran]

I presume you mean something like "what would 2♣ mean?" when 1♣ was bid and explained as strong and artificial, 16+ HCP. If a player bids 2♣, of course an opponent is entitled to an explanation of that bid and that entitlement does not depend on what system he is playing.

No, I intended to emphasize the principle that you are entitled to a complete explanation of calls actually made and relevant calls available although not made in the context of the actual auction.

 

The explanation of a 5♦ bid as response to a 4NT bid is obviously different when the 4NT bid is natural and when it is Blackwood, and the explanation should only relate to the actual context.

 

I introduced my analogue example as one that cannot possibly cause any disagreement: A 2♣ opening bid is different when playing precision as opposed to when playing (for instance) natural. And the explanation should obviously relate solely to the meaning in the actual context?

[gordontd]

They can ask, but why is East obliged to answer?

The original paper for the EBL & EBU on implementing L27 said:

The LHO is not entitled to know what the offender was trying to do when he made the IB (though he is entitled to guess!). However, he is entitled to know full details of his opponents system (e.g. he can ask supplementary questions) and he is entitled to know the Law (e.g. he can seek clarification of the Law from the Tournament Director [TD]).

While I think this paper is no longer considered to be the definitive position on L27, that's only because the WBFLC had asked for a more liberal interpretation, which I don't think affects this point.

[blackshoe]

No, I intended to emphasize the principle that you are entitled to a complete explanation of calls actually made and relevant calls available although not made in the context of the actual auction.

 

The explanation of a 5♦ bid as response to a 4NT bid is obviously different when the 4NT bid is natural and when it is Blackwood, and the explanation should only relate to the actual context.

 

I introduced my analogue example as one that cannot possibly cause any disagreement: A 2♣ opening bid is different when playing precision as opposed to when playing (for instance) natural. And the explanation should obviously relate solely to the meaning in the actual context?

Well, I agree that the explanation should relate to the actual context. As for the rest, I think it just confuses the issue.

[Fluffy]

So pran, if a pair has switched recently from precision to natural, and someone opens 2♣, and then makes a weak bid that suggest he forgot, and your strong hand suggest he forgot, and the table action suggests he forgot.... you cannot ask about what their 2♣ opening agreements were before?.

 

Looks like the partner of the 2♣ opener has advantage here, since if he realices that partner has 'psyched' for eample for passing a partscore contract, he will know now some relevant info that the opponents don't have access to.

 

Before some SB tells me that 2♣ opening can't be psyched or whatever, just think of whatever other opening (2NT minors for example)

[blackshoe]

In some jurisdictions psyching an artificial and forcing 2♣ opening would be illegal, but I can't think of a jurisdiction that would disallow a psych of a natural and limited 2♣ opening.

[aguahombre]

Requesting an explanation on what 5♦ in response to 4NT Blackwood would mean if 4NT had been Blackwood (when it was something else than Blackwood) is very analoguous to request an explanation on for instance the 2♣ opening bid in precision by a player not playing precision.

 

Both questions are irrelevant and neither requires an answer,

Not necessarily. The opponents are disclosing their agreement about 4NT, and a question about if 4NT were Bwd could be relevant. Just because the agreement is non Bwd, doesn't mean the 5D bidder remembered that at the time he bid 5D.

 

I presume you mean something like "what would 2♣ mean?" when 1♣ was bid and explained as strong and artificial, 16+ HCP. If a player bids 2♣, of course an opponent is entitled to an explanation of that bid — and that entitlement does not depend on what system he is playing.

 

 

No, I intended to emphasize the principle that you are entitled to a complete explanation of calls actually made and relevant calls available although not made in the context of the actual auction.

 

I introduced my analogue example as one that cannot possibly cause any disagreement: A 2♣ opening bid is different when playing precision as opposed to when playing (for instance) natural. And the explanation should obviously relate solely to the meaning in the actual context?

When a strong-forcing 1C is opened, the opponents are in-fact entitled to know whether 2C was also available as a strong-forcing bid. There are pairs who play 1C as forcing/strong but 2C stronger. Not Precision, but it does happen in some forcing club systems I have seen.

[blackshoe]

When a strong-forcing 1C is opened, the opponents are in-fact entitled to know whether 2C was also available as a strong-forcing bid. There are pairs who play 1C as forcing/strong but 2C stronger. Not Precision, but it does happen in some forcing club systems I have seen.

Ron Klinger's "Power" system, for example.

[pran]

So pran, if a pair has switched recently from precision to natural, and someone opens 2♣, and then makes a weak bid that suggest he forgot, and your strong hand suggest he forgot, and the table action suggests he forgot.... you cannot ask about what their 2♣ opening agreements were before?.

 

Looks like the partner of the 2♣ opener has advantage here, since if he realices that partner has 'psyched' for eample for passing a partscore contract, he will know now some relevant info that the opponents don't have access to.

 

Before some SB tells me that 2♣ opening can't be psyched or whatever, just think of whatever other opening (2NT minors for example)

An interesting question.

 

Players are entitled to opponents' partnership understandings, in this case that they are playing a natural system.

 

But if an opponent understands that his partner must have (temporarily) forgotten they no longer play precision then that understanding is also part of their partnership understandings and must be disclosed.

 

The consequence of this is that he must act as required by

If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete he must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4.

(if he did not understand and disclosed it immediately.)

[pran]

[...]

When a strong-forcing 1C is opened, the opponents are in-fact entitled to know whether 2C was also available as a strong-forcing bid.

[...]

Of course. Have I indicated anything different?

[barmar]

A psyche has to be deliberate, by definition. Forgetting that you changed your system makes it a misbid, not a psyche.

 

EBU has made things confusing by establishing the same procedures for classifying and ruling on misbids and psyches. But I suppose this has some logic: if you have a history of a particular type of misbid, a regular partner has the same advantage as if they were deliberate psyches -- he knows that the alternate meaning is possible, the opponents don't. Either way, he has an obligation to disclose it as an implicit partnership understanding.

[campboy]

It has quite a lot of logic IMO. They are ruling based on the same law in each case, so it would be odd to have different procedures.

[blackshoe]

A psyche has to be deliberate, by definition. Forgetting that you changed your system makes it a misbid, not a psyche.

 

EBU has made things confusing by establishing the same procedures for classifying and ruling on misbids and psyches. But I suppose this has some logic: if you have a history of a particular type of misbid, a regular partner has the same advantage as if they were deliberate psyches -- he knows that the alternate meaning is possible, the opponents don't. Either way, he has an obligation to disclose it as an implicit partnership understanding.

He said he bid it deliberately, so either he psyched, or he's lying. I called it a psych, but the consensus here seems to be he's a liar, which would make him a cheat. In such a case an ethics hearing seems appropriate. <shrug>

[Sjoerds]

Oh I missread the OP, though East told that away from the table.

There are two different situations.

a. E tells the reason for his IB at the table and everybody knows this

b. E tells it only @ the TD

[Sjoerds]

Requesting an explanation on what 5♦ in response to 4NT Blackwood would mean if 4NT had been Blackwood (when it was something else than Blackwood) is very analoguous to request an explanation on for instance the 2♣ opening bid in precision by a player not playing precision.

 

Both questions are irrelevant and neither requires an answer,

 

And what kind of lead directions do you give in this situation. Or in the case I gave?

[pran]

And what kind of lead directions do you give [...] in the case I gave?

Law 26A with ♠ as the related suit.

[barmar]

He said he bid it deliberately, so either he psyched, or he's lying. I called it a psych, but the consensus here seems to be he's a liar, which would make him a cheat. In such a case an ethics hearing seems appropriate. <shrug>

My comment about misbid versus psyche was in response to Fluffy's scenario, not the OP:

if a pair has switched recently from precision to natural, and someone opens 2♣, and then makes a weak bid that suggest he forgot, and your strong hand suggest he forgot, and the table action suggests he forgot.... you cannot ask about what their 2♣ opening agreements were before?.

I don't see any indication that the bid was deliberate, it looks like a misbid.

[Sjoerds]

Law 26A with ♠ as the related suit.

So you tell NS why East made an IB?

[pran]

So you tell NS why East made an IB?

No, I don't know why he made the IB and I don't tell anybody why he made the IB, but I give the ruling I am required to give which is Law 26, and that my understanding is Law 26A with reference to ♠.

[Sjoerds]

No, I don't know why he made the IB and I don't tell anybody why he made the IB, but I give the ruling I am required to give which is Law 26, and that my understanding is Law 26A with reference to ♠.

 

 

I agree if E has given the UI but else; you give extra information to W and you have to handle with that.

 

Until now the only two that know that 1♥ is for the spades are you and East.

Did you consider LAW 26B?

[pran]

I agree if E has given the UI but else; you give extra information to W and you have to handle with that.

 

Until now the only two that know that 1♥ is for the spades are you and East.

Did you consider LAW 26B?

No, that would be a serious TD error eventually (possibly) leading to a law 82C rectification.

 

The UI given to W definitely does not matter during the auction because W must pass anyway whenever it is his turn to call. And he should be instructed by the Director that this knowledge in case is UI until after he has "paid" the rectification specified in Law 26A.

[Sjoerds]

No, that would be a serious TD error eventually (possibly) leading to a law 82C rectification.

 

The UI given to W definitely does not matter during the auction because W must pass anyway whenever it is his turn to call. And he should be instructed by the Director that this knowledge in case is UI until after he has "paid" the rectification specified in Law 26A.

 

Okay,okay...so you don't tell the reason for the IB. And if you have to use 26A you give lead restrictions for ♠. Isn't that about the same?

[Sjoerds]

I have asked this question now many times to several very qualified TD's and the answers I get differ a lot. So it might look easy, but there is a lot of room to act differently.

 

When such an IB occurs you take the bidder away from the table and you ask what happened. There can be lot of reasons:

- an unintended call for instance. Then you use Law 25

- bidder might not have been paying notice to the bidding at the table and didn't see one of the bids made.

It is important that you find out what he saw and what his intentions have been. Is the bid artificial? etc... the normal facts you need to know to use LAW 27.

 

You have to decide if EW have a bid that has the same of more precise meaning. And there the minds differ again. In this case:

a. some do not accept 2♠ because it is a bid that normally wouldn't be made after 1NT.

b. other accept 2♠ and are prepared to use 27D

b1. some judge 2♠ as 27B1b

b2. most judge 2♠ as 27B2

 

I must say I have sympathy for not accepting 2♠. The meaning of the call 2♠ does not represent this hand. But why not give the offender the opportunity to do something wrong (stupid). There is still 27D to adjust.

 

By the way do you want to know what East is going to call? This knowledge makes things easier but perhaps east has to make up his mind again at the table. So I think you cannot demand to know what he is going to call.

 

Then you return to the table and you give LHO the opportunity to accept the IB. Of course you explain LHO the consequences. And again several views on how to act:

a. some TD's explain to LHO the reason for the IB. "East didn't see 1NT and thought he gave 4+ in ♠ (T-Walsh)" and than "if you don't accept west must pass whenever it is his turn to call"

b. others only tell "if you don't accept west must pass whenever it is his turn to call" In this situation you leave it to NS to find out what happened during the bidding.

(By the way: when the offender has several options to call and one of those is subject to 27B1 you can tell so too. "if you don't accept east has the opportunity to 1. make his bid sufficient without further rectification or 2. to make make a call without further rectification or 3. an other call but then West has to pass whenever it is his turn to call". And after his choice you explain to offenders partner what he is allowed or obliged to do.)

 

My choice is b. Firstly because it is still possible that East becomes the leader and secondly because you try to avoid giving UI or extra information that normally is not available to the other players at the table.

 

But of course when N or S becomes the leader you give the leader the opportunity for lead restrictions for west in ♠ when it is west first turn to lead. At that time NS can work out what happened.

[blackshoe]

Law 27B (whichever part) does not come into play until we have dealt with Law 27A. This does not mean that offender's LHO is not entitled to know the provisions of 27B. It does mean he is not entitled to know which part of 27B will be applicable if he does not accept the IB. So you tell him what 27A and 27B say, and then you ask him whether he accepts the IB. If he doesn't, you tell the offender to choose a legal call. Then you deal with that call under whichever part of 27B applies.

[VixTD]

I have asked this question now many times to several very qualified TD's and the answers I get differ a lot. So it might look easy, but there is a lot of room to act differently.

[...]

Then you return to the table and you give LHO the opportunity to accept the IB. Of course you explain LHO the consequences. And again several views on how to act:

a. some TD's explain to LHO the reason for the IB. "East didn't see 1NT and thought he gave 4+ in ♠ (T-Walsh)" and than "if you don't accept west must pass whenever it is his turn to call"

b. others only tell "if you don't accept west must pass whenever it is his turn to call" In this situation you leave it to NS to find out what happened during the bidding.

I and a number of other directors follow a third course. We tell the non-offenders even less. The auction was:

1♣ - 1NT - 1♥

 

I take offender away from the table and ask what they intended when they bid 1♥, and whether any legal calls would now have much the same meaning as was intended by 1♥. I make it clear to the offender which calls they have available which will not bar partner from bidding, and we return to the table. I explain that offender's LHO may accept the bid and there's no further penalty, if not it must be replaced by a legal call. If 1♥ was intended to show hearts, and 2♥ would now also show hearts, offender can bid that with no further penalty, or if offender has a legal call that would mean much the same as what was intended by 1♥ they can bid that with no further penalty. Other than that, double is not allowed, and lead penalties may apply.

 

Now LHO must make their decision, without knowing what offender intends to do, nor what 1♥ was supposed to mean, nor what replacement bids will bar partner. They may, however, ask questions about the opponents' system and guess.

 

You're right that this all comes undone if offender's partner comes on lead and I say to declarer: "You can insist on or ban a spade lead", but that's no reason to spill the beans before it happens.

[aguahombre]

 

or if offender has a legal call that would mean much the same as what was intended by 1♥ they can bid that with no further penalty.

We have been over this turf many times on the fora, and here we are again. "much the same as" doesn't cut it as a summary of acceptable replacement calls.