Misbid after forgetting convention

[pstansbu]

Oops title should read Misbid not Missed <_<

 

During an auction my partner made a cue bid which I alerted. No questions were asked at that point. Partner was making a conventional cue bid asking for a stop and I, for some reason, took this to be showing support for the suit I had bid. The auction passed out at this point and I realised my mistake. Prior to the opening lead the opponents asked about my alert - in fact the question was "what did I understand by the xxx bid?" to which I responded "I took it to show support for my suit". Once the lead had been made partner pointed out that my explanation was incorrect. In this case I think we all knew the mistake at that point and we had missed an NT game as a result of my error so the opponents were happy to let things stand.

 

What explanation should I have given at that point - my mistake, the correct convention or both?

 

Also am I right in thinking that partner should have made his correction before the opening lead went down and not after?

[Vampyr]

You tell them your agreement; if you have given a mistaken explanation partner corrects it before the opening lead is made.

[pran]

What explanation should I have given at that point - my mistake, the correct convention or both?

The correct agreement, not your mistake

 

Also am I right in thinking that partner should have made his correction before the opening lead went down and not after?

Yes

[pstansbu]

Thanks both :)

[barmar]

Oops title should read Misbid not Missed <_<

Now it does.

 

I wonder how much any of this question really matters? You're playing in a cue bid, the opponents presumably did well regardless of the meaning.

[weejonnie]

One last thing - your partner MUST call the director before correcting the explanation. (Law 20.F5)

 

(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.

 

 

As the Director can give the opponents the option of having their last pass back - obviously they won't in this case

 

One more last thing - again it doesn't matter in this case but try and avoid using the words "I took it....", especially in a 'live auction'.

[pstansbu]

Two good last things :rolleyes:

 

This was a general club night with a playing director so the form seems to be to agree locally whether to call the director and most players (clearly apart from me) have a generally good understanding of their rights etc. Unsurprisingly they decided not to call the Director in this case.

 

At the risk of digressing / starting a new thread I don't usually answer in this way, the combination of realising the error and the wording of the question threw me. I have been corrected once before on giving an answer of the the "I took it that..." variety after saying we didn't have an agreement. I was advised to just say we didn't have an agreement.

 

There has been a third case when we didn't have an agreement, but we have played together enough as a partnership for me to have a good idea what was meant from similar situations (I forget the details). Is that a case where you should say something like "We don't have a specific agreement, but I took it...." or is that still the wrong thing?

[weejonnie]

Two good last things :rolleyes:

 

This was a general club night with a playing director so the form seems to be to agree locally whether to call the director and most players (clearly apart from me) have a generally good understanding of their rights etc. Unsurprisingly they decided not to call the Director in this case.

 

At the risk of digressing / starting a new thread I don't usually answer in this way, the combination of realising the error and the wording of the question threw me. I have been corrected once before on giving an answer of the the "I took it that..." variety after saying we didn't have an agreement. I was advised to just say we didn't have an agreement.

 

There has been a third case when we didn't have an agreement, but we have played together enough as a partnership for me to have a good idea what was meant from similar situations (I forget the details). Is that a case where you should say something like "We don't have a specific agreement, but I took it...." or is that still the wrong thing?

 

Paragraph 1: The law says "The director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity." (9B1a) : the word "should" has a meaning 'failure to do so may jeopardise the infractor's right but not often punished' - so it is probably OK - at their own risk (Directors can get very touchy if they aren't called at the correct moment and the NOS subsequently want redress). If you are unsure of your rights then, if an irregularity occurs it is going to be best to call the TD - for your own protection. Some players use the 'threat' of calling a TD to browbeat opponents or talk them out of the due rectification to which they are entitled. The word 'threat' is in quotes because calling the TD (politely) is never a sanction. Others will try the opposite - suggest that the TD needn't be called because they 'know the law' - possibly with the same ultimate ends. The TD is there to impartially administer the law and restore equity at the table. If they get annoyed because they are playing a hand then they probably aren't cut out to be directors anyway. (As an aside, aggressive players using such language could readily fall foul of 'zero tolerance' or 'best behaviour at Bridge' or whatever scheme your RA uses to encourage civility and you are quite within your rights to call the director under such circumstances - you have the right to have an enjoyable evening (finishing on 38% regrettably is not grounds for obtaining an adjusted score.))

 

Paragraph 2: Correct - if you have no agreement then say you don't have an agreement. That is all the opponent's are entitled to (but see below). OK partner may in practice obtain UI but in theory he should know you don't have an agreement as well.

 

Paragraph 3: "We don't have an agreement in this case but in the sequence...., ... would mean ...." is probably the best you can do. As soon as you start saying "I took it as..." partner is going to get UI. I know it is natural to try and help opponents, however they can always call the TD (who can send you away and ask your partner what the partnership agreement is (if there is one)). Of course it also helps to have fully completed convention cards - something that, in my club at least, are sorely lacking. (Check - but certainly in England if there is no agreement then the bid should be alerted.)

[Vampyr]

There has been a third case when we didn't have an agreement, but we have played together enough as a partnership for me to have a good idea what was meant from similar situations (I forget the details). Is that a case where you should say something like "We don't have a specific agreement, but I took it...." or is that still the wrong thing?

 

Say exactly what you said here -- you don't have a specific agreement, but in situation A&B you do Y&Z.

 

By the way, I am very aware of the difficulties of playing with a volunteer director, but not calling the director is very bad practice.

[jallerton]

Now it does.

 

I wonder how much any of this question really matters? You're playing in a cue bid, the opponents presumably did well regardless of the meaning.

 

This is a Laws forum. When a poster asks what he should have done, what matters is the correct legal procedure.

[barmar]

This is a Laws forum. When a poster asks what he should have done, what matters is the correct legal procedure.

True, although there needs to be damage before we need to do anything. Only in one of Lamford's SB hypos are the opponents likely to be damaged when you play in a cue bid.