Correcting partner's explanation?

[cherdano]

Obviously, when partner gives a wrong explanation during the defense, I am not allowed to correct him. (But I still got you to click that link! :P )

 

But what if partner gives a wrong explanation, corrects himself, and it is obvious to me that declarer missed the explanation? Can I draw declarer's attention to partner's correction?

 

In case you want to know more details:

I lead ♦T against NT, declarer asks about my honour lead, and partner explains our suit lead agreements instead (0/2 higher). Instead we play Rusinow - T promises the J. Declarer starts thinking while partner and dummy are chatting and joking about other things, and during the joking conversation partner says "It promises the jack!", while declarer keeps thinking - it was obvious to me at the time that she had missed it.

 

No hard feelings involved, just wondering. (I did not draw declarer's attention to the correction, declarer misguessed diamonds later and asked for a score correction - partner and I both agreed director should assume misexplanation.)

 

Note to moderators: please don't move this to the Laws forum.

[PhantomSac]

I dunno if I was declarer and I heard a wrong explanation and then didn't hear a correction and that persons partner then drew my attention to the "correction" I would be totally freaked out by that lol. I put correction in quotation marks not because I think you lied or anything obviously, but you can see the can of worms it opens.

 

AFAIK it is the person who is alerting's duty to make sure the opp heard or saw the alert. I think the same should apply to explanations especially after a misexplanation. It is your partners fault if the opp did not fully understand the corrected explanation, and I think you're supposed to be silent and then eat it if your partner fails at that. I think it would be a bad precedent if both opps started talking in this kind of sensitive situation.

 

Obviously the worst would be to not say anything and then to try and win the ruling by saying your partner corrected it though. I think taking the worst of it (like you did) is overall best in this type of situation, you (your partnership) is the offending side.

[Trinidad]

I agree that this is your partner's responsibility.

 

However, given that it is clear that dummy did hear partner's correction, I would turn to declarer and ask him if he has heard your partner's last remark (without stating what that remark was).

 

Rik

[ggwhiz]

I would turn to declarer and ask him if he has heard your partner's last remark (without stating what that remark was).

 

Rik

 

Yes indeed. The alternative is that players chatting and socializing while declarer is thinking should be punished and when that happens I'll quit the game.

[barmar]

I don't see a problem with checking if declarer heard the correction. The purpose of the restriction on correcting partner's misexplanation is that it provides UI to partner -- you're not allowed to help him when he's forgotten your agreements. But nothing like that is going on here, no UI is being transmitted between the defenders. This is just being helpful to declarer, I don't see any way it could work to your side's advantage.

[aguahombre]

Barry: There would be UI. Partner gave conflicting explanations, which indicated he was confused. By chiming in, you are reassuring the confused guy across from you that his second try was the correct answer.

 

It is all on partner to make the explanation correct and make it understood; we live with the result if he doesn't do that.

[ggwhiz]

Barry: There would be UI. Partner gave conflicting explanations, which indicated he was confused. By chiming in, you are reassuring the confused guy across from you that his second try was the correct answer.

 

My partner committed to the 2nd answer 100% as soon as they made it. If it's wrong I live with the consequences but my silence may well wake partner up to that fact just as much as my actions confirm it. Probably not since I assume that partner was involved in the socializing and didn't notice that declarer was not aware of their correction. I'm just making sure that declarer heard it, right or wrong.