[ahydra]

Could someone remind me as to the rules regarding continuations after a mistaken explanation? I thought it was in the White Book somewhere but can't seem to find it.

For example, North opens 2NT which by partnership agreement is 20-22 balanced. East asks South the meaning and is given the explanation "at least 5-5 in the minors, 8-11 HCP". IIRC South must then bid according to this explanation but North takes the meaning according to the actual agreement, so 3♦ (to play) by South would be explained as a transfer to hearts and then removed to 3♥ by North. Is this correct?

What happens in the case where there is both a simultaneous misbid and misinformation (for example, North-South recently agreed to switch their 2NT opening back to a standard-type bid and this is shown on the CC, but then North holding 5-5 in the minors forgets and opens 2NT, and South also forgets and alerts it as such)?

Many thanks,

ahydra

[campboy]

You were looking in the wrong place -- it is the Orange Book (section 3D) which deals with this.

In the first case, yes, you are right. North must give the partnership agreement for South's call, even though he knows (as do EW, by now) that South intended it as something else. Also, the information that South has forgotten the system is unauthorised to North. South, when he hears the alert of the "transfer", will probably remember that 2NT shows the minors, in which case he should correct his explanation at this point (and the TD should be called).

OB 3D8: "If as a result of partner’s explanation a player realises he has forgotten the partnership agreement and has therefore misbid, he must continue to call as if in ignorance of the correct meaning of the call, until it is obvious from the auction that something is amiss."

Here, since the 2NT opening has no strong option, a 3♥ bid from North would make no sense, so I think it is obvious from the auction what has gone wrong -- or at least, it is obvious to South. North is still constrained by UI to act as though South has transferred.

However, suppose North opened 2NT on a strong balanced hand, and partner alerted "weak, minors", as before, only this time the explanation is correct and North misbid. While North, again, must continue to bid as though 2NT was natural, he should explain South's calls according to the actual agreement. OB 3D7: "It is proper to use any unauthorised information which has been made available by partner to help a player to decide to alert and explain the partnership agreement as accurately as he can, but of course unauthorised information must not be used to help in the bidding and play."

As for the example where misbid and misexplanation coincide -- well, it is quite probable that no-one will realise. However, it is still possible (albeit very unlikely) for EW to be damaged by the misinformation, even though it is a more accurate description of the hand than the correct explanation would have been.

[aguahombre]

so painful....how about remembering your system?

[ahydra]

This came up as a result of opponents forgetting their system, or just misbidding completely. We never called the TD (well, I tried at the end of the hand but he didn't hear, and after reading the rules the TD should have been called MUCH earlier) so I shouldn't discuss the specifics, but in the actual case, South made an overcall explained as A, with the convention card saying B and the actual hand being neither of these! South did eventually correct the explanation to B (this is when the TD should have been summoned). Looking again at the auction and campboy's post it seems the opponents did technically bid correctly (South bidding according to her original explanation).

It just worries me that this could lead to situations where people make up bids for hands that might otherwise be hard to bid / to confuse the opponents when there is a high chance they'll land on their feet anyway. This seems to contradict the whole purpose of a bidding system, and it may well be difficult to prove that the partnership had some sort of hidden agreement when they only do it twice in a tournament or something. Then again, if one ensures the TD is called any damage should be rectified

ahydra

[bluejak]

Few players cheat, and it is not worth worrying about that the odd player does. Eventually he will trip over and get caught. But if ever you get a sequence where you have a suspicion rather than feel you have been damaged, in England or Wales, you ask the TD to take a written record.

[barmar]

ahydra, on Sep 18 2009, 07:03 AM, said:

It just worries me that this could lead to situations where people make up bids for hands that might otherwise be hard to bid / to confuse the opponents when there is a high chance they'll land on their feet anyway.

Bidding systems never cover all cases (there just aren't enough bids available), so making up bids in difficult situations (e.g. a "fake reverse") is a normal part of the game. Sometimes you land on your feet, occasionally you can never convince partner that you don't have the hand you showed and the wheels come off.

These are kind of like psyches, since you're deliberately misbidding, but usually the deviation isn't gross (e.g. you reverse into a 3-card suit, which normally promises 4, so it's only a 1-card deviation). And although the definition doesn't actually say so, most people understand that psyches are intended to deceive, whereas these bids are intended to be constructive, to be the "smallest lie".