[wank]

As per the other thread, imagine you misbid but realise that you've misbid, but partner defines your bidding incorrectly such that it matches your hand, e.g. you overcall 1NT on 17 high in protective, but partner defines it as 15-18. What should you do? Assume you're declarer so there's no timing issue. The replies in the other thread imply one should keep quiet to avoid misleading the opponents, but that seems illegal - you have the obligation to inform the opponents of your agreements.

Is the situation any different if you've psyched? Imagine you overcall 1NT directly with a club pre-empt showing natural 15-18 and partner happens to play this as a pre-empt in either minor with his regular partner and defines it as such.

[PeterE]

As I cited - in the other (?) thread - from Law 20 F5, if your partner gave a misexplanation and you are about to become declarer (or dummy), it is your duty to reveal this misexplanation to your opponents instantly after the final pass of the auction (after having summoned the TD).
That obligation is independent of the content of your hand.
Ok, you might have some quarrel with the TD (and the opponents) afterwards if you cannot prove your view on your agreements ... but that is the Law.

[gwnn]

Perhaps this thread is somewhat useful:
http://forums.bridge...showtopic=36676
It was a hand where both players in our partnership forgot about Ghestem (and another hand where one player forgot an agreement and the other could clearly tell).

[mjj29]

I think if you both forget then you are likely to be found to have an implicit agreement that this is actually what you are playing.

What I would do (and, infact, have done at least once in the past) is wait until after the hand and then say to the whole table "Well, we both agreed that it was X, but in retrospect I think we previously said it should be Y. Shall we play Y from now on" (or, equivelently "given we both forgot, shall we leave it like that from now on) - it's the same thing I do when we hit an undiscussed situation.

[bluejak]

There was a hand involving Garozzo and a top American female in an American Nationals. I do not know the details, but the description of the hand given was "shows 5+ hearts". However, the correct explanation was "shows 4+ hearts" and the defence failed to switch to a heart because they were afraid that declarer had five hearts. This cost a trick.

Declarer was asked why he/she did not correct the explanation. He/she pointed he/she did have five hearts, so felt the opponents could not be damaged and it seemed a bit sneaky to correct the explanation. Nevertheless he/she was correctly ruled against.

If you really do not know what to do for the best, try following the Laws.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on Jul 6 2010, 03:03 PM, said:

There was a hand involving Garozzo and a top American female in an American Nationals.  I do not know the details, but the description of the hand given was "shows 5+ hearts".  However, the correct explanation was "shows 4+ hearts" and the defence failed to switch to a heart because they were afraid that declarer had five hearts.  This cost a trick.

Declarer was asked why he/she did not correct the explanation.  He/she pointed he/she did have five hearts, so felt the opponents could not be damaged and it seemed a bit sneaky to correct the explanation.  Nevertheless he/she was correctly ruled against.

If you really do not know what to do for the best, try following the Laws.

Are you sure about all of this David? I remember the incident differently, as follows:

The explanation was corrected, the defense played on hearts, and the Americans were incorrectly ruled against.

[jdonn]

Vampyr, on Jul 6 2010, 02:41 PM, said:

bluejak, on Jul 6 2010, 03:03 PM, said:

There was a hand involving Garozzo and a top American female in an American Nationals.  I do not know the details, but the description of the hand given was "shows 5+ hearts".  However, the correct explanation was "shows 4+ hearts" and the defence failed to switch to a heart because they were afraid that declarer had five hearts.  This cost a trick.

Declarer was asked why he/she did not correct the explanation.  He/she pointed he/she did have five hearts, so felt the opponents could not be damaged and it seemed a bit sneaky to correct the explanation.  Nevertheless he/she was correctly ruled against.

If you really do not know what to do for the best, try following the Laws.

Are you sure about all of this David? I remember the incident differently, as follows:

The explanation was corrected, the defense played on hearts, and the Americans were incorrectly ruled against.

I believe that is correct but that they then won the appeal.

[richlp]

jdonn, on Jul 6 2010, 02:48 PM, said:

Vampyr, on Jul 6 2010, 02:41 PM, said:

bluejak, on Jul 6 2010, 03:03 PM, said:

There was a hand involving Garozzo and a top American female in an American Nationals.  I do not know the details, but the description of the hand given was "shows 5+ hearts".  However, the correct explanation was "shows 4+ hearts" and the defence failed to switch to a heart because they were afraid that declarer had five hearts.  This cost a trick.

Declarer was asked why he/she did not correct the explanation.  He/she pointed he/she did have five hearts, so felt the opponents could not be damaged and it seemed a bit sneaky to correct the explanation.  Nevertheless he/she was correctly ruled against.

If you really do not know what to do for the best, try following the Laws.

Are you sure about all of this David? I remember the incident differently, as follows:

The explanation was corrected, the defense played on hearts, and the Americans were incorrectly ruled against.

I believe that is correct but that they then won the appeal.

For the curious.......

Case 21

http://web2.acbl.org...oks/96miami.pdf

[barmar]

mjj29, on Jul 6 2010, 09:37 AM, said:

I think if you both forget then you are likely to be found to have an implicit agreement that this is actually what you are playing.

That sounds suspiciously like the loathed "Rule of coincidence".

[mjj29]

barmar, on Jul 6 2010, 04:54 PM, said:

mjj29, on Jul 6 2010, 09:37 AM, said:

I think if you both forget then you are likely to be found to have an implicit agreement that this is actually what you are playing.

That sounds suspiciously like the loathed "Rule of coincidence".

If you make a bid believing it to be X and your partner also believes it to be X and describes it as such, that sounds to me like what your agreement is - regardless of anything you may have said to each other beforehand or written down anywhere

[jdonn]

mjj29, on Jul 6 2010, 08:37 AM, said:

I think if you both forget then you are likely to be found to have an implicit agreement that this is actually what you are playing.

Who says that the player whose hand doesn't match his agreement forgot?

[mjj29]

jdonn, on Jul 6 2010, 06:58 PM, said:

mjj29, on Jul 6 2010, 08:37 AM, said:

I think if you both forget then you are likely to be found to have an implicit agreement that this is actually what you are playing.

Who says that the player whose hand doesn't match his agreement forgot?

That was somewhat implied by the "misbid" in the OP - although I concede that there are other reasons for misbids which yet can't be corrected by L25A

[barmar]

mjj29, on Jul 6 2010, 07:10 PM, said:

barmar, on Jul 6 2010, 04:54 PM, said:

mjj29, on Jul 6 2010, 09:37 AM, said:

I think if you both forget then you are likely to be found to have an implicit agreement that this is actually what you are playing.

That sounds suspiciously like the loathed "Rule of coincidence".

If you make a bid believing it to be X and your partner also believes it to be X and describes it as such, that sounds to me like what your agreement is - regardless of anything you may have said to each other beforehand or written down anywhere

But if you played the week before and both played it as Y, that sounds to me like what your agreement is. I don't think you can assume an agreement from a one-time coincidence.

[TimG]

I'm sure this sort of thing has happened to me in the past and I have said something along the lines of "I believe my partner incorrectly described our agreement, but that the explanation happens to fit my hand." I probably am not required by Law to include the "but..." part, but it seems to me the right thing to do when leaving it out could mislead the opponents.

[FrancesHinden]

bluejak, on Jul 6 2010, 03:03 PM, said:

There was a hand involving Garozzo and a top American female in an American Nationals. I do not know the details, but the description of the hand given was "shows 5+ hearts". However, the correct explanation was "shows 4+ hearts" and the defence failed to switch to a heart because they were afraid that declarer had five hearts. This cost a trick.

Declarer was asked why he/she did not correct the explanation. He/she pointed he/she did have five hearts, so felt the opponents could not be damaged and it seemed a bit sneaky to correct the explanation. Nevertheless he/she was correctly ruled against.

If you really do not know what to do for the best, try following the Laws.

It's not quite a simple as that.
The example you give is a slightly different case from the one that started this thread (which is admittedly only tangentially referred to) where declarer has misbid.

In this example your hand is consistent with both your agreement (4+ hearts) and with partner's explanation (5+ hearts).

The alternative case is where your hand is consistent with partner's explanation and _not_ with your agreement.

Simple Example:
You play 12-14 1NT opening in 1st seat, 15-17 in second seat.

The auction starts pass on your right, and you absent-mindedly open 1NT on your 13-count. Partner announces this as "12-14" and raises to 3NT (so no UI problems).

Should you correct his explanation? Obviously the technical answer is yes, but you then have a potential problem, because opponents (and indeed the TD) might now rule that you have implicit agreement about opening a weak NT in second seat, and by correcting the explanation you've given MI. You'd have been much better off not saying anything. Particularly if you tell them the agreement is 15-17 and they subsequently let the contract through by not cashing their top tricks but trying for something more obscure.

That's why I'm not so certain about this.

In general, I do correct explanations in the first case (where my hand is consistent both with our agreement and partner's explanation); not least because otherwise I'm just telling opponents my hand.... partner sometimes forgets to mention, say, that 4414 is a possible shape, so I always add that whether or not I've got a 4414.

I've not yet had the problem at the table where I've misbid _and_ partner's explained the meaning as consistent with my hand _and_ I've actually known what the agreement ought to be (if I misbid, and partner correctly explains my hand, I generally assume now that I've got the system right and it doesn't occur to me that I've misbid)

(This is potentially a poor example because you NT opening range should be on your convention card, but let's suppose it isn't, or it just says 'variable' without further definition.)

[barmar]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 9 2010, 06:10 PM, said:

(This is potentially a poor example because you NT opening range should be on your convention card, but let's suppose it isn't, or it just says 'variable' without further definition.)

The ACBL CC has room for two NT ranges, but no specific place for the conditions under which they each apply.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on Jul 10 2010, 06:48 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jul 9 2010, 06:10 PM, said:

(This is potentially a poor example because you NT opening range should be on your convention card, but let's suppose it isn't, or it just says 'variable' without further definition.)

The ACBL CC has room for two NT ranges, but no specific place for the conditions under which they each apply.

Well, the ACBL CC is probably the worst-designed in the world.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on Jul 10 2010, 06:02 PM, said:

barmar, on Jul 10 2010, 06:48 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jul 9 2010, 06:10 PM, said:

(This is potentially a poor example because you NT opening range should be on your convention card, but let's suppose it isn't, or it just says 'variable' without further definition.)

The ACBL CC has room for two NT ranges, but no specific place for the conditions under which they each apply.

Well, the ACBL CC is probably the worst-designed in the world.

Every time someone says "X should be on your CC", that ends up being the conclusion.

Since ACBL players hardly ever refer to their opponents' CC's, this tends not to be a major problem.

[blackshoe]

Heh. Once, playing with a novice partner (when I wasn't much beyond novice myself), an opponent asked my partner about one of my calls. After partner's confused responses, and the opponent's badgering, I suggested that she look on the CC, where our agreement about the call was clearly written. This oh so superior player replied "I don't look at convention cards, I ask questions." She was incensed when I then called the director.