Help
After a competitive auction, my side was on defense and I was contemplating my opening lead when the declarer, a pretty decent player who was playing with a less experienced player, explained one of my bids to his partner, by way of giving his partner a small bridge lesson. Except that the explanation was completely wrong. Maybe it would have been right in the system the declarer and his partner were playing, but it was wrong in the system I was playing with my partner. Frankly, it didn't make any sense to me in any system I'd ever heard of. But put that aside. The main point is that it was not a correct explanation of my bid in the system I was playing with my partner.
Did I have any obligation to correct this mistaken explanation? Declarer had asked no question; he had only explained his understanding of my bid to his partner, the dummy.
I said nothing. Was that appropriate? And what about my partner, who also said nothing?
Page 1 of 1
Incorrect Explanation -- With a Twist ACBL
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,686
- Joined: 2006-April-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rochester, NY
Posted 2019-April-06, 22:32
You have no obligation to correct your opponent's misunderstanding. That's all on him.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#3
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 863
- Joined: 2014-July-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Deventer, The Netherlands
Posted 2019-April-07, 01:44
Actually, I don’t think you’re allowed to correct the declarer at this point, since that would give UI to you partner. You might of course point out after the play that the explanation was wrong.
Joost
#4
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 801
- Joined: 2012-April-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:North-east England
- Interests:Bridge Laws, croquet
Posted 2019-April-07, 02:28
If your partner became confused because of the incorrect explanation you might have cause for redress under 47E. It depends how you interpret "A player may retract the card he has played because of a mistaken explanation of an opponent’s call" - your opponent gave a mistaken explanation of his 'opponent's call'.
No matter how well you know the laws, there is always something that you'll forget. That is why we have a book.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.
#5
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 21,571
- Joined: 2004-August-21
- Gender:Male
Posted 2019-April-07, 20:33
I think that "an opponent's" in that context is intended to mean an opponent of the player who was given the incorrect explanation and is then allowed to retract his card, not anyone's opponent (since everyone is someone's opponent).
The only player who was given an incorrect explanation of an opponent's call was dummy. Since he doesn't play cards, he can't retract anything.
Actually, if you want to be extremely literal, it doesn't say that the explanation has to come from an opponent. Declarer gave a mistaken explanation of an opponent's call, so it seems like he should be able to retract any plays he makes based on that.
But there's another law that says that players get no redress for actions they take due to their own misunderstanding, I think that should take precedence.
The only player who was given an incorrect explanation of an opponent's call was dummy. Since he doesn't play cards, he can't retract anything.
Actually, if you want to be extremely literal, it doesn't say that the explanation has to come from an opponent. Declarer gave a mistaken explanation of an opponent's call, so it seems like he should be able to retract any plays he makes based on that.
But there's another law that says that players get no redress for actions they take due to their own misunderstanding, I think that should take precedence.
Page 1 of 1