BBO Discussion Forums: RR's Relay - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

RR's Relay MI or not MI

#21 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,505
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2020-November-04, 15:16

View Postpran, on 2020-November-04, 14:57, said:

"then the hand with which the call was made defines the meaning of that call (for this instance)."


I am interested but not sure I follow you.
Please could you give an example (unrelated to RR's Relay)?
0

#22 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,185
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2020-November-04, 19:26

Twenty five years I've had this silly "I'm a director" card, and this is the first I've ever heard of that idea. Also not sure it matters, since if they don't agree what it means they don't have an agreement, and if the opponents were told anything other than "we don't have an agreement" they were misinformed anyway.
--------------------
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
1

#23 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,304
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2020-November-05, 02:01

View Postpescetom, on 2020-November-04, 15:16, said:

I am interested but not sure I follow you.
Please could you give an example (unrelated to RR's Relay)?

If the two players in a partnership disagree and offer different explanations of a particular call made by one of them then the explanation offered by the player who actually made that call prevails unless convincing evidence to the contrary is submitted.
0

#24 User is offline   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,484
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 2020-November-05, 02:04

View Postpran, on 2020-November-04, 14:57, said:

And I remember from a seminar for Directors many years ago that if the partnership players have different opinions on the true explanation of a call (or if the call is undiscussed) then the hand with which the call was made defines the meaning of that call (for this instance).
IMHO this is a very sensible principle which normally results in the (correct) ruling that opponents were misinformed.


I suspect you wouldn't find this principle followed nowadays in many places. Of course you may well still get the ruling that the opponents were misinformed, but a different ruling as to what the correct information would be.
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
3

#25 User is offline   sanst 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 686
  • Joined: 2014-July-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Deventer, The Netherlands

Posted 2020-November-05, 02:12

View Postlamford, on 2020-November-02, 16:26, said:

But accepted by North who put down the dummy ...

In a online game???
Joost
0

#26 User is online   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,268
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2020-November-05, 07:29

View Postsanst, on 2020-November-05, 02:12, said:

In a online game???

I corrected it so that the right hand was on lead!
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#27 User is offline   weejonnie 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 789
  • Joined: 2012-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North-east England
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, croquet

Posted 2020-November-07, 03:53

View Postlamford, on 2020-November-04, 12:50, said:

I presume you mean "obviously". When somebody uses "obviously", it may be obvious to them, but the opposite is usually obvious to everyone else, as here. Given that double was takeout, what action would you expect West to take?

The TD decided that their agreement was to play Reverse Benji Acol. In both that and Benji Acol, 2C is strong. Therefore there was MI.


I would expect West to bid 2 diamonds - In my mind KQJT96 is a biddable suit at the two level - especially with two more heart tricks available.
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.
0

#28 User is online   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,268
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2020-November-08, 12:58

View Postweejonnie, on 2020-November-07, 03:53, said:

I would expect West to bid 2 diamonds - In my mind KQJT96 is a biddable suit at the two level - especially with two more heart tricks available.

2Dx goes for 800. I don't think it is gambling for West to pass over a weak 2C, which he knows will be interpreted as strong by North. And when 2D comes back to him, double will be takeout, suggesting RR has psyched 2C with a weak two in diamonds and explained it as a weak two in clubs.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#29 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 20,757
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2020-November-08, 20:19

View Postpran, on 2020-November-05, 02:01, said:

If the two players in a partnership disagree and offer different explanations of a particular call made by one of them then the explanation offered by the player who actually made that call prevails unless convincing evidence to the contrary is submitted.

It sounds like this is intended as a way to apply Law 21B1(b): "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary."

But normally only one player gives an explanation, so the precondition that they "offer different explanations" doesn't exist.

#30 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,304
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2020-November-09, 01:04

View Postbarmar, on 2020-November-08, 20:19, said:

It sounds like this is intended as a way to apply Law 21B1(b): "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary."

But normally only one player gives an explanation, so the precondition that they "offer different explanations" doesn't exist.

Law 20F5 said:

5. (a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. ‘Mistaken explanation’ here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require.
(b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75B) 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.

(My enhancement)
0

#31 User is offline   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,484
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 2020-November-09, 02:03

View Postpran, on 2020-November-09, 01:04, said:

(My enhancement)

I notice you don't enhance the bit that tells us to consider the correct meaning to be the one given by the player who made the call (because that bit is not there).
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
1

#32 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,304
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2020-November-09, 04:48

View Postgordontd, on 2020-November-09, 02:03, said:

I notice you don't enhance the bit that tells us to consider the correct meaning to be the one given by the player who made the call (because that bit is not there).

My enhancement was: The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous

This player is apparently the partner to the player who gave an (allegedly) erroneous explanation, i.e. he is the player who made the call that was erroneously explained.

I have a big problem seeing any point in your comment?
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users