bridgetalk.com forums :: Laws & Rulings

AlanW

Incomplete disclosure ( 14:33:58 WedFeb 19 2003 )

An incident at a recent club night left me wondering how directors/appeals committees would react. My partner was playing the hand and an oppo discarded. Partner asked the other defender what discards they played and was told distributional. Fortunately, partner followed up with a supplementary question to check whether this was the usual way round (ie high-low to show an even number) and was told they played reverse distribution. However, on an ordinary club night 95% of pairs playing distributional discards would play 'normal' distribution, and 90% of declarers would not feel the need to ask a supplementary question to confirm this since in the absence of a more specific reply they would feel entitled to assume this.

Leaving aside my no doubt unfounded suspicion that the incomplete answer given was a deliberate attempt to gain an unfair advantage, how would a director rule if my partner had gone wrong by relying on the answer he thought he had been given? I presume 'distributional' would not be regarded as adequate disclosure on the normal grounds that names are not enough, but is the onus on the defender to give an adequate answer or on the declarer to ask for one? Anyone got any ideas on how to tactfully suggest to the defender in question that a fuller answer would be fairer to all concerned, particularly when it happened to be the director?

bluejak

427 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: Incomplete disclosure ( 16:07:39 WedFeb 19 2003 )

The onus is on the defender to describe the methods adequately and correctly, and an adjustment in case of damage would be routine.

I am not sure I would even be tactful. The player concerned should be told that the answer "Distributional" is highly misleading, and illegal.

---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

James Vickers

Re: Incomplete disclosure ( 17:33:05 FriFeb 21 2003 )

Country: UK

I agree that incomplete disclosure is deplorable and should be discouraged, but to adjust routinely can leave the door open to double shot actions.

E.g. 1H - (2NT*). If I ask and get the answer: "Ghestem" or "Schroeder" (two suited overcalls) I am free to act as if it is showing two particular suits of my choice and then call the director for an adjusted score if it turns out I have chosen the wrong ones. I can't lose.

I must admit I would be inclined to say the enquirer should have made certain their assumption was correct by asking a supplementary question, so I would let the score stand and fine the player who gave insufficient information.

I can guess what David is going to say in response to this.

James

bluejak

427 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: Incomplete disclosure ( 17:51:12 FriFeb 21 2003 )

Players break the rules.

Why should their opponents suffer?

---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

Robert Johnson

Re: Incomplete disclosure ( 01:51:50 SunMar 2 2003 )

I try to encourage players to describe their partners bid in plain ole English, and leave convention names out of it. This reduces the imcomplete factor.

9 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 8 guest(s).
(The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003)
bluejak

Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm.

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from any country in the world, this is the place!Hosted by David StevensonSenior Consultant DirectorEnglish Bridge Union

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union