|
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF |
International Bridge Laws ForumIf you need help with the Laws or rulings from |
| To ask a question, click HERE and type in your message. Please specify your country in your query where indicated. Right click your mouse button for help on abbreviations. |
| Welcome, Register :: Log in |
| View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ] |
| [ Get Email Advice of Replies ] | [ Print ] | [ Send ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ] |
|
Adriano Voscilla Reply |
Firstly, I would like to thank you for the exhaustive answer to my previous question (by the way, I am from Croatia) about psyching which is not psyching. It is going to help me for sure.
Now, I have another problem, hopefully more interesting from the point of view of laws application. It was a team match, with neither side vulnerable. LHO opened 1 club, partner overcalled 1 heart, and RHO doubled (not negative, just showing 10+ HCP). Holding a singleton in partner's suit, and 4 cards in each other suit, with just one Ace, I decided that an S.O.S redouble would be in place here. There followed two Passes, and RHO began to ponder. He asked my partner for the meaning of my redouble, and got the answer that it was a support redouble (we indeed play this convention, and my tired partner, on the last board after a 4 hours match, probably didn' realize that it was not me who opened the bidding). RHO finally decided to bid (after all, he held a balanced hand with 3 small hearts). The opponents bid and made 3NT, but probably could have set us for two tricks (LHO heart holding was AKJx). Now, my first question is: Would the director (if called; yes, again our opponents complained without calling the director) have corrected the score?It seems to me that our opponents has not been damaged by the misinformation, since, had RHO got the right explanation, he would have found himself in a pretty similar situation: instead of figuring hearts to split 5-3 between my partner and me, he would have imagined them to be 6 or 7 with my partner and 0 or 1 with me. (Surely RHO, while being entitled to know the meaning of my bid, is not as well entitled to know weather my partner has understood it correctly, isn't it so?). Here we come to the issue that really interests me. It appears that my partner could not logically have given the correct information AND that the auction be as it really has been (namely that he passed with his actual hand, which included five hearts to the Q and 4 spades to the Ace). Since there was no alternative to the situation that occured, why should we be penalized? |
|
AlanW Reply |
I shall be interested in how the experts sort this one out. There seem to me to be several issues.
First, what did the double mean? You say not negative, just 10+ points, but I'm not sure what this really means. Is it for take-out or penalties? I wish people would use these descriptions when they are appropriate, rather than the ghastly term 'negative' which really means take out and indeed is positive as far as values are concerned, even if it's negative as far as penalties are concerned. (That's not intended to be a criticism of your use of the term, of course, since it's in widespread use, just a general moan.) Second, has partner given a correct explanation of your system and you have mis-bid, or vice versa? If the double is normally expected to be taken out by opener, then I'm not sure redouble would normally be played as rescue, but what matters is your system. My understanding is that in doubtful cases, the normal approach is to assume mis-explanation rather than mis-bid, and I guess that is appropriate here. Third, have opponents been damaged by the misinformation? The only information your opponents are entitled to is what the bid means, not what your partner thought it meant, so the question is would your RHO have made a different decision if he had known it was for rescue and your partner still passed it? Here your point about expecting hearts to be 6/7 opposite 1/0 rather than 5-3 seems right. It's certainly arguable that RHO would have been in much the same position as before. But it's also quite possible he would have reached a different decision on the grounds that his partner could have 1/2 more hearts under the first scenario than the second. I think directors will be sympathetic to the view that he might have acted differently given that he is the non-offending side. Fourth, you raise a point suggesting the auction couldn't have been as it was if partner's explanation was correct. I don't really follow this given the point above about partner having, say, 7 hearts. But if you are simply saying that given his hand partner acted on the explanation he gave rather than the correct one, I don' t think there's any argument about that, and it doesn't really affect the decision. (If he knowingly gave the wrong explanation that would be a very different matter since that is cheating rather than just a mistake, but I think it is virtually unheard of.) |
|
Adriano Voscilla Reply |
When I qualified their double as "not negative, just 10+ HCP", I meant they were not playing what is called "negative double" in this position, showing the unbid suits but garanteeing spades. I have supposed that such "negative doubles" are normally played by most players today, but I have learned bidding mainly through american books, so I don't really know if this convention is equally common outside U.S. In our club everybody doubles with any hand stronger than 10 HCP, without regard to distribution.
As to the systemic meaning of my bid (redouble), we haven't till now discussed this precise sequence, but my partner has mistakenly taken as showing 3-card support (he even wanted to show them our convention card, where it is apparent that we play a convention called "support redouble" - but, of course, not in the actual sequence). I want also to clarify why I see a logical contraddiction in trying to hypothesize what would happen if my partner had given a correct explanation. Namely, if my partner had given a correct explanation, he would have had a different hand, which is not the case.. With the actual hand he had and taken the actual bid he made, he had really no choice but to give the explanation he gave. I think there is a difference between this case and the situation where someone get a wrong information from an opponent who has not yet bid, because in this last case we can indeed analyse and compare two possible continuations. |
JimO  175 posts Forum Host Reply |
Country: USA
First, the opponents are entitled to a correct explanation of your actual agreement - and it seems they were given misinformation. See Law 21, 40C, and the footnote to Law 75. Specficaly: Law 40C. If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an adjusted score. If it was at all likely that RHO would have passed rather than bid, then adjusting to 1Hxx-2 could be appropriate. In order to give a ruling at the table, I might need to know what your opponents' agreements are - specifically, what did RHO's double promise in terms of heart length, and what did LHO's pass over the redouble promise.
|
bluejak  427 posts Forum Host Reply |
Perhaps you are right and RHO might not pass. However, what would LHO's pass of your SOS redouble mean? Many people play that as saying "Let us defend", and then RHO might easily pass. I am not saying I would necessarily adjust the score to 1H redoubled, especially since I have not seen the hand. But I would ask some questions and consider it. Also, we are talking about what might have happened. The Director would give the benefit of any doubt to the non-offending side, ie your opponents. Your arguments tend to give the benefit of doubt to your side.
That is correct.
Because your side has done something wrong. Opponents have a right to know your system and agreements, and they have been misinformed. Suppose we consider "perfect bridge" where players cannot see each other, and where each player has a complete list of his opponents' agreements. It should be possible with computers! Your opponents would know their system, but your partner would not since he had forgotten it. It would not be right for your side to escape a penalty in this situation. Bridge is a game played with perfect information between the two sides [in theory] so when the information is imperfect the Laws give redress.
There is no reason why other players should play the way you think best. If a pair wish to play double as 10+ HCP, rather than takeout, penalty, negative or whatever, why should they not? I do not want to play it: you do not: but this pair does. 'Negative' is a bad name, true, just meaning takeout in a specific position, and I see no reason why the equivalent name 'Sputnik' is not used, which means the same. Unfortunately bridge is becoming less flamboyant and less led by people with an interesting approach, and names are getting poorer as well. Take systems - they used to have names like 'Acol', 'Vienna' and 'Romex': now it is 'Standard American' or '2/1'. But in the current case they are not playing takeout, negative or penalties, so why should they not just describe it as they play it?
If you read the original post, not only do they have an agreement over the system, but it is quite clear the overcaller forgot the position. There was no doubt as to their arrangements.
Oh!  Well, the original post suggested there was no doubt as to the actual meaning!!! Still, when in doubt the Laws require TDs to assume misinformation rather than a misbid so I have no doubt any ruling here will be based on the assumption that the explanation was wrong.
As explained above, this is not the case. If there is misinformation, and the opponents' actions could have been more successful without the misinformation then there will be an adjustment.
|
|
AlanW Reply |
Sorry, you've lost me there. With the hand that he actually did hold, he could (and presumably would) have given a correct explanation of your bid if he had known what it meant.
Sorry to disagree again, but I don't think there is any real difference here, and I don't think the law would view it any differently. What matters is that when it is an opponent's turn to bid he has a correct explanation of your systemic agreements. Maybe he can sometimes deduce something about those agreements from your side's subsequent bidding (ie your partner's pass in this case), but this is unlikely to tell him everything he is entitled to know and there is still an obligation on your partner to provide the correct explanation. I don't see how he can ever be expected to deduce he has been given a wrong explanation from the bidding of the person giving the explanation. |
|
bergid 35 posts bridgetalk member  Reply |
Although this doesn't materially affect the ruling that a misexplanation occurred here, I think it's worth mentioning that players who quiz their opponents in situations where it's more a case of "bridge judgement" than an agreement, do the game a disservice. This particular sequence, if you analyse it, comes into that category, though of course you have to navigate through a minefield of complicating factors to reach that conclusion.
This seems to be a clear case of a "Kock-Werner" redouble, whether a player is familiar with that name or not. A simple answer of "We haven't discussed this particular sequence" (if that is the case) would seem to be appropriate, but players are often accused, I believe unjustly, of failing in their duty to give "full disclosure" if they dare to say this. Consequently, they sometimes (often?) end up virtually giving a description of their hand, rather than their agreement. "Oh, we must have an agreement, let's try and work out what it might be". A player can get into hot water with this mind set, if his "guess" happens to be incorrect. The opponents are then quick to pounce! As an aside, experience has taught me that letting opponents "hang themselves" is sometimes the best approach, rather than quizzing them too much about a given sequence. So often, it only serves to alert them and prevent the "wheel falling off". Moving on, the question of damage in this hand could arise if declarer played the hand on the assumption of hearts being split a certain way (as implied by the explanation) and going down as a result. This doesn't appear to have happened in this case, but again it brings up another point. The idea that if there has been an infraction of law, players are automatically entitled to redress, appears to be gaining ground and again, this is detrimental to the game. In addition, it has been known for players to take a "double shot" after a perceived infraction, by allowing the hand to be played out and saying nothing if they got a good result, but calling the director if they did not. Such players would be greatly offended by any criticism of this behavior. David, could you clarify this point, as I don't believe it has been mentioned: once the auction is over and knowing that partner has given a mis-explanation of the redouble, would it not be appropriate (or even mandatory) for the player in question to explain the true situation? If so, how should he/she phrase it? "My partner has mistakenly given you our agreement as it applies to a different situation - it doesn't apply here" comes to mind. What should be his/her response to further questioning by the opponent(s), should they choose to enquire further? |
|
JimO 175 posts Forum Host Reply |
Country: USA
The defending side may not correct a mis-explanation until after the play is over. See Law 75D2.
|
|
bergid 35 posts bridgetalk member Reply |
Ah, thanks Jim.
 I see the wording of this particular section (Error Noticed by Explainer's Partner) has changed: it used to say (in relation to a defender):
In relation to the declaring side:
It now states:
I understand why the change was made in relation to a defender, as discussion at the table might well lead to UI and thus possibly influence the defenders' play. I'm guessing that long and involved appeals in instances of this nature, may have prompted the change. (?) However it does seem a shame that a defender has no way to put matters right, unless perhaps he can call the director, arrange to have a private word with him away from the table and then have the new information relayed to the declarer by similar means. I've seen this happen quite often, not in relation to this particular scenario perhaps (I don't recall any specific cases) but there may a precedent for it. |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
While I do not disagree with the sentiment, this particular sequence is certainly not one of bridge judgement. A pair would expect to know whether they play an SOS redouble after an overcall is doubled, and this is a pure case of an agreement.
They are required to tell their opponents implicit as well as explicit agreements. If either they have agreed to play SOS or Kock-Werner redoubles, or one has turned up before, and as a result they know whether they play them after an overcall is doubled then they do have an agreement, and they are required to inform their opponents accordingly. "We haven't discussed this particular sequence" is not an acceptable answer if they have discussed similar related sequences or if they have partnership experience telling them what their methods are in this sequence. For example, if they have had an SOS redouble after 1  is doubled, they cannot say "We haven't discussed this particular sequence" because it is 1 that is doubled on a later occasion.The posts that led to this are inconsistent. The first makes it clear that they had an agreement that it was SOS, but partner forgot the position. The second post cast more doubt. However, it is clear that they had some agreements impinging on this sequence, and the opponents should be made aware of any such agreements. "We have no agreement" is ok if it is true, but players should not hide behind it when the partnership has more information than their opponents.
I have never understood why this is not acceptable. It is normal and acceptable in the majority of types of sports and games around the world, for example all forms of football. Still, it is not legal in bridge for some curious reason to take strange action to attempt to gain, and rely on the ruling to give you back what you lost if the strange action does not succeed. But the Director knows that, and if there is a double shot attempt he will adjust for the offending side only. Of course, if a player merely plays on to see whether he is damaged, that is normal and there is no reason to consider anything wrong with that behaviour.
It is mandatory for declarer or dummy to do so. However defenders must wait until the end of the hand.
First, the player calls the Director. Then he says that his partner has given an explanation which is incorrect in his opinion. Since this will always be declarer or dummy he can explain it fully without a problem of unauthorised information. Defenders similarly explain in full but only when the hand is over.
That method is illegal, and correctly so. After giving an explanation, it would take a partner with a brain roughly at the level of a starfish to not realise when his partner looks surprised and suddenly departs to talk to the Director. Discussions with Directors away from the table usually give as much unauthorised information as those at the table since partner knows exactly what they mean. Just follow the Laws, and if defending tell the opponents at the end and let the Director sort it out.
|
|
bergid 35 posts bridgetalk member Reply |
Certainly, if they have such an agreement. However, many situations go "by default", as you can't discuss everything. Even with established partnerships, some sequences only come up occasionally and furthermore the ones that do come up are usually the ones you haven't discussed. Sod's Law.  Just in passing, since Messrs Kock and Werner were both born in 1901, it's possible that their brainchild came into being before sputnik was launched. 
Yes, I did not imply otherwise. When I said "no agreement", I was of course including implicit ones. If a pair has *not* discussed this particular sequence (even though they might both be aware of it and play it with others), then I believe it becomes a matter of bridge judgement. In this particular sequence, the double wasn't even a "standard" negative double and it has been suggested that the meaning of redouble might alter as a result. Perhaps one should say "We haven't discussed it, but with some partners I would treat it as an SOS"? I'd say that was a little dangerous, as (a) it might give UI and (b) it might be totally wrong!
I believe the overcaller said that support redoubles were being played, when asked:
I'm sure that Adriano had no idea, this thread was going to develop into such a complex discussion!
Certainly, but if he *knows* for certain that there was an infringement, shouldn't he call the director there and then?
I can't argue with you there - I wonder how much brain power this sheep has ...  |
|
Adriano Reply |
I see that I did not manage to explain clearly the situation on the table (my english is probably a little convoluted). Anyhow, Bergid got it well: my partner only taught we had an agreement, having misjudged the context of the auction.
I think I understand now what the Law in general is aiming at. As Bluejak said:
The game can become "less than perfect" when agreements are explained wrongly, but it can also become "more than perfect", e.g. when an "online" player, explaining his own bid, sometimes exceeds the boundaries of partnership agreements, thus giving his opponents more information than his partner has. Anyway, to me what is truly important is that the Law achieves what to my mind it was originally designed for: to provide the players with a complex enough environment, thus enabling them to exercise reasoning and draw inferences. |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
Certainly, and many players, myself included, only play Kock-Werner if it is a penalty double. But I expect to know what a redouble means over Sputnik too.
It was a standard double where it was being played. Furthermore, giving UI to partner is not an offence: giving misinformation to opponents is. If you have reason to suppose you have an implicit agreement then you should tell the opponents and let partner worry about UI.
Exactly what I said: his partner knew it was a misexplanation because it was not a support redouble situation. If nothing else he should correct this. He could say "We do not play support redoubles in this situation."
No law says he should. People often do not.
|
|
Guest Reply |
Really should I have corrected the explanation? Is it not forbidden by the Law:
|
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
Everything I have written depends on everything else I have written!!!
First we discussed when it sould be corrected. If declarer or dummy, before the opening lead is faced. If a defender at the end of the hand. Then we discussed what should be correected. I am saying that the description of support doubles should be corrected - you will see that another poster is referring to this as merely bridge judgement. But it should only be corrected [since you became a defender] at the end of the hand.
|
| View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ] |
| [ Get Email Advice of Replies ] | [ Print ] | [ Send ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ] |
|
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. | Register :: Log in The time is now 00:38:31 Wed Aug 27 2003 |
© 2001-2003 BbBoy.net
|
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF |
Legend :: 
Read Topic :: 
Unread Topic
Read Topic :: Unread Topic
Help | Full Format: ON :: OFF | Text: ON :: OFF | Email Status