BBO Discussion Forums: Corrected explanation - BBO Discussion Forums

The procedure regarding the misexplanation of 3NT seems correct. 21B1a says that North can change his call if his partner hasn't called yet, and 21B2 says that East can change his call.

I don't think it was proper for the TD to stop North from asking about 4♣. Opponents are allowed to ask about bids made, and until North elects to change his call, East has made this bid. So we're not running into the quagmire being discussed in another thread, about whether you can ask a player about followup bids.

I'm not sure how preventing East from giving an explanation of his bid could be seen as damaging EW, so I don't think they have any redress if they got a poor result. Is there some other reason they think they should get an adjustment in their favor? I think once NS found the makable 4{SP], which I suspect few pairs would find, they were destined for a poor result -- they should be thankful that they weren't doubled. I suppose West is unlikely to play North for such a weak hand, but I'm not sure how it could affect his declarer play -- once the opponents let him in, he just takes whatever top tricks they've left for him.

I assume the problem is that North waited for East's bid before "reserving his rights"? The director should have been called immediately when the explanation was corrected. This is primarily East's responsibility, as Law 20F4 says,

Quote

But it is true that N/S also have a responsibility to call the director in this situation, and in principle North should not be allowed to gain from failing to do this. Hearing East's weak 4♣ bid may have made it easier to get into the bidding. (4♥ is ludicrous anyway, but that's beside the point.) I still can't imagine giving East redress though.

I also don't see why the TD prevented the explanation of 4♣. North is perfectly entitled to know what his opponents' responses to 3NT are.

barmar, on 2012-March-06, 16:24, said:

You might want to look at the play

dcrc2, on 2012-March-06, 16:39, said:

There is no reason to blame North here, he is (until his partner subsequently calls) within his rights to call the director and request permission to change his own call, the fact that he spent 10 seconds to consider his action is not relevant. (And I agree that North is also entitled to an explanation on the 4♣ bid.)

He is not, however, entitled to "reserve his rights" on the MI - to the UI, sure, but that's not the problem here - and after the correction before East's call, the UI is irrelevant. As everyone is saying, the TD should be summoned on (prior to, technically) the correction of the MI, and then North gets his call.

East should have called the TD, as this is an MI correction that will almost certainly give North pause for rethink - and to protect herself from what actually happened.

A pox on 'em all, I think.

Whether North is allowed an explanation of 4♣ is interesting. I'm tempted to give it to him, given that if East had done what she's supposed to do, there'd be no 4♣ call to ask about. But I'm not sure in the Laws it's obvious either way.

I'm not sure I buy that the MI affected North's call. Their hand is really a pass of a major suit preempt, but a bid over a minor suit preempt? The TD needs to make clear that after MI is corrected it's not carte blanche for the other side to change their call - it has to be the case that the MI is relevant.

dcrc2, on 2012-March-06, 16:39, said:

When a call is alerted is it legal to ask what the response structure is? If so, which player do you ask?

If so, then I think North is entitled to know about the 4C bid.

If not, then I don't think North is entitled to any information that would not be available absent the incorrect alert.

♣

richlp, on 2012-March-07, 14:42, said:

4♣ is a call (already) made by an opponent. It is perfectly legal for North to request an explanation of this call so long as he has the option (is in turn) to decide which final call he will make as permitted by Law 21B1 after the misexplanation of the 3NT bid.

This is not asking about the response structure to the 3NT bid, it is asking specifically about the 4♣ bid, but once the 4♣ bid has been made North may also request information on possible alternative calls that could have been made instead of this 4♣ bid.

The(se) question(s) by North must of course be answered by West (partner to the player making the 4♣ bid.)

MickyB, on 2012-March-06, 12:35, said:

Just to explain this question - it had been suggested to me that the TD made an error in allowing North to change his bid at this point, obviously if that's not true then there can be no case for redress.

While it's technically true that the TD should have been called as soon as East realized his original error, I wonder why North waited so long before deciding that she wanted to change her call? East waited 10 seconds before bidding 4♣, I suspect to give North a chance to say something. In my experience, the TD is rarely called about explanation changes, the opponent usually just indicates that it doesn't make a difference to them and everything just proceeds normally. The TD is usually called only when it makes a difference.

barmar, on 2012-March-07, 21:58, said:

10 seconds is not a long time for considerations after the correct explanation of a call that requires the STOP procedure. (I assume STOP was required by regulation here?)

pran, on 2012-March-07, 18:13, said:

I think you (and some before you) are twisting L20F1 to make it say what you want it to say, rather than reading what it does say.

It says:
20F1 During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction.

So is it North's turn to call? You refer instead to "North's turn to decide which final call he will make". I think that is twisting things. There is no such legal thing as a "turn to decide which final call he will make", and in particular it is not the "turn" mentioned in L20F1. North has an option to change his call, an option which exists from the time of making that call up until his partner makes a call. I think it is a distortion to call it a "turn", when it is actually an option that exists over that extended but limited period. Once N exercises that option, both N and E's calls are withdrawn, and now it is plainly N's turn to call. But at this point E's call has been withdrawn, and is no longer part of the prior auction about which questions may be asked.

I think the relevant question is whether N is permitted to ask about the responses to W's 3N call.

barmar, on 2012-March-07, 21:58, said:

If I ever find myself in the position that North did, where I actually might want to reconsider my call as a result of a change of explanation, I will at least say I want to think about it. This, of course, gives unneccesary info to oppo, and unauthorised info to partner, but it seems preferable to finding yourself in the position that the bidding has continued without you.

iviehoff, on 2012-March-08, 03:21, said:

You forget the important fact that there has been an irregularity by East, following which North has the right (on certain conditions) to withdraw and replace his last call. Deciding which call one wants to make is part of making that call, and here North tried to interrupt East in making a call subsequent to the call that North was allowed replace for the call he had already made.

Most certainly North has not given up this right and therefore is still in turn to call.

When East didn't bother to call the Director he should at least have asked North if he wanted to change his call because of the (now corrected) misinformation. Just waiting ten seconds (which is the normal time for considerations before making a call after a bid like the 3NT bid here) is definitely not enough to justify an assumption that North will not withdraw and replace his call.

East's bid of 4♣ was technically a bid out of rotation and thus part of opponent's prior auction (prior to the call North is about to make), so North is definitely entitled to an explanation of that bid.

An interesting (but irrelevant here) question is if South might have deliberately accepted that BOOT and thus deprived North of his right to change his call. I think the answer to this question must be yes (at the cost of the future partnership between North and South?).

pran, on 2012-March-08, 04:36, said:

Why? Surely it's not East's position to start making rulings at the table. He's already erred in not calling the TD (which he "must" do under 20F4). Let's not compound it further, especially as N's right to change his call is not an absolute right but is subject to "when the Director judges" etc (21B1(a)).

The first irregularity here is East's misexplanation of 3NT. The second irregularity is East's failure to call the director before correcting his explanation. The third irregularity is the failure of all four players at the table to call the TD after attention was drawn to an irregularity. I'm tempted to call East's 4♣ bid a fourth irregularity, but technically it's not, as no one called the TD. So the fourth irregularity is North's extraneous "I reserve my rights". Of these the most serious is the second, because the law says East must do this. So it seems to me the first thing is a PP to EW for this one.

As to the question whether North is entitled, before changing his call, to ask the agreed meaning of 4♣, I have to agree with Iviehoff — he's not. Look at it this way: if there had been no irregularity, and it's North's turn to call over 3NT, he's not entitled to know what East's future 4♣ might mean. So I think in choosing his new call, North has to rely on GBK, or the SC (which is unlikely to be of help).

So my ruling: a PP to EW for failure call the TD at the appropriate time (in MPs unless I'm sure East is very inexperienced, in which case a warning). North to be allowed to change his call, in which case both his pass and East's 4♣ are withdrawn. No further rectification unless the TD determines that information from East's withdrawn 4♣ damaged NS, in which case "16D applies" (Law 21B3). The interesting question here, to me, is whether the wording of 21B3 overrides the general application of 16D. If it does, then information from the withdrawn 4♣ is AI to NS, but only after the play is over. That doesn't make any sense to me. I think it has to be AI during the auction, so either S or N could ask about at their future turns to call (e.g., S after East's X, or N when it gets back around to him). I would also remind all four players to remember that the TD must be called before correcting an explanation, and that all four players are responsible to call the TD after attention is drawn to an irregularity, and that reserving one's rights (Law 16B2) does not apply to this case.

pran, on 2012-March-08, 04:36, said:

Clearly I haven't forgotten that because I refer to North's option to change his call, which only exists because of E's irregularity.

You argued that it is North's turn to call because the law gives him an option to change his call. I argued that it only becomes North's turn to call once he states he desires to exercise that option. That actually was the precise difference of interpretation between us.

Although I still believe my conclusion is correct, I now realise my original argument for it was misconceived. I now seek to rely on a different argument, in which the above difference of interpretation is irrelevant. This new argument relies instead upon the wording of 21B2:

21B2 "When a player elects to change a call because of misinformation (as in 1 preceding), his LHO may then in turn change any subsequent call he may have made, without other rectification unless at the end of the hand the Director judges his withdrawn call to have conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side in which case Law 16D applies."

This implies that in fact E's call is not in fact withdrawn before N makes his new call, rather it remains a made call at that time. Rather than automatically withdrawing his call, the correct legal construction is that E gets an option to change his call after N exercises his right to change his call. But E's call is nevertheless referred to here as being a "subsequent call" in relation to N's call. So I don't think it can be described as being part of the "prior auction". So that part of L20 gives N a right to the explanation of the "prior auction" clearly does not include E's call, because E's call is "subsequent", which means it cannot be "prior". It reduces again to whether E has a right to obtain an explanation for calls that might be made later in the auction.

As an aside, this interpretation is important in relation to Law 16D, because if E does not exercise this right to change the call (only possible if fortunately his call is still a legal call), the restrictions of Law 16D relating to withdrawn calls won't apply.

I was originally thinking like pran, but blackshoe and iviehoff have converted me. East's infractions don't give North additional rights, other than those specifically mentioned in Law 21. So if he couldn't find out what the 4♣ would mean without the irregularity, he can't find it out now, either.

4♣ is prior in the perfectly ordinary sense of "occurring earlier than". It is subsequent to North's pass, sure; that seems to be all 21B2 is saying. It is prior to his attempt to change that pass.

Law 20F1 says that North, at his turn to call, "is entitled to know about calls actually made". The 4♣ call was actually made.