[greenender]

On the rare (ha-ha) occasions when I misbid partner is normally there with the correct explanation, and provided that the SC is sufficient evidence for the TD not to rule MI, the law takes its course without adjustment (ignoring UI considerations, which are not my current concern).

Say, however, that we change a bit of the system, which then doesn't come up for a while, and when it does I misbid, forgetting the change, and partner misexplains, and tells the oppo that I hold what I actually happen to hold, but not what we have agreed that I should hold. At some point I remember the agreement.

Now it is easy if I am a defender. I wait till the end of the hand, and I say something along the lines of "partner's explanation matched my hand, but actually our agreement was such-and such, and we both forgot".

What if I'm declarer or dummy? If I correct the explanation, then the defenders are going to take the inference that I've got what I've shown, not what I've got. So I either say nothing, in which case one of the defenders always seems to pick up the SC and notice the discrepancy, or I correct the explanation with a disclaimer to the effect that I actually hold what partner said, which is not provided for in the laws. Or I do exactly what I would have done as a defender, which is to let the defence proceed in peace, believing I hold what I actually hold, and come clean at the end of the hand (or sooner if a defender notices the discrepancy). Is there a correct answer? Does it matter?

I am reminded of a story about the late great John Collings. Partner explained one of John's bids as "either A or B". When he became declarer John informed the table in his inimitable style that his ox of a partner had as usual got it wrong. He had shown "A or C". The defence proceeded on the assumption that John held "C", or at least "not B". When it turned out that he held "D", all hell is said to have broken loose. (Sorry, I don't know what options A to D actually were).

[ahydra]

IIRC (I'm not a TD) the laws only require you to correct mistaken explanations. You are under no obligation whatsoever to tell the opps what you actually hold, but you have to inform them of what the correct agreement is (and provide evidence on a CC thereof).

Your "at some point I remember the agreement" is dodgy though. If you're declarer/dummy and remember after the auction finishes then you may be in some trouble As a defender I'm not sure what would happen if the opps were talked out of a lucky result due to your misexplanation but you just correct at the end of the play and let the TD sort it out.

If you do the above then afaik you're immune to penalty (at least in regards to informing opps about system). If they call the Director to say your hand didn't match the correct explanation but instead matched what it originally was explained as and they were mislead, the Director should quote the thing from the laws that says "you take inferences from opps' behaviour at your own risk", etc. It's not your fault they made that mistake - if anything they should have been aware that you may well not hold what the correct explanation says you do and adapt accordingly.

I'd like to see a lot of this stuff (forgotten explanations, etc) recorded though. The case you mentioned with John Collings reminds me of a time I doubled someone in 4S because they'd shown what I thought was a much weaker hand with an "unusual 2NT", but in fact had a 2NT opener type (explained as one thing, corrected to another and the actual hand was something different). When it made with an overtrick I was not particularly happy as you might imagine and made a post on these forums asking whether this kind of behaviour was acceptable in case people decided to use it to "conveniently" forget in order to confuse opps. If misexplanations were recorded evidence of CPUs would soon become apparent, so we wouldn't have to worry about cheating - in the meantime it would encourage people to learn their systems The problem is that I'm not sure there's a legal basis/requirement for it to be recorded.

ahydra

[aguahombre]

Wasn't there another thread on this?

We don't change our agreements very often, but: if I ever misbid and partner partner's alert/explanation is in accordance with what I actually hold ----I will surely shut the f... up and discuss this with partner later.

Nothing can be gained by clouding the issue and misinforming the opponents about this particular hand. After the hand is over, I might inform the opponents (and partner) about what occurred --just in case the next hand involves the same situation. This decision about how to handle it might not be in exact accord with the regs, but it certainly is in the spirit of fairness.

[Pict]

It's a frequently expressed conundrum.

Opponents are entitled to know (and only know) your agreements - yes with all the implicit/explicit etc for the pedants.

But you and partner forgot...

Probably amounts to what Aguahombre says, but stop thinking right there and carry on playing Bridge: only on a forum can anything remotely good come from agonising about this scenario.

[iviehoff]

aguahombre, on Jul 19 2010, 11:15 PM, said:

We don't change our agreements very often, but: if I ever misbid and partner partner's alert/explanation is in accordance with what I actually hold ----I will surely shut the f... up and discuss this with partner later.

Nothing can be gained by clouding the issue and misinforming the opponents about this particular hand. After the hand is over, I might inform the opponents (and partner) about what occurred --just in case the next hand involves the same situation. This decision about how to handle it might not be in exact accord with the regs, but it certainly is in the spirit of fairness.

I agree that it is in the spirit of fairness. But at the moment, if the misbid and misexplanation coincide, it is perfectly legal to correct the misexplanation at the appropriate point in time, ie, if you are dummy/declarer at the end of the auction. Which is why I suggested in the Changing Laws and Regs forum that the law should be changed so that you aren't permitted to do that. http://forums.bridge...showtopic=40235