[gprentice]

At the end of the auction, the declarer can ask the opposition about their bidding. The rule book Law 41 doesn't say anything about who has to answer the question - the person who made the bid or his partner. I realise that the opps are only required to say what the meaning of the bid is according to their system.

So supposing that the person who did not make the bid is answering and his partner then realises that either he or his partner got it wrong, that person has "extra" information but his partner does not (unless he speaks up and says "that's not right" - is he allowed to do that).

Then supposing the person who made the bid explains the bid and his partner realises they disagree, now the partner has "extra" info that his partner does not.

So is there any guideline for which defender should explain each bid?


If the defender who made the bid is answering, is he forbidden to say that he misbid (if he did misbid)?

If the defenders ask declarer to explain a bid, does he have to own up about a misbid? Is it sportsmanlike to own up?

[smerriman]

This is covered by the laws - see bold parts:

Law 41B:

Quote

Before the opening lead is faced, the leader's partner and the presumed declarer (but not the presumed dummy) each may require a review of the auction, or request explanation of an opponent's call (see Law 20F2 and 20F3)

Law 20F2:

Quote

After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at his own turn to play may request an explanation of the opposing auction. At his turn to play from his hand or from dummy declarer may request an explanation of a defender's call or card play understandings. Explanations should be given on a like basis to 1 and by the partner of the player whose action is explained.

If your partner gives the wrong explanation:

Law 20F5b:

Quote

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.

If you realise you misbid:

Law 75C:

Quote

When the partnership agreement has been explained correctly, the mistake being the call made and not the explanation, there is no infraction. The explanation must not be corrected (nor must the Director be notified) immediately and there is no obligation to do so subsequently . Regardless of damage, the result stands [but see Law 21B1(b)].

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2024-April-17, 20:04, said:

If you realise you misbid:

Law 75C:

Quote

When the partnership agreement has been explained correctly, the mistake being the call made and not the explanation, there is no infraction. The explanation must not be corrected (nor must the Director be notified) immediately and there is no obligation to do so subsequently . Regardless of damage, the result stands [but see Law 21B1(b)].

I was sharply reminded why the Law says this while directing a tournament recently. I was called by a player who asked to speak to me away from the table and confessed that he had accidentally opened a misbid 1♠ rather than 1♥ and only noticed it now the bidding had come back to him. I told him that his misbid was no problem but that calling the Director about it was, which discomforted him even more. Of course his partner had picked up that something was up with the bidding and settled for a salomonic 3NT, which to my relief went down heavily.

[mycroft]

Yeah, this is one of the big ones on my list of "Laws Players Must Know - the Director can't help you!"

Mispull (and when you can, and can no longer, correct it) vs Misbid vs Misexplanation (vs deliberate minor deviation vs psych), defence vs declarer concerns, explanation system vs bid system (after misbid). Confusing, yes, and uncomfortable to get wrong in any way. But no more complicated than Jacoby Transfer rebids (although the number of players who don't know *that* after 20 years, too...)

The good news is that the underlying reasonings are pretty easy to understand (okay, maybe not the limit on 25A, it's pretty arbitrary, but falls under "the opponents' actions can't lock in your mistakes" that also apply to established revokes et al.), and the Laws can be "worked out from first principles" close enough for players. The bad news is that under the stress of "something went wrong", it's hard to work out from first principles...

[pescetom]

I think that for a certain kind of player (the kind I like to have) it's natural to assume at first that anything one gets wrong should be brought to the attention of the Director. But yes once they start to know the game better it should be possible to work out to keep quiet until the end of the auction at least.

The bad news for a certain kind of director is that under the stress of "never been called for this before", it's hard to work out from first principles things like the answer to "what can I bid now?"

[mikeh]

Test

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2024-April-24, 11:18, said:

Yeah, this is one of the big ones on my list of "Laws Players Must Know - the Director can't help you!"

Even experienced players can get this wrong. Last week my partner of over 20 years realized he'd revoked a couple of tricks earlier, and called the TD when he noticed it. While he didn't say why he was calling the TD, it was obvious to everyone. In particular, I could easily tell because declarer was taking a very unusual line if he held the card partner should have played (it was a trump, and declarer didn't draw my last one).