[Zelandakh]

If Frances is right, this would seem to be yet another reason not to provide a convention card whenever you can avoid it, and to provide as few details as possible when you do give one out. Usually, when one explains a bid for which there is no partnership understanding, you must also provide details of similar auctions that might be relevant so that the opponents have the same level of information as you. It seems inconceivable to me that the NOS would not be entitled to know the meanings of relevant auctions just because the opponents committed an infraction.

[gnasher]

 FrancesHinden, on 2013-March-06, 04:19, said:

They can ask, but why is East obliged to answer?

EW have to answer questions about what their bids mean, and what possible alternative bids would have meant. They don't have to answer questions about what bids in a totally different auction which could not have happened at the table would have meant.

EW have to tell NS about "relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding". I think that the meaning of 1♣ (pass) 1♥ provides relevant inferences.

Quote

There was a WBF minute on this, when the WBF said that after an auction including.... 4NT P 5D..., where 4NT was systemically natural but 5D was some form of blackwood response, that they didn't have to explain what 5D meant, because 4NT wasn't blackwood.

But here 1♥ *is* a response to 1♣, so the situations aren't equivalent.

Quote

[I understand why the WBF came to this conclusion, but I don't agree with it, so don't moan at me... however I think it's the official interpretation of the Law so we are stuck with it]

I agree with your disagreement.

[blackshoe]

Actually, the minute says that when the explanation of 5♦ is "shows diamond preference", the question "what would it mean if 4NT were Blackwood?" need not be answered. They still have to explain what 5♦ means given that 4NT was not Blackwood but whatever (presumably natural) other meaning was their agreement.

Why do you disagree with the LC's conclusion?

[pran]

Requesting an explanation on what 5♦ in response to 4NT Blackwood would mean if 4NT had been Blackwood (when it was something else than Blackwood) is very analoguous to request an explanation on for instance the 2♣ opening bid in precision by a player not playing precision.

Both questions are irrelevant and neither requires an answer,

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2013-March-06, 07:13, said:

Requesting an explanation on what 5♦ in response to 4NT Blackwood would mean if 4NT had been Blackwood (when it was something else than Blackwood) is very analoguous to request an explanation on for instance the 2♣ opening bid in precision by a player not playing precision.

Both questions are irrelevant and neither requires an answer,

I presume you mean something like "what would 2♣ mean?" when 1♣ was bid and explained as strong and artificial, 16+ HCP. If a player bids 2♣, of course an opponent is entitled to an explanation of that bid — and that entitlement does not depend on what system he is playing.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2013-March-06, 08:12, said:

I presume you mean something like "what would 2♣ mean?" when 1♣ was bid and explained as strong and artificial, 16+ HCP. If a player bids 2♣, of course an opponent is entitled to an explanation of that bid — and that entitlement does not depend on what system he is playing.

No, I intended to emphasize the principle that you are entitled to a complete explanation of calls actually made and relevant calls available although not made in the context of the actual auction.

The explanation of a 5♦ bid as response to a 4NT bid is obviously different when the 4NT bid is natural and when it is Blackwood, and the explanation should only relate to the actual context.

I introduced my analogue example as one that cannot possibly cause any disagreement: A 2♣ opening bid is different when playing precision as opposed to when playing (for instance) natural. And the explanation should obviously relate solely to the meaning in the actual context?

[gordontd]

 FrancesHinden, on 2013-March-06, 04:19, said:

They can ask, but why is East obliged to answer?

The original paper for the EBL & EBU on implementing L27 said:

Quote

The LHO is not entitled to know what the offender was trying to do when he made the IB (though he is entitled to guess!). However, he is entitled to know full details of his opponents system (e.g. he can ask supplementary questions) and he is entitled to know the Law (e.g. he can seek clarification of the Law from the Tournament Director [TD]).

While I think this paper is no longer considered to be the definitive position on L27, that's only because the WBFLC had asked for a more liberal interpretation, which I don't think affects this point.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2013-March-06, 09:45, said:

No, I intended to emphasize the principle that you are entitled to a complete explanation of calls actually made and relevant calls available although not made in the context of the actual auction.

The explanation of a 5♦ bid as response to a 4NT bid is obviously different when the 4NT bid is natural and when it is Blackwood, and the explanation should only relate to the actual context.

I introduced my analogue example as one that cannot possibly cause any disagreement: A 2♣ opening bid is different when playing precision as opposed to when playing (for instance) natural. And the explanation should obviously relate solely to the meaning in the actual context?

Well, I agree that the explanation should relate to the actual context. As for the rest, I think it just confuses the issue.

[Fluffy]

So pran, if a pair has switched recently from precision to natural, and someone opens 2♣, and then makes a weak bid that suggest he forgot, and your strong hand suggest he forgot, and the table action suggests he forgot.... you cannot ask about what their 2♣ opening agreements were before?.

Looks like the partner of the 2♣ opener has advantage here, since if he realices that partner has 'psyched' for eample for passing a partscore contract, he will know now some relevant info that the opponents don't have access to.

Before some SB tells me that 2♣ opening can't be psyched or whatever, just think of whatever other opening (2NT minors for example)

[blackshoe]

In some jurisdictions psyching an artificial and forcing 2♣ opening would be illegal, but I can't think of a jurisdiction that would disallow a psych of a natural and limited 2♣ opening.

[aguahombre]

 pran, on 2013-March-06, 07:13, said:

Requesting an explanation on what 5♦ in response to 4NT Blackwood would mean if 4NT had been Blackwood (when it was something else than Blackwood) is very analoguous to request an explanation on for instance the 2♣ opening bid in precision by a player not playing precision.

Both questions are irrelevant and neither requires an answer,

Not necessarily. The opponents are disclosing their agreement about 4NT, and a question about if 4NT were Bwd could be relevant. Just because the agreement is non Bwd, doesn't mean the 5D bidder remembered that at the time he bid 5D.

 blackshoe, on 2013-March-06, 08:12, said:

I presume you mean something like "what would 2♣ mean?" when 1♣ was bid and explained as strong and artificial, 16+ HCP. If a player bids 2♣, of course an opponent is entitled to an explanation of that bid — and that entitlement does not depend on what system he is playing.

 pran, on 2013-March-06, 09:45, said:

No, I intended to emphasize the principle that you are entitled to a complete explanation of calls actually made and relevant calls available although not made in the context of the actual auction.

I introduced my analogue example as one that cannot possibly cause any disagreement: A 2♣ opening bid is different when playing precision as opposed to when playing (for instance) natural. And the explanation should obviously relate solely to the meaning in the actual context?

When a strong-forcing 1C is opened, the opponents are in-fact entitled to know whether 2C was also available as a strong-forcing bid. There are pairs who play 1C as forcing/strong but 2C stronger. Not Precision, but it does happen in some forcing club systems I have seen.

[blackshoe]

 aguahombre, on 2013-March-08, 00:28, said:

When a strong-forcing 1C is opened, the opponents are in-fact entitled to know whether 2C was also available as a strong-forcing bid. There are pairs who play 1C as forcing/strong but 2C stronger. Not Precision, but it does happen in some forcing club systems I have seen.

Ron Klinger's "Power" system, for example.

[pran]

 Fluffy, on 2013-March-07, 17:03, said:

So pran, if a pair has switched recently from precision to natural, and someone opens 2♣, and then makes a weak bid that suggest he forgot, and your strong hand suggest he forgot, and the table action suggests he forgot.... you cannot ask about what their 2♣ opening agreements were before?.

Looks like the partner of the 2♣ opener has advantage here, since if he realices that partner has 'psyched' for eample for passing a partscore contract, he will know now some relevant info that the opponents don't have access to.

Before some SB tells me that 2♣ opening can't be psyched or whatever, just think of whatever other opening (2NT minors for example)

An interesting question.

Players are entitled to opponents' partnership understandings, in this case that they are playing a natural system.

But if an opponent understands that his partner must have (temporarily) forgotten they no longer play precision then that understanding is also part of their partnership understandings and must be disclosed.

The consequence of this is that he must act as required by

Law 20 F 4 said:

If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete he must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4.

(if he did not understand and disclosed it immediately.)

[pran]

 aguahombre, on 2013-March-08, 00:28, said:

[...]
When a strong-forcing 1C is opened, the opponents are in-fact entitled to know whether 2C was also available as a strong-forcing bid.
[...]

Of course. Have I indicated anything different?

[barmar]

A psyche has to be deliberate, by definition. Forgetting that you changed your system makes it a misbid, not a psyche.

EBU has made things confusing by establishing the same procedures for classifying and ruling on misbids and psyches. But I suppose this has some logic: if you have a history of a particular type of misbid, a regular partner has the same advantage as if they were deliberate psyches -- he knows that the alternate meaning is possible, the opponents don't. Either way, he has an obligation to disclose it as an implicit partnership understanding.

[campboy]

It has quite a lot of logic IMO. They are ruling based on the same law in each case, so it would be odd to have different procedures.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2013-March-08, 10:24, said:

A psyche has to be deliberate, by definition. Forgetting that you changed your system makes it a misbid, not a psyche.

EBU has made things confusing by establishing the same procedures for classifying and ruling on misbids and psyches. But I suppose this has some logic: if you have a history of a particular type of misbid, a regular partner has the same advantage as if they were deliberate psyches -- he knows that the alternate meaning is possible, the opponents don't. Either way, he has an obligation to disclose it as an implicit partnership understanding.

He said he bid it deliberately, so either he psyched, or he's lying. I called it a psych, but the consensus here seems to be he's a liar, which would make him a cheat. In such a case an ethics hearing seems appropriate. <shrug>

[Sjoerds]

 Fluffy, on 2013-March-05, 05:49, said:

Oh I missread the OP, though East told that away from the table.

There are two different situations.
a. E tells the reason for his IB at the table and everybody knows this
b. E tells it only @ the TD

[Sjoerds]

 pran, on 2013-March-06, 07:13, said:

Requesting an explanation on what 5♦ in response to 4NT Blackwood would mean if 4NT had been Blackwood (when it was something else than Blackwood) is very analoguous to request an explanation on for instance the 2♣ opening bid in precision by a player not playing precision.

Both questions are irrelevant and neither requires an answer,

And what kind of lead directions do you give in this situation. Or in the case I gave?

[pran]

 Sjoerds, on 2013-March-08, 16:00, said:

And what kind of lead directions do you give [...] in the case I gave?

Law 26A with ♠ as the related suit.