Fluffy, on 2013-March-04, 11:52, said:
If East had real hearts he would be allowed to change to 2♥ without penalty? it is hard to tell if 1♥ is artificial given that it is forbidden to have agreements about insufficent bids.
True, but the Laws presume a meaning, which is generally understood to be the idea in the player's mind.
Vampyr, on 2013-March-04, 12:02, said:
There is nothing in the law that indicates that he should. Nor does the law indicate that South should be told whether or not a penalty-free correction exists, and I feel very strongly that he should be.
There is nothing in the Law that says South should not be told, either. It is a matter for the authorities to decide. I think he should.
gordontd, on 2013-March-05, 04:55, said:
It's not hard to tell in this instance because East has told the whole table he didn't see the 1NT bid. So NS simply have to ask what 1♣ - P - 1♥ would mean.
We were asked two questions, one with the blurting out, one without.
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.
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.
[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 don't think this is relevant. I believe players are required to tell oppoents what bids mean in htis scenario, even if not in the WBFLC one.
barmar, on 2013-March-08, 10:24, said:
EBU has made things confusing by establishing the same procedures for classifying and ruling on misbids and psyches.
Silly EBU to decide that breaches of Law 40C should be treated as breaches of Law 40C.
blackshoe, on 2013-March-08, 14:14, said:
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>
Far too strong an approach. You will be getting ethics hearings and lawsuits over hesitations.
The general approach, following American legal practices [well, something has to
] is to accept that self-serving arguments have less weight than other evidence. So you can rule something that is at variance with a self-serving argument without calling anyone a cheat or a liar.
Sjoerds, on 2013-March-18, 14:09, said:
I have asked this question now many times to several very qualified TD's and the answers I get differ a lot. So it might look easy, but there is a lot of room to act differently.
At the EBL TD course in San Remo, I asked four senior lawmen, all members of the WBFLC, what you should tell the opponent.
I got four different answers.