[lexlogan]

(I posted this on rec.games.bridge, but a friend suggested I repost here.)

Might declarer ask a player who made a bid to confirm whether his partner's explanation was correct?

Law 20 F, states, in part, "Except on the instruction of the director
[explanations of calls] should be given by the partner of the player
who made the call in question." What actually happened at the club is
unclear, so I'm not going to give a specific hand, but imagine this
scenario (South deals, ACBL club game, if that matters):
1NT-(pass)-2C-(3C)
pass-(pass)-3NT all pass

"What's 3C"
"Michaels"

The opening lead is made and declarer, after studying dummy, realizes
the 3C bidder might, in fact, be long in both majors, so the hand
should be played one way; but if he (as seems more likely) has clubs,
it should be played another. If declarer assumes the long clubs, he
cannot claim damage if the explanation was correct. But if he plays
for clubs, he's not convinced he'll get an adequate adjustment, if
any, and in any case would rather achieve a result through his own
skill and not per the director's judgment.

He calls the director and states he would like East to confirm whether
Michaels (i.e., length in both majors) is, in fact, the partnership agreement.
If I were director, I would be inclined to make sure South understood that the
answer would be authorized information for West, and then (per Law 20 F) instruct
East to answer "yes" or "no", "Is that your partnership agreement?"

Comments?

[blackshoe]

First thing I would have done is ask to see their system cards. Both of them.

[jdonn]

How is that likely to help in the example situtation? I don't know of anyone ever writing 'bidding over stayman by opponents'.

[CSGibson]

jdonn, on Aug 20 2010, 10:01 PM, said:

How is that likely to help in the example situtation? I don't know of anyone ever writing 'bidding over stayman by opponents'.

In the ACBL scoresheet, there is a box titled "Direct Cue Bid" which allows you to check for over a minor, a major, or an artificial bid whether a cuebid is natural, strong T/O, or Michaels. That should apply for 3C over the 2C artificial bid, in my opinion.

[jdonn]

That's true on the older version but I think it's gone now? But yeah worth checking they might have an older version anyway.

[pran]

lexlogan, on Aug 21 2010, 05:51 AM, said:

The opening lead is made and declarer, after studying dummy, realizes
the 3C bidder might, in fact, be long in both majors, so the hand
should be played one way; but if he (as seems more likely) has clubs,
it should be played another. If declarer assumes the long clubs, he
cannot claim damage if the explanation was correct. But if he plays
for clubs, he's not convinced he'll get an adequate adjustment, if
any, and in any case would rather achieve a result through his own
skill and not per the director's judgment.

Honestly: If the player sticks to the explanation he has received (so long as this explanation is not obviouosly wrong) and it eventually turns out that the explanation was indeed wrong I do not understand why he should fear an insufficient adjustment?

He will have to state how he would have played the cards given the correct explanation and unless the Director (and in case AC) finds this statement an after the fact self serving statement they shall adjust accordingly.

I would not recommend the player to have the given explanation confirmed during the play.

[paulg]

CSGibson, on Aug 21 2010, 06:19 AM, said:

jdonn, on Aug 20 2010, 10:01 PM, said:

How is that likely to help in the example situtation? I don't know of anyone ever writing 'bidding over stayman by opponents'.

In the ACBL scoresheet, there is a box titled "Direct Cue Bid" which allows you to check for over a minor, a major, or an artificial bid whether a cuebid is natural, strong T/O, or Michaels. That should apply for 3C over the 2C artificial bid, in my opinion.

It is still there in the Lee Edwards CC program.

Of course, the space allocated means that it is totally impossible to complete the section accurately. Many play direct cue bids differently depending on the level, and the meaning of an artificial bid depends quite a lot on what the artificial bid shows. Whereas a cue bid of Stayman might be Michaels, I don't think a cue bid of an opening 2♥ showing both majors will be.

So there are no boxes ticked on my ACBL card. You just have to ask I'm afraid, but then everyone does that because they NEVER look at my card.

[FrancesHinden]

pran, on Aug 21 2010, 07:35 AM, said:

lexlogan, on Aug 21 2010, 05:51 AM, said:

The opening lead is made and declarer, after studying dummy, realizes
the 3C bidder might, in fact, be long in both majors, so the hand
should be played one way; but if he (as seems more likely) has clubs,
it should be played another. If declarer assumes the long clubs, he
cannot claim damage if the explanation was correct. But if he plays
for clubs, he's not convinced he'll get an adequate adjustment, if
any, and in any case would rather achieve a result through his own
skill and not per the director's judgment.

Honestly: If the player sticks to the explanation he has received (so long as this explanation is not obviouosly wrong) and it eventually turns out that the explanation was indeed wrong I do not understand why he should fear an insufficient adjustment?

He will have to state how he would have played the cards given the correct explanation and unless the Director (and in case AC) finds this statement an after the fact self serving statement they shall adjust accordingly.

I would not recommend the player to have the given explanation confirmed during the play.

It's not as simple as that.
On some hands you can say "I'd take the finesse through the long hand" and the choice of the "long hand" depends on the explanation; then you get an easy adjusment in your favour.

But some hands are more complicated play problems. You might not know exactly how the play is going to go, it will depend on what happens to the first few tricks. However, you do know that the TD might apply a weighted ruling or at best the TD will have to guess (with your input) how the play might have gone. It is infinitely preferable to play the hand than to leave the result to the TD and appeals committee.

It's my belief that you are entitled to know their partnership agreement. Of course, one problem is that if LHO thinks their agreement is "majors" and the other thinks it is "clubs" then the only true information you are entitled to is "no agreement". You aren't entitled to know what the bidder actually has.

P.s. RHO bids 3C. LHO passes it, then explains it as 'Michaels' ???

[wank]

francis, the auction was made up. i presume the maker-upper didn't forsee that problem.

[jdonn]

pran, on Aug 21 2010, 01:35 AM, said:

lexlogan, on Aug 21 2010, 05:51 AM, said:

The opening lead is made and declarer, after studying dummy, realizes
the 3C bidder might, in fact, be long in both majors, so the hand
should be played one way; but if he (as seems more likely) has clubs,
it should be played another. If declarer assumes the long clubs, he
cannot claim damage if the explanation was correct. But if he plays
for clubs, he's not convinced he'll get an adequate adjustment, if
any, and in any case would rather achieve a result through his own
skill and not per the director's judgment.

Honestly: If the player sticks to the explanation he has received (so long as this explanation is not obviouosly wrong) and it eventually turns out that the explanation was indeed wrong I do not understand why he should fear an insufficient adjustment?

He will have to state how he would have played the cards given the correct explanation and unless the Director (and in case AC) finds this statement an after the fact self serving statement they shall adjust accordingly.

I would not recommend the player to have the given explanation confirmed during the play.

The point is that instead of misplaying a hand and receiving and artificial adjusted score that may or may not accurately represent what reality would have been, many players would rather just play a normal bridge hand with correct information and determine their own result through the play of the hand.

[peachy]

CSGibson, on Aug 21 2010, 12:19 AM, said:

jdonn, on Aug 20 2010, 10:01 PM, said:

How is that likely to help in the example situtation? I don't know of anyone ever writing 'bidding over stayman by opponents'.

In the ACBL scoresheet, there is a box titled "Direct Cue Bid" which allows you to check for over a minor, a major, or an artificial bid whether a cuebid is natural, strong T/O, or Michaels. That should apply for 3C over the 2C artificial bid, in my opinion.

"Direct Cuebid" means directly over their opening bid. It is no longer "direct" after both opponents have bid. So that checkbox does not apply in the given case.

[pran]

jdonn, on Aug 21 2010, 03:34 PM, said:

pran, on Aug 21 2010, 01:35 AM, said:

Honestly:  If the player sticks to the explanation he has received (so long as this explanation is not obviouosly wrong) and it eventually turns out that the explanation was indeed wrong I do not understand why he should fear an insufficient adjustment?

He will have to state how he would have played the cards given the correct explanation and unless the Director (and in case AC) finds this statement an after the fact self serving statement they shall adjust accordingly.

I would not recommend the player to have the given explanation confirmed during the play.

The point is that instead of misplaying a hand and receiving and artificial adjusted score that may or may not accurately represent what reality would have been, many players would rather just play a normal bridge hand with correct information and determine their own result through the play of the hand.

Why artificial adjusted score?
Is the Director not able to award an assigned adjusted score according to the statement from the non-offending side on how he would have played with correct explanation?

[jdonn]

By "artificial" I meant it would be given by the director instead of achieved at the table. Perhaps "assigned" is a better word, I apologize since obviously it caused you to miss the point entirely. Or then again, judging by how obvious it was what point I was trying to make, maybe that was simply destined to happen.

[aguahombre]

I suspect Josh would have played the hand correctly without need of TD. He would have noticed the gulp by East when West said 3C over Stayman showed the majors.

[blackshoe]

That may be, but there are an awful lot of players who do not have Josh's acumen.

[pran]

jdonn, on Aug 21 2010, 05:34 PM, said:

By "artificial" I meant it would be given by the director instead of achieved at the table. Perhaps "assigned" is a better word, I apologize since obviously it caused you to miss the point entirely. Or then again, judging by how obvious it was what point I was trying to make, maybe that was simply destined to happen.

Fair enough.

But just for your information: An artificial adjusted score is one assigned when it is impossible to decide a regular score and is specified as a percentage score, for instance "Average plus", "Average" or "Average minus".

An assigned adjusted score is always expressed as a contract with a given number of tricks (or as a weighted average from more than one such assigned scores).

In our case the declarer should be able to trust that the Director if misinformation becomes evident will rule how many tricks declarer would have gotten with correct explanation and award a corresponding assigned adjusted score.

Regards Sven.

[jdonn]

aguahombre, on Aug 21 2010, 12:35 PM, said:

I suspect Josh would have played the hand correctly without need of TD.  He would have noticed the gulp by East when West said 3C over Stayman showed the majors.

blackshoe, on Aug 21 2010, 01:40 PM, said:

That may be, but there are an awful lot of players who do not have Josh's acumen.

I don't see what that has to do with it (more to aguahombre than blackshoe). The question is, do they enjoy playing bridge over having scores assigned to them as much as I do? If the director is assigning a score he will take their skill level into account anyway.

[blackshoe]

I think we're getting into the realm of what the laws should say, rather than what they do say. That said, I think Josh will agree that the line has to be drawn somewhere, and I don't think one case is really enough to justify drawing it somewhere else.

[lexlogan]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 21 2010, 09:08 AM, said:

P.s. RHO bids 3C. LHO passes it, then explains it as 'Michaels' ???

Right, I wasn't at the table, I would assume West bid a major.

[lexlogan]

pran, on Aug 21 2010, 08:37 PM, said:

In our case the declarer should be able to trust that the Director if misinformation becomes evident will rule how many tricks declarer would have gotten with correct explanation and award a corresponding assigned adjusted score.

Any player with experience at an American bridge club would know better than to trust the director will get this sort of thing right. They aren't trained to do so, and few of them understand the logic of the laws well enough. Committees are practically unheard of at the club level. For what it's worth, the actual director told me he probably would not have adjusted the score, reasoning that South was experienced enough to know 3C wasn't Michaels. Of course this is absurd, since the director cannot adjust the score if, in fact, the pair in question had such an agreement but declarer assumed clubs meant clubs. And pairs have all sorts of silly agreements.