[szgyula]

Hi,

This is about general priciples but lets give an example to demonstrate the issue: Auction is 1C-1H-2C. Screens are used. The third player (2C) is asked what the 2C bid is. Lets assume that they play inverted minors, they do have an agreement about inverted minors over interference but (s)he does not remember it. Questions:

1. (S)he certainly can alert (screens). What is the correct explanation? Can (s)he mention inverted minors as a possibility? I heard the argument that a "may be ..." explanation is, by definition MI as it is confusing the opponents.

2. Should the TD send the player away, ask the other side of the screen and inform the NOS player about the meaning of the bid?

3. If the answer is yes, what is the legal base of this? 16A is very restrictive about what is AI. 16A1© leaves a back door open but you still need a "legal procedures authorized in these laws and in
regulations" that covers this (TD asks the other OS player and informs the NOS player on the other side).

4. What changes if there is no agreement for this situation (i.e. they did not discuss interference)?

5. If the NOS player wants to know how the 2C bidder interprets the situation, what is the correct method? Is it possible at all? Can the 2C player say that "I do not know what my 2C means but I bid it anyway and I will not help". I was in a situation once (two possible meanings of the bid from partner) and I choose a bid that reasonably fits both situations. I did not really want to explain what my hand is.

6. How can you avoid a double barell approach from the NOS? I.e. there are two possible meaning of the bid, NOS play assuming one of these and asks for redress if the other was the case...

Thanks,

Gyula

[gordontd]

What screen regulations were in force? Currently the ACBL allows correction of information across the screen, but I think only at the end of the auction. Any ACBL directors able to confirm this? Other bodies like the EBL and WBF do not allow information to be passed across the screen, so these sorts of matters are dealt with after the hand on the basis of misinformation.

[szgyula]

gordontd, on 2018-October-02, 05:09, said:

What screen regulations were in force? Currently the ACBL allows correction of information across the screen, but I think only at the end of the auction. Any ACBL directors able to confirm this? Other bodies like the EBL and WBF do not allow information to be passed across the screen, so these sorts of matters are dealt with after the hand on the basis of misinformation.

Is "I do not remember" MI? Is "A or B, I do not know which" MI? Is "A or B, no agreement" MI? Is "A but partner often makes mistakes so I am prepared for B" MI?

[barmar]

The best explanation is probably "If there were no interference it would be A, but I don't remember if that's still the case over interference."

This is more accurate than saying "no agreement". Forgetting an agreement doesn't mean that the agreement doesn't exist.

If you're in a jurisdiction that allows for corrections after the auction, I'd recommend that his screenmate call the TD at the end of the auction, and then the partner can correct it. If it caused damage during the auction, the TD can adjust, but this would avoid misdefense due to the MI.

Maybe the player should just guess which it is, by explaining it the way he's planning on taking it (but not give away that he's unsure by saying "I'm taking it as ..."). Anything else is definitely MI, but a guess could turn out to be right. The only problem with this is that his screenmate would not be aware that he should call the TD.