Re: inn err Ni manor

Fifth paragraph of the 2017 Introduction:

"The trend, begun in 2007, to give Tournament Directors more discretion in enforcing the Law has been continued and attempts have been made to clarify interpretations. The Committee intends to prepare a separate official Commentary, containing examples to help in this respect."

Richard Hills:

Sir Bedevere, in the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail, used logic to demonstrably suggest that a witch had exactly the same weight as a duck. Then he used his largest scales to assess a putative witch.

Pending the publication of the official Commentary presumably the 2008 minutes of the WBF Laws Committee have lame-duck lingering validity. That is, there is an "overriding requirement" to give an accurate explanation in response to an opponent's enquiry despite Law 20F5(a) [or despite the new 2017 Law 75B3].

Best wishes,

Richard Hills


Sent from my iPad

>> On 3 Sep 2017, at 3:47 PM, brian <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 09/02/2017 03:23 PM, Robert Frick wrote:
>>> On Fri, 01 Sep 2017 04:59:02 -0400, Richard Hills <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> "We want ... a shrubbery!"
>>> [dramatic chord]
>>> 
>>> New 2017 Law 75B1:
>>> 
>>> "When the partnership agreement is different from the explanation given, the explanation is an infraction of Law. When this infraction results in damage to the non-offending side, the Director shall award an adjusted score."
>>> 
>>> New 2017 Law 75B3 (an apparent restatement / paraphrase of the "in any manner" Law 20F5(a)):
>>> 
>>> "The player's partner must do nothing to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues and if he subsequently becomes a defender, he must call the Director and correct the explanation only after play ends. If the player's partner is to be declarer or dummy he must, after the final pass, call the Director and then provide a correction."
>>> 
>>> Richard Hills
>>> 
>>> In my opinion, reading the new 75B1 and 75B3 together demonstrates that an accurate explanation to an opponent's later enquiry does NOT count as a correction of partner's earlier misexplanation.
>> 
>> So, if my partner describes my 4NT as being for the minors, and I describe his 5D response as showing one control, that has done nothing to correct his misexplanation? Is that what you want to say?
>> 
>> Isn't everyone at the table going to think differently?
> 
> 
> OK, let me pose a question assuming your opinion is the correct one,
> Robert.
> 
> My partner plays different systems with different partners, and
> occasionally gets them confused. I make what I think is a natural bid,
> he alerts and, on request, tells' opponents that it's a gadget of
> which I've never heard. He then makes his bid, and it sounds like a
> forcing response.
> 
> If you want an example, say that I've opened a natural weak 2D, pard
> alerts and explains it as Flannery, which I don't know, and pard then
> bids 2NT. I'm used to that being Ogust over my weak 2D.
> 
> Now, what do I do over his rebid so as not to correct his
> misexplanation? It's easy with Richard's interpretation, of course...
> 
> 
> Brian.
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml