Re: inn err Ni manor

"What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?"

Law 81C2:

"The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder."

Richard Hills:

A broad interpretation of Law 20F5(a)'s "in any manner" quickly leads to a reductio ad absurdum. To extend Brian's example:

1. You open a natural weak two in diamonds.
2. Partner alerts and explains your 2D as Flannery, a convention of which you have zero knowledge.
3. Pard responds 2NT, which you alert, but mercifully neither opponent bothers to enquire.
4. Holding AKQxxx in diamonds you give the Ogust rebid of 3NT. But this rebid is non-systemic in pard's version of Flannery, ergo pard has become aware "in any manner" of his misexplanation, so therefore your 3NT rebid was an infraction.

Yes, the putative witch did weigh exactly the same as a duck.

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

Sent from my iPad

> On 4 Sep 2017, at 4:47 PM, brian <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> On 09/03/2017 01:53 PM, Robert Frick wrote:
>>> On Sun, 03 Sep 2017 01:47:58 -0400, 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...
>> 
>> Your partner has incorrectly explained your bid as Flannery, the opponents ask for an explanation of his 2NT response, and -- as I understand Richard -- you can say that's asking for a feature if you have 8-10 HCP, telling everyone at the table that your partner has misexplained your bid, but -- according to Richard -- that "does NOT count as a correction of partner's earlier misexplanation."
>> 
>> I didn't state an opinion. But if you want one -- sounds to me like I have done something "to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues" Just an opinion.
> 
> Yes, sorry, I should have said "implied" rather than "stated".
> 
> But, given the scenario I described above, and if Richard's view is
> NOT the correct one, then what do you believe is my lawful option when
> opponents ask me to explain my partner's 2NT response to a convention
> I don't know?
> 
> 
> 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