Re: inn err Ni manor

If we include New Law 75A in the post

A.	Mistake Causing Unauthorized Information
Irrespective of whether or not an explanation is a correct statement of
partnership agreement, a player, having heard his partner's explanation,
knows that his own call has been misinterpreted.  This knowledge is
unauthorized information (see Law 16A) and the player must carefully avoid
taking any advantage from it (see Law 73C); otherwise the Director shall
award an adjusted score.

Then I am happy with the remainder of the post.

Cheers
Bill kemp

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
brian
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 1:48 PM
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [BLML] inn err Ni manor

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


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml