[bali 2]

Hi,

W opens 1♥, N bids 2♠ ( 6-8 Non Vul ), and while East is looking at a big hand and asks himself how to make a good slam try, S alerts, and being asked, explains that this is like an opening bid of 1♠ but with 6 or 7 cards.
N knows for sure that his partner is wrong, counfounding the opening bid of 2♠ ( 12-15 ) and the overcall. East bids 4♥, S pass, W pass, and now, if before passing, N calls the director and corrects the misinformation( which he is not allowed to do ) could the director give East the right to change his call of 4♥, konwing that N is weak ? And now, if E/W call the slam, it's OK, and if not, it will not be N/S' fault : no call to the director at the end of play, no ruling, no appeal, no appeal committee, etc...
It will be easier for everyone, don't you think ?
Many thanks in advance
Al. Ohana

[Sven Pran]

bali 2, on Aug 23 2009, 08:55 AM, said:

Hi,

W opens 1♥, N bids 2♠ ( 6-8 Non Vul ), and while East is looking at a big hand and asks himself how to make a good slam try, S alerts, and being asked, explains that this is like an opening bid of 1♠ but with 6 or 7 cards.
N knows for sure that his partner is wrong, counfounding the opening bid of 2♠ ( 12-15 ) and the overcall. East bids 4♥, S pass, W pass, and now, if before passing, N calls the director and corrects the misinformation( which he is not allowed to do ) could the director give East the right to change his call of 4♥, konwing that N is weak ? And now, if E/W call the slam, it's OK, and if not, it will not be N/S' fault : no call to the director at the end of play, no ruling, no appeal, no appeal committee, etc...
It will be easier for everyone, don't you think ?
Many thanks in advance
Al. Ohana

No, it will just add more irregularity to the situation (still with North/South as offenders).

North cannot "escape" a damaging (to his side) situation by committing another irregularity that in this case possibly disturbs the auction more than has already been done.

I consider the laws well thought out on these matters and see no reason to argue for a change.

regards Sven

[Cyberyeti]

Sven Pran, on Aug 23 2009, 07:15 AM, said:

I consider the laws well thought out on these matters and see no reason to argue for a change.

Thoroughly disagree with this. Consider the following in EBUland:

You double the final contract of 2 or 3 of a suit with a double that everybody plays as penalties, but partner fails to alert. You know partner knows it's penalties, but for 90% of his life, partner hasn't had to alert the penalty double here. Why on earth shouldn't you be able to alert declarer to this at the end of the auction to save his ludicrous "I misplayed it because the double wasn't alerted" assertion.

[skjaeran]

Cyberyeti, on Aug 23 2009, 02:39 PM, said:

Sven Pran, on Aug 23 2009, 07:15 AM, said:

I consider the laws well thought out on these matters and see no reason to argue for a change.

Thoroughly disagree with this. Consider the following in EBUland:

You double the final contract of 2 or 3 of a suit with a double that everybody plays as penalties, but partner fails to alert. You know partner knows it's penalties, but for 90% of his life, partner hasn't had to alert the penalty double here. Why on earth shouldn't you be able to alert declarer to this at the end of the auction to save his ludicrous "I misplayed it because the double wasn't alerted" assertion.

Because you're, by law, not allowed to give your partner the UI you're giving him when you correct this MI at this moment.

If you end up on the declaring side, you call the TD prior to the facing of the opening lead and inform him/her about your partners misdescription of your call. The TD might then reopen the auction and let the player on the non-offending side making the last pass change this pass. There might still be an adjusted score after the board.

If you end up on the defending side, you call the TD after the board has been finished and and inform him/her about your partners misdescription of your call. The TD then decides if the non-offending side has been damaged through the MI, and if so, adjust the score.

[Cyberyeti]

skaeran, on Aug 23 2009, 08:41 AM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Aug 23 2009, 02:39 PM, said:

Sven Pran, on Aug 23 2009, 07:15 AM, said:

I consider the laws well thought out on these matters and see no reason to argue for a change.

Thoroughly disagree with this. Consider the following in EBUland:

You double the final contract of 2 or 3 of a suit with a double that everybody plays as penalties, but partner fails to alert. You know partner knows it's penalties, but for 90% of his life, partner hasn't had to alert the penalty double here. Why on earth shouldn't you be able to alert declarer to this at the end of the auction to save his ludicrous "I misplayed it because the double wasn't alerted" assertion.

Because you're, by law, not allowed to give your partner the UI you're giving him when you correct this MI at this moment.

If you end up on the declaring side, you call the TD prior to the facing of the opening lead and inform him/her about your partners misdescription of your call. The TD might then reopen the auction and let the player on the non-offending side making the last pass change this pass. There might still be an adjusted score after the board.

If you end up on the defending side, you call the TD after the board has been finished and and inform him/her about your partners misdescription of your call. The TD then decides if the non-offending side has been damaged through the MI, and if so, adjust the score.

I agree with what you're saying in principle, the issue here is that there is no UI, but partner is blissfully unaware as an older gentleman who's been playing the game for a long time with a shallow grasp of the rules that he should be alerting due to the fact that everybody plays this double as penalties and has done for 50 years. If asked, he'd explain it as penalties, but I believe I can't even either leave the table and ask partner to explain the double, or ask him to leave the table and explain it myself.

[blackshoe]

I sympathize with your plight - and your partner's - but you both must follow the laws. If the TD is not competent to sort it out, then you have, it seems to me, too choices - pick another club, or pick another partner. Or both.

[bluejak]

The problem with not following the Laws, as Garozzo famously found out, is that odd things you do not expect happen.

While I have sympathy with the idea of letting opponents know partner is a loony/idiot/asleep/bored and has little grasp of easy matters you really must not start giving UI so as to inform opponents. Leave solutions to MI to the TD at the right time.

[peachy]

bluejak, on Aug 23 2009, 05:01 PM, said:

The problem with not following the Laws, as Garozzo famously found out, is that odd things you do not expect happen.

Now I am curious about it. What is the story? Or maybe a case?

[bluejak]

I am not sure which of the four players at the table was Garozzo, but a call was made that showed four plus hearts. The partner explained it wrongly as showing five plus hearts. The player who held the hand knew it was wrong, but felt since he actually held five hearts the opponents could not be damaged so did not bother to correct when becoming declarer/dummy. With the correct explanation it was argued successfully the opening lead might have been different so there was an adjustment.