[NemoJames]

Just to clarify some further confusion. It is not the bidder that has to leave the table but their partner. Neither player has to disclose their hand, it is simply that the bidder has to explain his bid to the opposition.

The other thing is most players are well aware of their obligation to explain their bids, that is not the point. The point is there are many people who believe if they say they don't know what their partner's bid meant, then just saying that absolves them from all responsibility. Or it is suggested here if I don't want to explain my partner's bid I can simply say "no agreement in place". The question is can that be reasonable?

If not, what resource is left to the non offending pair in the absence of a TD ?

[Zelandakh]

NemoJames, on 2017-May-22, 07:24, said:

Or it is suggested here if I don't want to explain my partner's bid I can simply say "no agreement in place". The question is can that be reasonable?

You misunderstand. You cannot answer "No agreement" just because you do not want to explain partner's call but it is the correct response where that is really the case. Similarly, if the bidder understands that there is no agreement then they should explain their call that way even if partner is away from the table. They do not have to say what is in their hand, only what the agreement is. Take an example: 1NT - 2♣; 3♣. Let us assume that our agreement is to play normal Stayman and we have never discussed any extended response schemes, nor are they common in our region. Then the correct response to any question about the 3♣ rebid is "No agreement", regardless of who from partner, the TD or the opps are present. Perhaps the 1NT bidder psyched, perhaps they have 2 4-card majors and read a magazine report about alternative Stayman responses that morning, perhaps they mis-sorted their hand and found out their spades are in fact clubs, or perhaps the 1NT was just a mistake that is too late to correct.

Again, the point here is that partner is as much in the dark as the opponents. However, there are some safeguards. If, for example, Opener does in fact have the 2 4-card major hand and Responder happens to play for that after giving a "no agreement" response then there could well end up being an adjustment if there was damage. The TD has to make a judgement call in such cases. If you feel you might have been damaged by MI (and "no agreement" when there really was one is MI) then call the TD and have them sort it out. And if there is no TD, well presumably you are playing amongst friends and either tolerate some degree of UI or one of the group steps up and acts as the TD on occasion. And if you are playing with strangers that you suspect of playing unethically, well the resource is quite simple. You leave the table and find a better game to take part in - easy!

[RD350LC]

Vampyr, on 2017-May-21, 19:25, said:

No, there may be an agreement but one player has forgotten. Or the agreement may be implicit, based on what they play with other people, partnership experience etc.

Saying you do not have an agreement when you know you have one but can't remember what it is you are cheating and the only question is how long your ban from organised bridge in your NBO shall be.

By the way, the laws are available online. You do not have to use a 30-year-old copy.

In referring to the laws, the current relevant law is Law 40, section B6a. The law as quoted remains valid.
In any respect, I agree with your statement.

[msjennifer]

As stated,Law 20 f clearly states everything needed to be done in such situations the TD must be called and he has the powers authorized to give the decision. If either side does not accept his decision then they are free to make a written appeal signed by both of the pair to the Appeals Committee for action.If no such appeals Committee exists then the organizing committee have to temporarily form one from among the impartial experts available of 3 (or more odd number)
This Committee then gives their decision which then is binding (at least for that session ) on all.

[VixTD]

NemoJames, on 2017-May-22, 03:31, said:

In the situation I was in, east made what looked like it was a tranfer bid (over an NT opening) and west said they thought it was a transfer but wasn't 100% sure. As my partner made a DONT overcall my hand put me in a perfect siutation to bid as long as I knew what East's bid meant. I asked West to leave the table and he refused point blank. I had to assume it was a transfer and ended up having to play game (doubled) with only three trumps because it turned out it wasn't a transfer. That result put them in first place.

This looks like quite a common situation where confusion can arise in partnership understandings. I don't know what your actual auction was, but let's suppose it was:

1NT - 2♦(1) - 2♥(2) - ?

(1) either hearts or spades.
(2) hearts if they play natural responses after an overcall, spades if they still play transfers.

You want to know what 2♥ is showing so that you can bid your major naturally, or make a cue-bid, perhaps.

If you ask West and he says he's not sure whether they play transfers in this situation, you are in some difficulty and should call the director. The director may direct you to their convention card, but if there aren't any or they aren't clear, they could send West away from the table and ask East to explain their agreements. When I do this I make it clear that East should only explain any agreements that have not been properly disclosed, and that's the kind of wording I use at the table. I stress that they shouldn't explain what they intended by the call if it is not covered by a partnership agreement (explicit or implicit). There's no question of East explaining what's in their hand; all they need to do is give the explanation their partner would have given had they remembered the agreement, e.g. "We have agreed to play transfers after overcalls", or "We've agreed that suit bids are natural and non-forcing in this situation".

This may solve the problem, but if they really don't have an agreement it could be that all NS are entitled to know is that EW play transfers over a pass but have no agreement over an overcall. (West should have supplied this information himself had he known.) The TD can now call West back, explain to all the players about the consequences of any unauthorized information conveyed by the confusion, and allow the auction and play to continue. At the end of play the TD may need to look further into the matter to see if there's evidence that they did have an agreement and that NS have been misinformed, but that's a problem for the TD. The TD can also tell EW, particularly if they are good, experienced players, that they should decide what their methods are now so that this doesn't happen again.

If you don't have a TD it's more difficult. I'm not greatly in favour of players deciding among themselves to send one of them away from the table, as I never know if they're following correct procedure and explaining just what they're supposed to and no more, or that they understand the UI problems created etc., but if they know what they're doing and seem happy I wouldn't interfere. I presume even if there's no qualified TD at the event you could request a ruling at the end of the game having just muddled through as best you could at the time. If you had been misinformed and damaged you may be entitled to an adjusted score.

[blackshoe]

Law 20F1 says, in part "Except on the instruction of the Director, replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question." So the director has the authority to instruct you to explain your partnership's agreement as to your own call. If you refuse, he has the authority to penalize you, suspend you for the remainder of the session or any part of it, or with the concurrence of the Tournament Organizer disqualify you for cause. See Law 91. The director's instruction to your partner to leave the table is a courtesy to your partnership, since if he remains, whatever explanation you give is UI to him, and if he takes an action which could have been based on that UI, your partnership will be subject to score adjustment and possibly to penalty as well. Of course, if your partner refuses to leave the table when the director so instructs him, he is subject to the same disciplinary penalties mentioned above.

Note that players do not have the authority to ask an opponent to leave the table. The proper way to handle these situations is simply to call the director — and to do so before any arguments or refusals can occur.

Bottom line: if the director tells you to do something, do it.

Added: The laws say that if there is no TD, the players should appoint one of their number to take that mantle. The EBU has, as I recall, a slightly different procedure available: experienced TDs are available by telephone. Either way, "we don't have a TD, so we're just going to argue amongst ourselves until somebody gives up" is the wrong way to go.

[JoshuaR]

I played recently with a new partner and made a support double. When asked, my partner said that she didn't know what it meant. The auction continued, and I became declarer in another suit. Before play commenced, the opponents then asked me to explain the double, which I did figuring I had to pay the price for using a bid I couldn't be sure my partner would know. That is, as soon as my dummy revealed that we would have had an eight card fit in that suit and the opponents could count the number of cards in their hands, they would know exactly the number of cards in that suit for each player, and I would not.

That was still the correct procedure, right? I had to explain the bid?

[blackshoe]

Maybe, maybe not. Did you have an agreement that it was a support double or that it had some other meaning, or did you just hope partner would get it? If the former you have to tell your opponents the agreement. If the latter, you have to tell them you have no agreement. You don't have to tell them what's in your hand, or why you doubled.

[Vampyr]

NemoJames, on 2017-May-22, 03:31, said:

In the case above the pair in question have been playing together for years and are two of the best players in the club. I am not for a minute suggesting they are cheating, just that they are not clear about the rules and considering the differences in opinion in this post that is a common problem.

Maybe this pair are not cheating. But they do need to be educated on what full disclosure means. Perhaps this club could send a few people to the EBU directors’ course so,you could play with a trained TD.

But in any case there are not differences of opinion on this thread. There are comments based on the Laws and comments that are complete nonsense.

GrahamJson, on 2017-May-22, 06:41, said:

You are entitled, when it is your turn to call, to ask the meaning of any bids made, or not made, by the opposition during the auction. The explanation should normally be given by the partner who made the bid. If his partner believes that a wrong explanation was given he must say nothing until the end of the auction at which point he should call the tournament director,

Unless of course the pair and up,defending, in which case they must disclose their possible incorrect explanation at the end of the play of the hand. However if it was you that gave an incorrect explanation and you realise it later in the auction, you must call the director, who will normally instruct you to give the correct explanation. This may end up with no damage to the opponent’s thus no need for an adjusted score.

[NemoJames]

This seems to contradict most of what is said in this thread and seems logical to me. A committee of judges say I have a right to ask a bidders partner to leave the table and ask what the bid meant.

Event: Life Master Pairs, 12 August, Second Semi-final Session

Board 3
Dealer: South
Vulnerability: East/West

The Facts: 2 made two, plus 110 for N/S. The Director was called after dummy was displayed. South believed she had made a Support Double. North did not believe that anyone played Support Doubles after 1 No Trump overcalls. North was unsure as to the meaning of the double. The Director allowed the table result to stand since neither East nor West had any clear action.

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. North and West were the only players to attend the hearing. West believed that had he known South was making a Support Double, he might have bid 2 No Trump. He believed that North should not have removed the double. North said that South was a relatively inexperienced player, a student of his, though a Life Master. He had explained at the table that his partner might have meant the double as Support Double, though he was not sure. He believed that removing the double was the right action with his hand.

The Committee's Decision: The Committee believed that North went out of his way to explain the possibilities for his partner's double, that it was possibly meant as a Support Double, and that she was relatively inexperienced. At this point E/W could have asked North to leave the table and had South explain the intent of the double . The Committee believed that the decision North had made to bid 2 could just as well have worked out badly for his side. The result was "rub of the green" for E/W.

The Committee allowed the table result to stand and believed the appeal just barely met the standard of having merit because N/S were not totally clear on their agreement.

[barmar]

There's nothing in the Laws that allows the players to ask North to leave the table.

Sometimes the Director will do this, but the players can't do it on their own.

[Vampyr]

A double necro!