[paulg]

Quote

2017 Law 20

4. (a) If a player realises during the auction that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must summon the Director before the end of the Clarification Period and correct the misexplanation. He may elect to call the Director sooner, but he is under no obligation to do so.

As far as I can see this is one of the few major changes to the Laws that will affect players: the fact that a player may wait to correct his misexplanation until after the auction is completed. Currently the player must call the Director immediately.

I find this change a little disconcerting as it seems to move away from the principle of trying to get a meaningful result at the table. If I describe my partner's two clubs overcall over their one no trump opening as the majors, and then remember it is clubs and a higher suit with this partner, then there is little chance of the opponents having a meaningful auction if I fail to correct this immediately.

Of course they will receive an adjusted score if they are damaged, but this adjustment will not be any easier for the Director that under the current Laws and may often be harder: he may well have to judge the auction and the play, as the final contract will often be different. I guess that there is little that can be done in cases where I realise that I have misexplained and the auction has continued with LHO having made two calls.
More importantly, what do you think we should advise our club players to do? Are they better off reporting the misexplanation immediately or should they wait until the end of the auction before the lead is made?

[gordontd]

My understanding is that this was introduced to give effect to the fact that we are only entitled to our opponents' agreements, not to the knowledge that they have had a misundertanding, and the intention was to prevent a contract from being doubled simply because the opponents seemed to have had a misunderstanding. If that is so, then its intention is indeed to increase the number of real bridge results.

The EBL had a course for NBOs in May, so I'll try to find out more about this then (and perhaps someone is going from Scotland?)

[lamford]

paulg, on 2017-April-05, 02:25, said:

Are they better off reporting the misexplanation immediately or should they wait until the end of the auction before the lead is made?[/size]

They should be better off reporting it immediately, as the TD when awarding an adjusted score should err in favour of the non-offending side. And, on Gordontd's point, the contract should be "doubled by the TD" if it would have been doubled with correct information. And, in any case, the non-offenders' last call can be changed when the TD is called, even if the auction is over.

[weejonnie]

Looking at it objectively - if you give an incorrect explanation then it doesn't take long for the auction to deviate from something sensible (parter of course having to watch the UI) and after your LHO has called over you, opponents start losing the opportunity for changing their calls anyway. (i.e. RHO immediately loses the right - and once the auction comes back to you LHO has lost the right as well.

Although Gordon's explanation seems logical, it still seems odd that the NOS can decide when to 'fess up' (up to the end of the AP).

[paulg]

gordontd, on 2017-April-05, 02:48, said:

My understanding is that this was introduced to give effect to the fact that we are only entitled to our opponents' agreements, not to the knowledge that they have had a misunderstanding, and the intention was to prevent a contract from being doubled simply because the opponents seemed to have had a misunderstanding. If that is so, then its intention is indeed to increase the number of real bridge results.

The EBL had a course for NBOs in May, so I'll try to find out more about this then (and perhaps someone is going from Scotland?)

Thanks Gordon.

I'm not sure whether the SBU is attending the event next month. To be honest my hopes are the EBU will be publishing some guidance for players (and perhaps TDs) before September I suspect a number of NBOs are hoping the same!

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2017-April-05, 02:48, said:

My understanding is that this was introduced to give effect to the fact that we are only entitled to our opponents' agreements, not to the knowledge that they have had a misundertanding, and the intention was to prevent a contract from being doubled simply because the opponents seemed to have had a misunderstanding. If that is so, then its intention is indeed to increase the number of real bridge results.

The EBL had a course for NBOs in May, so I'll try to find out more about this then (and perhaps someone is going from Scotland?)

Wouldn't it be easier to just give all offenders A+?

[gordontd]

paulg, on 2017-April-05, 07:29, said:

Thanks Gordon.

I'm not sure whether the SBU is attending the event next month. To be honest my hopes are the EBU will be publishing some guidance for players (and perhaps TDs) before September I suspect a number of NBOs are hoping the same!

I'm sure we will be. We will be having courses for our own panel TDs in May, after which we'll be holding a number of seminars across the country for club and county TDs. We have a webpage to which we'll be adding information as it becomes available.

[mycroft]

I think it came up in discussion on the "review list", where the explanation was "to remove some more mind-reading."

How can we tell the difference between "I only figured it out from the questions asked during the Clarification period, and am now immediately correcting my explanation" from "yeah, I know what I said was wrong, but I'm going to hide it until the end of the auction (when partner, by law (if declaring), will correct it)" - the former being legal, the latter not (under 2008 Laws)? We can't, so let's not force the TD to try.

[RMB1]

gordontd, on 2017-April-05, 02:48, said:

My understanding is that this was introduced to give effect to the fact that we are only entitled to our opponents' agreements, not to the knowledge that they have had a misundertanding, and the intention was to prevent a contract from being doubled simply because the opponents seemed to have had a misunderstanding. If that is so, then its intention is indeed to increase the number of real bridge results.

Even if the correction is made during the clarification period, it is still in time for the final pass by the opponents to be changed (to a double) under Law 21B1(a); so the opponents may still be in a position to take advantage of the fact that there has been a misunderstanding.


[Should discussion of the issues in the new laws be in Changing Laws and Regulations, until they are in force?]

[Trinidad]

I can imagine that the new rule is more meaningful if you figure out your mistake after several rounds of bidding.

However, I would think that it is a good idea to advice players to call the TD and correct the misinformation if they discover their mistake before partner has called.

And, after writing this line, I realize that this means that my advice is that a player's action depends on whether his partner has called or not... which is way too complicated for a large amount of players.

Rik

[mycroft]

One thing I will say is that "correcting misexplanations/misbids" causes more problems with players than basically everything else. I think that's mostly because it's the one spot where you can't just call the TD to solve the problem for you.

Anything that makes it easier would help.