[vladesch]

Been trying to find an exact ruling on this but all I could find was cases where incorrect explanations are given.
Hence I think there is no penalty, but I would like some input.
This is Australia, though I doubt that makes any difference.

Let's say the bidding goes e:1d w:1s e:2nt w:3nt and before a card is led, north asks the meaning of 2nt.
west replies that it shows a 5332 in diamonds with some (irrelevant) point range.
The hand is played and it turns out that east only has 4 diamonds.
North feels like he has been disadvantaged, but it turns out that wests explanation was totally correct, ie east has just misbid.
North feels unfairly disadvantaged and calls the director.

The director then rules that east should have announced that he did not have a 5332 before the lead, and east-west get a 1 trick penalty.

Was the directors correct?, or is there no penalty because north was given the right explanation?

[Vampyr]

Opponents are entitled only to the correct explanation, not the fact that a player has misbid (or, in fact, psyched). Also the one-trick penalty was from another planet. I would actually report the director to the club’s management.

The problem arises when player has several times forgotten his agreement in a similar situation, so it is a real question whether the pair are playing that agreement at all. I do not know a solution to that.

[weejonnie]

No - you have no obligation to disclose you have misbid. Law 75C

C. Mistaken Call
When the partnership agreement has been explained correctly, the mistake being the call made
and not the explanation, there is no infraction. The explanation must not be corrected (nor must
the Director be notified) immediately and there is no obligation to do so subsequently.
Regardless of damage, the result stands [but see Law 21B1(b)].

Law 21B1(b) states that the TD is presume mistaken explanation rather than mistaken call in absence to any evidence to the contrary.

There could be an adjustment if there was evidence that West knew that East could deviate from partnership agreements. The 'suggested' treatment is 'shows...... My partner has been known to deviate from this.' In that situation there is an agreement but partner is known to break it.

[pescetom]

vladesch, on 2019-May-17, 08:15, said:

Let's say the bidding goes e:1d w:1s e:2nt w:3nt and before a card is led, north asks the meaning of 2nt.
west replies that it shows a 5332 in diamonds with some (irrelevant) point range.
The hand is played and it turns out that east only has 4 diamonds.
North feels like he has been disadvantaged, but it turns out that wests explanation was totally correct, ie east has just misbid.

Did they have that agreement in writing? What is east supposed to bid with a 4333 in diamonds?

[blackshoe]

---

"Before a card is led North asks the meaning of 2NT".

Were there three passes after 3NT? If so, the auction is over and South is on lead. North is not entitled to ask questions until after South chooses his lead and makes it face down. If West has bid 3NT and North has not yet passed, he can ask.

"North feels unfairly disadvantaged and calls the director".

He's entitled to do that. However...

"The director then rules that east should have announced that he did not have a 5332 before the lead, and east-west get a 1 trick penalty."

This wrong is completely wrong. First off, there is nothing in law or regulation that requires a player to announce that he has misbid. Second, no provision of law or regulation allows the director to assign a one trick penalty, or in fact any penalty at all, to a pair one member of which has misbid.

Quote

Law 75C: When the partnership agreement has been explained correctly, the mistake being the call made and not the explanation, there is no infraction. The explanation must not be corrected (nor must the Director be notified) immediately and there is no obligation to do so subsequently. Regardless of damage, the result stands [but see Law 21B1(b)].

Quote

Law 21B1{b}: The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

What that second law says is that if there is no evidence that it was a mis-bid, the director is to rule as if it were a mistaken explanation. The OP asserts that it was definitely a mis-bid, so 21B1{b} does not apply.

[Vampyr]

weejonnie, on 2019-May-17, 08:39, said:

No - you have no obligation to disclose you have misbid. Law 75C

C. Mistaken Call
When the partnership agreement has been explained correctly, the mistake being the call made
and not the explanation, there is no infraction. The explanation must not be corrected (nor must
the Director be notified) immediately and there is no obligation to do so subsequently.
Regardless of damage, the result stands [but see Law 21B1(b)].

Law 21B1(b) states that the TD is presume mistaken explanation rather than mistaken call in absence to any evidence to the contrary.

There could be an adjustment if there was evidence that West knew that East could deviate from partnership agreements. The 'suggested' treatment is 'shows...... My partner has been known to deviate from this.' In that situation there is an agreement but partner is known to break it.

This doesn’t help opponents a lot. Especially as “A” or “some unknown other thing” may not be a legal agreement. So there may well still be an adjustment.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2019-May-18, 13:15, said:

This doesn’t help opponents a lot. Especially as “A” or “some unknown other thing” may not be a legal agreement. So there may well still be an adjustment.

If the "some unknown other thing" is just other balanced hands, i.e. the implicit agreement is effectively "standard", then it should be legal.

I wonder why the opponents even asked about 2NT when there was no alert and almost everyone plays it pretty similarly.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2019-May-19, 13:22, said:

I wonder why the opponents even asked about 2NT when there was no alert and almost everyone plays it pretty similarly.

I wonder why @vladesch asked this question but then did not reply to questions or even read the forum after the day of posting.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2019-May-19, 13:22, said:

If the "some unknown other thing" is just other balanced hands, i.e. the implicit agreement is effectively "standard", then it should be legal.

Yes, but it is not legal that it is implicit; it should be made explicit. But in any case, other balanced hands does not fit the definition of “some unknown other thing”.

[vladesch]

pescetom, on 2019-May-19, 14:58, said:

I wonder why @vladesch asked this question but then did not reply to questions or even read the forum after the day of posting.

I have been a bit distracted of late, but I do thank people for their replies and will be making this thread known to the director that made that ruling.