[MickyB]

Sasioc and I faced the following auction the other day.

1♦:1♥
1♠:2♣
2♥:3NT

1♦ was 11-15, natural or a balanced range

On lead, Sasioc asked for an explanation of the auction. We were told that 2♣ was Checkback, and that opener had 4♠3♥. She asked if he had promised real diamonds, and was told that he had not.

She led face-down, and I enquired further - would 2♦ over 2♣ have denied three hearts? We were now told that any hand with Hxxx diamond would have bid 2♦ instead of 2♥!

Thankfully, she had led a diamond and the contract was cold anyway, so there was no need for a ruling. However, it got me wondering -

a) Do you consider the initial explanation to constitute MI?
b) If the issue came to light with her card still face-down, presumably it can be changed. If she changes it is this AI to me and UI to declarer?
c) I believe it can still be changed once the lead is face-up, if dummy has not gone down. Again, is her initial lead AI to me?
d) Are there any issues with regard to improper communication between us - say she changed her lead to a diamond and found my strong suit?
e)If the issue comes to light after dummy has been put down, presumably it's too late to change the lead. I believe that everyone is now responsible for calling the director, so presumably the opening leader should do so even though some might consider this to transmit information to declarer/partner?
f) As partner of the opening leader, is it improper to deliberately delay further questioning until the dummy has been put down as an attempt at a double-shot? Not that I'm considering doing so

Thanks
Mike

[Bbradley62]

Out of curiosity, what does opening 1♦ instead of 1♣ say about opener's minors? Do we actually know that opener is specifically 4342 with four small diamonds?

[MickyB]

Bbradley62, on 2012-August-06, 17:28, said:

Out of curiosity, what does opening 1♦ instead of 1♣ say about opener's minors? Do we actually know that opener is specifically 4342 with four small diamonds?

1C would've been strong - as you might've expected given that 1D showed 11-15

[CSGibson]

Bbradley62, on 2012-August-06, 17:28, said:

Out of curiosity, what does opening 1♦ instead of 1♣ say about opener's minors? Do we actually know that opener is specifically 4342 with four small diamonds?

based on the explanation of 1♦ and subsequent actions, I suspect that 1♣ would have been strong, forcing, and artificial (though I might be reading the tea leaves incorrectly).

Edit: He beat me (said in my best John Malkovich-with-Russian-accent voice)

[barmar]

a) Yes, this seems to be MI. It seems very unlikely that the opponents could work out that detail on their own.

b, c) Law 47E2a addresses changing a card played due to an incorrect explanation. The card can be changed any time before dummy is exposed. Regarding whether it's AI or UI, Law 16D applies. The withdrawn card is AI to you and UI to declarer.

d) I think the improper communication issue would be if you asked solely for partner's benefit.

e) 20F4 says that the player who realizes his own explanation was incorrect MUST call the director. However, there's also a more general law that says that anyone may call the director when attention has been drawn to an irregularity. I think if a player admits to a misexplanation, but doesn't follow 20F4, that's an irregularity in procedure for which anyone may call the director.

f) Unless you consider the delay to be a violation of 11A, I don't see how you could rule against this double shot.

[c_corgi]

f) could lead to illegal communication issues if, having seen partner's lead and dummy, you sometimes decide not to ask after all. That would suggest that asking requests a switch if partner gets in, whereas not asking means the lead is satisfactory.

[blackshoe]

c_corgi, on 2012-August-07, 06:17, said:

f) could lead to illegal communication issues if, having seen partner's lead and dummy, you sometimes decide not to ask after all. That would suggest that asking requests a switch if partner gets in, whereas not asking means the lead is satisfactory.

I think the likelihood of this kind of implicit understanding is far lower than the likelihood that some opponent (or TD) might suggest it exists.

[bluejak]

MickyB, on 2012-August-06, 17:03, said:

e)If the issue comes to light after dummy has been put down, presumably it's too late to change the lead. I believe that everyone is now responsible for calling the director, so presumably the opening leader should do so even though some might consider this to transmit information to declarer/partner?

It is sensible to call the TD as early as possible in MI cases because the TD often has powers the players do not realise. But it does not really affect whether any adjustment will be given this late in the hand.