[bluejak]

CSGibson, on 2012-October-04, 08:45, said:

The reason why is that an explanation of "we have no agreement, I just misbid" is self-serving. Note, I am not saying that they are lying, or impugning their reputation at all, but if a self-serving explanation is made for a potential MI issue, and there is no way of figuring out whether someone forgot an agreement or misbid based solely on the hand record/convention cards, then I think its appropriate to fill out a recorder form to document the occasion. People do lie to directors, or frame the facts in a way to give them the best chance of a good ruling, and rather than make a judgment on who I think is honest and who may be a lying bastard, I would just document everyone.

During an evening at the club there are maybe half a dozen bidding misunderstandings around the room. You want six recorder forms per evening's bridge?

You also make it sound so black-and-white: a self-serving statement. Of course we give less weight to it, but it is not the way half of RGB thinks: every self-serving statement by the offending side is assumed to be a lie, every self-serving statement by the non-offending side is assumed to be the plain unvarnished truth. The TD asks further questions. Pure lies to TDs are uncommon - and TDs know which players lie to them - so usually after asking a few questions a TD knows what the situation is.

[CSGibson]

bluejak, on 2012-October-05, 06:28, said:

During an evening at the club there are maybe half a dozen bidding misunderstandings around the room. You want six recorder forms per evening's bridge?

You also make it sound so black-and-white: a self-serving statement. Of course we give less weight to it, but it is not the way half of RGB thinks: every self-serving statement by the offending side is assumed to be a lie, every self-serving statement by the non-offending side is assumed to be the plain unvarnished truth. The TD asks further questions. Pure lies to TDs are uncommon - and TDs know which players lie to them - so usually after asking a few questions a TD knows what the situation is.

This is not just a bidding misunderstanding. This is a bidding misunderstanding where 1) neither has verbally corrected the explanation after the auction, 2) one person thought they were playing something conventional which would not normally be on the convention card, and 3) where they have ultimately said that they are not playing something conventional when that statement is unprovable and self-serving. I am also assuming, despite the fact that it has not been stated, that they are a regular partnership of some sort - it would make no sense to recommend any of this for a basic non-partnership.

And yes, I think recorder forms should be recommended in each instance where a regular partnership meets all 3.

[Phil]

Yes, they are a regular partnership, although less that 2% of the pairs around here play 11/12-14 NT.

[Trinidad]

Just my $0.02:

At the time when South bid 2♦, he did that with the expectation that North would understand it as showing hearts. (Why else would he bid 2♦? Pulled the wrong card? Psyche? He would have told the TD as soon as the TD asks the first question.)

South just thought at the time that he had some kind of understanding -no matter how vague- with North that 2♦ shows hearts.

This means that South will have to correct the non-alert of 2♦ - unless South is sure at the end of the auction that he has misbid. (In that case, South will also be able to tell the TD immediately: "I play transfers in this situation with Bob. I just forgot that I am playing with Fred.")

In short, unless South can tell the TD immediately what went wrong, he will have forgotten to correct to non-alert.

I would rule accordingly.

Rik