[Fluffy]

(1NT)-double!-(pass)-2♣!

First I doubled, alerted by partner who correctly explained as a long suit.
Then I alert 2♣ and 1NT opener asks me if it is intended to pass if clubs is my minor

Note that double showing one minor is played by many where I play.



What are my rights and responsibilities on this situation?

[pran]

Fluffy, on 2013-June-03, 08:56, said:

(1NT)-double!-(pass)-2♣!

First I doubled, alerted by partner who correctly explained as a long suit.
Then I alert 2♣ and 1NT opener asks me if it is intended to pass if clubs is my minor

Note that double showing one minor is played by many where I play.



What are my rights and responsibilities on this situation?

What (if any) is the irregularity?

[barmar]

I don't know what the rules are in Spain, but in ACBL it doesn't matter what form the question takes, you're required to explain your agreement in full. Is there a similar regulation in Spain?

[billw55]

I think it would certainly be ethical to explain again that double shows any one suit, and that 2♣ can be passed (if that is indeed the case). So I would do so.

If you are trying to be a hardass leveraging rules minutia in your favor, then maybe you need to know what is legally required. But that doesn't sound like you Fluffy

[barmar]

I suppose there is an issue here. The rules say that you're supposed to explain your partner's bids, not your own. The explanation of 2♣ is "Pass or correct". But saying "Pass or correct to my suit, which could also be a major", slips into explaining your own bid.

But maybe it can be excused, since partner already explained it, so it's redundant.

[chrism]

I think the best reply is "I am supposed to bid my suit, or pass if it is clubs. Your question suggests that you may have misheard or misunderstood the explanation of my double" and let the opponents (and the director, if need be) take it from there.

[blackshoe]

No one is entitled to ask the meaning of calls not yet made, nor to ask what call a player intends to make.

[Vampyr]

Fluffy, on 2013-June-03, 08:56, said:

What are my rights and responsibilities on this situation?

Seriously, you are OK with letting your opponent remain with his misapprehension?

blackshoe, on 2013-June-03, 11:10, said:

No one is entitled to ask the meaning of calls not yet made, nor to ask what call a player intends to make.

Maybe yes and maybe no, but this sort of thing should be on the opponents' convention card, and it will often be quicker just to ask. And if the opponents have a poorly filled-out or absent convention card, then if the opponents want to know what the potential rebids are they will have no choice but to ask.

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2013-June-03, 12:15, said:

Seriously, you are OK with letting your opponent remain with his misapprehension?

Let's not jump to conclusions. Fluffy directs as well as playing.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2013-June-03, 12:21, said:

Let's not jump to conclusions. Fluffy directs as well as playing.

True. Sorry for suspecting you, Fluffy.

[blackshoe]

How would folks respond to the question in this scenario:

Partner opens 1NT. You announce the range. Your RHO asks "What is your entire response structure to 1NT, with and without interference?" If you describe your entire system, are all your potential responses now UI to partner? Suppose RHO's question includes "including opener's rebids"?

BTW, if an opponent asks a question or makes a comment that indicates that he may have misunderstood partner's explanation of our agreement, it is incumbent on partner to correct the misunderstanding. I might say, if such a question was addressed to me, and partner doesn't speak up, 'I think you need to ask partner to repeat his explanation".

[Fluffy]

my main concern is if I am able to just say: hey look, you misheard my partner explanation which is that double shows any suit.

Because that sounds against the rules to me (explaining my own bid), but it would had saved me 2 minutes of ridiculous tries of pointing it out without saying it. And once partner has explained correctly it doesn't sound like taking advantage (can't plan on opponents mishearing)

Also want to know if I am obliged to point of the misinterpretation, if it was with screens I think I would be responsible for my opponent not understanding what I alerted, but on an open table perhaps it is different. It sounds easy to just say Pass or Correct and end it there, it is a correct explanation, but doesn't look like an ethical procedure. To be honest I wouldn't even be amazed if I found that the rules forbid me to tell the opponent that she is wrong.

And obviously some generalization for other circumstances is fine, since you can't know when something like that could happen.

I wonder why people quickly draw conclusions about me wanting to take advantage here or there, mostly I am curious about the correct rulings, and for the most part I don't think I'll find the same situation again. if I found an hypothetical situation where a medieval paladin playing bridge had a conflict with a bridge rule and following his own religion, and I though it was interesting I would ask just the same.




Another similar question:

After a 1m-1M-1NT-3NT bidding opening leader asks for bidding review, lets say that dummy reviews it but he tells it wrong because he misses the minor actually open by partner and uses the other minor on the review. Leading into declarer's minor easily turns into damage, who is responsible?

[chrism]

Fluffy, on 2013-June-03, 19:19, said:

Another similar question:

After a 1m-1M-1NT-3NT bidding opening leader asks for bidding review, lets say that dummy reviews it but he tells it wrong because he misses the minor actually open by partner and uses the other minor on the review. Leading into declarer's minor easily turns into damage, who is responsible?

Law 20:
C. Review after Final Pass
1. After the final pass either defender has the right to ask if it is his opening lead (see Laws 47E and 41).
2. Declarer** or either defender may, at his first turn to play, require all previous calls to be restated*. (See Laws 41B and 41C). As in B the player may not ask for only a partial restatement or halt the review.

D. Who May Review the Auction
A request to have calls restated* shall be responded to only by an opponent.

E. Correction of Error in Review
All players, including dummy or a player required by law to pass, are responsible for prompt correction of errors in restatement* (see Law 12C1 when an uncorrected review causes damage).

-----
12C1 is the law empowering the director to award an adjusted score. In this instance he may well not do so, since the opening leader's partner shared the responsibility for the misexplanation.

[gnasher]

Fluffy, on 2013-June-03, 19:19, said:

my main concern is if I am able to just say: hey look, you misheard my partner explanation which is that double shows any suit.

I'd say something like "It's pass or correct. Are you sure you heard my partner's explanation correctly?" That way I'm not actually explaining my own bid or wasting much time.

[blackshoe]

Fluffy, on 2013-June-03, 19:19, said:

my main concern is if I am able to just say: hey look, you misheard my partner explanation which is that double shows any suit.

Sure, why not? You take the chance that partner (or the director) will think he now has UI and must try not to take advantage of it. Which is why I'd suggest the opponent ask partner to repeat the explanation.

Fluffy, on 2013-June-03, 19:19, said:

Because that sounds against the rules to me (explaining my own bid), but it would had saved me 2 minutes of ridiculous tries of pointing it out without saying it. And once partner has explained correctly it doesn't sound like taking advantage (can't plan on opponents mishearing)

It's not taking advantage of anything, but you might get some SB arguing otherwise. OTOH, the law does say that explanations should normally be given by the partner of the player making the call, and "normally" here is taken to mean "unless the director specifically instructs otherwise". Safer to do as I suggest above.

Fluffy, on 2013-June-03, 19:19, said:

Another similar question:

After a 1m-1M-1NT-3NT bidding opening leader asks for bidding review, lets say that dummy reviews it but he tells it wrong because he misses the minor actually open by partner and uses the other minor on the review. Leading into declarer's minor easily turns into damage, who is responsible?

Quote

Law 20E: All players, including dummy or a player required by law to pass, are responsible for prompt correction of errors in restatement* (see Law 12C1 when an uncorrected review causes damage).

* When the calls are not spoken, responders must ensure that it is clear to an inquiring opponent what calls have been made.

[Zelandakh]

The problem I have with this scenario is this: If I have a major and correct the possible misunderstanding, then it could be claimed that I was passing information that the suit held was not a minor. If I have a minor and make the correction then the opponents may well feel that I am trying to mislead them. Your responsibility is to explain everything everything that you know about partner's bid. I think it is for your partner to correct the misunderstanding here.

As for the review case, it is clear that you should correct the wrongly given call as soon as you hear it. There are advantages to the EBU approach of leaving the bidding cards on the table until after the opening lead is faced and it would be nice if other RAs considered adopting the practise.

[blackshoe]

If the idea is to leave the bidding cards out in case there's a request for review, perhaps they should be left out until after third seat's first play. If the rule here were "after the opening lead is faced", I can see opening leader instantly picking up his bidding cards after facing the lead.

[mycroft]

I would probably do what everyone else suggests: "Yes, it's pass or correct. You may have misheard my partner's explanation of the double, however."

The ACBL's "any request should be met with full disclosure" requirement gives me "interested in me showing my suit; willing to defend in it if necessary." That doesn't point out declarer's misapprehension; I'd probably still add the bit about wanting to hear partner's explanation again, therefore.

Very interesting question. "Please explain" gets "pass or correct" or "interested in me showing my suit"; "that's 'show your minor'?" actually changes what's full disclosure. Maybe it shouldn't - that would larn 'em for making leading questions :-)

[Vampyr]

Of course, "pass or correct" is what we will do when it is our turn; therefore such an explanation will not be used by those who insist that you needn't explain any calls that are not yet made. I wonder how those people will describe 2♣?

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2013-June-04, 12:31, said:

Of course, "pass or correct" is what we will do when it is our turn; therefore such an explanation will not be used by those who insist that you needn't explain any calls that are not yet made. I wonder how those people will describe 2♣?

"Relay; asks me to show my suit. Not forcing".