[Antrax]

(1♥)-X-(2♥)-3♠
Partner alerts 3♠. When asked, he informs the opponents that it shows a weak hand with long spades. Systematically, it shows a good 8 points or more with four spades or more. The bidding continues:
(4♥)-P-(P)-4♠

What/when/how should I correct partner's explanation, if at all?

[menggq]

If long weak ♠ suit only can bid once 3♠ or 4♠,how can bid twice 3♠ and then 4♠?wrong bidding!hard to explain it.

[Antrax]

I'm not sure I understand your answer to my question.
As to my choice to balance 4♠, it was a pure LoTT consideration. I was short in hearts and partner also showed shortness, so they have a big fit, and I had a fifth spade. As it happened I made 4♠ on suboptimal defense, but the -1 I was aiming for would've also been a good result.

[cloa513]

menggq, on 2011-May-15, 23:29, said:

If long weak ♠ suit only can bid once 3♠ or 4♠,how can bid twice 3♠ and then 4♠?wrong bidding!hard to explain it.

Antrax bid spades (I assume this is offline bridge). Antrax- why do you alert natural bids and you have a systematic
response to normal doubles- most unusual?

[gordontd]

Antrax, on 2011-May-16, 00:59, said:

I'm not sure I understand your answer to my question.

His point is that bidding again might be considered to have been suggested by your partner's explanation of your 3♠ bid. If it was simply a LOTT decision to bid 4♠, why did you not bid it on the previous round?

[CSGibson]

gordontd, on 2011-May-16, 01:09, said:

His point is that bidding again might be considered to have been suggested by your partner's explanation of your 3♠ bid. If it was simply a LOTT decision to bid 4♠, why did you not bid it on the previous round?

Probably on the chance they sell to 3.

[gordontd]

CSGibson, on 2011-May-16, 01:27, said:

Probably on the chance they sell to 3.

That doesn't sound like the LOTT theory I know.

[barmar]

Antrax, on 2011-May-15, 23:12, said:

(What/when/how should I correct partner's explanation, if at all?

If your side declares, you correct the explanation at the end of the auction, before the opening lead. You should call the TD at this point. He will give the last opponent to pass the opportunity to change his call. And at the end of the hand, he may adjust the score if he thinks the opponents were damaged by the incorrect explanation.

if your side defends, you should call the TD at the end of the play, and correct the explanation. He may then adjust the score if appropriate.

[Antrax]

Thank you, barmar, for answering my question.
I appreciate the discussion about the bridge aspects of my bids, as I'm far from an expert on those as well, but when it comes to the rules issues I'm almost completely clueless. That's why I asked a question in a forum devoted to answering straightforward questions about the rules.

[CSGibson]

gordontd, on 2011-May-16, 01:31, said:

That doesn't sound like the LOTT theory I know.

If partner opens 1♥ and I have a typical hand with 4 trumps & about 7 or 8 HCP, I'm going to bid 2♥ & hope to buy it, but I'm willing to compete to 3 because of the law. You might disagree with this strategy (in which case you probably play some sort of Bergen raise), but its still consistent with competing according to the LOTT.

[ArtK78]

barmar, on 2011-May-16, 02:03, said:

If your side declares, you correct the explanation at the end of the auction, before the opening lead. You should call the TD at this point. He will give the last opponent to pass the opportunity to change his call. And at the end of the hand, he may adjust the score if he thinks the opponents were damaged by the incorrect explanation.

if your side defends, you should call the TD at the end of the play, and correct the explanation. He may then adjust the score if appropriate.

There is also the issue of whether the 4♠ bidder used the incorrect explanation by partner of the 3♠ bid (which is unauthorized information) as the basis for his bid of 4♠. If the TD concludes that the 4♠ bid was made because of the UI, he can roll back the auction to 4♥ and possibly impose a procedural penalty.

[Antrax]

Procedural penalty?

[ArtK78]

Sure. It is possible. If the TD determines that the 4♠ bidder intentionally used the UI in order to make his decision to bid 4♠, a procedural penalty is possible.

It would be a way of punishing the offending pair for creating the problem through deliberate use of UI.

I am not saying this is likely. Indeed, it is not likely. But I suppose one could create a sufficiently grievous set of circumstances that would get the TD angry enough to impose a procedural penalty. The key is whether the 4♠ bid could ever be considered without the UI, and whether the TD determines that the 4♠ bidder deliberately used the UI in making his bid.

[Antrax]

Sorry, I should've been more clear. What's a procedural penalty? From the context it's a penalty for a breach of procedure. But what's the penalty and what's the procedure being violated?

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 90A: The director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these Laws, may also assess procedural penalties for any offense that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table.

Procedural penalties are normally assessed according to the form of scoring, e.g., if it's matchpoints, some number of matchpoints (in the ACBL, it is usual to award 25% of a top, in the EBU, 10% is "standard").

Correct procedure, when you have UI, is to carefully avoid taking advantage of it (Law 73C). If the TD deems you did not take sufficient care, then he deems you violated correct procedure. Alternatively, choosing a LA which could demonstrably have been suggested by the UI violates Law 16B.

[Antrax]

Ah, thanks. If I understand it correctly, basically once something like this happens, I need to pretend partner's actions are based on the hand type I'm supposed to hold according to our agreements and act based on that? Or is there a stronger onus on me?

[blackshoe]

If you have UI that suggests you take a particular action (bid 4♠ in this case), you cannot take that action unless you have no logical alternative (here pass might be an LA). So if you do take such an action, and the opponents are damaged thereby (getting +50 or +100 instead of +420 or +620), the TD will adjust the score.

[Antrax]

So the fact I would sacrifice in 4♠ (based on LoTT considerations, misguided as they may be) even if partner hadn't made a wrong explanation doesn't matter?

[bluejak]

The Law says that when you have UI from partner you must do your best to take no advantage. Your partner's explanation is UI. So, before bidding 4♠, you probably should consider whether bidding 4♠ rather than passing is taking advantage in any way. If you are certain that 4♠ is completely automatic and there is no alternative then you certainly may bid 4♠.

On occasion the TD will disagree with you assessment of whether you have taken any advantage and adjust the score. Nothing to worry about: it is not unethical to have a different view. So long as you try to take no advantage from partner's unfortunate comments, wrong alerts, or answers to questions you have done everything expected of you.

A PP might be given when a knowledgeable player uses the UI and fails to take any care to avoid using it. From your description of your self you are not yet experienced enough for this to happen. Hopefully when you are more experienced and understand the rules well you will be so ethical that it will never happen anyway.

You will notice that people here use a lot of abbreviations. If you have not noticed it, there is a list of standard forum abbreviations in the first thread of this forum.

You also were a little surprised that your question was not immediately answered. We do not control replies here [except rude, offensive or seriously off-topic ones] but some people, like Ed and myself, the forum hosts, will always make sure simple questions get answered eventually.

[Antrax]

Thanks for the excellent answer, bluejak.