[BLML] Laws 20F5b and 75B discrepancy

Herman De Wael Hermandw at skynet.be
Fri Dec 4 18:26:44 CET 2009

It is obvious that most people do not wish to change the current 
practice of remaining quiet about partner's misexplanation until the 
bidding is over. Why then do those same people not see that consistently 
explaining partner's next bid is just a small extension of this 
practice. After all, by "correctly" explaining that next bid, a player 
reveals the misexplanation, something which is apparently unwanted.


Grattan wrote:
> Grattan Endicott<grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk
> ********************************
> "a revolutionary moment in the world's
> history is a time for revolutions, not for
> patching."
>                  [Beveridge Report, 1942]
> "''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Sven Pran" <svenpran at online.no>
> To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" <blml at rtflb.org>
> Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 9:49 AM
> Subject: [BLML] Laws 20F5b and 75B discrepancy
>  For the attention of Grattan?
>  I have noticed a discrepancy between Laws 20F5b
> and 75B:  In Law 20F5b: "must call the Director and
> inform his opponents"  In Law 75B: "should call the
> Director and must volunteer a correction of the
>  explanation"
> (Personally I prefer L75B!)
> +=+ I looked at 1997 Law 75 and footnote. It contains
> what appears to be very much the same 'discrepancy'.
>        I looked at the drafting committee material. The
> question was not mentioned and did not arise in any
> comment from the Portland Club, an NBO or Zonal
> Authority. .I guess we can continue to live with it.
>        While I was researching the drafting committee
> Law 20 archive I did chance upon another exchange
> of opinions that may have a certain interest.
>        The file shows the following (the 'opinions' are
> those of sundry drafting committee members):
> ...........................................................................
> (Suggestion circulated)
> I was listening to a discussion concerning
> the timing of the correction of partner's
> explanation. It seems worthy of report
> (without expressing an opinion).
>        A suggestion was made that when
> partner has misexplained  a player's
> call the player should wait until his partner
> has next called and then offer his correction,
> dealing with the problem for the remainder
> of the board by excluding the use of UI.
> (Opinion 1)
> Yes, this appears to have merit. A bit
> late for this time but we could refer
> the suggestion to the WBF Laws Committee
> for consideration and perhaps add it to
> the Appendix or do it by way of Regulation.
> <
> (Opinion 2)
> This is fraught with many as yet unseen and
> unnecessary dangers.  The present system
> of rectifying partner's misexplanation works
> very well, protects the opponents, gives
> partner no chance to claim he would
> always have done something after he finds
> out the correct explanation, protects against
> pairs being able to recover from system
> mistakes, etc.  I can't for a moment imagine
> that it would be better to introduce this
> monumental change, though I'm sure it would
> increase judgement calls by the TDs and AC
> business in handling the UI. The different times
> when the defenders or the declaring side must
> reveal supposed mistakes in explanation work
> - and allow the defenders to go all the way to
> perdition in the play of the hand after having
> misinformed the declarer. This aspect of the
> Laws was very carefully crafted. .
> <
> (Opinion 3)
>  I am not sure that it will be an improvement
> and I am convinced that waiting until partner
> has called only makes sense once LHO has
> made a call. I don't see any reason at all not
> to correct a mistaken explanation as long as
> nobody has called thereafter.
> (Opinion 4)
> I think the subject matter is regulatory rather
> than Law, and should remain as such.   I
> would like to tread lightly, and not choke the
> RAs by injecting any RAs' rightful regulation
> into the law for everybody.
> (Opinion 5)
> I have not yet considered the thought sufficiently
> to form a conclusion. So I agree we do not
> change anything now. In any case I am against
> any change of principle at this stage. But I think
> there is merit in the suggestion that in due course
> the Laws Committee might discuss the idea.
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

More information about the Blml mailing list