railroadman1764
User
Newbie
| Posts: 3 |   |
Karma: 0
|
The right to get the correct systemic explanation - 2006/05/10 00:03
During the Swedish summer nationals I encountered an interesting situation in our round of 32 match against Austria.
I was opener and the bidding went 1D-P-1S-D. 1D was 11-15 and a bal hand or an unbalanced with a 4 card M.
As opener I had something like 432-AQxx-K-AJxxx. Without the D 2H by would show all distributions with four spades, 1NT would show 13-15 balanced and 2S would show 43(51/60).
After due consideration, should I bid 1NT or 2S (after all, I had the worst possible spade support!), I finally selected 2S. My partner alerted my bid and then bid 4S, all pass.
In this situation my RHO, a very unpleasent person, said something like "You only hesitated because you wanted ...". Well, this was not the point of this post, I just wanted to share my experience of this extraordinay person. As a matter of fact, after the match my LHO, a very nice chap, said that because of my RHO's behaviour in this and other matches against opponents and against himself he, my LHO, would report my RHO to the Austrian federation when he came home!
Unprecedented in my experience. "So will I", I told him.
Back to business.
Before my LHO made his lead he inquired about the auction. My partner said my 2S bid showed four spades. I said I did not agree with him.
Well, what do you think it means, I was asked. Well, I said, I don't think I want to tell you that because I am not entirely sure. But on the floor besides my partner lies our system compendium. We can pick it up and search for the sequence and you will get a 100% sure answer what our systemic agreement is. My LHO did not like that so we called for the TD. He said that I had to tell my LHO what I thought the bid meant. I did not agree and asked for the chief TD. While we waited for him I made a suggestion to my LHO. (I was of course not talking to my
RHO who was still ranting for himself of how unsporty we were, taking so long time to make our bids - incidentally he himself was about 5 minutes late for the round  ). I suggested we should pick up the compendium and find the answer. This most agreeable chap thought that was a brilliant idea. After 30 seconds we had the answer. The sequence was the same with or without the D and I was right. I told LHO I had exactly what was written in the compendium. Thus the practical problem was solved and when the chief TD arrived we, i.e. me and my LHO, could tell we did not need him.
But now assume that it was my partner who had given the correct explanation. Would I then still have been obliged to reveal my hand and tell my opponents how I interpreted the 2S bid?
The Swedish law experts I could get a hand on either agreed with the first TD or were unsure.
For me what the opponents are entitled to is a correct systemic explanation. I am a mere medium (can you say so in English?) to get that information. Edgar K once wrote that what your opponents are entitled to is a computer print out of your system. When they ask you press the button and out of your mouth comes the correct explanantion.
Your are just a tool for them to get the explanation. Apparently the
Swedish experts don't see it like this. Some of them referred to the law that says you must tell the opponents the systemic agreement of the bids made. In analysing that sentence they erronously, IMO, focus on the first part that says that "you" have to do it, rather on the second part, the one that says "correct systemic explanation".
I cannot recall that I have had seen this situation been discussed and am looking forward to hear your views.
PS I believe a message to the Austrian federation regarding my RHO is already on its way to Vienna!
|
post new topic