[pescetom]

pran, on 2020-November-04, 14:57, said:

"then the hand with which the call was made defines the meaning of that call (for this instance)."

I am interested but not sure I follow you.
Please could you give an example (unrelated to RR's Relay)?

[blackshoe]

Twenty five years I've had this silly "I'm a director" card, and this is the first I've ever heard of that idea. Also not sure it matters, since if they don't agree what it means they don't have an agreement, and if the opponents were told anything other than "we don't have an agreement" they were misinformed anyway.

[pran]

pescetom, on 2020-November-04, 15:16, said:

I am interested but not sure I follow you.
Please could you give an example (unrelated to RR's Relay)?

If the two players in a partnership disagree and offer different explanations of a particular call made by one of them then the explanation offered by the player who actually made that call prevails unless convincing evidence to the contrary is submitted.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2020-November-04, 14:57, said:

And I remember from a seminar for Directors many years ago that if the partnership players have different opinions on the true explanation of a call (or if the call is undiscussed) then the hand with which the call was made defines the meaning of that call (for this instance).
IMHO this is a very sensible principle which normally results in the (correct) ruling that opponents were misinformed.

I suspect you wouldn't find this principle followed nowadays in many places. Of course you may well still get the ruling that the opponents were misinformed, but a different ruling as to what the correct information would be.

[sanst]

lamford, on 2020-November-02, 16:26, said:

But accepted by North who put down the dummy ...

In a online game???

[lamford]

sanst, on 2020-November-05, 02:12, said:

In a online game???

I corrected it so that the right hand was on lead!

[weejonnie]

lamford, on 2020-November-04, 12:50, said:

I presume you mean "obviously". When somebody uses "obviously", it may be obvious to them, but the opposite is usually obvious to everyone else, as here. Given that double was takeout, what action would you expect West to take?

The TD decided that their agreement was to play Reverse Benji Acol. In both that and Benji Acol, 2C is strong. Therefore there was MI.

I would expect West to bid 2 diamonds - In my mind KQJT96 is a biddable suit at the two level - especially with two more heart tricks available.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2020-November-07, 03:53, said:

I would expect West to bid 2 diamonds - In my mind KQJT96 is a biddable suit at the two level - especially with two more heart tricks available.

2Dx goes for 800. I don't think it is gambling for West to pass over a weak 2C, which he knows will be interpreted as strong by North. And when 2D comes back to him, double will be takeout, suggesting RR has psyched 2C with a weak two in diamonds and explained it as a weak two in clubs.

[barmar]

pran, on 2020-November-05, 02:01, said:

If the two players in a partnership disagree and offer different explanations of a particular call made by one of them then the explanation offered by the player who actually made that call prevails unless convincing evidence to the contrary is submitted.

It sounds like this is intended as a way to apply Law 21B1(b): "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary."

But normally only one player gives an explanation, so the precondition that they "offer different explanations" doesn't exist.

[pran]

barmar, on 2020-November-08, 20:19, said:

It sounds like this is intended as a way to apply Law 21B1(b): "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary."

But normally only one player gives an explanation, so the precondition that they "offer different explanations" doesn't exist.

Law 20F5 said:

5. (a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. ‘Mistaken explanation’ here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require.
(b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75B) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is:
(i) for a defender, at the end of the play.
(ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction.

(My enhancement)

[gordontd]

pran, on 2020-November-09, 01:04, said:

(My enhancement)

I notice you don't enhance the bit that tells us to consider the correct meaning to be the one given by the player who made the call (because that bit is not there).

[pran]

gordontd, on 2020-November-09, 02:03, said:

I notice you don't enhance the bit that tells us to consider the correct meaning to be the one given by the player who made the call (because that bit is not there).

My enhancement was: The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous

This player is apparently the partner to the player who gave an (allegedly) erroneous explanation, i.e. he is the player who made the call that was erroneously explained.

I have a big problem seeing any point in your comment?