[blml] L20F1

[Nigel]

[David Barton]

                      AQ954
                      Q
                      52
                      AQ762
10                                    J7
109762                            A853
9864                                A1073
983                                  J105
                       K8632
                       KJ4
                       KQJ
                       K4
W     N      E        S
                      1S
P     4D     P       4H
P     4N     P       5D
P     6S     all pass

opening lead C8 result N-S +1430

Before the opening lead W asked about the auction and
was informed by N ONLY that
4D showed a raise to at least 4S with good  trumps
4H showed a H control
4N also showed a H control
5D showed a D control

It subsequently emerged that S thought 4N was RKCB
and that 5D showed 1 or 4 key cards.

If we accept that N's explanations were correct and that
once reminded S said nothing because correct explanations
had been given, is there any grounds for a score adjustment.

If the explanations had been given in accordance with the 
"...normally be given by the partner.." requirement of L20F1,
then Souths misunderstanding would have emerged, and a
red suit lead MAY have been selected.

[Grattan Endicott]

=====================================
+=+ There has certainly been a breach of correct procedure. 
However, if that irregularity has not led to opponent being
misinformed as to the true agreement there are no grounds 
for score adjustment. (A Law 90 penalty on North is not
ruled out but I do not think that is much of an answer).
       What we should be looking at is the quality of the
evidence as to which is the correct explanation. The 
Director should require strong evidence of misbid rather
than misexplanation; after all, South has accepted North's 
version of system very meekly, making no attempt to 
'correct' it before the opening lead is made. That should 
be tested, and any doubt at all should lead to a ruling of 
misexplanation. The mere fact that South changed his 
mind, having heard North's view, is not sufficient; 
examine CC and system notes if available for positive 
corroboration.

[Nige1]

David Barton says that we are to accept North-South's
assurance that North correctly described their system.

It still seems wrong, however, that a pair can make such 
a huge gain by "flouting correct procedure".

Previously, in South's position, members of my team have
volunteered that they have bid under a misunderstanding
and have confessed what they thought the auction meant.

It seems that they were masochists, suffering from 
delusions about the spirit of the law.

IMO the law should be tightened up ... 

[A] to simplify "correct procedure" and define it more 
accurately and

[B] to define most "deviations from correct procedure" and 
"irregularities" as punishable "infractions" -- or 

[C] At least to ensure that you cannot gain by deviating 
from correct procedure.

Another example...

[I] It should be illegal to lead to the next trick while
there are still card(s) exposed that belong to the current
trick (unless you are making a claim).

[II] Even if that is not itself a punishable infraction, 
you should not be allowed to *gain* an advantage by so-doing 
- for example if declarer, oblivious to your lead, is tidying 
up the dummy during the current trick, a card that he touches 
should not be deemed a played card to the next trick.