Information
Playing with screens. Both pairs high level. E/W play a system of their own construction. Both pairs long term partners.
W opens 1D, N overcalls 2D. E bids 2S. S passes.
W asks S the meaning of her partner's 2D bid.
S answers that it depends upon what E has described to N what West's opening bid of 1D means.
Question: who is responsible for further clarification between S and W? Is it up to S to explain that if W's bid means this then N's 2D means that?
Comments
I don't think this is a legitimate response. South should say what it means based on the meaning of 1D that has been given by West, and if there later turns out to have been misinformation the TD can rule.
Thanks Gordon.
West can resolve this issue by asking South "what would it mean if East described 1D the same way I did?".
It is possible that South is being cautious because the meaning of the 2D bid depends on the details of how 1D is described – sometimes details that don't seem relevant can make a large difference to the opponent's system. This is a problem that might be theoretically impossible to solve (whenever the meaning of your own call changes to something qualitatively different based on the meaning of the opponents', there will be a hard cut-off somewhere, and the opponents might give explanations either side of the cut-off despite being basically identical).
I remember ruling in an international event (with screens) where the opening bid of 1NT was 12-17 and the meaning of a subsequent call had three options depending on whether their opponents used their weak NT defence, strong NT defence, or didn't know which to use.