[bluejak]

Just to point out a similar case, I made some comment about the difference between an individual and an authority. It was a mild throwaway comment. Next thing I know I am being "quoted" as describing authorities as all-knowing and other things that I have never said about any authority. There is, I am afraid, a tendency on the internet to expand someone's comments into much greater views than what was said, including changing the meaning quite radically - and then attack them for it. Personally, I do find this sort of misquoting offensive.

Mind you, there is no need to look for the post here: this happened on RGB.

[Elianna]

Honestly, I would have interpreted your question as saying "one club must have two?" which I get that you interpreted as "only two", but my initial reaction was "at least two" (as opposed to one. I could have five, because that's having two.)

I don't have a Hebrew keyboard, so please forgive my transliteration, but I would have asked "yacol leyot yoter m'shnei alim?"

I agree that it could be RHO's issue with Hebrew, but it could also be that he's very literal, and thinking that if you have five clubs, then clearly you have two, and so therefore the answer to your questions was yes.

Antrax, on 2011-October-12, 01:55, said:

LHO deals and opens 1♣, which RHO announces as "short, two clubs". We pass throughout. Partner is on lead, and asks RHO: "Does 1♣ necessitate* two clubs?", to which RHO replies "yes". We play the hand, it turns out LHO had three clubs.
During the auction and partner's question, I've had doubts about the explanation. It sounds like a strange method and I'm not sure RHO's Hebrew is that good. So:
a) Should I / partner ask the question in various other phrasings to make sure? ("can your partner have more than two clubs?")
b) If you're a director and we call you and complain we miscounted the hand due to the wrong explanation, how do you rule?

* Best translation I could think of from Hebrew. Could also be "mandate" but not "require". For Hebrew speakers, the exact question was "וואן קלאב מחייב שני קלאבים?"

[Antrax]

Thanks Elianna, that's exactly what I was wondering if he (or I) should've asked. I was worried if I ask "can she have more than two" we'd run into UI or whatnot as it now sounds like I'm trying to warn partner off a club lead, and partner didn't think to ask that himself.

[bluejak]

Let us forget the actual case for a moment, which is confusing me. Let us talk generalities.

If an opponent gives an explanation which you believe to be incorrect or incomplete for some reason then there are two situations:

• You need to be sure what he meant for yourself. In this case you should ask a further question, and partner will just have to deal with any UI for himself.
  
• You are worried that partner will misunderstand. In this case you wait for the end of the hand, and ask for an adjustment then if you feel damaged by the explanation and partner’s consequent misunderstanding.

[WellSpyder]

Any advice on the best thing to do if it is your partner who has given a misleading explanation but you are 100% sure that partner mis-spoke rather than misunderstood (and are also sure that this will be clear to everyone else once it is clarified)?

Yesterday my partner opened 1♣ (either strong 16+ or approx a weak NT), the next hand doubled and I responded 1♦. My partner alerted and was asked about my bid, and explained that it was a hand that would have responded with a negative 1♦ if RHO had passed, but not a very weak hand since that would have passed now that RHO hasn't passed. Or at least, that is what he meant to say. In fact, he said it was a hand that would have responded 5♦ over a pass, but not a very weak hand, etc. This obviously didn't make a great deal of sense, but oppo were relatively inexperienced and just looked confused. Would it be acceptable in these circumstances for me to try to suggest partner has another go at explaining what he meant (while obviously accepting the consequences if this is regarded as giving partner useful UI) or do I have to remain silent and hope the MI doesn't prove too serious?

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 75B: The actual partnership agreement is that 2♦ is a natural signoff; the mistake was in North’s explanation. This explanation is an infraction of law, since East–West are entitled to an accurate description of the North–South agreement. When this infraction results in damage to East–West, the Director shall award an adjusted score. If North subsequently becomes aware of his mistake, he must immediately notify the director. South must do nothing to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues. After the final pass, South, if he is to be declarer or dummy, should call the Director and must volunteer a correction of the explanation. if South becomes a defender, he calls the director and corrects the explanation when play ends.

The emphasis is mine. Failure to do what one "must" ("must do nothing") is a serious offense.

As a Director, I'd be asking EW why they didn't ask follow-on questions after such an unexpected explanation.

[mjj29]

bluejak, on 2011-October-19, 10:00, said:

Let us forget the actual case for a moment, which is confusing me. Let us talk generalities.

If an opponent gives an explanation which you believe to be incorrect or incomplete for some reason then there are two situations:

• You need to be sure what he meant for yourself. In this case you should ask a further question, and partner will just have to deal with any UI for himself.
  
• You are worried that partner will misunderstand. In this case you wait for the end of the hand, and ask for an adjustment then if you feel damaged by the explanation and partner’s consequent misunderstanding.

Aren't these distinct from a third option: you know exactly what their agreement is, they've given a clearly insufficient explanation, so it's not an issue of 'partner might misunderstand, but they have explained it' but 'they've missed out a whole option from the bid, which partner has no idea to ask a followup question'. Can't you call attention to the irregularity at this point that they've given an insufficient explanation?

Or, perhaps you would cover this under "you need to be sure they've not changed their agreement" so you can ask a followup question.

[bluejak]

mjj29, on 2011-October-19, 12:55, said:

Aren't these distinct from a third option: you know exactly what their agreement is, they've given a clearly insufficient explanation, so it's not an issue of 'partner might misunderstand, but they have explained it' but 'they've missed out a whole option from the bid, which partner has no idea to ask a followup question'. Can't you call attention to the irregularity at this point that they've given an insufficient explanation?

Or, perhaps you would cover this under "you need to be sure they've not changed their agreement" so you can ask a followup question.

No, you follow the Laws. If you know what their agreement is, and you would only be asking for partner’s sake, you don't ask.

There will always be cases where you might feel you have a case for breaking the laws for some reason you can justify to others - you think. Better is to follow the Laws. Sure, it will cost you very occasionally, but the alternative is just not worth it. Do you really want to get a reputation for someone who understands but does not follow the Laws?

[Elianna]

Antrax, on 2011-October-19, 00:43, said:

Thanks Elianna, that's exactly what I was wondering if he (or I) should've asked. I was worried if I ask "can she have more than two" we'd run into UI or whatnot as it now sounds like I'm trying to warn partner off a club lead, and partner didn't think to ask that himself.

I think that it's perfectly valid to say "I'm sorry, I don't understand your explanation. Are you saying that she must have exactly two?"

Or perhaps to be short "Chayav leyot bedyuk shneyim?"

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-October-19, 10:00, said:

Let us forget the actual case for a moment, which is confusing me. Let us talk generalities.

If an opponent gives an explanation which you believe to be incorrect or incomplete for some reason then there are two situations:

• You need to be sure what he meant for yourself. In this case you should ask a further question, and partner will just have to deal with any UI for himself.
  
• You are worried that partner will misunderstand. In this case you wait for the end of the hand, and ask for an adjustment then if you feel damaged by the explanation and partner’s consequent misunderstanding.

Let me make sure that I have understood your opinion correct:

Law 20G1 prohibits a player from using his rights under Law 9A1 to draw attention to an irregularity (right away) when he knows that an opponent has violated Law 40B6(a) ??

Law 20G1 said:

It is improper to ask a question solely for partner’s benefit.

Law 9A1 said:

Unless prohibited by Law, any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call.

Law 40B6(a) said:

When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to opponent’s enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

(Never mind how the player knows that Law 40B6(a) has been violated, just accept that as a fact.)

[mjj29]

bluejak, on 2011-October-19, 12:59, said:

No, you follow the Laws. If you know what their agreement is, and you would only be asking for partner’s sake, you don't ask.

There will always be cases where you might feel you have a case for breaking the laws for some reason you can justify to others - you think. Better is to follow the Laws. Sure, it will cost you very occasionally, but the alternative is just not worth it. Do you really want to get a reputation for someone who understands but does not follow the Laws?

As pran says, I'm trying to follow Law 9A1 and looking for guidence as to whether or not this is correct when the irregularity is in failing to give a correct explanation per Law 40B6.

[barmar]

If you're going to take action, I think the right thing to do is say something vague like "I think there's a problem, we need to call the director." Then tell the TD away from the table what you think the issue is, and he can also ask the opponent away from the table what their agreement is. This way, nothing is revealed to your partner until the TD has had a chance to determine if there really was a mistaken explanation. This way, you can resolve the possible infraction without violating the law against asking for partner's benefit.

On the other hand, maybe you can argue that the question isn't solely for partner's benefit. The opponent explains X, but you think they're playing Y (either from memory or because you notice it on their card). So you need to ask in order to find out whether they've changed their agreements or have the card filled out incorrectly (or maybe it's the wrong card -- who among us hasn't forgotten to switch cards when changing partners?).

[pran]

barmar, on 2011-October-19, 19:37, said:

If you're going to take action, I think the right thing to do is say something vague like "I think there's a problem, we need to call the director." Then tell the TD away from the table what you think the issue is, and he can also ask the opponent away from the table what their agreement is. This way, nothing is revealed to your partner until the TD has had a chance to determine if there really was a mistaken explanation. This way, you can resolve the possible infraction without violating the law against asking for partner's benefit.

On the other hand, maybe you can argue that the question isn't solely for partner's benefit. The opponent explains X, but you think they're playing Y (either from memory or because you notice it on their card). So you need to ask in order to find out whether they've changed their agreements or have the card filled out incorrectly (or maybe it's the wrong card -- who among us hasn't forgotten to switch cards when changing partners?).

If you suspect a violation of Law 40B6 then this is the correct procedure (and you may certainly ask, at your own turn to call, without even involving the director).

If you know that there has been a violation of Law 40B6 then (in my opinion) you may immediately draw attention to this irregularity and have the director called whether or not it is your turn to call.

Note that "drawing attention" is not the same as "asking"; we must select our words with care here.

[Zelandakh]

Is there anything wrong with asking "Have you changed your agreement since we last discussed this sequence?" You are not passing information to partner nor asking a question for partner's benefit but you are giving the opps a chance to remember the missing inference.

[pran]

Zelandakh, on 2011-October-20, 08:36, said:

Is there anything wrong with asking "Have you changed your agreement since we last discussed this sequence?" You are not passing information to partner nor asking a question for partner's benefit but you are giving the opps a chance to remember the missing inference.

That is (always) OK, but only at your own turn to call! (It is a question about opponents' partnership understandings.)

[barmar]

A problem you may have with asking questions like that is not a legal one, but a strategic one. Suppose the opponent has misremembered their agreement, and is about to misbid as a result. Your question may wake him up.