[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2011-October-12, 09:00, said:

Can a person ask for his partner’s sake because he thinks the answer was poor? No, it is illegal to ask a question for your partner's sake: it is a matter for the end of the auction.

Are you saying that, at the end of the auction, if you are not confused but partner might be --it might be O.K. to ask a follow-up question for his benefit? I feel this should be legal, but don't know. How about if I am going to be dummy but am not yet dummy?

[Antrax]

bluejak, can you answer b from the OP?

[bluejak]

aguahombre, on 2011-October-12, 09:14, said:

Are you saying that, at the end of the auction, if you are not confused but partner might be --it might be O.K. to ask a follow-up question for his benefit? I feel this should be legal, but don't know. How about if I am going to be dummy but am not yet dummy?

Sorry, just a typo based on stupidity: when I wrote the end of the auction I meant the end of the hand.

Antrax, on 2011-October-12, 09:23, said:

bluejak, can you answer b from the OP?

No, I can't. I would have to be there, I would have to understand the language and the nuances.

If it was reasonable to misunderstand and it was incorrect then it is MI and we might adjust. But if - for example - in England someone says "Short club" I do not expect anyone to understand only two clubs, and it is not a sufficient explanation if it does show two and only two clubs. But whether it was reasonable in the actual case I cannot say.

[barmar]

In ACBL territory, the required announcement is "may be short", although many players erroneously include the minimum length, e.g. "could be as short as 2". In either case, the language ("may be", "could be") makes it clear that this is just a minimum, not an exact specification.

Someone already mentioned negative doubles that show exactly 4 spades. Another case where a call shows an exact number of cards in a suit is support doubles. When playing against opponents who I know are familiar with the convention, I'll usually just say "shows 3-card heart support", but if I think there's any possibility of confusion I'll say "shows exactly 3 hearts".

[Trinidad]

bluejak, on 2011-October-12, 09:00, said:

Questions should be phrased carefully so as not confuse the player answering. Answers should be careful, accurate and full, so as not to confuse the person asking. Sadly, this does not always happen [to be honest, I might have written "Sadly, this does not often happen" ].

Can a person ask for his partner’s sake because he thinks the answer was poor? No, it is illegal to ask a question for your partner's sake: it is a matter for the end of the auction.

My post might be controversial. Warning up front.

Asking for partner's benefit is not illegal. It is 'improper' (20G) which is not the same.

The 'proper' ways to handle this are as follows:
- A player should draw attention to an irregularity (9A1) when an explanation to his partner's question is not up to standard. He will call the TD and tell him that the explanation to his partner was confusing (which violates 20F and 40B6a). I expect that the TD would instruct the explainer to give an explanation that does not violate 20F or 40B6a. Needless to say that, in general, it will not make you very popular with players or TDs when you take this route where you could have just asked "Do you mean...?".

- Alternatively, the player could opt to not do anything yet. After the play, when all has gone wrong, he will call the TD and ask for redress because of a confusing explanation. The TD should assign an AS. In my opinion, a player should strive to obtain a result through play, rather than through an AS.

I find it completely proper to do something improper when it prevents a bad situation getting worse. But I guess that there may be people who will not shout "fire" since it is improper to shout.

For clarity's sake: This only applies when partner actually asked for the agreement and got a poor explanation. It doesn't apply when partner didn't ask (after all, that would be like shouting when there is no fire which is improper).

Rik

[bluejak]

Improper means illegal: it is against the Laws.

Doing something unethical means doing something improper knowledgeably and deliberately.

[Bbradley62]

Trinidad, on 2011-October-13, 01:19, said:

The 'proper' ways to handle this are as follows:
- A player should draw attention to an irregularity (9A1) when an explanation to his partner's question is not up to standard. He will call the TD and tell him that the explanation to his partner was confusing (which violates 20F and 40B6a).

Wouldn't the proper, ethical and legal thing to do be to call for the director, ask to speak with him away from the table, and explain that there is a language barrier issue which is causing confusion between "exactly two" and "at least two"? Let the director then determine the proper course of action.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2011-October-12, 20:23, said:

In ACBL territory, the required announcement is "may be short", although many players erroneously include the minimum length, e.g. "could be as short as 2". In either case, the language ("may be", "could be") makes it clear that this is just a minimum, not an exact specification.

Yes, the Alert Chart says, "State, 'May be short'". But I don't see how people who say it slightly differently are doing so "erroneously".

"Could have as few as two Clubs" seems hardly erroneous; it is accurate and an attempt to eliminate possible confusion. Short could be one (zero?); why not disclose what we really mean?

[mycroft]

The correct ACBL (yeah, I know, but the question was asked specifically about it) Announcement is "could be short", no qualifiers. And that same Announcement is given for any "ostensibly natural, non-forcing, but" 1m call, no matter whether the minimum could be 2, 1, or zero cards in the suit.

Many people feel that the difference is important, and so always ask. Many people feel that the difference is important, so always tell, whether or not asked. The first is legal, the second isn't - but I haven't heard of a situation where anyone was upset with it (as I definitely have heard for other Announcement expansions - 2♣-2♦ "waiting", or 2♦ "Flannery" or the like).

I'd recommend the addition specifically to the C&C Committee to add when they're reviewing the Alert Procedure and Convention Charts (which I'm sure they're doing to bring them up to date with the 2008 Laws, and because the Alert Procedure has been toddling along with its known inconsistencies and issues for 20 years without adjustment, right?) But, you know, given the 4=4=3=2 mess we had in Toronto, I don't see anything happening until the rest of it gets cleared up (because "soon" it's going to be important to know how it "could be short").

[blackshoe]

Hm. I don't know about "upset", but... my OCD flares up when people make extra-legal announcements, including "could be as short as 2" and "could be short, non-forcing". I have to consciously suppress the urge to say something. I'm usually successful, but the urge is still there.

[Trinidad]

bluejak, on 2011-October-13, 07:42, said:

Improper means illegal: it is against the Laws.

Sure. The next time you let one fly, I will have you arrested since improper is the same as illegal.

Rik

[Trinidad]

Bbradley62, on 2011-October-13, 08:05, said:

Wouldn't the proper, ethical and legal thing to do be to call for the director, ask to speak with him away from the table, and explain that there is a language barrier issue which is causing confusion between "exactly two" and "at least two"? Let the director then determine the proper course of action.

Of course, that would be correct in any half serious game. It just rubs me wrong when someone suggests that it is illegal(!) to ask: "Do you mean at least or exactly two?". It's the procedure that is used in clubs and friendly tournaments all over the world. It may be improper, but it is ok, whereas asking a pro question (which is what the law was written for) is not.

Rik

[aguahombre]

Trinidad, on 2011-October-13, 10:55, said:

Sure. The next time you let one fly, I will have you arrested since improper is the same as illegal.

Rik

Air polution issues belong in the Water Cooler

[blackshoe]

Quote

improper |imˈpräpər|
adjective
not in accordance with accepted rules or standards, esp. of morality or honesty : he was accused of improper behavior in his business dealings.

It is not illegal per se to violate accepted rules or standards of morality or honesty — or courtesy. Put another way, it is not necessarily illegal to commit an impropriety. But we're not talking about the general rules of life, we're talking about the rules of a game. What is improper according to the rules of a game is a violation of those rules, and hence illegal under them. Why else do you think the Proprieties were made part of the Laws?

[mycroft]

blackshoe, on 2011-October-13, 11:02, said:

What is improper according to the rules of this game is a violation of those rules, and hence illegal under them. Why else do you think the Proprieties were made part of the Laws?

I rephrase that because there are many games (that are not bridge) where impropriety is not illegal, and the concept of "sure we're boors, but we're boors that win" is not held in the amount of disgust that is was in bridge - which prompted the move of the Proprieties (originally an Appendix) into the main body of the Laws. There are games (Illuminati comes to mind off the top) where proper behaviour is stated, and then as an optional rule "you may choose to play the Real Life option, where anything you do that doesn't get caught is fair game. If you do get caught, the only penalty is you have to rectify what you did wrong. Don't play this with people you don't know well, unless you never plan on playing with them again" (paraphrase/quote from memory)

Not that that in any way invalidates your response, just pointing out as a game player that it is not universal.

[blackshoe]

I don't mind people suggesting that something I said was incorrect. I do mind people editing what I said and then presenting it in such a way that someone else might think that's what I actually did say. Even when I agree, as here, that the edited statement would be more accurate.

[barmar]

Such misquoting is quite improper.

[mycroft]

My apologies, I did not mean to offend or imply anything of the sort - and it is a valid concern.

FTFY ("fixed that for you") is, a common idiom online, especially to make very succinct one's point. I figured the first three words of my response ("I rephrased that") would make it clear to any potential confused.

However, I shall not do so with your posts in future, as they're your words, and it's your request.

[aguahombre]

mycroft, on 2011-October-17, 10:44, said:

My apologies, I did not mean to offend or imply anything of the sort - and it is a valid concern.

FTFY ("fixed that for you") is, a common idiom online, especially to make very succinct one's point. I figured the first three words of my response ("I rephrased that") would make it clear to any potential confused.

However, I shall not do so with your posts in future, as they're your words, and it's your request.

The 3 emoticons used by Blackshoe would lead me to believe he was not really offended and his tongue was firmly in cheek.

[blackshoe]

Agua is correct. Still, I would like it clearly stated when my words are modified by someone else. I'm not sure that "I rephrased that" will do the job, given the tendency of people to skim rather than actually read posts. And that's enough beating on this horse, I think.