Explanation in good faith led opp astray?

[uday]

Someone opened 2C (precision) and simultaneously alerted and explained it as

"11-15 pts 6cs or 5cs and 4cd major"

 

 

The opener assumed it meant

"Long clubs, 5 or more. If only 5, will have a 4 card major on the side"

 

 

An opponent assumed it meant

"A 4 card major plus long clubs ( 5 or 6 )"

 

 

No questions were asked. The auction proceeded:

 

2C-X-3C-X

P

 

and the initial doubler reasoned "perhaps that is not responsive, since opener has a 4 card major. Perhaps it shows cards" and passed.

 

This led to 3CX making instead of 4M making when 4th chair turned out to be 55 in the majors with 2 sticks.

 

 

So, my questions are (ACBL context)

 

1> Was there MI ?

2> Was there damage?

3> Should the score have been adjusted??

or

4> How should the TD have ruled?

[Finch]

I assume 3X is 3C?

I can't reply that well in an ACBL context, but I wouldn't have thought it makes much difference what jurisdiction you are in.

 

1. Was there MI? Probably, yes. There is a fair amount of precedent I know of in English and WBF events that it is the explainer's job to make sure the explainee understands (though not to absurd wilful misinterpretations). In this instance the explanation could have been read either way, so it is opener's fault that it was misinterpreted. In fact I have played strong club pairs who play the 2C opening meaning exactly that (and open 1D, 1NT, or 3C on club single-suiters).

 

If the opponents are expert players with knowledge of Precision there may not be MI, because they possibly could or should have realised either that the reply was ambiguous, or what the more normal Precision 2C opener shows. You might argue that anyone can see the reply is ambiguous, but at the table they clearly didn't! In particular, if the opponents play Precision themselves with 2C as long clubs, or (clubs+major) I would probably rule no MI.

 

2. I don't think so on the auction. I don't see how the either meaning of the 2C opener affects whether or not you are playing responsive doubles.

 

3. Not on the auction. If the misdefended as a consequence of believing declarer had a 4-card major, and he didn't, then yes.

 

2a/3a: If the opponents got to a major suit contract and lost tricks in the play due to the misunderstanding I would adjust.

 

(p.s. what are two "sticks"?)

[jillybean]

Frances, can you give me an example of a standard, legal description for this bid.

 

I’d also like to know what sticks are. :blink:

[barmar]

I think the opponent's interpretation is kind of silly. If he'd meant "long ♣ plus 4-card major" he wouldn't specifically say "5♣ or 6♣", he'd say something like "5+♣". Even if it's specifically only 5 or 6, the more normal way to phrase it would be "5 or 6 ♣ and 4cd major." Although if the opponent is not a native English speaker, I admit that he might not be sensitive to such a fine distinction.

 

Also, Precision is an extremely common system, so I expect most people who don't play it are at least familiar with some of its basics. The way the explanation was worded is pretty much the way I always see it said. I would accept an explanation of misinformation only from a beginner or novice (and I'd go by their self-rating -- maybe if players were penalized for inflating their ratings it would reduce this practice).

[helene_t]

I think the explanation was sufficient.

 

In f2f bridge, we give explanation verbally which is (for most people) faster than typing, and also we can make sure the explanation was understood correctly by looking at askers facial expression, and by using tone and/or tempo to put the brackets 6♣ or(5♣ and 4M).

 

Online, I don't think it's realistic to require the same acuracy in explanation. People usually explain a standard 2♣ as "strong" (without adding "artificial"), 2♣ as "Stayman" (without specifying which version), answers to Blackwood as "1" (without specifyning whether it could be the king of trump) etc. etc.

 

Add to this that the default operator priority in boolean algebra is "and" before "or", and that "6 or 5" would probably have been "5 or 6" if "or" had the highest priority.

[Finch]

It was missing some punctuation.

In face to face bridge you wouldn't have this problem, because the speaker would add punctuation by tone of voice and phrasing. In fact, the sentence written is usually how I've heard it explained at the table. But if you write it down, you need to say something like

 

11-15 with clubs, but if only has 5 clubs will have a 4-card major

 

This takes longer to write than the original; if I were trying to type quickly then

 

11-15 (6cs) or (5cs + 4M)

 

would do. (Neither of those is absolutely full disclosure, but are fine as a quick explanation.)

 

The difficulty was that

 

"11-15 pts 6cs or 5cs and 4cd major"

 

can be read as either

 

11-15 pts, 6cs, or 5cs and 4cd major

 

or

 

11-15 pts, 6cs or 5cs, and 4cd major

 

Those commas matter!

[barmar]

I understand how the opponent mis-parsed it. But we all know that it's common to be terse when typing into the little explanation box.

 

And if something is ambiguous, ask for clarification!

[pclayton]

I think this is a double-shot by the doublers. They had an apparent misunderstanding over the responsive double (which I assume is over 3C) and tried to win it with the director.

 

No adjustment and keep the deposit.

[david_c]

These are tough ;)

 

I don't like it, but I would rule there was no MI. If the player who misinterpreted the explanation had stopped to think about it, they would have realised that their interpretation was perverse (see barmar's post). They have my sympathy, but really they've done something a bit silly and will just have to treat this as a learning experience. It's a hard life.

 

I do not think that the Precision player can be expected to write a better explanation. Frances's suggestions work, in that they are unambiguous, but the first is too long - so long that the software wouldn't cope with it - and the second (involving brackets) is not something that would occur to many people. So the explanation given is about as good as you can expect. It's very difficult to come up with totally unambiguous, idiot-proof explanations, particularly online where they have to be written and you don't have time to write an essay. I don't think it can be right to hold the explainer to too high a standard.

[hotShot]

11-15 pts 6cs or 5cs and 4cd major

is a little ambigous, but can hardly be meant as

11-15 pts 5-6cs and 4cd major

 

Online player don't have a chance to know if an explanation was fully understood. Possibly both no native speaker, there should be a little tolerance to this kind of missunderstandings.

1. Not really

2. The score seems to be damage

3. No

4. Tell opener to use "() or ()" in the explanation next time.

[uday]

Just to clear up one detail: I meant "2 sticks" as "2 aces"

[geller]

The explanation seems clear to me. Oppts just trying to get a free shot.

[willow23]

I think it necessary to ask again if unsure of the explaination...but the explaination is far better than some that I have seen..

 

2!c(Precision) ...end of story...lol

 

Not a problem for me since I love to learn new systems and conv. and try to have a working knowledge of them..

 

But wise to ask to you hearts content ..so that you can reserve you rights on the hand ...

 

Be sure to call the director if not satisfied so a record of the encounter can warrent an adjustment...

 

Too often directors are called after the fact:)..

[EricK]

can you give me an example of a standard, legal description for this bid.

Just swapping the final two clauses around to give 11-15 points, 5♣ and 4M or 6♣ would remove the ambiguity (unless anyone is obtuse enough to claim they thought the 11-15 only applies in the 5♣/4M case).

[cherdano]

I find it hard to believe that someone

a) has agreements to the matter that the meaning of the double depends on whether opener promised a 4cd major, but

:unsure: doesn't immediately recognize the explanation as a precision 2♣ opener.

 

Arend

[blackshoe]

It doesn't make much difference what jurisdiction you're in, as this is primarily a matter of law and not regulation.

 

I think that in general someone who is listing length of suits and meant to group them so that a subsequent clause would modify the entire list would, as someone suggested upthread, list the lengths in ascending order. Thus "5♣ or 6♣ with a 4 card major" or more likely "5 or 6♣ and a 4 card major". The wording used tends to say to me "either a 6 card club suit, or a 5 card club suit with a side 4 card major".

 

Original doubler's alleged "reasoning" makes no sense - if opener holds a six card suit, that doesn't deny a side 4 card major. Besides, if they have an agreement that the second double in such auctions would be responsive, then it's responsive unless they have specifically discussed this sequence and agreed it should be something else. Having an "agreement" that reads "it means this, but some (unspecified) times it means something else" is about as useful as having no agreements at all. :)

 

Aside from all this, the ACBL Alert regulation does say "Players are expected to be prepared for the vast majority of systems that they may encounter at the bridge table." Precision would, it seems to me, be included in that.

 

My responses to the OPs questions:

 

1. No MI.

2. If there's no MI, then whether there was "damage" is irrelevant. IOW, the concept of "damage" depends on there having been an infraction of law or regulation. If there was no MI, there was no infraction.

3. No infraction = no adjustment.

4. I would have said "there was no infraction here; no adjustments or penalties can be awarded".

 

If I were to agree with those who feel there was an infraction simply because opener did not make absolutely certain his opponents understood his explanation (question: is he required to ensure both opponents have the same understanding?), then I would rule "the explanation was insufficient, therefore there was MI. NOS achieved a lesser result then might have been obtained without the MI, therefore there was damage. Therefore, under Law 75 and Law 12, I adjust the score to 4H=". But I don't agree there was an infraction, so I wouldn't rule that way. :D

 

Opener could have avoided any problems by writing his explanation in an absolutely clear manner, e.g. "11-15 HCP, 5 or more clubs; if only 5 clubs, a side 4 card major". I would strongly suggest to opener that he should do so in future, regardless of the ruling on this particular case.

[Finch]

If I were to agree with those who feel there was an infraction simply because opener did not make absolutely certain his opponents understood his explanation .... then I would rule "the explanation was insufficient, therefore there was MI. NOS achieved a lesser result then might have been obtained without the MI, therefore there was damage. Therefore, under Law 75 and Law 12, I adjust the score to 4H=".

You are the first person to post who actually seems to disagree on a matter of principle.

 

You seem to be saying that if there was MI, and the other side didn't reach the best spot, you adjust. Surely you only adjust if the other side not reaching the best spot was a consequence of the MI? Not just because there was MI.

 

I realise you don't think there was an infraction....

[bid_em_up]

Someone opened 2C (precision) and simultaneously alerted and explained it as

"11-15 pts 6cs or 5cs and 4cd major"

 

The opener assumed it meant: "Long clubs, 5 or more. If only 5, will have a 4 card major on the side"

 

An opponent assumed it meant: "A 4 card major plus long clubs ( 5 or 6 )"

 

No questions were asked.  The auction proceeded:

 

2C-X-3C-X

P

 

and the initial doubler reasoned "perhaps that is not responsive, since opener has a 4 card major. Perhaps it shows cards" and passed. 

 

This led to 3CX making instead of 4M making when 4th chair turned out to be 55 in the majors with 2 sticks.

 

 

So, my questions are (ACBL context)

 

1>  Was there MI ?

2>  Was there damage?

3>  Should the score have been adjusted??

or

4> How should the TD have ruled?

 

1) No.

2) No. Without MI, there is no damage.

3) No. Without damage, no adjustment should be made.

4) Table result stands.

 

Tell the person who thinks the second X is card showing that if you are in doubt of the explanation or need further clarifications, ask more questions.

 

Tell the 2♣ opener to find a better way to word his explantion, ie, 11-15 hcp, 5+♣, if only 5♣ will also have 4 crd major (it may also be 4-5+).

 

The original explanation seems sufficient to me. It is usually how a precision 2♣ bid is explained. And I think that anyone but a novice would understand what is meant by it. But, due to language barriers, I can "somewhat" accept that it could be misinterpreted.

 

However, what was wrong with 4C instead of the "supposed" responsive X? It appears to me that the real problem is with the "responsive" X, not the openers explanation. Sounds to me ike someone is attempting to take two bites at the apple.

[blackshoe]

Surely you only adjust if the other side not reaching the best spot was a consequence of the MI? Not just because there was MI.

Absolutely. B)

[jikl]

To me this is a double shot.

 

"11-15 pts 6cs or 5cs and 4cd major"

 

Lets get realistic here. IF we take the person's suggestion that this was unclear, let's really think about it.

 

IF this were the case, wouldn't the description be:

 

11-15 pts 5+cs and 4cd major?

 

It is my belief that the person in question has found a use of grammar that could be beneficial. They have defied logic to do this as everyone knows we all type the shortest possible alert to cover ourselves. We all know we would choose the second alert text if this was the case. Regarding the alert, my only advice would be not grammar or punctuation, it would be capitalisation:

 

11-15 pts 6cs OR 5cs and 4cd major

 

This is very clear without having to find brackets etc

 

Sean

[McBruce]

Someone opened 2C (precision) and simultaneously alerted and explained it as

"11-15 pts 6cs or 5cs and 4cd major"

 

Uday, a skilled and experienced programmer like yourself should have no trouble parsing this as a computer would. For myself, I need to consult the Perl cheatsheet I have on the wall, which has 'and' way down in the second-last position of precedence...but ahead of 'or', which is tied for dead last (with 'xor', whatever that may be).* This means that the Perl compiler at least would put the first brackets around (5Cs and 4cd major), and the sentence would match the intended meaning. :)

 

I don't think I would adjust. Whatever the guidelines of international offline tournaments, online is a special animal. We have UI-less ways of asking opponents to clarify their meaning. In offline bridge, the confused opponent would have to verbally ask one of the opponents to clarify, with the possibility of creating UI for his partner. Online, we simply send a private message and against actively ethical players the mystery is cleared up fairly quickly.

 

So my take on this one is that I would ask the defender/plaintiff why he did not simply ask privately for a clarification--a question to which there probably isn't a good answer. The 2♣ opener would be advised to be more clear in future, but I wouldn't change the score.

 

Here's a thought: if your agreement is that a 2♣ opener promises a 4cd major only if the clubs are five long, why is it so important to divulge this immediately? Why not wait and explain this later, when the rebid confirms only five? One might get the impression that a rebid of clubs denies a four-card major, which is not true, is it?

 

 

* Perl gurus will note that most Perl-ers will never use 'and' or 'or,' instead using '&&' or '||' respectively, since these forms have much higher precedence. But even then, '&&' outranks '||'... :)

[bid_em_up]

....which is tied for dead last (with 'xor', whatever that may be).*

Exclusive-OR, or XOR function can be described verbally as, "Either A or B, but not both.

 

I am going to have apple pie or cherry pie.

 

The expression is true when I have apple pie, is true when I have cherry pie, and false, if I have both apple and cherry pie. Usually used for set comparison (I think).

 

:)