what did you say?

[jillybean]

1N (P) P 2♦* alert

P (2♥) ?

 

My partner opens 1nt - pass - pass

LHO bids 2♦, RHO alerts. Partner passes, RHO bids 2♥

I ask RHO what 2♦ was, he tells me ‘majors’

 

LHO doesn’t hear and says ‘what did you say?’

 

What should happen here?

[aguahombre]

1: find out if hearing enhancement devices are included in banned items.

2: Call director, who will allegedly ask the appropriate questions to determine whether LHO really didn't hear his partner's answer or was questioning it.

3: Before all that, request that no more things be said.

[LH2650]

Someone should tell him what was said.

[Cascade]

LHO needs to know what was said so that if appropriate and necessary later a wrong explanation can be corrected.

 

The explanation itself and the questioning of it - if that was the intent of the question - are of course UI in the normal way.

[JoAnneM]

Jeez, the ones who can't see cant hear. Just be friendly and tell him what his partner said.

 

And we wonder why Duplicate has a bad reputation.

[aguahombre]

Jeez, the ones who can't see cant hear.  Just be friendly and tell him what his partner said.

 

And we wonder why Duplicate has a bad reputation.

joanne, I know where you are coming from, but this isn't the hand for that.

 

I don't think anyone would buy that "what did you say?" was really a hearing problem. Let the Director sort it out,

[blackshoe]

There is an unfortunate attitude in some quarters that views calling the director as an accusation. It should not be - it is the director's job to sort out problems at the table. That's why we have them. In this case, it may be that the 2♦ bidder did not hear what his partner said. It may be that he heard it and found it incredible that his partner would say that. Rather than get into an argument, or equally badly, than having the other side leave the table eventually feeling that they may have been snookered, call the director and give him the facts — and only the facts, not opinions (like whether there is UI, or whether the pair calling the director are making accusations) — and let him do his job and sort it out.

[gnasher]

It is slightly offensive to call the director here, if you know the rules: it implies that you think RHO may be doing something improper by showing incredulity. It is entirely proper for RHO to ensure that he hears his partner's explanations, since otherwise he may inadvertently breach the rules.

 

If LHO's explanation was incorrect, it makes UI "available" to RHO. That UI is "available" regardless of whether RHO heard it. This UI constrains RHO's actions, even if he didn't receive it. If you are in a position where UI may have been made available to you, but you don't know whether it was or not, it seems to me that you're obliged to find out.

Edited August 30, 2009 by gnasher

[jillybean]

It is slightly offensive to call the director here, if you know the rules: it implies that you think RHO may be doing something improper by showing incredulity. 

 

Potential UI, best to call the director, what is offensive about this?

[gnasher]

Potential UI, best to call the director, what is offensive about this?

What UI? On the face of it, RHO is quite correctly making sure that he heard his partner's explanation, so that he can comply with the rules.

[MFA]

Jeez, I just tell him, of course.

[bluejak]

I wonder where "here" is?

 

Calling the Director is never offensive. True, some very ignorant people may believe it to be so, but it is far better to educate them, not pander to their unfortunate views.

 

Of course I would not even call the TD: I would just tell my opponent what my other opponent had said. Why not?

[axman]

1N (P) P 2♦* alert

P (2♥) ?

 

My partner opens 1nt - pass - pass

LHO bids 2♦, RHO alerts. Partner passes, RHO bids 2♥

I ask RHO what 2♦ was, he tells me ‘majors’

 

LHO doesn’t hear and says ‘what did you say?’

 

What should happen here?

At this point in the hand it is improper for the LHO to draw attention to what RHO said, under any circumstances. If the LHO needs to ascertain if the explanation was incorrect he must wait for the proper time.

 

He did not do so, and therefore it is proper to call the director to advise about UI immediately, and then later to rule on later assertions of infractions.

 

The point about investigating LHO hearing is irrelevant except for investigating L73 prohibitions of improper communication between partners and must wait for after conclusion of the hand.

[jeremy69]

This is quite a sad thread. ;) I would answer the question. I have certainly been in the situation where partner has answered a question and I have not heard his answer fully. If he had given the wrong explanation I hope I wouldn't jump up on the table, put my hand over my mouth and say "Heavens to Betsy" or scream loudly but if I did then I would have no problem (other than embarrassment) with the law being summoned. Failing this or some odd way the original question was put I too would regard calling the director as leaving a slightly bad taste in the mouth. I know that in theory "calling the director is never an offensive thing to do" and broadly I subscribe to that but there is a limit and, in my view, ths is it.

[jillybean]

1N (P) P 2♦*  alert

P  (2♥) ?

 

My partner opens 1nt - pass - pass

LHO bids 2♦, RHO alerts. Partner passes, RHO bids 2♥

I ask RHO what 2♦ was, he tells me ‘majors’

 

LHO doesn’t hear and says ‘what did you say?’

 

What should happen here?

This is how it continued

 

RHO told LHO 'majors'.

 

I had little values but length in ♠'s and ♣'s so bid 3♣, this is where we played.

 

By the end of the hand I realized 2♦ 'majors' was an incorrect explanation and called the director. He looked at my hand and told me I should know 2♦'s can't be majors and could have called earlier, result stands.

 

I don't think this is a good ruling at all and wondered if, despite the social repulsion of doing so, I should have called the director back at the start.

 

If I had been certain 'what did you say' was an exclamation rather than a question would it be acceptable to call the director?

[jillybean]

This is quite a sad thread. :rolleyes: I would answer the question. I have certainly been in the situation where partner has answered a question and I have not heard his answer fully. If he had given the wrong explanation I hope I wouldn't jump up on the table, put my hand over my mouth and say "Heavens to Betsy" or scream loudly but if I did then I would have no problem (other than embarrassment) with the law being summoned. Failing this or some odd way the original question was put I too would regard calling the director as leaving a slightly bad taste in the mouth. I know that in theory "calling the director is never an offensive thing to do" and broadly I subscribe to that but there is a limit and, in my view, ths is it.

What I think is truly sad is that not all players are as ethical as you appear to be while others dread calling the director for exactly this reason.

[blackshoe]

Gnasher wants it both ways: the questioner was simply trying to find out what his partner said, an the opponents are accusing him of cheating because he showed incredulity at what his partner said.

 

Nonsense. One or the other, not both.

 

In practice, unless the questioner clearly heard what his partner said, didn't believe it, and was expressing that disbelief, I wouldn't call the director either. This might later lead to a problem, but so be it. Particularly in a club game. And if calling the director because of the expression of disbelief causes a bad taste in someone's mouth, tough. As has been said, there is a limit, and this is it.

 

Actually, I wouldn't call the TD in that case, either. I'd simply attempt to obtain agreement from the opponents that the questioner's manner may have made UI available to his partner. If they disagree, they]/b] are supposed to call the TD. If they don't, I suppose I'll have to call him.

[TimG]

By the end of the hand I realized 2♦ 'majors' was an incorrect explanation and called the director. He looked at my hand and told me I should know 2♦'s can't be majors and could have called earlier, result stands.

This sounds wrong to me. If you got the wrong explanation and it damaged you, there should probably be an adjustment. And, I think the right time to call the director is at the end of the hand since calling him before that tells everyone at the table that the cards in your hand suggest the opponents have done something wrong.

[Finch]

If I had been certain 'what did you say' was an exclamation rather than a question would it be acceptable to call the director?

This is the problem with discussing things in print.

There's a huge difference with "pardon?", "what did you say?", "sorry, what was that?" being a genuine request to repeat something that genuinely wasn't heard, and a "WHAT did you say" implying, "you moron, don't you even know our system yet?"

 

The former gets a polite repeat of the answer.

The latter probably needs the TD.

[gnasher]

Gnasher wants it both ways: the questioner was simply trying to find out what his partner said, an the opponents are accusing him of cheating because he showed incredulity at what his partner said.

Please don't put words into my mouth. I don't want anything of the sort.

 

If the questioner displays surprise or disapproval at his partner's explanation, that conveys UI, and it is appropriate to call the director, or to reserve the right to call him later.

 

If the questioner merely

doesn’t hear and says ‘what did you say?’

they have behaved entirely properly. To call the director under those circumstances is, whatever David Stevenson may say, distasteful.

[gnasher]

Calling the Director is never offensive.  True, some very ignorant people may believe it to be so, but it is far better to educate them, not pander to their unfortunate views.

The first sentence isn't true in all circumstances, although some very stupid people believe it to be so. Being very stupid, they are ineducable.

 

Does anyone think that added to the quality of this discussion?

[jillybean]

This is the problem with discussing things in print.

There's a huge difference with "pardon?", "what did you say?", "sorry, what was that?" being a genuine request to repeat something that genuinely wasn't heard, and a "WHAT did you say" implying, "you moron, don't you even know our system yet?"

 

The former gets a polite repeat of the answer.

The latter probably needs the TD.

This happened a while ago, I don’t remember exactly how “what did you say” was said,enough to cause some doubt but not enough to call the TD

 

Actually, I wouldn't call the TD in that case, either. I'd simply attempt to obtain agreement from the opponents that the questioner's manner may have made UI available to his partner. If they disagree, they]/b] are supposed to call the TD. If they don't, I suppose I'll have to call him.

 

I’m not sure it would work in a club game and could end up with more chaos and the td called anyway, suggesting something could be wrong upsets most players, they think its an accusation of cheating. I’d rather call the TD than say this.

[Cascade]

If they disagree, they]/b] are supposed to call the TD. If they don't, I suppose I'll have to call him.

I disagree.

 

If the opponents do not call the director then they are implicitly agreeing. That is their problem not yours.

[blackshoe]

Let's not get into calling each other stupid. I don't want to have to start deleting posts again.

[blackshoe]

If they disagree, they]/b] are supposed to call the TD. If they don't, I suppose I'll have to call him.

I disagree.

 

If the opponents do not call the director then they are implicitly agreeing. That is their problem not yours.

I considered that. I agree. The problem is that I'm pretty sure there are at least some, and possibly quite a few, TDs who would not.