Declarer doubts explanation

[CSGibson]

Would it be easier for declarer to ask follow-up questions, more along the lines of "have you actually discussed this sequence, or are you just guessing what it means?", and "has this sequence ever come up before?"

[pran]

Would it be easier for declarer to ask follow-up questions, more along the lines of "have you actually discussed this sequence, or are you just guessing what it meants?", and "has this sequence ever come up before?"

I have a feeling that such questions, showing distrust, can easily be taken as accusation of dishonesty and thus be a violation of Law 74A2.

[CSGibson]

Would it be easier for declarer to ask follow-up questions, more along the lines of "have you actually discussed this sequence, or are you just guessing what it meants?", and "has this sequence ever come up before?"

I have a feeling that such questions, showing distrust, can easily be taken as accusation of dishonesty and thus be a violation of Law 74A2.

I cannot see how that would be an accusation of dishonesty when calling the director and asking to cross-examine the partner who made the bid would not be called an accusation of dishonesty.

 

This is clearly asking follow-up questions that an experienced declarer might be expected to ask in order to get full protection of the laws, IMO, not questioning the intentions of the person giving the original answer, but instead questioning the accuracy of the response given based on their own knowledge and experiences.

[pran]

Would it be easier for declarer to ask follow-up questions, more along the lines of "have you actually discussed this sequence, or are you just guessing what it meants?", and "has this sequence ever come up before?"

I have a feeling that such questions, showing distrust, can easily be taken as accusation of dishonesty and thus be a violation of Law 74A2.

I cannot see how that would be an accusation of dishonesty when calling the director and asking to cross-examine the partner who made the bid would not be called an accusation of dishonesty.

 

This is clearly asking follow-up questions that an experienced declarer might be expected to ask in order to get full protection of the laws, IMO, not questioning the intentions of the person giving the original answer, but instead questioning the accuracy of the response given based on their own knowledge and experiences.

You question the truth of the first answer?

 

And as I have already stated: I don't believe that should be necessary: If the explanation turns out to be incorrect you shall be heard on a complaint that you because of the incorrect explanation has chosen an unfortunate line of play.

[blackshoe]

And as I have already stated: I don't believe that should be necessary: If the explanation turns out to be incorrect you shall be heard on a complaint that you because of the incorrect explanation has chosen an unfortunate line of play.

The OP suggested that at least part of the motivation for wanting to hear it from the bidder is that he wishes to achieve his good score through his own skill at playing the hand, and not through the assistance of the TD via score adjustment.

 

Personally, I think this a specious reason, because after all, if you know that there are two lines of play, and if you choose the right one, you'll get a good score, then if you choose the wrong one because you were misinformed, you will know, now and forever, that if you had not been misinformed, you'd have got it right.

[CSGibson]

You question the truth of the first answer?

I believe that it is ridiculous to assume that questioning the accuracy of the answer is the same as questioning the honesty of the person giving the answer.

[bluejak]

He calls the director and states he would like East to confirm whether Michaels (i.e., length in both majors) is, in fact, the partnership agreement. If I were director, I would be inclined to make sure South understood that the answer would be authorized information for West, and then (per Law 20 F) instruct East to answer "yes" or "no", "Is that your partnership agreement?"

The EBU makes a strong recommendation that if there is doubt as to the possibility of MI you should call the TD immediately, so it is reasonable for this player to do so.

 

If I was the TD I would take both players away from the table separately to find out as best I could what their agreement actually is. If I believe declarer had been misinformed I would tell him so.

[bluejak]

By "artificial" I meant it would be given by the director instead of achieved at the table. Perhaps "assigned" is a better word, I apologize since obviously it caused you to miss the point entirely. Or then again, judging by how obvious it was what point I was trying to make, maybe that was simply destined to happen.

Fair enough.

 

But just for your information: An artificial adjusted score is one assigned when it is impossible to decide a regular score and is specified as a percentage score, for instance "Average plus", "Average" or "Average minus".

 

An assigned adjusted score is always expressed as a contract with a given number of tricks (or as a weighted average from more than one such assigned scores).

Both jdonn and pran have gone wrong, so let me explain.

 

A TD [or AC] awards an adjusted score.

 

They either award an assigned adjusted score under Law 12C1 - you could say they "assign a score" - or they award an artificial adjusted score under Law 12C2.

[pran]

By "artificial" I meant it would be given by the director instead of achieved at the table. Perhaps "assigned" is a better word, I apologize since obviously it caused you to miss the point entirely. Or then again, judging by how obvious it was what point I was trying to make, maybe that was simply destined to happen.

Fair enough.

 

But just for your information: An artificial adjusted score is one assigned when it is impossible to decide a regular score and is specified as a percentage score, for instance "Average plus", "Average" or "Average minus".

 

An assigned adjusted score is always expressed as a contract with a given number of tricks (or as a weighted average from more than one such assigned scores).

Both jdonn and pran have gone wrong, so let me explain.

 

A TD [or AC] awards an adjusted score.

 

They either award an assigned adjusted score under Law 12C1 - you could say they "assign a score" - or they award an artificial adjusted score under Law 12C2.

Except for using the word "assigned" instead of "awarded" about an artificial adjusted score I am at a loss on how my description is incorrect. And in particular I wonder how I am incorrect in reality (rather than in form)?

[jdonn]

Where I am at a loss is why I'm being corrected after clarifying exactly what I meant as well as apologizing for not making it clear. Not to mention after also clarifying that my point was being missed at the expense of semantics.

[bluejak]

When people use the wrong wording, especially in technical words, it is better if people who read it know what the correct words are.

 

Why am I doing it? To be helpful to other people reading the forum of course.

 

As for saying "I did nothing wrong except ..." I really can think of no answer! ;)

[jdonn]

I'll leave it to you to figure out which sentence in your post was unhelpful. But I'm quite glad to see we agree that the director should use his legal powers to find a way to confirm whether or not the unlikely-sounding explanation is correct in order to let the hand be played normally.

[lexlogan]

Here, most of the discussion has been whether or not the director should permit South's question. Posting at rec.games.bridge, most of the replies were "send West away from the table", with an "of course" attitude toward the question and trying to get a genuine bridge result.

[pran]

When people use the wrong wording, especially in technical words, it is better if people who read it know what the correct words are.

 

Why am I doing it? To be helpful to other people reading the forum of course.

 

As for saying "I did nothing wrong except ..." I really can think of no answer! ;)

I understand this as a confirmation that both jdonn and I were correct in substance, and that your critisism just concerned me accidentally writing "assign" an adjusted score instead of "award" an adjusted score when this score is artificial.

 

You say that this "error" creates a problem for people - I do indeed wonder?

[bluejak]

I find that people often get confused between the various adjusted scores, and I think the fact that they all begin with 'a' is a help to confuse.

[pran]

I find that people often get confused between the various adjusted scores, and I think the fact that they all begin with 'a' is a help to confuse.

I was very often confused myself before I got familiar with the terms, but only with the adjective "assigned", never with the verb "assign" or "assigns".

[lexlogan]

He calls the director and states he would like East to confirm whether Michaels (i.e., length in both majors) is, in fact, the partnership agreement. If I were director, I would be inclined to make sure South understood that the answer would be authorized information for West, and then (per Law 20 F) instruct East to answer "yes" or "no", "Is that your partnership agreement?"

The EBU makes a strong recommendation that if there is doubt as to the possibility of MI you should call the TD immediately, so it is reasonable for this player to do so.

 

If I was the TD I would take both players away from the table separately to find out as best I could what their agreement actually is. If I believe declarer had been misinformed I would tell him so.

Thanks, David, that seems sensible and I will pass it on to the director at the time. It seems East had already answered South's question by the time the director was called, but he could at least explain proper procedure for the future.

[Trecar]

The EBU makes a strong recommendation that if there is doubt as to the possibility of MI you should call the TD immediately, so it is reasonable for this player to do so.

 

If I was the TD I would take both players away from the table separately to find out as best I could what their agreement actually is. If I believe declarer had been misinformed I would tell him so.

 

 

Whereas I am not experienced enough to dispute Bluejacks approach, I do wonder whether unless the sight of dummy makes it apparent that the explanation may be incorrect, the TD's presence at the table before the end of play creates further problems.

 

West would understand that South doubts his explanation even with careful removal in turn of the players, and thus would give him UI. I think that I would advise South to play to the information given, and recall me if he has been the victim of MI.

 

To do otherwise leaves you judging Wests play for UI.

[bluejak]

Life is hard. UI is a fact of life, and giving it or receiving it is not illegal. But MI is different: it is illegal, and we want to stop it as much as possible.

 

There may be UI problems, but that is tough. It is important that people get the correct information as to system.