Alert Explanation vs. Convention Card

[bd71]

[hv=pc=n&s=skjt32ht74da3c986&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1n2d(Alerted%20-%20see%20discussion)]133|200[/hv]

 

 

Matchpoints, ACBL

 

West alerts 2♦, and when asked says it shows ♦ plus a major, although she seems hesitant and uncertain. Assuming this explanation is true, I want to play in spades and will use our methods to get there.

 

Given the uncertainty, I steal a glance at their CC (which is visible face-up so they may not even know I have peeked) which says 2♦ shows the majors. If this is true I want to defend.

 

Lots of questions:

 

1. Which source should I rely on to guide my actions?

 

2. Do I have the option of not saying anything to potentially let them dig a deeper hole, to our advantage?

 

3. As it turns out, the verbal explanation is correct and East holds ♦/♥. If I had relied on the CC (which says East holds ♥/♠), would we be entitled to a correction if we would do better playing in ♠?

[aguahombre]

Letting the real directors answer, but would like to add questions:

 

Aren't the opponents responsible for knowing what is one their CC?

If so, shouldn't the opp have added the fact that their agreement differs from the card?

 

Leading to:

 

Having no obligation to point out that the explanation differs from the CC, shouldn't I assume what is on the card is the real agreement (because of the hesitance) ---act accordingly---and be protected for having done so?

[blackshoe]

How was the actual agreement determined?

[pran]

There are three possible reasons for a discrepancy between the CC and a verbal explanation:

1: The CC is correct and the explanation is wrong.

2: The agreement has been changed, but the CC has not been modified.

3: The CC doesn't apply to this partnership at all or was incorrect from the beginning.

 

The practical approach for a player who notices such discrepancy is to request a clarification.

 

If the TD cannot establish which of the above alternatives is correct I shall expect him in most cases to rule alternative 1.

 

(Do I need to say that the partnership with such irregularity in their disclosures should be held accountable for any damage thereby to their opponents?)

[campboy]

Having no obligation to point out that the explanation differs from the CC, shouldn't I assume what is on the card is the real agreement (because of the hesitance) ---act accordingly---and be protected for having done so?

I think you would do better to assume the verbal explanation is the correct one (and should be protected if you do), since that is the one partner will be working from. There is also the possibility -- and I have seen this happen -- that the card you are looking at does not belong to the opponents!

[bd71]

How was the actual agreement determined?

 

Actually, the real agreement wasn't ever determined with certainty. I should have said it eventually turned out that East's hand matched West's verbal explanation (whether or not it was the correct description of their agreement).

 

I did not ask for clarification during the auction and was happy with our result so didn't raise the issue afterward.

[bd71]

The practical approach for a player who notices such discrepancy is to request a clarification.

 

So you're saying I really shouldn't have the option to NOT ask for clarification and let them dig their own grave?

 

Or are you saying that IF I do that, then I am sacrificing any right to some type of adjustment?

[bluejak]

I think the practical solution is not to ask for clarification. After all, if you have been misinformed by the explanation you should receive redress, and at least you and your partner will probably both be singing off the same hymn sheet.

[lamford]

I think the practical solution is not to ask for clarification. After all, if you have been misinformed by the explanation you should receive redress, and at least you and your partner will probably both be singing off the same hymn sheet.

Isn't it "singing from the same hymn sheet"?

[barmar]

Most of the time I wouldn't end up in this situation in the first place. I'll either ask to look at the CC or ask for a verbal explanation, but I'm not likely to do both, although I can understand doing it when the player seems unsure. I've had it come up more in cases where I expected an alert and didn't hear one. I then follow ACBL's rule that experienced players are expected to protect themselves, and glance at the CC to see if they're playing the expected convention and the opponent simply forgot to alert it.

 

In the case of conflicting explanations, I think you can legally do almost anything, since you can legitimately claim misinformation regardless of the result. But I personally prefer to ask for clarification, so that we can get a real bridge result instead of an assigned score. I didn't pay my entry so that a TD can tell me what I would have gotten on a hand. I've sometimes gone through most of a session with the wrong CC at the top of my stack because I forgot to switch it when changing partners, and I don't want to win a board because an opponent made a silly mistake like that.

[pran]

So you're saying I really shouldn't have the option to NOT ask for clarification and let them dig their own grave?

 

Or are you saying that IF I do that, then I am sacrificing any right to some type of adjustment?

Sure you have the option to NOT ask.

If you have received a verbal explanation and do not in any way indicate that you are aware of a discrepancy between the verbal disclosure and the CC I shall definitely rule as if the verbal explanation is the only disclosure you received.

 

I don't see much reason for not asking when you are aware of the discrepancy; your clarifying question and the answers to this is UI to your opponents and the correct disclosure is AI to your partner who otherwise might not have noticed the discrepancy.

 

Besides, you might even run the risk of being ruled against on the ground that NOT asking when you are aware of a discrepancy is considered "wild gambling".

[paulg]

Besides, you might even run the risk of being ruled against on the ground that NOT asking when you are aware of a discrepancy is considered "wild gambling".

I did wonder something similar, especially in the ACBL where they are much quicker to rule that you failed to protect yourself.

[campboy]

I don't see much reason for not asking when you are aware of the discrepancy; your clarifying question and the answers to this is UI to your opponents and the correct disclosure is AI to your partner who otherwise might not have noticed the discrepancy.

Even if the TD thinks that information received from opponents pointing out what the CC says is UI, which I believe to be a minority view, he cannot adjust under either 16B or 73C since both laws apply specifically to UI from partner.

[gnasher]

Besides, you might even run the risk of being ruled against on the ground that NOT asking when you are aware of a discrepancy is considered "wild gambling".

 

Why? We have evidence that one opponent has forgotten his system. Generally, we expect a better result when the opponents are playing two different systems than when they're both playing the same system. I can't see any reason why it should it be considered wild or gambling to leave them to have a misundersanding.

[blackshoe]

I don't see much reason for not asking when you are aware of the discrepancy; your clarifying question and the answers to this is UI to your opponents and the correct disclosure is AI to your partner who otherwise might not have noticed the discrepancy.

 

Even if the TD thinks that information received from opponents pointing out what the CC says is UI, which I believe to be a minority view, he cannot adjust under either 16B or 73C since both laws apply specifically to UI from partner.

 

Sven is saying that the information available from a player's answer to questions is UI to his partner and AI to the questioner's partner.

[campboy]

Sven is saying that the information available from a player's answer to questions is UI to his partner and AI to the questioner's partner.

He's saying more than that: "your clarifying question [...] is UI to your opponents". I agree that the answer is UI, but not the question; and the question may wake your opponent up.

[blackshoe]

Fair enough.

[barmar]

Also, would pointing out what the opponent's CC says count as him illegally employing a memory aid? So he might concede that the CC is correct, and change his explanation, but he must continue to bid as if his original explanation was correct. This is similar to the situation where a player misbids, then hears his partner's alert or explanation, which wakes him up to his mistake, but he can't use that UI.

[gnasher]

Also, would pointing out what the opponent's CC says count as him illegally employing a memory aid? So he might concede that the CC is correct, and change his explanation, but he must continue to bid as if his original explanation was correct. This is similar to the situation where a player misbids, then hears his partner's alert or explanation, which wakes him up to his mistake, but he can't use that UI.

So I could inflict a UI problem on an opponent by reading aloud from his convention card? Please, somebody find a way to make this illegal.

[pran]

So I could inflict a UI problem on an opponent by reading aloud from his convention card? Please, somebody find a way to make this illegal.

Where in the laws is information received from an opponent ever defined as UI?

[gnasher]

Where in the laws is information received from an opponent ever defined as UI?

 

I'm confused. Earlier, you said that "your clarifying question and the answers to this is UI to your opponents".

 

Suppose that I say to West "On your card it says that 2♦ shows the majors. Which is correct, the card or your original explanation?" How much of that is AI to West?

[pran]

I'm confused. Earlier, you said that "your clarifying question and the answers to this is UI to your opponents".

 

Suppose that I say to West "On your card it says that 2♦ shows the majors. Which is correct, the card or your original explanation?" How much of that is AI to West?

Consult Law 20F4 which is applicable on West and Law 20F5 which is applicable on East in this situation.

[gnasher]

Consult Law 20F4 which is applicable on West and Law 20F5 which is applicable on East in this situation.

 

Law 20F4 tells us that at this point West should call the director. What does that have to do with my question?

[pran]

Law 20F4 tells us that at this point West should call the director. What does that have to do with my question?

That all information arising from this sequence is UI to East. (West is awoken legally, fair enough.)

[gnasher]

That all information arising from this sequence is UI to East. (West is awoken legally, fair enough.)

 

So when you said "your clarifying question and the answers to this is UI to your opponents", you actually meant "your clarifying question is AI to West but UI to East; the answer is AI to East"?