Suspicious explanation

[Antrax]

LHO deals and opens 1♣, which RHO announces as "short, two clubs". We pass throughout. Partner is on lead, and asks RHO: "Does 1♣ necessitate* two clubs?", to which RHO replies "yes". We play the hand, it turns out LHO had three clubs.

During the auction and partner's question, I've had doubts about the explanation. It sounds like a strange method and I'm not sure RHO's Hebrew is that good. So:

a) Should I / partner ask the question in various other phrasings to make sure? ("can your partner have more than two clubs?")

b) If you're a director and we call you and complain we miscounted the hand due to the wrong explanation, how do you rule?

 

* Best translation I could think of from Hebrew. Could also be "mandate" but not "require". For Hebrew speakers, the exact question was "וואן קלאב מחייב שני קלאבים?"

[Cascade]

LHO deals and opens 1♣, which RHO announces as "short, two clubs". We pass throughout. Partner is on lead, and asks RHO: "Does 1♣ necessitate* two clubs?", to which RHO replies "yes". We play the hand, it turns out LHO had three clubs.

During the auction and partner's question, I've had doubts about the explanation. It sounds like a strange method and I'm not sure RHO's Hebrew is that good. So:

a) Should I / partner ask the question in various other phrasings to make sure? ("can your partner have more than two clubs?")

b) If you're a director and we call you and complain we miscounted the hand due to the wrong explanation, how do you rule?

 

* Best translation I could think of from Hebrew. Could also be "mandate" but not "require". For Hebrew speakers, the exact question was "וואן קלאב מחייב שני קלאבים?"

 

Disclaimer:

Without know the precise alert/announcement regulations.

 

It seems likely to me that "short. two clubs" really means could be as short as two clubs not must be precisely two clubs.

 

I am not sure what is lost in translation but there seems an ambiguity in the subsequent question "Does 1♣ necessitate two clubs?" One could think that 2+ clubs necessitates two clubs but does not necessitate three or any higher number or one could think that necessitates two clubs means necessitates precisely two clubs.

[gordontd]

LHO deals and opens 1♣, which RHO announces as "short, two clubs". We pass throughout. Partner is on lead, and asks RHO: "Does 1♣ necessitate* two clubs?", to which RHO replies "yes". We play the hand, it turns out LHO had three clubs.

During the auction and partner's question, I've had doubts about the explanation. It sounds like a strange method and I'm not sure RHO's Hebrew is that good. So:

a) Should I / partner ask the question in various other phrasings to make sure? ("can your partner have more than two clubs?")

 

It seems so unlikely that they would have to have precisely two clubs in order to open 1♣ that I would not interpret it that way, and would certainly ask further questions if the difference mattered to me.

[BunnyGo]

LHO deals and opens 1♣, which RHO announces as "short, two clubs". We pass throughout. Partner is on lead, and asks RHO: "Does 1♣ necessitate* two clubs?", to which RHO replies "yes". We play the hand, it turns out LHO had three clubs.

During the auction and partner's question, I've had doubts about the explanation. It sounds like a strange method and I'm not sure RHO's Hebrew is that good. So:

a) Should I / partner ask the question in various other phrasings to make sure? ("can your partner have more than two clubs?")

b) If you're a director and we call you and complain we miscounted the hand due to the wrong explanation, how do you rule?

 

* Best translation I could think of from Hebrew. Could also be "mandate" but not "require". For Hebrew speakers, the exact question was "וואן קלאב מחייב שני קלאבים?"

 

I think that while it is possible to interpret the situation as asking if there is exactly two clubs, I think that the more reasonable (and usual) way of interpreting this is as "at least".

 

In the future, I usually ask as well "העם יכול שיש שש קלאבים, או חייב שרק שתיים" (can he have six clubs, or is it required that it's just two). Don't be afraid to ask lots of questions if you need the info (or are unsure). I know it annoys the opponents, but that's their problem as long as you are not asking just to annoy them.

 

On another note, I am very amused to see that all the hebrew except for the words "must" and "two" is just transliterated English. Even the word "one" in "one club".

[Antrax]

:) I was worried if I use something like 1♣, some smart-aleck will wonder if we have club symbols in our language :P

(as an aside, "העם" is "the people", "האם" is "does")

[the hog]

I think it is pretty obvious that the explanation means 2 or more, even without speaking Hebrew.

As for the director question, if you complained about this I would probably issue you with a procedural penalty for wasting the director's time.

[Antrax]

Huh. Now I have to wonder: let's say they play some home-brewed method where this shows exactly two clubs. Is the onus on them to make extra sure that we understand it's exactly two and not at least two?

[aguahombre]

Huh. Now I have to wonder: let's say they play some home-brewed method where this shows exactly two clubs. Is the onus on them to make extra sure that we understand it's exactly two and not at least two?

I would say, "yes"; but I worry about the Hebrew translation of onus.

[Antrax]

Concretely, when we ask the same series of questions, are they expected to add the word "exactly" somewhere in their explanations?

[gordontd]

I think it's their responsibility to ensure their explanation is intelligible, and if their agreement quite remarkable they should stress those aspects that no-one would expect.

[RMB1]

Concretely, when we ask the same series of questions, are they expected to add the word "exactly" somewhere in their explanations?

If they they play a system where 1♣ shows 2 clubs (exactly) then I do not expect them to announce "short, two clubs", I expect them to alert and explain (when asked).

 

Without knowing the announcing regulations, I expect the announcement "short, ?? clubs" to apply when 1♣ shows (natural) clubs or a balanced hand.

[gwnn]

The verb "necessitate" does not make the restriction different; what you should ask next time is "does it promise exactly two or at least two?".

[Antrax]

I didn't ask anything. I was wondering if I should have, when I suspect partner and RHO are have a disagreement about the proper use of the language.

[gwnn]

Yes, I was talking about your partner, my bad. I just wanted to say that "does it necessitate" does not add to the meaning, only if you add "exactly" do you have a more strict condition.

 

If it necessitates 2 clubs it doesn't mean it can't have three. The construction of a house will necessitate 300,000 dollars in your bank account, but it's OK if you have 500,000.

 

Of course this is a little bit of mathematical nitpicking, but in this case I happen to agree with it, it is better to ask for clarification, but not with "necessitate", but with "exactly/at least".

[helene_t]

The verb "necessitate" does not make the restriction different; what you should ask next time is "does it promise exactly two or at least two?".

No, so you have to be specific. For example, when explaining a negative double say either "exactly four spades" or "at least four spades" as appropriate. Merely saying "four spades" is not so good.

[gwnn]

No, so you have to be specific. For example, when explaining a negative double say either "exactly four spades" or "at least four spades" as appropriate. Merely saying "four spades" is not so good.

I agree. Not saying that the explanation was a good one, but the question that was supposed to clarify the bad explanation was unfortunate.

[pran]

If according to a disclosure a call shows or promises a specified number of cards in named suit (or suits) I would both as opponent at the table and as director understand that disclosure to mean "at least" the specified number of cards unless the word "exactly" (or an equivalent expression) is added to the specification.

 

The word "necessitate" does in itself still imply "at least", not "exactly".

[iviehoff]

LHO deals and opens 1♣, which RHO announces as "short, two clubs". We pass throughout. ... it turns out LHO had three clubs.

Are you also confused when someone playing 5-card majors turns out to have 6 cards in the suit?

[aguahombre]

Are you also confused when someone playing 5-card majors turns out to have 6 cards in the suit?

Amtrax wasn't the one with the confusion, and this thread is not about such a common explanation as 5cM. It is about a sloppy way of saying "could be short" and a sloppy way of asking for clarification (allowing for a treatment no one has ever heard of.....exactly two).

 

OP also wondered if this was an exception to the prohibition of asking questions for the benefit of partner, since he guessed what was happening. My guess is no; but maybe it should be, when partner already asked and there might be confusion about the answer.

[bluejak]

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.

[aguahombre]

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]

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.

 

:ph34r:

 

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]

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