Suspicious explanation

[bluejak]

Improper means illegal: it is against the Laws.

 

Doing something unethical means doing something improper knowledgeably and deliberately.

[Bbradley62]

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).

Wouldn't the proper, ethical and legal thing to do be to call for the director, ask to speak with him away from the table, and explain that there is a language barrier issue which is causing confusion between "exactly two" and "at least two"? Let the director then determine the proper course of action.

[aguahombre]

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.

Yes, the Alert Chart says, "State, 'May be short'". But I don't see how people who say it slightly differently are doing so "erroneously".

 

"Could have as few as two Clubs" seems hardly erroneous; it is accurate and an attempt to eliminate possible confusion. Short could be one (zero?); why not disclose what we really mean?

[mycroft]

The correct ACBL (yeah, I know, but the question was asked specifically about it) Announcement is "could be short", no qualifiers. And that same Announcement is given for any "ostensibly natural, non-forcing, but" 1m call, no matter whether the minimum could be 2, 1, or zero cards in the suit.

 

Many people feel that the difference is important, and so always ask. Many people feel that the difference is important, so always tell, whether or not asked. The first is legal, the second isn't - but I haven't heard of a situation where anyone was upset with it (as I definitely have heard for other Announcement expansions - 2♣-2♦ "waiting", or 2♦ "Flannery" or the like).

 

I'd recommend the addition specifically to the C&C Committee to add when they're reviewing the Alert Procedure and Convention Charts (which I'm sure they're doing to bring them up to date with the 2008 Laws, and because the Alert Procedure has been toddling along with its known inconsistencies and issues for 20 years without adjustment, right?) But, you know, given the 4=4=3=2 mess we had in Toronto, I don't see anything happening until the rest of it gets cleared up (because "soon" it's going to be important to know how it "could be short").

[blackshoe]

Hm. I don't know about "upset", but... my OCD flares up when people make extra-legal announcements, including "could be as short as 2" and "could be short, non-forcing". I have to consciously suppress the urge to say something. I'm usually successful, but the urge is still there. :blink: :ph34r:

[Trinidad]

Improper means illegal: it is against the Laws.

Sure. The next time you let one fly, I will have you arrested since improper is the same as illegal.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

Wouldn't the proper, ethical and legal thing to do be to call for the director, ask to speak with him away from the table, and explain that there is a language barrier issue which is causing confusion between "exactly two" and "at least two"? Let the director then determine the proper course of action.

Of course, that would be correct in any half serious game. It just rubs me wrong when someone suggests that it is illegal(!) to ask: "Do you mean at least or exactly two?". It's the procedure that is used in clubs and friendly tournaments all over the world. It may be improper, but it is ok, whereas asking a pro question (which is what the law was written for) is not.

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

Sure. The next time you let one fly, I will have you arrested since improper is the same as illegal.

 

Rik

Air polution issues belong in the Water Cooler :rolleyes:

[blackshoe]

improper |imˈpräpər|

adjective

not in accordance with accepted rules or standards, esp. of morality or honesty : he was accused of improper behavior in his business dealings.

 

It is not illegal per se to violate accepted rules or standards of morality or honesty — or courtesy. Put another way, it is not necessarily illegal to commit an impropriety. But we're not talking about the general rules of life, we're talking about the rules of a game. What is improper according to the rules of a game is a violation of those rules, and hence illegal under them. Why else do you think the Proprieties were made part of the Laws?

[mycroft]

What is improper according to the rules of this game is a violation of those rules, and hence illegal under them. Why else do you think the Proprieties were made part of the Laws?

 

I rephrase that because there are many games (that are not bridge) where impropriety is not illegal, and the concept of "sure we're boors, but we're boors that win" is not held in the amount of disgust that is was in bridge - which prompted the move of the Proprieties (originally an Appendix) into the main body of the Laws. There are games (Illuminati comes to mind off the top) where proper behaviour is stated, and then as an optional rule "you may choose to play the Real Life option, where anything you do that doesn't get caught is fair game. If you do get caught, the only penalty is you have to rectify what you did wrong. Don't play this with people you don't know well, unless you never plan on playing with them again" (paraphrase/quote from memory)

 

Not that that in any way invalidates your response, just pointing out as a game player that it is not universal.

[blackshoe]

I don't mind people suggesting that something I said was incorrect. I do mind people editing what I said and then presenting it in such a way that someone else might think that's what I actually did say. Even when I agree, as here, that the edited statement would be more accurate. :angry: :blink: ;)

[barmar]

Such misquoting is quite improper. :)

[mycroft]

My apologies, I did not mean to offend or imply anything of the sort - and it is a valid concern.

 

FTFY ("fixed that for you") is, a common idiom online, especially to make very succinct one's point. I figured the first three words of my response ("I rephrased that") would make it clear to any potential confused.

 

However, I shall not do so with your posts in future, as they're your words, and it's your request.

[aguahombre]

My apologies, I did not mean to offend or imply anything of the sort - and it is a valid concern.

 

FTFY ("fixed that for you") is, a common idiom online, especially to make very succinct one's point. I figured the first three words of my response ("I rephrased that") would make it clear to any potential confused.

 

However, I shall not do so with your posts in future, as they're your words, and it's your request.

The 3 emoticons used by Blackshoe would lead me to believe he was not really offended and his tongue was firmly in cheek.

[blackshoe]

Agua is correct. B-) Still, I would like it clearly stated when my words are modified by someone else. I'm not sure that "I rephrased that" will do the job, given the tendency of people to skim rather than actually read posts. And that's enough beating on this horse, I think. :P

[bluejak]

Just to point out a similar case, I made some comment about the difference between an individual and an authority. It was a mild throwaway comment. Next thing I know I am being "quoted" as describing authorities as all-knowing and other things that I have never said about any authority. There is, I am afraid, a tendency on the internet to expand someone's comments into much greater views than what was said, including changing the meaning quite radically - and then attack them for it. Personally, I do find this sort of misquoting offensive.

 

Mind you, there is no need to look for the post here: this happened on RGB. :rolleyes:

[Elianna]

Honestly, I would have interpreted your question as saying "one club must have two?" which I get that you interpreted as "only two", but my initial reaction was "at least two" (as opposed to one. I could have five, because that's having two.)

 

I don't have a Hebrew keyboard, so please forgive my transliteration, but I would have asked "yacol leyot yoter m'shnei alim?"

 

I agree that it could be RHO's issue with Hebrew, but it could also be that he's very literal, and thinking that if you have five clubs, then clearly you have two, and so therefore the answer to your questions was yes.

 

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?"

[Antrax]

Thanks Elianna, that's exactly what I was wondering if he (or I) should've asked. I was worried if I ask "can she have more than two" we'd run into UI or whatnot as it now sounds like I'm trying to warn partner off a club lead, and partner didn't think to ask that himself.

[bluejak]

Let us forget the actual case for a moment, which is confusing me. Let us talk generalities.

 

If an opponent gives an explanation which you believe to be incorrect or incomplete for some reason then there are two situations:

 

• You need to be sure what he meant for yourself. In this case you should ask a further question, and partner will just have to deal with any UI for himself.
  
• You are worried that partner will misunderstand. In this case you wait for the end of the hand, and ask for an adjustment then if you feel damaged by the explanation and partner’s consequent misunderstanding.
  

[WellSpyder]

Any advice on the best thing to do if it is your partner who has given a misleading explanation but you are 100% sure that partner mis-spoke rather than misunderstood (and are also sure that this will be clear to everyone else once it is clarified)?

 

Yesterday my partner opened 1♣ (either strong 16+ or approx a weak NT), the next hand doubled and I responded 1♦. My partner alerted and was asked about my bid, and explained that it was a hand that would have responded with a negative 1♦ if RHO had passed, but not a very weak hand since that would have passed now that RHO hasn't passed. Or at least, that is what he meant to say. In fact, he said it was a hand that would have responded 5♦ over a pass, but not a very weak hand, etc. This obviously didn't make a great deal of sense, but oppo were relatively inexperienced and just looked confused. Would it be acceptable in these circumstances for me to try to suggest partner has another go at explaining what he meant (while obviously accepting the consequences if this is regarded as giving partner useful UI) or do I have to remain silent and hope the MI doesn't prove too serious?

[blackshoe]

Law 75B: The actual partnership agreement is that 2♦ is a natural signoff; the mistake was in North’s explanation. This explanation is an infraction of law, since East–West are entitled to an accurate description of the North–South agreement. When this infraction results in damage to East–West, the Director shall award an adjusted score. If North subsequently becomes aware of his mistake, he must immediately notify the director. South must do nothing to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues. After the final pass, South, if he is to be declarer or dummy, should call the Director and must volunteer a correction of the explanation. if South becomes a defender, he calls the director and corrects the explanation when play ends.

 

The emphasis is mine. Failure to do what one "must" ("must do nothing") is a serious offense.

 

As a Director, I'd be asking EW why they didn't ask follow-on questions after such an unexpected explanation.

[mjj29]

Let us forget the actual case for a moment, which is confusing me. Let us talk generalities.

 

If an opponent gives an explanation which you believe to be incorrect or incomplete for some reason then there are two situations:

 

• You need to be sure what he meant for yourself. In this case you should ask a further question, and partner will just have to deal with any UI for himself.
  
• You are worried that partner will misunderstand. In this case you wait for the end of the hand, and ask for an adjustment then if you feel damaged by the explanation and partner’s consequent misunderstanding.
  

 

Aren't these distinct from a third option: you know exactly what their agreement is, they've given a clearly insufficient explanation, so it's not an issue of 'partner might misunderstand, but they have explained it' but 'they've missed out a whole option from the bid, which partner has no idea to ask a followup question'. Can't you call attention to the irregularity at this point that they've given an insufficient explanation?

 

Or, perhaps you would cover this under "you need to be sure they've not changed their agreement" so you can ask a followup question.

[bluejak]

Aren't these distinct from a third option: you know exactly what their agreement is, they've given a clearly insufficient explanation, so it's not an issue of 'partner might misunderstand, but they have explained it' but 'they've missed out a whole option from the bid, which partner has no idea to ask a followup question'. Can't you call attention to the irregularity at this point that they've given an insufficient explanation?

 

Or, perhaps you would cover this under "you need to be sure they've not changed their agreement" so you can ask a followup question.

No, you follow the Laws. If you know what their agreement is, and you would only be asking for partner’s sake, you don't ask.

 

There will always be cases where you might feel you have a case for breaking the laws for some reason you can justify to others - you think. Better is to follow the Laws. Sure, it will cost you very occasionally, but the alternative is just not worth it. Do you really want to get a reputation for someone who understands but does not follow the Laws?

[Elianna]

Thanks Elianna, that's exactly what I was wondering if he (or I) should've asked. I was worried if I ask "can she have more than two" we'd run into UI or whatnot as it now sounds like I'm trying to warn partner off a club lead, and partner didn't think to ask that himself.

 

I think that it's perfectly valid to say "I'm sorry, I don't understand your explanation. Are you saying that she must have exactly two?"

 

Or perhaps to be short "Chayav leyot bedyuk shneyim?"

[pran]

Let us forget the actual case for a moment, which is confusing me. Let us talk generalities.

 

If an opponent gives an explanation which you believe to be incorrect or incomplete for some reason then there are two situations:

 

• You need to be sure what he meant for yourself. In this case you should ask a further question, and partner will just have to deal with any UI for himself.
  
• You are worried that partner will misunderstand. In this case you wait for the end of the hand, and ask for an adjustment then if you feel damaged by the explanation and partner’s consequent misunderstanding.
  

Let me make sure that I have understood your opinion correct:

 

Law 20G1 prohibits a player from using his rights under Law 9A1 to draw attention to an irregularity (right away) when he knows that an opponent has violated Law 40B6(a) ??

 

It is improper to ask a question solely for partner’s benefit.

Unless prohibited by Law, any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call.

When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to opponent’s enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

 

(Never mind how the player knows that Law 40B6(a) has been violated, just accept that as a fact.)