Explanation Interruptus

[blackshoe]

Yesterday, playing with a new partner, on his card, provided to me at the beginning of the session, this auction ensued, with me dealing: 1NT-P-2S!-P (ask). The alert came a beat late, because I was trying to remember what, if anything, I'd seen on the card two hours before. When RHO passed, I started to explain that we were a new partnership, etc. I planned to eventually get to "look at the card", but RHO interrupted about two words in and basically told me he didn't want to hear it. I found it mildly annoying. Granted that people do interrupt explanations, when they do it seems to me they're saying "I'm trying to prevent either (1) your partnership from having a UI problem or (2) your partnership from cheating". If it's (1) I wonder why an opponent would want to be so generous. If it's (2), well, hypothetically I would tell such an opponent to kiss my butt.

 

It seems to me that if you ask for an explanation, it is at least rude, and possibly illegal, to interrupt it. If the bidder has UI (of course he does; all explanations are UI) that's his problem. If you think your opponents are cheats, call the TD (at the appropriate time). This particular opponent, though, always interrupts an explanation if he gets the slightest hint the explainer is unsure.

 

Anyway, the auction continued 3C by me, P, 3D by partner, all pass. Partner was in fact doing what I thought he was doing: 2♠ is a relay to 3♣, he might have been weak in either minor. BTW, one of the bits I would have disclosed, given the chance, is that I knew that the card said that over 2NT, 3♠ has this meaning. [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1np2s(Alerted%20a%20bit%20slowly)p(after%20pass%2C%20asked%20about%202S)3cp3dppp]133|100[/hv]

What do people think about this practice of interrupting explanations?

[CSGibson]

In general, I am ok with interrupting explanations if it is done in a way that is not overtly rude - a raised hand in the "stop" position, or an excuse me, so that you are not talking over the explanation is fine for me. I think that reading too far into the practice is not worth it.

[olegru]

From my experience people who interrupt explanations this way are usually “good guys.” They just don’t want UI to spoil the board even for their benefit.

[ggwhiz]

From my experience people who interrupt explanations this way are usually good guys. They just dont want UI to spoil the board even for their benefit.

 

I agree and have done it a few times. 1. you avoid any messy UI situations and 2. They have to navigate the rest of the auction in a cloud of doubt.

 

That can be polite, to my advantage or all of the above but polite is mandatory.

 

Is not planning to get a look at your own card illegal? I believe I'm entitled to cut that off and have you guessing.

[blackshoe]

I agree and have done it a few times. 1. you avoid any messy UI situations and 2. They have to navigate the rest of the auction in a cloud of doubt.

 

That can be polite, to my advantage or all of the above but polite is mandatory.

 

Is not planning to get a look at your own card illegal? I believe I'm entitled to cut that off and have you guessing.

 

Hard to be polite if the action itself is rude.

 

Who said anything about "planning to get a look at your own card"? I was planning to tell the opponent to look at it. Of course, I do recall an opponent (not this one) who told me once (and rather superciliously, too) "I don't look at convention cards. I ask questions."

[Siegmund]

I agree it can come across as rude... but for you to do anything other than explain your agreement is on shaky ground, and I've seen so may people go the "I'm taking it as..." route that I am on your opponent's side, almost but not quite to the point of ruling he is allowed to clamp his hand over your mouth if you don't stop the instant he interrupts you.

[mjj29]

I think many people I've seen do this are trying to stop you saying "I'm taking it as ...", when actually I'm trying to say "... but in these other similar situations we do ..." - which is both legal and required. After a couple of attempts when they don't let me say that, I usually give up

[blackshoe]

I agree it can come across as rude... but for you to do anything other than explain your agreement is on shaky ground, and I've seen so may people go the "I'm taking it as..." route that I am on your opponent's side, almost but not quite to the point of ruling he is allowed to clamp his hand over your mouth if you don't stop the instant he interrupts you.

 

I don't do "I'm taking it as", and I'm surprised that you would suggest I do. And if he clamps his hand over my mouth, he's liable to end up with an injury.

[Siegmund]

By your own admission you "planned to eventually get to 'look at the card' ", that is, you knew you had an agreement but had forgotten it, and instead of promptly directing your opponent to the place where he could find an explanation of the agreement, you launched into a song-and-dance about "explaining that we were a new partnership, etc." Your opponent didn't ask if you were a new partnership, he asked what the agreement was.

 

I am not suggesting you were planning to do an "I'm taking it as." I am finding you guilty of deliberately postponing answering a question by trying to give an irrelevant speech. If your opponent was damaged by failing to receive the information written on your partner's convention card, I would have no reservations about giving an adjustment in your opps' favor, despite the fact he interrupted the irrelevant speech as soon you gave him the (incorrect) impression that you weren't going to cough up an answer to the question he asked.

[ggwhiz]

Who said anything about "planning to get a look at your own card"?

 

After a re-read of the op I do apologize but do stand by the fact that preventing such a thing is in my interests and fair play as well with no restrictions on the rest of the auction.

 

I'm assuming unkown opponents who I have no reason to trust and accentuate that it should be done politely. If that wasn't the case it would annoy me too.

[PrecisionL]

I get this similar response from opponent's if I don't respond immediately. I play three complicated systems with 3 different partners and each one is somewhat different from the others.

 

I assume that they are assuming that I don't know the answer and am about to tell the table that I don't know. Rarely is that the case in my established partnerships. Since most agreements are on the CC, I offer that to them if they don't like my delay before answering. In some cases they ask after the alert and before I can decipher the meaning (often step replies).

 

In our pre-alert, we tell the opponent's that we will explain complicated auctions before the opening lead hoping to minimize the questions. Some opponent's don't care, some don't ask, and some ask about everything. I wish ACBL or the Laws would work on improving this situation.

[blackshoe]

By your own admission you "planned to eventually get to 'look at the card' ", that is, you knew you had an agreement but had forgotten it, and instead of promptly directing your opponent to the place where he could find an explanation of the agreement, you launched into a song-and-dance about "explaining that we were a new partnership, etc." Your opponent didn't ask if you were a new partnership, he asked what the agreement was.

 

I am not suggesting you were planning to do an "I'm taking it as." I am finding you guilty of deliberately postponing answering a question by trying to give an irrelevant speech. If your opponent was damaged by failing to receive the information written on your partner's convention card, I would have no reservations about giving an adjustment in your opps' favor, despite the fact he interrupted the irrelevant speech as soon you gave him the (incorrect) impression that you weren't going to cough up an answer to the question he asked.

 

Oh, boy. I did not know I had an agreement I had forgotten. I knew my partner had written "3♠: either minor" under 2NT openings. I had no idea what, if anything, he had written under 2♠ in response to 1NT. I tried to explain what I knew, but I didn't get two words out before I was cut off. And now you want to accuse me of cheating? Sorry, no, not in a million years.

[blackshoe]

I'm assuming unkown opponents who I have no reason to trust and accentuate that it should be done politely. If that wasn't the case it would annoy me too.

 

It was not the case. This was a local club game. This person and I have played against each other many times.

 

With him, I'm annoyed. With some of the posters in this thread I'm beginning to get really, really angry.

[Siegmund]

I had no idea what, if anything, he had written under 2♠ in response to 1NT.

 

From the OP, I got the impression that, if you alerted and were planning to tell your opponent to look at the card, you expected the agreement to appear there. (Perhaps the agreement was "OK, everything on this cc looks good" and you couldn't remember what was there. I think that constitutes having an agreement, if one appears on the card, even if you can't remember it or forgot to even look at one line of it.)

 

If in fact you had not made an agreement of the everything-on-this-card or everything-on-the-yellow-card or everything-we-play-with-partner-X nature, and had no agreement about the call, a "no agreement, but these are possibly-relevant other facts" type of speech is appropriate, and I can understand your side of it better.

 

I remain sympathetic to your opponent's desire to stop your speech, and think that, when an opponent does so, your obligation is to stop it at once (if you feel you have an obligation to share something more, excuse yourself and say you need to speak to the director, perhaps.) The fine points of the law are debatable - it's the old "giving UI isn't an irregularity, only using it is" argument.

 

And no, I'm not calling you a cheat. But as you know, in "could have known"-type cases, we give people the same score we would give a cheater without calling them cheats. And they hate it.

Stepping back from the particulars of your case, if there is an agreement, I do feel that a fuzzy start of an explanation that causes one's opponent to cut one off in fear of a "taking it as" is a clear situation where one could have known that one's manner of explaining might mislead and damage the opponent.

[blackshoe]

In the unfortunate event that I should ever be playing against you, I shall have to remember, before giving any explanation, to pause, take a deep breath, and be damned sure I know exactly what I'm going to say before I open my mouth.

 

The fine points of the law are debatable - it's the old "giving UI isn't an irregularity, only using it is" argument.

 

There is no debate about what you've put in quotes. Giving UI is only an irregularity if you're deliberately cheating.

 

And no, I'm not calling you a cheat.

 

I remain unconvinced.

[Trinidad]

I find it hard to believe that anyone would be able to interrupt you if you would have started by answering his question: "I don't know, but it's on the card." After that you could have apologized and say that this is a new partner.

 

But you started by explaining that this is a new partner. I am sorry, but that is pretty silly if, as you say, your opponent has played many times against you. He will already know that.

 

The way others see your behavior is that you first come up with the excuses for not doing what you are supposed to do. That gives little hope that you will do what you were supposed to do. Even if you were going to explain clearly what you knew after the apology, this simply is the wrong order of doing things. There is a reason why disclaimers always come at the end and not at the beginning: First you do what you are supposed to, then you clarify or apologize for your shortcomings.

 

You may be annoyed and even get angry, but the fact is that he asked you a question and you didn't answer it (and "I don't know" is also a correct answer). I find that annoying, I find it rude and it would make me angry if I would be the kind of person who let's himself get angry easily.

 

Peace dude,

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

I find it hard to believe that anyone would be able to interrupt you if you would have started by answering his question: "I don't know, but it's on the card." After that you could have apologized and say that this is a new partner.

 

But you started by explaining that this is a new partner. I am sorry, but that is pretty silly if, as you say, your opponent has played many times against you. He will already know that.

 

The way others see your behavior is that you first come up with the excuses for not doing what you are supposed to do. That gives little hope that you will do what you were supposed to do. Even if you were going to explain clearly what you knew after the apology, this simply is the wrong order of doing things. There is a reason why disclaimers always come at the end and not at the beginning: First you do what you are supposed to, then you clarify or apologize for your shortcomings.

 

You may be annoyed and even get angry, but the fact is that he asked you a question and you didn't answer it (and "I don't know" is also a correct answer). I find that annoying, I find it rude and it would make me angry if I would be the kind of person who let's himself get angry easily.

 

Peace dude,

 

Rik

 

The fact is I wasn't allowed to answer the question. You can say whatever you like, but that's the reality.

 

The way others see your behavior is that you first come up with the excuses for not doing what you are supposed to do.

 

Sorry, but this is bullshit. I wasn't making excuses, I was trying to explain the situation.

 

I still don't have a substantive answer to the question I asked in the OP, but I suppose it's more interesting to discuss my shortcomings. Fine, enjoy yourselves. I'm done.

[gwnn]

I don't do "I'm taking it as", and I'm surprised that you would suggest I do. And if he clamps his hand over my mouth, he's liable to end up with an injury.

He suggested nothing of the kind. The point is that often people in general, not you necessarily, say 'I'm taking it as.' I am sure you never do it, but how would a complete stranger know that, or someone who hasn't read a your posts to this effect? Suppose your RHO has had this happened to him three times in a row (the last three times someone started an explanation by 'this is a new partnership..' eventually they said I'm taking it as...), should he always go on presuming the next guy is a good guy?

 

Anyway, when I see my opponent doesn't know, I usually interrupt them with a 'that's OK' and a sympathetic smile. They are usually thankful.

[gnasher]

What do people think about this practice of interrupting explanations?

It's bad manners to interrupt someone, and bad manners to ask a question then not listen to the answer. How bad it is varies according to the place, the people, and the relevance of what you're interrupting.

 

Sometimes the demands of good manners are outweighed by other considerations. In a situation where time has value, as in a bridge tournament, I can understand someone interrupting a response which is both lengthy and irrelevant. I'm not, of course, saying that your response fell into this category.

 

Granted that people do interrupt explanations, when they do it seems to me they're saying "I'm trying to prevent either (1) your partnership from having a UI problem or (2) your partnership from cheating". If it's (1) I wonder why an opponent would want to be so generous. If it's (2), well, hypothetically I would tell such an opponent to kiss my butt.

I can also understand interrupting an explanation for reason (1). Other things being equal, of course one should try to avoid giving the opponents a UI problem. We play bridge for enjoyment. Winning by playing better than your opponents is more enjoyable than winning because they had a UI problem. Losing because you had a UI problem isn't much fun either.

 

I ask a lot of questions at the table, often in situations where I have no immediate need to know. If, in the course of the answer, it becomes clear that they don't have an agreement, I sometimes interrupt in order to limit the opponents' UI problems. I'm surprised that you find such an attitude unusual.

 

Some people may interrupt for reason (2). That may be because they don't understand the UI rules, or because their default position is not to trust their opponents, or because they themselves would use the UI in such a situation and it doesn't occur to them that you might not. Regardless, it says more about them than it does about you.

Edited March 10, 2012 by gnasher

[gnasher]

I get this similar response from opponent's if I don't respond immediately. I play three complicated systems with 3 different partners and each one is somewhat different from the others.

 

I assume that they are assuming that I don't know the answer and am about to tell the table that I don't know. Rarely is that the case in my established partnerships. Since most agreements are on the CC, I offer that to them if they don't like my delay before answering. In some cases they ask after the alert and before I can decipher the meaning (often step replies).

 

In our pre-alert, we tell the opponent's that we will explain complicated auctions before the opening lead hoping to minimize the questions. Some opponent's don't care, some don't ask, and some ask about everything. I wish ACBL or the Laws would work on improving this situation.

What change would you wish to see? At present the laws and regulations allow the opponents to ask when they want to know, and require you to answer them. I can't think of any practicable change that would be an improvement.

 

I play a complicated system too, and sometimes I have to think about what partner's bid means before answering a question. When that happens, I tell them that I'll need to think about it, then I think, then I answer. Sometimes they withdraw the question, so I don't answer. Usually everyone seems happy with that procedure.

[Trinidad]

I still don't have a substantive answer to the question I asked in the OP, but I suppose it's more interesting to discuss my shortcomings. Fine, enjoy yourselves. I'm done.

You are right that you didn't get an answer to your question.

What do people think about this practice of interrupting explanations?

I have never witnessed a real interruption of an explanation:

 

"He is showing a h..."

- "Thank you."

"?!?"

- "No, thank you."

"Whatever"

 

I have never seen this. I think it would be strange, and I could imagine that it would annoy me. I can only imagine something like this happening when the opponent right at that moment happens to see on the card what the bid means. (And in that case it would not annoy me, I would think it would be funny.)

 

What I have seen is:

"It's Multi. He has either a weak..."

- "Ok, thank you."

 

This is fine with me. It is meant to save time because the asker understands what Multi is. I can see that some people don't like this, but I can't see anybody having a serious problem with this.

 

But from your description it seems that none of this happened in your case. Your case seems to have gone something like:

 

"Well err.. we are a new partnersh..."

- "It's fine, I don't want to hear it."

 

If that is the case, than I really don't see anybody interrupting an explanation. You didn't give any explanation. You didn't even start to give an explanation. And it seemed that you were not going to give an explanation in the future. While your opponent couldn't be 100% sure about this, we actually know that you were not going to give an explanation ("I planned to eventually get to 'look at the card' "). And if you are not giving an explanation then it can't be interrupted.

 

So, it seems that your opponent interrupted you because you didn't give an explanation. The question:

 

What do people think about this practice of interrupting non-explanations?

 

has been answered. The consensus seems to be: That's fine, as long as it's done in a polite way.

 

But that is indeed an entirely different question from the one you asked. I have tried to answer your question in this post.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

I ask a lot of questions at the table, often in situations where I have no immediate need to know. If, in the course of the answer, it becomes clear that they don't have an agreement, I sometimes interrupt in order to limit the opponents' UI problems. I'm surprised that you find such an attitude unusual.

 

Thanks, Andy, for your reply. Actually, I don't find it unusual. In fact, part of the problem is probably my lifelong experience with people interrupting me. It happened so often when I was young that I suppose I concluded that everybody thought anything I had to say was considerably less important than what they had to say, and so it's become a pet peeve, of sorts. At the table the other day, my opponent's brusque manner, as much as his interruption, triggered my annoyance. I got to thinking about it, and I wondered how others felt. I suppose there was an element of "if you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask", too.

[Trinidad]

Thanks, Andy, for your reply. Actually, I don't find it unusual. In fact, part of the problem is probably my lifelong experience with people interrupting me. It happened so often when I was young that I suppose I concluded that everybody thought anything I had to say was considerably less important than what they had to say, and so it's become a pet peeve, of sorts. At the table the other day, my opponent's brusque manner, as much as his interruption, triggered my annoyance. I got to thinking about it, and I wondered how others felt. I suppose there was an element of "if you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask", too.

Of course, your opponent's brusque manner is impolite. Since it was so brusque that it annoyed you it was a breach of the conduct laws.

 

But there is nothing wrong with the interruption itself. You see an element of "if you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask". Your opponent sees: "If you are not willing to answer my question don't bother trying to answer another instead." I think you not answering his question and instead answering another may have annoyed him just as much as he annoyed you.

 

Part of the reason for the irritations is that people are different. People have different time constants. Some are annoyed by brusque interruptions, others think they are fine. But these others are annoyed by wolly explanations why they are not going to get an answer to their question, even before they get to hear that they won't get an answer to their question. The first category, then again, might find this wolly way more polite than the simple "We play his card. I am trying to remember what it said.".

 

Rik

[lalldonn]

I have never witnessed a real interruption of an explanation:

 

"He is showing a h..."

- "Thank you."

"?!?"

- "No, thank you."

"Whatever"

 

I have never seen this. I think it would be strange, and I could imagine that it would annoy me. I can only imagine something like this happening when the opponent right at that moment happens to see on the card what the bid means. (And in that case it would not annoy me, I would think it would be funny.)

 

What I have seen is:

"It's Multi. He has either a weak..."

- "Ok, thank you."

 

This is fine with me. It is meant to save time because the asker understands what Multi is. I can see that some people don't like this, but I can't see anybody having a serious problem with this.

 

But from your description it seems that none of this happened in your case. Your case seems to have gone something like:

 

"Well err.. we are a new partnersh..."

- "It's fine, I don't want to hear it."

 

If that is the case, than I really don't see anybody interrupting an explanation. You didn't give any explanation. You didn't even start to give an explanation. And it seemed that you were not going to give an explanation in the future. While your opponent couldn't be 100% sure about this, we actually know that you were not going to give an explanation ("I planned to eventually get to 'look at the card' "). And if you are not giving an explanation then it can't be interrupted.

 

So, it seems that your opponent interrupted you because you didn't give an explanation. The question:

 

What do people think about this practice of interrupting non-explanations?

 

has been answered. The consensus seems to be: That's fine, as long as it's done in a polite way.

 

But that is indeed an entirely different question from the one you asked. I have tried to answer your question in this post.

 

Rik

+1

[aguahombre]

The bottom line is:

 

There are ways:

 

(1) to delay an explanation while gathering one's thoughts or proper wording, without appearing to be doubtful.

(2)to stop an answer to a question without appearing rude.

(3)to post a reply to the OP which shouldn't be taken as confrontational.

(4)to read such replies a second or third time before jumping into emotional mode.

 

We all fail to accomplish one or more of the four above, from time to time.