Explanation Interruptus

[Trinidad]

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.

I am well aware that I am in your category 3.

 

But let's face what is happening here:

- The OP is annoyed by something that an opponent did at his table.

- He posts it on the forum in the hope/expectation that everybody else will find it as annoying as he did.

- Instead, pretty much everybody (I hadn't posted yet), except for PrecisionL, made it clear that they found what OP's opponent did perfectly ok and maybe even a good idea. They also give reasons why this, in general, may be a good idea.

- Now the OP gets angry and says that some of the posters call him a cheat. When a poster says that he didn't intend to call him a cheat, the OP "remains unconvinced".

 

At that point it may be a good idea for OP to take a look in the mirror. It may also be a good idea to take a look at what happened from the point of view from his opponent. And it may be a good idea to seriously consider what the responses to the OP actually mean. That can be a little confrontational.

 

I made a conscious attempt to be somewhat confrontational (imo within reason): to hold up that mirror, to make the OP look at the situation from the other side and to try to make him take another look at the responses that he got.

 

My attempt seems to have been futile. I am sorry that it didn't have the desired effect and I am happy that I do not need to make a living out of this kind of work. But my somewhat confrontational approach had a purpose. You can call me silly for trying, tell me I should have minded my own business, tell me I shouldn't have cared. In that case, sorry that I cared.

 

The famous cartoon comes to mind again.

 

Rik

[barmar]

The way I see it, what the opponent did wasn't "perfectly" OK. I think he was trying to do something reasonable, but his manner was a bit rude. Not horrible, but just not perfect. We're human, we don't always get these kinds of things right. Sometimes you think you need to be abrupt to get a point across, but the other person will take it poorly.

 

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, I think it avoids escalation of hostile feelings.

[blackshoe]

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.

 

No. You forget that I know this guy. What he sees is "You don't know what your agreement is, so whatever you're going to say, I don't want to hear it."

[blackshoe]

 

But let's face what is happening here:

- The OP is annoyed by something that an opponent did at his table.

- He posts it on the forum in the hope/expectation that everybody else will find it as annoying as he did.

- Instead, pretty much everybody (I hadn't posted yet), except for PrecisionL, made it clear that they found what OP's opponent did perfectly ok and maybe even a good idea. They also give reasons why this, in general, may be a good idea.

- Now the OP gets angry and says that some of the posters call him a cheat. When a poster says that he didn't intend to call him a cheat, the OP "remains unconvinced".

 

Thank you for explaining to me why I started this thread. I had a completely different, and apparently wrong, idea why I did so. I also completely missed that the responses were all about how what my opponent did was okay, and not at all about how what I did was not okay. Next time I want to post something, I guess I better get you to vet it.

[Trinidad]

No. You forget that I know this guy. What he sees is "You don't know what your agreement is, so whatever you're going to say, I don't want to hear it."

Of course he doesn't want to hear it. He is in the middle of an auction, asks about a bid in the first round of the auction and you are starting to tell him when you met your partner!

 

Would you want to hear it if in the middle of an auction, when you ask about a bid, he would start telling how he met his partner at the Cherry Blossom sectional in the Best Western motel in 1993 and that they started playing the convention that you are now asking about in the Summer of 1997 because they bought the book about it (Now what was the name of the author again?) in the regional at the Marriot back then and that he plans to tell you eventually what the bid actually means, if only he could remember the guy's name?

 

Something with a 'B'...

 

... Brad?

 

... Ben?

 

... Bob?

 

... Bill?

 

.Bill!!!

 

The name was Bill!!! It was Bill Flannery!!!!

 

My guess is that you prefer to hear immediately that it shows 11-15, exactly 4 spades, and exactly 5 hearts. My other guess is that your opponent preferred to hear: "We play his card, but I don't know what this means."

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

deleted

[barmar]

Of course he doesn't want to hear it. He is in the middle of an auction, asks about a bid in the first round of the auction and you are starting to tell him when you met your partner!

Come on, everyone knows that's not what was happening. He was just mentioning that this was a new partnership, presumably as an excuse for why he wasn't totally sure of the agreement. The opponent presumably didn't want to hear an explanation that he wasn't sure of, so he stopped him.

 

When I hear an opponent hemming and hawing when I ask for an explanation, I also will often stop them, perhaps asking to see their CC if I think it might answer the question. If they're not an established partnership, I don't want to hear speculation or "I'm taking it as...".

 

I wasn't there, so I can't tell the actual tone that was used -- if it was really rude, some kind of penalty might be in order. But I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with stopping an opponent from giving what sounds like it will be a speculative explanation. I can speculate myself, thank you.

[blackshoe]

I don't want to hear speculation or "I'm taking it as...".

 

And you would never hear that from me.

[mrdct]

Has anyone checked what the Laws say about this issue?

 

I'm not aware of any provisions in the Laws which allow a player to "unask" a question. Once a question is asked, Law 20F tells us that a reply should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question "about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding".

[ggwhiz]

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

 

From the original post it appears that an explanation has not been requested but is being offered and if the facts are as stated (by him), blackshoe is plain wrong. This looks more like a personality conflict than a laws question.

[blackshoe]

From the original post it appears that an explanation has not been requested but is being offered

 

Wrong. Since everyone persists in misinterpreting what I wrote, I'm locking the thread and will probably delete it. Sorry if folks feel I've wasted their time.

[bluejak]

When a poster posits a situation it is because he is interested in that situation. There will often be criticism of what happened, and I suppose any poster who mentions something that happened to him personally is in danger of being criticised for his actions and beliefs. It is often common - it has happened to me enough times - that people misunderstand the position and criticism offered may be unfair. This matters much more when a poster is being criticised.

 

I believe that some of the posts here were based on a misunderstanding of the position. Furthermore, some posts here were a bit beyond tactless. Nevertheless, the subject is interesting so I have unlocked it. But I am going to ask that any further posts should be on the generality of the situation, and not critical of any actions taken by any specific poster.

 

I also ask generally that we are very very careful about criticising a poster for his actions. OPs here are often misunderstood, and often the whole case is not explained fully or clearly. A comment about some unknown player or TD can easily be withdrawn if different facts come to life, or can be less offensive is given as "If the player did such-and-such, then he is a nerd" which matters far less than a comment about some specific person.

[WellSpyder]

In my experience, when people start an "explanation" with words about being a new partnership, or whatever, then:

 

a) they are making clear that they are not sure about the agreement

b) opponents will quite often intervene to say that in that case they do not need to hear any more

c) the unspoken subtext is that they don't see any need to embroigle their opponents into any further UI

d) this intervention is usually welcomed by the player who is unsure about their agreements

e) indeed, there is probably quite often an unspoken invitation in the original "explanation" to stop them if you don't need to hear anything more

f) given e), it would be unusual for anyone to take offence at being invited not to continue with an explanation.

 

Having said all that, I suspect the law supports the position that if a player is asked for an explanation, then he is entitled (as well as required!) to give one to the best of his ability.

[bluejak]

When a player makes an explanation, he is often trying to be helpful, and where the answer is not immediately clear to him, he will often start with some sort of disclaimer. I have certainly known opponents who ask for the explanation to be stopped at that point.

 

Is this legal? Is it rude? Is it an accusation? Is it reasonable?

 

Legal, possibly not. As one poster pointed out, there is no legal basis for stopping an explanation once asked for. But the Laws on asking questions are based on the responder knowing the answers clearly and fully. I think we need to be practical here.

 

Rude? I think people who write things in print sometimes forget that what is said is not the main basis for whether something is rude or not: how it is said is everything. So whether it is rude to my mind depends on how it is said.

 

An accusation? What of? Cheating? Certainly not. Players who understand UI are about as common as soccer commentators who understand goalkeepers' rights in the penalty area. Yes, they may think the information may be used, but that is not an accusation of cheating.

 

Reasonable? This is the main question that Ed asked. He said

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 think that (1) applies to about 5% of people and (2) to about 2% of people. How about:

 

(3) I'm trying to prevent complications from your explanation

 

Some people may think (3) is the same as (1) or (2) but I think that the real world is not like that. Most opponents are neither trying to be helpful nor accusatory: they just are avoiding a situation.

 

So in my view it is reasonable that opponents stop a part explanation when it is clear it is not going to be full and accurate. But they should try to do so tactfully! :o

[blackshoe]

Someone upthread suggested the proper way (or at least a proper way) to respond to a question about your partner's bidding when you aren't sure is "please look at the card". Is this a good approach, David?

[barmar]

And you would never hear that from me.

I was expressing a general policy, not anything specific to you.

 

When I'm playing with a pick-up partner, sometimes at the beginning of a round (especially in longer team matches) I'll inform the opponents that we're pickups, so we don't know each others' tendencies.

[ggwhiz]

When RHO passed, I started to explain that we were a new partnership, etc.

 

It seems to me that if you ask for an explanation,

 

These two statements from the OP are contradictory as to whether an explanation was requested. The stated opinions are just that, opinions and there is no reason to take therm personally. I certainly don't mean them that way.

 

I like the idea of "PLEASE see the card" if it's legal. Probably gives the minimum UI to partner that they are unlikely to be able to act on even if they are inclined to.

[Phil]

 

I like the idea of "PLEASE see the card" if it's legal. Probably gives the minimum UI to partner that they are unlikely to be able to act on even if they are inclined to.

 

I also like the idea of "partner, leave the table for a second (albeit it is more proper if the director makes this instruction)"

[pran]

Someone upthread suggested the proper way (or at least a proper way) to respond to a question about your partner's bidding when you aren't sure is "please look at the card". Is this a good approach, David?

I remember a discussion long time ago where the final (official) result was that a player may not avoid answering questions verbally by stating that (all) the requested information is available on the system card.

 

So "please look at our system card" is not full disclosure of agreements regardless how complete or detailed the system card has been filled in.

[gnasher]

I remember a discussion long time ago where the final (official) result was that a player may not avoid answering questions verbally by stating that (all) the requested information is available on the system card.

 

So "please look at our system card" is not full disclosure of agreements regardless how complete or detailed the system card has been filled in.

True, but it's certainly proper to say "I can't remember what it means, but it's on the convention card."

[blackshoe]

I also like the idea of "partner, leave the table for a second (albeit it is more proper if the director makes this instruction)"

 

I would say that it is not proper for a player to issue this instruction.

[blackshoe]

I remember a discussion long time ago where the final (official) result was that a player may not avoid answering questions verbally by stating that (all) the requested information is available on the system card.

 

So "please look at our system card" is not full disclosure of agreements regardless how complete or detailed the system card has been filled in.

 

So what should I say? I can't say "we're a new partnership", I can't say "I'm not sure", I can't say "look at the card", I can't say "I'm not sure, but..." (this one will get interrupted), I can't say "I have no clue " (which would be untrue). So what can I say?

[mjj29]

So what should I say? I can't say "we're a new partnership", I can't say "I'm not sure", I can't say "look at the card", I can't say "I'm not sure, but..." (this one will get interrupted), I can't say "I have no clue " (which would be untrue). So what can I say?

You can write -4000 down on the score card and accept the bottom you deserve for not knowing your system inside-out (-;

 

A more serious suggestion is that I think it's perfectly fine to say "I'm not 100% sure, I believe we have an agreement, but I can't remember what it is. If you like you can either check the system card or we can ask the director if he can help us out" - or something along those lines. Possible other things, depending on the circumstances, might be "We have no agreement, since we've not played together before, but we have these other, similar agreements".

 

Some people might interrupt you still, I guess your options here are to keep talking anyway, to accept them not wanting to know and if that turns out to be an issue, let the director sort it out (or, probably, to give the rest of the explanation when the auction is over and they are now less likely to stop you), or call the director over yourself to demonstrate you _do_ in fact know how to give the right explanation without speculation in these cases.

[mrdct]

My jurisdiction, Australia, has a specific regulation that deals with this situation quite nicely:

 

7.7

If you know that partner’s call is alertable but you have forgotten its meaning, you should nevertheless alert. If asked, explain that you have forgotten the meaning. The Director should be called immediately. His normal action would be to send you away from the table and have your partner explain the meaning of the call.

 

If I was the forgetful one (or hadn't committed the convention card to memory in a new partnership) I would alert in the usual way and, if asked, I would say "let me just think about this for a moment" and if the asker then sought to "unask" the question, I wouldn't proffer any additional information or advice (such as have a look at what the convention card says) but I would immediately call the TD and ask if I could speak privately with him as I would be reluctant to overtly provide UI to partner that I have forgotten the agreement. My expectation is that the TD would then send me away from the table for my partner to provide an explanation of what our "partnership agreement" is about the call in question.

 

I don't think it's legal to ask an opponent to not answer question once it has been asked, although if a situation arises where you feel that in muddy waters the opponents are likely to be giving themselves more useful information than you are likely to get, calling the TD is the best course of action and then politely ask your opponent to wait until the TD gets here before answering the question further.

 

An alternative explanation, if my brain was working fast enough to quickly realise that I hadn't read the relevant section on the convention card, would be, "we didn't specifically discuss this but I'm fairly sure we have something down on our convention card that I can't immediately recall so we should get the director ... director please!".

[bluejak]

Someone upthread suggested the proper way (or at least a proper way) to respond to a question about your partner's bidding when you aren't sure is "please look at the card". Is this a good approach, David?

I am not sure what is a good approach. Certainly some people have said so, but there is a danger of some obtuse opponents saying "If I wanted to look at the card, I would not have asked!". :(

 

I really think this is a question of attitude. The Laws do not cover what to do when you do not know the answer, and I think you have to muddle along as best you can, with the askee trying to be helpful, and the asker not being too obtuse. Nothing is perfect.

 

I also like the idea of "partner, leave the table for a second (albeit it is more proper if the director makes this instruction)"

Of course, this creates UI immediately. It may not be hte best approach. Nevertheless, it has happened in my experience without problems.

 

So what should I say? I can't say "we're a new partnership", I can't say "I'm not sure", I can't say "look at the card", I can't say "I'm not sure, but..." (this one will get interrupted), I can't say "I have no clue " (which would be untrue). So what can I say?

In my view, you can say any of these. Everything is in the attitude and approach. Certainly, sometimes anything you say will get an unfortunate response - just live with it. B-)