What a mess....

[Finch]

The auction (alerts are starred, explanations later) is

 

[hv=d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1c2s3dp3hp3nppp]133|100[/hv]

 

1♣ = could be 2, 5-card majors/4-card diamond suit

2♠ = alerted, North [EDITED FOR TYPO} asks and is told it shows 5+ spades and 4+ diamonds

 

Before the opening lead, North says that 3D should have been alerted. South says why, and North says because it is a cue bid, showing a game forcing hand with hearts. South looks confused and it now transpires that South heard the explanation of 2S as '5+ spades and 4+hearts' not '5+spades and 4+diamonds'.

 

From North's perspective the auction meant:

3D = FG with hearts

3H= nothing special to say, but at least heart tolerance

3NT = choice of games

 

From South's perspective the auction means

3D = Diamonds;

3H = showing a heart stop

3NT = to play

 

The TD is called before dummy hits, and North says it sounds like they've missed their heart fit.

West says his explanation was clear, he can't help the fact that South mis-heard.

South says it's West's responsibility to make sure the opponents understand their methods.

[There is no dispute that it showed spades & diamonds and that is what the overcaller had]

The TD asks North what he heard, and North says he heard spades & diamonds but West was turned to look at him and West wasn't speaking that loudly (correctly, as all the tables were playing the same boards)

 

So: Has there been misinformation? Suppose they were making 4H and go off in 3NT, how to do you rule?

Edited June 18, 2012 by FrancesHinden

[Mbodell]

I'd rule no MI. If the player explained it correctly, one opponent heard it correctly, then I'd say it is on the opponent who misheard it to ask for a repeat if they weren't sure.

[aguahombre]

I'd rule no MI. If the player explained it correctly, one opponent heard it correctly, then I'd say it is on the opponent who misheard it to ask for a repeat if they weren't sure.

South did not say he was unsure. South thought he heard that the bid showed Spades and Hearts. How can the person who mishears something know he has misheard something? It would be more likely, IMO, for South to question what he heard if he thought North had bid one of the opponents' suits.

 

Yes, it is a mess. And I always appreciate thoughtful opponents who look both of us in the eye while disclosing. Unfortunately, there is nothing I can find written which requires thoughtfulness rather than going through the motions.

[blackshoe]

OB5B7: It is the responsibility of the alerting player to ensure that both of his opponents are aware of the alert.

Law 21A: No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding.

I can find nothing in law or regulation that explicitly requires a player to ensure both his opponents have correctly understood his explanation.

 

Clearly both opponents were aware of the alert, so the letter of the regulation has been fulfilled. Still, I want to rule MI here. I don't see how I can.

 

If I were East, I would be extremely unhappy to have caused this problem. I would resolve, when I must keep my voice down while explaining, to make absolutely sure that both players have heard and correctly understood my explanation, even if there is technically no explicit requirement to do so. If I were South, I would resolve to ask any opponent who has given an explanation while facing my partner to repeat his explanation while facing me, even if I think I heard it correctly. Unfortunately, neither of those things will solve this problem. I think we have to rule "rub of the green, carry on". :(

[c_corgi]

I don't see how looking South in the eye will help: South will look as though he understands and West will assume he does. If South didn't understand he will ask whether or not he is looked in the eye.

 

Why was West giving the explanation rather than East?

 

It sounds like the only MI was South's failure to alert 3D, although it sounds harsh and hopefully there was no resulting damage in the auction.

 

Edit: It seems odd that South asked the question and that the reply was directed to North. Also odd that North hadn't already asked.

[aguahombre]

When someone is looking at me, I am smart enough to recognize "diamonds" (a two-syllable word) from "hearts" (one syllable). But in case that isn't a clue, the person's mouth will move in a different manner depending on which word he is saying. That is how looking someone in the eye might help, Corgi.

[Bbradley62]

If I were East, I would be extremely unhappy to have caused this problem.

I don't see why East should think this is his (or his partner's) fault. South should pay more attention.

[blackshoe]

"If I were East", I said. If you were East, you'd apparently blame South. But I see no evidence that South was paying insufficient attention.

[Finch]

When someone is looking at me, I am smart enough to recognize "diamonds" (a two-syllable word) from "hearts" (one syllable). But in case that isn't a clue, the person's mouth will move in a different manner depending on which word he is saying. That is how looking someone in the eye might help, Corgi.

 

It's hard to look at both opponents at the same time.

[aguahombre]

It's hard to look at both opponents at the same time.

I find it awkward to turn toward one opponent and away from the other, rather than facing relatively straight and moving the eyes. It is a matter of what the goal is...to answer a question one-on-one or to inform the opposing pair.

[AlexJonson]

Strikes me it would be absurd to rule that a player who explains their bid succinctly and accurately has provided MI. Edited June 18, 2012 by AlexJonson

[Lanor Fow]

Did east get asked if he heard the description?

[iviehoff]

South says it's West's responsibility to make sure the opponents understand their methods.

So what is West supposed to do, ask both his opponents to repeat the explanation back to him?

 

I would note that at North's turn to call only North is entitled to ask for explanations of the opponents' methods, and is explicitly barred from asking questions on behalf of his partner. I would therefore tend to the view that given North correctly heard an answer to a question North asked, then if South misheard it, that is South's problem. If the explainer was looking at North and speaking quietly and it matters to South, South can surely identify that it was difficult to hear and he might have misheard; he has the right to ask at his own turn.

 

People sometimes hear what they were expecting to hear. In such a case, I would put the responsibility for the misunderstanding on the hearer rather the speaker. It is impossible to know if that is what actually happened, but we can rule on the balance of probabilities.

[billw55]

"If I were East", I said. If you were East, you'd apparently blame South. But I see no evidence that South was paying insufficient attention.

I do. He heard "hearts" when clearly "diamonds" was spoken.

[barmar]

I don't see how an explainer can be expected to ensure that the opponents understood him, absent revealing questions. Alerts tend to be more fleeting, and some people have a tendency to mumble them and/or fail to use the alert strip/card, which is why NBOs have regulations like OB5B7 (there's a similar requirement in the ACBL Alert Procedures). It's also generally possible to tell if someone has not noticed something, but only a mind reader can tell if they've heard words correctly.

[bluejak]

I don't believe we can answer this on a forum. You had to be there. It is a matter for the TD to determine whether the explanation was made clearly enough that one opponent was at fault for being misled, or whether the explanation was unclear enough that the player making it has not explained it adequately.

[barmar]

I think you'd have to have a speech impediment for "diamonds" to sound like "hearts". If one opponent heard it correctly, it seems more likely that South heard what he was expecting to hear (is 2♠ = 5♠+4♥ a common convention in this area?).

 

And since the TD wasn't at the table at the time of the explanation, he's not going to be able to rule any more objectively than we can here.

[Finch]

I think you'd have to have a speech impediment for "diamonds" to sound like "hearts". If one opponent heard it correctly, it seems more likely that South heard what he was expecting to hear (is 2♠ = 5♠+4♥ a common convention in this area?).

 

And since the TD wasn't at the table at the time of the explanation, he's not going to be able to rule any more objectively than we can here.

 

Playing 2S as anything other than simply spades is very uncommon; by far the most common reason for an alert is someone who thinks weak jumps are alertable (they aren't).

I don't know why South heard 'spades and hearts' but he's certain he did.

 

And yes, the TD has exactly that problem - he wasn't at the table and he knows about as much as everyone on the forum. If he asked West to repeat what he said in exactly the same manner, I think he'd hear someone say spades & diamonds but not particularly loudly and with a fair amount of ambient noise.

 

Actually I think this ruling is insoluble, whether or not you were there.

You can't automatically rule against the EW pair or NS have carte blanche to claim anything they want when they get a good result.

But I do think it is EW's responsibility to ensure that their explanation is given clearly.

 

p.s. FWIW the TD wasn't asked to rule; 3NT made while 4H was, somewhat unluckily, going off on a cross-ruff.

p.p.s EW might have called back the TD and said that the 3NT bid was influenced by the UI from the lack of alert of 3D and 4H was a LA. If they'd done that, North would have said that there was no UI when partner didn't alert a cue bid of the opponents' suit, other than he was asleep, because it obviously wasn't natural whatever it meant.

[Cyberyeti]

We actually had something vaguely similar to this where an Icelandic gentleman with a heavy accent pre bidding boxes mumbled a strong club into his beard, and partner heard it as a spade. Hence when I spouted some random 2 suited bid over this partner treated it as natural and stuff went downhill from there.

 

The ruling was that if one member of the partnership heard it correctly, that's what was said, hence no recompense.

[blackshoe]

I do. He heard "hearts" when clearly "diamonds" was spoken.

But was "diamonds" spoken clearly?

 

There's more than one possible explanation for the problem.

[billw55]

But was "diamonds" spoken clearly?

 

There's more than one possible explanation for the problem.

There may be. I might even say that there usually is.

 

In this case, I have a hard time seeing how even a slurred or mumbled "diamonds" can sound like a clear and distinct "hearts" - which is what south claimed to have heard. Perhaps "hearts" was spoken at a nearby table and drifted into south's hearing? We can't know of course, but the mutual consistency of (1) the actual agreement, (2) west's actual hand, and (3) what north heard, convinces me that east did in fact say "diamonds". Or are we to believe that "hearts" was spoken in error, and north happened to mishear in such way as to match the actual agreement? I don't find that credible.

 

I remember once I failed to hear an opponent's alert, which resulted in me taking a different action than I would have had I heard it. After finding out, I mentioned to the op, "an alert would have helped." She said she did alert, and my partner promptly confirmed that she heard it. I quickly concluded that I had just missed it of my own accord, and made no further complaint. Here too, perhaps south should just accept that he heard incorrectly.

[blackshoe]

Oh, I'm quite willing to believe that East said "diamonds". What I'm not willing to insist on is that South heard something different because he wasn't paying attention. South is the injured party here, and I think a thorough investigation is needed before one rules that the injury does not rate rectification.

 

It may be true that South, having been told that East did indeed say "diamonds", ought to just accept that he heard incorrectly, but sometimes people don't do that, and the director gets involved, and the director has to deal with what is, not what ought to be.

[barmar]

Yes, the TD has to deal with it. But it sounds like the preponderance of the evidence supports that the explanation was given correctly and understandably. As I said above, it's reasonable to require players to ensure that an alert was noticed, and we can even require that they make a good faith to speak clearly when explaining (if you have food in your mouth, make some gesture to stop the auction while you finish chewing and then explain). But it's NOT reasonable to require them to ensure that the explanation was understood, there's no way for them to do this without overly burdening everyone.

[Trinidad]

South is the injured party here, and I think a thorough investigation is needed before one rules that the injury does not rate rectification.

There is no doubt that South is the injured party. This is irrelevant to the discussion. Injuries do not lead to rectification, infractions do.

 

The question is "Who is liable for South's injury?".

The facts:

- North asked a question.

- It was answered correctly.

 

Conclusion: No infraction.

 

If South wanted to ask a question, he could have done so. South thought 2♠ meant spades + hearts, because he misheard. That is tough luck, as that injured South. But there cannot be doubt that South is liable for his own injury and not EW.

 

Of course, you don't have any reason to state the issue this sharp to South. He deserves our sympathy for his hard luck and will get it... but not in the form of a rectification.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

But it's NOT reasonable to require them to ensure that the explanation was understood, there's no way for them to do this without overly burdening everyone.

It's certainly more care than is currently taken, but I think your last clause is an overbid - it's an additional "burden" sure, but is it really that great a one?

 

There is no doubt that South is the injured party. This is irrelevant to the discussion. Injuries do not lead to rectification, infractions do.

 

The question is "Who is liable for South's injury?".

The facts:

- North asked a question.

- It was answered correctly.

 

Conclusion: No infraction.

 

If South wanted to ask a question, he could have done so. South thought 2♠ meant spades + hearts, because he misheard. That is tough luck, as that injured South. But there cannot be doubt that South is liable for his own injury and not EW.

 

Of course, you don't have any reason to state the issue this sharp to South. He deserves our sympathy for his hard luck and will get it... but not in the form of a rectification.

I agree there was no infraction. However, while South could have asked a question at his turn if he wanted to, why should he want to, when he thinks he already heard the answer? My point here is that "he could have asked if he'd wanted to" is a spurious argument. It's not relevant to your point — with which I agree, btw. But I don't have to like it.