Self-Awareness

[blackshoe]

yeah, there seems to be something weird going on with the forums today.

[blackshoe]

I disagree with your interpretation of Law 20F5. I think focusing on the word 'here' as an excuse for your interpretation is - what's the word you guys use? - oh, yeah. "Daft".

[lamford]

I disagree with your interpretation of Law 20F5. I think focusing on the word 'here' as an excuse for your interpretation is - what's the word you guys use? - oh, yeah. "Daft".

Then why was it included, other than to indicate "in this place only"? If there were a clause which said that "TDs here include scorers, caddies and administrators" then it would be daft to think that these were surrogate TDs in all cases. But I know what the intention of the Law is, and I guess that there are so many errors we just have to interpret them all as they should read.

 

But more importantly, failing to call the director is normally rectified by not giving redress. Often I say after the auction something like "partner should have alerted 2D, which was fourth-suit, game forcing". The opponents then decide whether they want the director, and this is accepted practice in pretty much every event I have ever played in.

 

In this example, South volunteered a correction, and East should have called the director if he wanted to change his Pass. If he didn't, calling the director would have been "wasting police time".

[blackshoe]

But more importantly, failing to call the director is normally rectified by not giving redress. Often I say after the auction something like "partner should have alerted 2D, which was fourth-suit, game forcing". The opponents then decide whether they want the director, and this is accepted practice in pretty much every event I have ever played in.

So we do what the law says, except when enough of us don't feel like it? I'll use the word again - that's daft.

 

David has frequently remonstrated me about "accepted practice", and I suppose I go along with it where the law is unclear, but where "accepted practice" is clearly outside the law, as here, I don't. Certainly not where the offending side has failed to do what it "must" do, the non-offending side has failed to do what it "should" do, and "accepted practice" is to hammer the non-offending side.

 

As for "wasting police time", the "police" have no such complaint when the law requires that they be called.

[Trinidad]

The relevant Law states:

5. (a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any

manner that a mistake has been made. ‘Mistaken explanation’ here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an

alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require.

 

(b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75)

but only at his first legal opportunity, which is:

(i) for a defender, at the end of the play.

(ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction.

 

So, the requirement for declarer to call the director only applies when his partner's explanation was erroneous. No explanation was given.

Where there is a failure to alert, that is indeed a mistaken explanation for the purpose of 20F5(a) but it says "here", and does not say "here and in 20F(b)". That is wrong; even leaving out the "here" would be fine! As written, the declarer only has an obligation to correct an erroneous explanation, and I would not punish a declarer who read this Law as written. Law 75 only gives by way of example mistaken explanation, so that does not correct the wrong wording.

The word "here" specifies a location, not the size of the location. If I say that I am "here", I could mean "on this chair", "in the living room", "in my house", "in the street/city/region/province/continent/planet/galaxy".

 

You interpret "here" to mean "in 20F5a". There is no basis for that interpretation. You could interpret "here" as in:

1. 
    
   
2. the word "here" only
   
3. the sentence containing the word "here"
   
4. Law 20F5a
   
5. Law 20F5
   
6. Law 20F
   
7. All laws governing misinformation
   
8. All laws
   
9. The entire lawbook
   
10. The entire lawbook and all regulations
    
11. All bridge terminology
    
12. The English language
    

 

The last two are a bit difficult, since the WBFLC has no jurisdiction there, but perhaps the WBFLC wants to have jurisdiction there. (It wouldn't be the first time that someone tries to regulatte something that he doesn't have jurisdiction over.)

 

But, in short, there is no reason why your interpretation (number 3, in blue) would be the correct one. In theory, all 11 (or more) would be possible. The way to deal with this is to think: "what could have been intended?" As you say yourself, the WBFLC probably intended some number >3. Then by all means interpret it as intended.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

But more importantly, failing to call the director is normally rectified by not giving redress.

 

Not where I live.

 

While it is true that there won't be any redress if the TD is not called at all (how can a TD rectify anything if he is not aware that something might need to be rectified?), if the TD is called late we try to fix the problem as good as possible. I can imagine situations where there is no redress for the NOS when there would have been redress if they would have called the TD immediately, but I would not call that "normal".

 

The "rectification" for calling the TD late is "normally" having to listen to a grumpy TD.

 

Rik

[c_corgi]

...

So, the requirement for declarer to call the director only applies when his partner's explanation was erroneous. No explanation was given.

Where there is a failure to alert, that is indeed a mistaken explanation for the purpose of 20F5(a) but it says "here", and does not say "here and in 20F(b)". That is wrong; even leaving out the "here" would be fine! As written, the declarer only has an obligation to correct an erroneous explanation, and I would not punish a declarer who read this Law as written. Law 75 only gives by way of example mistaken explanation, so that does not correct the wrong wording.

 

20F5b is simply what is supposed to happen after 205Fa has (hopefully) been executed. It is the next step in the same situation, which is identified in 20F5a. If you are feeling bloody-minded you can interpret 20F5b to be dictating the form of words used, i.e. that the player must explain that "partner's explanation was erroneous" rather than the more specific "partner failed to alert", even if the latter was what strictly happened; it doesn't remove the obligation to call the director after a failure to alert.

 

...

But more importantly, failing to call the director is normally rectified by not giving redress. Often I say after the auction something like "partner should have alerted 2D, which was fourth-suit, game forcing". The opponents then decide whether they want the director, and this is accepted practice in pretty much every event I have ever played in.

...

 

I agree that in practice the director sometimes might not be called, but when this happens IMO the onus is on the offending side to be sure that the NOS are aware of the implications (including L11) and an inexperienced NOS may still be entitled to rectification.

[pran]

The relevant Law states:

5. (a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any

manner that a mistake has been made. Mistaken explanation here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an

alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require.

 

(b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partners explanation was erroneous (see Law 75)

but only at his first legal opportunity, which is:

(i) for a defender, at the end of the play.

(ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction.

 

So, the requirement for declarer to call the director only applies when his partner's explanation was erroneous. No explanation was given.

Where there is a failure to alert, that is indeed a mistaken explanation for the purpose of 20F5(a) but it says "here", and does not say "here and in 20F(b)". That is wrong; even leaving out the "here" would be fine! As written, the declarer only has an obligation to correct an erroneous explanation, and I would not punish a declarer who read this Law as written. Law 75 only gives by way of example mistaken explanation, so that does not correct the wrong wording.

 

I am stunned by this and some of the following comments.

 

The word "here" (put in red by me) simply makes the quoted words "'Mistaken explanation'" (also put in red by me) explicitly referring back to the words "Mistaken explanation" in the previous line. (Put in blue by me).

 

Nobody should need a PhD to understand that?

 

And as c_corgi wrote: 20F5b is simply what is supposed to happen after 205Fa has (hopefully) been executed.

[lamford]

The word "here" (put in red by me) simply makes the quoted words "'Mistaken explanation'" (also put in red by me) explicitly referring back to the words "Mistaken explanation" in the previous line. (Put in blue by me).

I agree entirely. Therefore all we know is that a player may not correct a failure to alert during the auction. It is left understood that he must correct it at the end of the auction.

 

The following clause indicates when he must call the director. It makes not mention of when there has been a failure to alert. Therefore, when there is a failure to alert, he must not correct it during the auction, but must correct it afterwards. However, there is no obligation to call the director unless there has been an incorrect explanation.

 

I am surprised that so many people are trying to defend the indefensible. It is just another example of an error in the Laws, about the hundredth such. And I am not advocating not calling the TD over a failure to alert, as this is what the Law should say.

[campboy]

The point is that, taken on its own, Law 20F5b makes no sense. "The player must ..."; what player? The only way to interpret it in order for it to mean anything is as shorthand for "When 20F5a applies, the player in question must ...". And we are all (I hope) clear that 20F5a applies when partner fails to alert.

[lamford]

The point is that, taken on its own, Law 20F5b makes no sense. "The player must ..."; what player? The only way to interpret it in order for it to mean anything is as shorthand for "When 20F5a applies, the player in question must ...". And we are all (I hope) clear that 20F5a applies when partner fails to alert.

That is not the case. The player in question is one whose partner has given an incorrect explanation. A subset of all players whose partners have given an incorrect explanation or incorrectly alerted or failed to alert.

 

If a clause said: "The dog-owner must obtain a certificate from the police if they acquire a Rotweiler", it would be clear which dog-owners were being specified.

 

On a more practical level, I called the TD when my partner failed to alert a pass over a double of a transfer over 1NT this weekend, as it showed two cards. The TD gave me a withering look and said "I am sure that your opponents would expect that". So, it is not illogical that you call the TD only when there is an incorrect explanation. Telling the opponents of a failure to alert is not only the practical approach but also as the law states.

[campboy]

That is not the case. The player in question is one whose partner has given an incorrect explanation. A subset of all players whose partners have given an incorrect explanation or incorrectly alerted or failed to alert.

 

If a clause said: "The dog-owner must obtain a certificate from the police if they acquire a Rotweiler", it would be clear which dog-owners were being specified.

 

On a more practical level, I called the TD when my partner failed to alert a pass over a double of a transfer over 1NT this weekend, as it showed two cards. The TD gave me a withering look and said "I am sure that your opponents would expect that". So, it is not illogical that you call the TD only when there is an incorrect explanation. Telling the opponents of a failure to alert is not only the practical approach but also as the law states.

I don't understand where you get that from. Law 20F5b does not specify what player it is talking about in any way. The player is only specified in 20F5a.

 

I think you are reading too much into the fact that 20F5a says "'Mistaken explanation' here includes" rather than "'Mistaken explanation' here and in 20F5b includes". The reason it does so is very simple: the phrase 'Mistaken explanation' does not appear in 20F5b.

[lamford]

the phrase 'Mistaken explanation' does not appear in 20F5b.

Indeed, it carefully uses "erroneous explanation", avoiding the term "mistaken explanation". And in 20F5a that is not defined as including a failure to alert. Therefore it should be read as just that, "an erroneous explanation". I counted today, in a Swiss Teams, the number of failures to alert, including things like 3C in response to Lebensohl, completion of a transfer which denied four, a pass of a double of a two-suited bid showing no preference, etc. There were eight in seven rounds at my table. If the TD had been called every time, there might have been around 448 TD calls in the day overall at all tables, and the TDs would rightly have given the callers short shrift.

 

If you interpret "the player" as any player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation (which includes those whose partner has alerted incorrectly) then only those whose partner has given an "erroneous explanation" (not defined, and therefore assume to have its normal meaning, which is why a different phrase is used) must call the TD.

 

It says that the TD must be called for "an erroneous explanation", because it means exactly that. It does not say, nor imply, that the TD must be called for a failure to alert. Nor do the TDs I asked think they should be called, unless it is thought the opponents might be damaged or might want to change their last call, or, at the end of the auction, if they might have been damaged.

[pran]

Indeed, it carefully uses "erroneous explanation", avoiding the term "mistaken explanation". And in 20F5a that is not defined as including a failure to alert. Therefore it should be read as just that, "an erroneous explanation". I counted today, in a Swiss Teams, the number of failures to alert, including things like 3C in response to Lebensohl, completion of a transfer which denied four, a pass of a double of a two-suited bid showing no preference, etc. There were eight in seven rounds at my table. If the TD had been called every time, there might have been around 448 TD calls in the day overall at all tables, and the TDs would rightly have given the callers short shrift.

 

If you interpret "the player" as any player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation (which includes those whose partner has alerted incorrectly) then only those whose partner has given an "erroneous explanation" (not defined, and therefore assume to have its normal meaning, which is why a different phrase is used) must call the TD.

 

It says that the TD must be called "for an erroneous explanation", because it means exactly what it says. It does not say, nor imply, that the TD must be called for a failure to alert. Nor do the TDs I asked think they should be called, unless it is thought the opponents might be damaged or might want to change their last call, or, at the end of the auction, if they might have been damaged.

 

And "the player" clearly means "the player whose partner has given an erroneous explanation".

Which Version of the laws are you folks using?

 

I scanned the official law book as published by WBF and got 43 hits on the word "explanation". Only in

If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete he must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4.

did I find the Word "erroneous" in conjunction with "explanation" as enhanced by me above.

 

Everywhere else the laws use the corresponding word "mistaken" as enhanced by me in:

A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. Mistaken explanation here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require.

Note also the clause about incorrect alerts and announcements (enhanced by me above).

[lamford]

Which Version of the laws are you folks using?

I am using the EBU version of the Laws. That states:

20F5(b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous. (My emphasis). It does not say "in his opinion, his partner failed to alert or alerted incorrectly".

 

I should say it carefully uses "erroneous" rather than "mistaken" because "mistaken explanation" includes a failure to alert or wrong alert, as you point out.

 

There is no dispute that the opponents should be informed at the earliest opportunity of any alerting error. There is no dispute that the TD should be called when there is an erroneous explanation. The sole question is whether the TD should be called when there is a failure to alert or wrong alert.

[c_corgi]

...

It says that the TD must be called for "an erroneous explanation", because it means exactly that. It does not say, nor imply, that the TD must be called for a failure to alert. Nor do the TDs I asked think they should be called, unless it is thought the opponents might be damaged or might want to change their last call, or, at the end of the auction, if they might have been damaged.

 

No, it says that what you do when you call the TD (as you must) is inform the opponents that partner's explanation was erroneous. It does not say "the player (who was identified by 20F5a) doesn't need to call the director in all the circumstances described (in 20F5a)". It may be clumsily worded, but it doesn't have the meaning you claim, either literally or through a common sense interpretation.

 

Did those TDs you consulted explain who decides if there might have been damage, for instance in the case of an inexperienced NOS?

[blackshoe]

Law 20F5{b} does indeed use the form "his partner's explanation was erroneous". Nonetheless I disagree completely with Paul, and I'd like to know who these TDs are to whom he spoke who said they agree with him - and how the question was phrased.

[lamford]

Did those TDs you consulted explain who decides if there might have been damage, for instance in the case of an inexperienced NOS?

I would agree that some failures to alert meet the criteria of erroneous explanations, and the TD should then be called. This is especially the case with inexperienced NOS. All of the TDs agreed that it would disrupt the game to always call the TD, and, as I stated, when I did call a TD to mention a failure to alert the lack of completion of a transfer to a major (after a double), showing a doubleton, I was correctly told "I am sure your opponents will be aware of that." So, I think one should just follow the Law. Some failures to alert or wrong alerts will not be "erroneous explanations", but mere technical breaches of the rules in the Orange Book or ACBL regulations. These are adequately covered by advising the opponents and they can call the TD if they wish. All we need is common sense here.

[lamford]

No, it says that what you do when you call the TD (as you must) is inform the opponents that partner's explanation was erroneous.

The first requirement has to be that partner's explanation was indeed erroneous. There are two requirements for this:

a) that he or she offered an explanation

b) that it was wrong

If partner did not alert although he should have done, but offered a correct explanation when asked about a bid, would you still call the director? Even blackshoe might find that daft.

[pran]

I am using the EBU version of the Laws. That states:

20F5(b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partners explanation was erroneous. (My emphasis). It does not say "in his opinion, his partner failed to alert or alerted incorrectly".

 

I should say it carefully uses "erroneous" rather than "mistaken" because "mistaken explanation" includes a failure to alert or wrong alert, as you point out.

 

There is no dispute that the opponents should be informed at the earliest opportunity of any alerting error. There is no dispute that the TD should be called when there is an erroneous explanation. The sole question is whether the TD should be called when there is a failure to alert or wrong alert.

Sure, I overlooked the use of "erroneous" in L20F5{b}.

But that doesn't essentially change anything in my post. A missing alert is one special case of mistaken explanation.

[lamford]

Sure, I overlooked the use of "erroneous" in L20F5{b}.

But that doesn't essentially change anything in my post.

Nothing ever changes anything in your posts. Even when everybody tells you are wrong.

[blackshoe]

I would agree that some failures to alert meet the criteria of erroneous explanations, and the TD should then be called. This is especially the case with inexperienced NOS. All of the TDs agreed that it would disrupt the game to always call the TD, and, as I stated, when I did call a TD to mention a failure to alert the lack of completion of a transfer to a major (after a double), showing a doubleton, I was correctly told "I am sure your opponents will be aware of that." So, I think one should just follow the Law. Some failures to alert or wrong alerts will not be "erroneous explanations", but mere technical breaches of the rules in the Orange Book or ACBL regulations. These are adequately covered by advising the opponents. They can call the TD if they wish.

So all the TDs you consulted agreed that always calling would disrupt the game. That is not a justification for interpreting the law in such a way as to avoid the requirement to always call. Neither is "I'm sure your opponents will be aware of that". Yes, just follow the law. The problem here is that you have come up with a very unusual interpretation of the law, so much so that I would say that doing as you suggest is not following the law.

[c_corgi]

The first requirement has to be that partner's explanation was indeed erroneous. There are two requirements for this:

a) that he or she offered an explanation

b) that it was wrong

If partner did not alert although he should have done, but offered a correct explanation when asked about a bid, would you still call the director? Even blackshoe might find that daft.

 

That would be the case if 20F5b were presenting the "erroneous explanation" clause as the criteria by which you decide whether or not to call the director. But it isn't: the need to call the director has already been established and the clause (literally interpreted) merely tells you what to what to say when you do so.

 

I agree that a degree of common sense should be applied when deciding whether the director is needed in practice, but I don't agree with justifying it by pretending that the law has a literal meaning which supports this approach.

[aguahombre]

Just as an aside, I find the language we claim to share quite confusing in this case. Mistaken and erroneous are listed as synomyms, when in-fact they are not necessarily so.

 

An erroneous explanation is an incorrect one; but a correct explanation can be wrongly taken...and taken wrongly is one definition of mistaken..perhaps the most literal.

[lamford]

That would be the case if 20F5b were presenting the "erroneous explanation" clause as the criteria by which you decide whether or not to call the director. But it isn't: the need to call the director has already been established and the clause (literally interpreted) merely tells you what to what to say when you do so.

It says:

20F5(b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous.

 

If there was a failure to alert, but partner explained correctly when asked, you would now call the director and say "in my opinion my partner's explanation was erroneous", would you? The director would ask you "what was the correct explanation?" and you would say "the one my partner gave". Men in white coats would come to take you away.