Self-Awareness

[lamford]

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.

One should interpret the law as written, and that uses the expression "in his opinion". So, if "my opinion" is that a failure to alert is not an "erroneous explanation", I am correct not to call the director.

 

My opinion is that some failures to alert are "erroneous explanations" and some are not. So I comply exactly with the Law. I erred in frivolously calling the TD on the earlier example, but that was a test case.

[pran]

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.

"Mistaken explanation" in the laws refers to "mistaken" by the player giving the explanation, not to "mistaken" by the player receiving the explanation!

[lamford]

<snip> the need to call the director has already been established <snip>

Not so. 20F5(a) makes no mention of calling the TD with respect to partner's erroneous explanation. That first surfaces in 20F5(b). 20F4 covers when a player realises he himself has given an erroneous explanation.

[lamford]

"Mistaken explanation" in the laws refers to "mistaken" by the player giving the explanation, not to "mistaken" by the player receiving the explanation!

Then it should be misgiven, not mistaken. Although misgiven is rarely used in that sense. Mistaken can be interpreted in either way. What basis do you have for your view?

[aguahombre]

"Mistaken explanation" in the laws refers to "mistaken" by the player giving the explanation, not to "mistaken" by the player receiving the explanation!

Did you make that up? I have misgivings about that, but am willing for a bit more give and take.

[blackshoe]

He didn't make it up. The laws don't say that if you misunderstand your partner's explanation you have to call the TD - it says you call when the explanation (or your understanding of it, if you like) doesn't match your understanding of your partnership agreement.

[aguahombre]

He didn't make it up. The laws don't say that if you misunderstand your partner's explanation you have to call the TD - it says you call when the explanation (or your understanding of it, if you like) doesn't match your understanding of your partnership agreement.

Maybe I am mistaken, but I don't believe a word's meaning changes based on whether we call the director. And I don't believe the definition of "erroneous" versus "mistaken" changes when it is our partner instead of an opponent sending or receiving the information.

[barmar]

Then it should be misgiven, not mistaken. Although misgiven is rarely used in that sense. Mistaken can be interpreted in either way. What basis do you have for your view?

The definition of "mistaken" is "wrong in one's opinion or belief". Although the root "take" suggests that the error is by the receiver, that is not what the word means now.

[campboy]

One should interpret the law as written, and that uses the expression "in his opinion". So, if "my opinion" is that a failure to alert is not an "erroneous explanation", I am correct not to call the director.

 

My opinion is that some failures to alert are "erroneous explanations" and some are not. So I comply exactly with the Law. I erred in frivolously calling the TD on the earlier example, but that was a test case.

The "in his opinion" is not a requirement for this law to apply, it is what he is supposed to say when this law does apply (whether or not it is actually true). Law 20F5b is a requirement on the player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation in the sense of 20F5a; if it only applied to verbal misexplanations, as you suggest, then there would be no requirement to tell opponents about partner's failure to alert at all.

 

In no interpretation of law is it correct to say "my partner should have alerted" without the TD being called, since attention has been drawn to an irregularity.

[lamford]

In no interpretation of law is it correct to say "my partner should have alerted" without the TD being called, since attention has been drawn to an irregularity.

That is a reasonable argument, and the TD is then being called because there has been an irregularity, not because of 20F5(b).

 

Practice is different. One of the declaring side indicates an error in alerting, the opponents decide whether they might have been damaged, and the TD is called. Even the vast majority of wrong explanations are just corrected without the TD being called, and (s)he is only called if damage is possible. How many times have you advised an inexperienced player "you don't need to alert that"? If you called the director every time, I am sure they would get upset.

 

"should" would be better than "must" in the cases where it is used, and failure to call the TD should just lead to lack of redress, although I would protect the inexperienced player, by still allowing an adjustment.

[lamford]

if it only applied to verbal misexplanations, as you suggest, then there would be no requirement to tell opponents about partner's failure to alert at all.

I think it is implied by the rule that you do not tell them during the auction that you tell them at the end.

[blackshoe]

Maybe I am mistaken, but I don't believe a word's meaning changes based on whether we call the director. And I don't believe the definition of "erroneous" versus "mistaken" changes when it is our partner instead of an opponent sending or receiving the information.

I don't believe I have a clue what you're talking about.

[campboy]

I think it is implied by the rule that you do not tell them during the auction that you tell them at the end.

20F5a says you may not tell them during the auction. I can see how that implies that you may tell them afterwards, but not that you must. I think you need 20F5b to get "must".

[lamford]

20F5a says you may not tell them during the auction. I can see how that implies that you may tell them afterwards, but not that you must. I think you need 20F5b to get "must".

I would say that it implies that you must tell them afterwards. I cannot see in this thread where I suggested that not telling them of a failure to alert or an incorrect alert is optional. You state that to do so without calling the TD is an infraction. Do you think that 20F5b uses "erroneous" whereas the previous clause had "mistaken explanation" just for literary style, or was there a reason why they used a stronger word when the director must be called? And do you think the player whose partner gave a correct explanation (but did not alert or alerted wrongly) should tell the TD that, in his opinion, his partner gave an erroneous explanation, which is your interpretation of 20F5(b)?

 

I submit that a player should only call the TD when, in his opinion, his partner gave an erroneous explanation. To call the TD and make a false statement cannot be the intention. Now you can argue that the TD must be called because there has been an irregularity, but there is a WBFLC minute, 2009 I think, that a more specific Law always takes priority over a general Law.

 

If the WBFLC had intended the player to have to call the TD when there was a failure to alert, they would have written:

 

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

 

We know the WBFLC are meticulous in drafting the Laws, so it would be wrong to assume the wording is incorrect.

[barmar]

The "in his opinion" is not a requirement for this law to apply, it is what he is supposed to say when this law does apply (whether or not it is actually true).

While it may not be a legal requirement, it's a practical human requirement. Why would a player think any of these clauses are relevant if he doesn't think his partner gave an incorrect explanation or alert?

[blackshoe]

We know the WBFLC are meticulous in drafting the Laws, so it would be wrong to assume the wording is incorrect.

We do? Is this some brand of English humo(u)r?

[lamford]

We do? Is this some brand of English humo(u)r?

No, it is international, called sarcasm. Some think that "irony" is more accurate.

[Vampyr]

Blackshoe you have confirmed my suspicion that you have no sense of humour. And I am sure I am not alone in this.

[aguahombre]

Blackshoe you have confirmed my suspicion that you have no sense of humour. And I am sure I am not alone in this.

Not alone in that observation, or not alone in lacking a sense of humor? :P

[campboy]

While it may not be a legal requirement, it's a practical human requirement. Why would a player think any of these clauses are relevant if he doesn't think his partner gave an incorrect explanation or alert?

He wouldn't, naturally. But failing to tell opponents at the appointed time is still an irregularity, IMO, even if the player is unaware that there is any MI to correct.

[mycroft]

Not alone in that observation, or not alone in lacking a sense of humor? :P

Yes.

In the first-order-logic meaning of the phrase, of course.

[blackshoe]

Blackshoe you have confirmed my suspicion that you have no sense of humour. And I am sure I am not alone in this.

Perhaps not. Is this a crime?

 

I suspect several of my friends would be surprised to hear this. <shrug>

[Vampyr]

Perhaps not. Is this a crime?

 

No. Nor is it s crime to be thick, which is another common cause of not getting others' jokes.

[blackshoe]

No. Nor is it s crime to be thick, which is another common cause of not getting others' jokes.

I know that people who know me would be surprised to hear me described as "thick".

 

How far do you want to take this?

[Vampyr]

I know that people who know me would be surprised to hear me described as "thick".

 

How far do you want to take this?

 

Did I say you were thick?