Disagreement over Explanation

[Vampyr]

In all my years of operating Vugraph I've never seen anyone do this, unless they were asking something more specific than just a general explanation of a call ... But I get the feeling that they would likely do it simply by pointing to the call in question, and that would prompt the player to explain. If they were to write it down, it would probably be something simple like "X?", as shorthand for "What does the double mean?"

 

Yes, this is how questions are usually asked in my experience. In any case the explainers are obligated to make sure their explanation is understood.

 

I find it curious that the explainer doesn't recall what she said. That, to me, is evidence that she is not telling the truth.

[barmar]

I find it curious that the explainer doesn't recall what she said. That, to me, is evidence that she is not telling the truth.

The explainer remembers what she said, she just doesn't remember whether she said it in English or French. I'm not bilingual, but I wouldn't be surprised that if you're going back and forth between languages you might not remember which mode you were in at a particular moment.

 

Of course, being in a situation where language could be an issue is another reason to give answers in writing. Players usually use the suit symbols, and they're universal (on the other hand, the initials used for honors vary: Queen and King are D and R in a number of languages).

[VixTD]

VixTD would take away most of E-W's favourable score. Good.

 

In practice, however, the director ruled score stands. Pran confirms that this ruling accords with the law. Nonsense or not.

I'm prepared to believe that North would always bid 4 or 5♣, and that South would raise 4♣ to five, if told so by players of the calibre of you and Lamford. It's reaching six any of the time that I was struggling with.

 

And I agree with you, the actual ruling given was nonsense.

[nige1]

Another common-sense simplification:

 

To simplify disclosure without screens, I proposed that the law mandate a card containing a matrix of common explanations (e.g. T/O, PEN, F1, FG, TRF, REL, and so on). Many calls could be explained by pointing to appropriate boxes. Some details might still need written explanation.

 

With screens, IMO, the law should mandate a similar arrangement. To ask about opponent's call, you point to it. To ask about the whole auction, you could touch the bidding board.

 

Even better would be an electronic matrix (on a tablet, for example) to record disclosure (matrix and written). This would reduce language difficulties and resolve controversies like this case.

[barmar]

Doesn't that set of "common explanations" suffer from a problem similar to using convention names as explanations instead of describing the meaning with words?

[nige1]

Doesn't that set of "common explanations" suffer from a problem similar to using convention names as explanations instead of describing the meaning with words?

Yes.

 

For (inter) national competition, official WBF abbreviations (like these) might reduce language difficulties.

 

For club play, however, more straight-forward explanations could be more appropriate.

 

In case of any difficulty with the matrix, you would fall back on written explanation.

[awm]

Another common-sense simplification:

 

To simplify disclosure without screens, I proposed that the law mandate a card containing a matrix of common explanations (e.g. T/O, PEN, F1, FG, TRF, REL, and so on). Many calls could be explained by pointing to appropriate boxes. Some details might still need written explanation.

 

I don't think this helps. The basic issues are around:

 

1. We want to have some record of what explanation was given. Without screens this is handled by having THREE people listening to the explanation instead of just one. But if it's just pointing to a card, the other two players can't really see it. And you still don't have a written record.

2. We want to make sure explanation is understood. But first, people can choose to ignore your matrix just as they currently choose to ignore the pencil and paper behind screens. And second, this might actually encourage less informative explanations (like just pointing to FG instead of distinguishing NAT-FG and ART-FG).

3. It's one more thing to keep track of at the table (along with the bid boxes, boards, convention cards, score sheets... not to mention in some cases drinks and puppies). Something is going to get lost or knocked on the floor!

[nige1]

I don't think this helps. The basic issues are around:

 

1. We want to have some record of what explanation was given. Without screens this is handled by having THREE people listening to the explanation instead of just one. But if it's just pointing to a card, the other two players can't really see it. And you still don't have a written record.

2. We want to make sure explanation is understood. But first, people can choose to ignore your matrix just as they currently choose to ignore the pencil and paper behind screens. And second, this might actually encourage less informative explanations (like just pointing to FG instead of distinguishing NAT-FG and ART-FG).

3. It's one more thing to keep track of at the table (along with the bid boxes, boards, convention cards, score sheets... not to mention in some cases drinks and puppies). Something is going to get lost or knocked on the floor!

1. Without screens, all the players can see the matrix-card. You could place pennies instead of pointing. A matrix on a tablet could provide an electronic record.
2. Of course players can use other legal methods instead of -- or as well as -- the matrix-card. The matrix-card is meant to help disclosure. A player should point to all relevant boxes e.g. ART + FG + whatever.
3. Admittedly a matrix-card is another thing to clutter up the table (until tablets are used instead of bidding-boxes, bridgemates, etc).

awm's criticisms are valid but I still believe advantages swamp drawbacks.

[helene_t]

What about answering queries by circling the relevant words in your CC?

[Vampyr]

Another common-sense simplification:

 

To simplify disclosure without screens, I proposed that the law mandate a card containing a matrix of common explanations (e.g. T/O, PEN, F1, FG, TRF, REL, and so on). Many calls could be explained by pointing to appropriate boxes. Some details might still need written explanation.

 

With screens, IMO, the law should mandate a similar arrangement. To ask about opponent's call, you point to it. To ask about the whole auction, you could touch the bidding board.

 

Even better would be an electronic matrix (on a tablet, for example) to record disclosure (matrix and written). This would reduce language difficulties and resolve controversies like this case.

 

This matrix idea works; in fact I carry one to all competitions. I call it a "convention card".

[nige1]

What about answering queries by circling the relevant words in your CC?

This matrix idea works; in fact I carry one to all competitions. I call it a "convention card".

An excellent suggestion but the law might need a slight to change to allow you to consult your own system-card.

[barmar]

An excellent suggestion but the law might need a slight to change to allow you to consult your own system-card.

The law says you can't use it as a memory aid, it doesn't say you can't use it to explain bids to opponents.

 

But how detailed are the descriptions on the CC? If it's just lots of checkboxes like an ACBL CC, that's not much more helpful than giving the names of conventions.

 

Where on the CC is the place to describe what (1NT) P (3NT) X means?

[blackshoe]

Where on the CC is the place to describe what (1NT) P (3NT) X means?

On the ACBL CC you have about half a square inch at the bottom of the "doubles" section - but nobody puts it in there.

[barmar]

On the ACBL CC you have about half a square inch at the bottom of the "doubles" section - but nobody puts it in there.

On most of my CCs that's already filled with other doubles that don't have checkboxes, such as Snapdragon.

[Vampyr]

The law says you can't use it as a memory aid, it doesn't say you can't use it to explain bids to opponents.

 

But how detailed are the descriptions on the CC? If it's just lots of checkboxes like an ACBL CC, that's not much more helpful than giving the names of conventions.

 

Where on the CC is the place to describe what (1NT) P (3NT) X means?

 

if I had an ACBL CC I would just put my notes on the back. If I used another type of CC and it didn't adequate space for special doubles (the EBU card does) I would put the information in the space designated for notes.

[pran]

The law says you can't use it as a memory aid, it doesn't say you can't use it to explain bids to opponents.

Have you overlooked:

Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise a player may not consult his own system card between the commencement of the auction period and the end of play, except that players of the declaring side (only) may consult their own system card during the Clarification Period.

(My enhancement)

???

[blackshoe]

I suspect the proper procedure for using the card in explanation of partner's call is to just refer the opponents to the card. Then you will get "I don't look at convention cards; I ask questions." :angry:

[pran]

I suspect the proper procedure for using the card in explanation of partner's call is to just refer the opponents to the card. Then you will get "I don't look at convention cards; I ask questions." :angry:

And I believe I was told by some authority once (long time ago) that a player is entitled to say just that and request an answer (which then must satisfy the condition of being accurate and complete).

[blackshoe]

And I believe I was told by some authority once (long time ago) that a player is entitled to say just that and request an answer (which then must satisfy the condition of being accurate and complete).

A long time ago there was a different set of laws than we have now. I do not believe the current laws support the assertion that "it's on our card" or similar is not sufficient.

[pran]

A long time ago there was a different set of laws than we have now. I do not believe the current laws support the assertion that "it's on our card" or similar is not sufficient.

Well, I very much doubt that any convention card in use can completely satisfy coverage of all the items specified in the enhanced (by me) part of:

During the auction and before the final pass any player may request, at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding.

 

Let us agree that a well compiled CC will probably satisfy at least 90% of request for explanations, but there can always be need for additional information not clear from the CC?

[blackshoe]

Well, I wouldn't assign a percentage to it. Rather, I'd say that it is proper for a player to refer an opponent to the system card, improper for that opponent to decline to look at the system card, and proper for the opponent, having looked at the system card, to ask for clarification of any points not fully satisfied by the card.

[barmar]

if I had an ACBL CC I would just put my notes on the back.

You've forgotten that the back of an ACBL CC is the personal scoresheet.

[Finch]

Obviously the EBU conditions of contest don't apply in Switzerland, but interestingly they say

 

" If a player accepts a non-written explanation and this leads to a misunderstanding, it

will generally be assumed that he is at fault. It will be treated as his own

misunderstanding under Law 21A, and he will not be entitled to redress. "

[Vampyr]

You've forgotten that the back of an ACBL CC is the personal scoresheet.

 

I have not forgotten. Obviously there is not nearly enough room. I would print one out or photocopy it. That is what I used to do, because I edited them. It was painstaking; at the time you could only use "paint" or the equivalent to remove names and boxes for methods you did not use. I assume it is different now; in any case there is some kind of way to edit even in a limited fashion, and printing one out seems more convenient than filling out a new card every time.

 

For a pickup or first-time partnershipit it is more of a problem. Perhaps clubs could start providing convention cards with just lines on the back.

[nige1]

Obviously the EBU conditions of contest don't apply in Switzerland, but interestingly they say

" If a player accepts a non-written explanation and this leads to a misunderstanding, it

will generally be assumed that he is at fault. It will be treated as his own

misunderstanding under Law 21A, and he will not be entitled to redress. "

My intuition was that the onus is on the discloser to ensure that his explanation is understood.

But that EBU rule accords with Pran's opinion and contradicts mine.

The important lesson seems to be that players should start to comply with the rules and directors should start to enforce them.