Disagreement over Explanation

[VixTD]

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. "

They do? I can't find this in the current White Book, where the screen regulations are published. I searched the document for "non-written" and it came up with no matches.

[RMB1]

They do? I can't find this in the current White Book, where the screen regulations are published. I searched the document for "non-written" and it came up with no matches.

 

There are further conditions of contest for trails, provided by the selection committee. The clause Frances quotes is in the general conditions of contest.

[VixTD]

There are further conditions of contest for trails, provided by the selection committee. The clause Frances quotes is in the general conditions of contest.

If the conditions of contest that Frances cites applied to the Swiss case, that would make the ruling essentially correct, not "nonsense" as I said earlier. I apologise to the Swiss directors if that's the case.

[jallerton]

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. "

 

If the conditions of contest that Frances cites applied to the Swiss case, that would make the ruling essentially correct, not "nonsense" as I said earlier. I apologise to the Swiss directors if that's the case.

 

Yes, no blame could be attached to the directors if they were following the regulations! However, "nonsense" is a suitable way to describe the regulation itself. The main infraction (failing to write down the explanation) was committed by East. This directly caused North's misunderstanding of the East/West system. The idea that a regulation should permit East to gain from committing an infraction of this nature goes against common sense, natural justice and the principles of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. To say that North is the player at fault for "accepting" a non-written explanation is completely missing the point. I've lost count of the number of times I have asked a question in writing and my screenmate has whispered an answer; when I hand them my pen, some take the hint, but others just repeat their answer verbally.

 

Let's check the Law to which the regulation refers:

 

LAW 21 - MISINFORMATION

A. Call or Play Based on Player’s Own Misunderstanding

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

 

Surely the point of this Law is make clear that a player is not entitled to redress for cases where the explanation is perfectly clear (e.g. East explains that a bid shows both black suits, but North suffers a mental block and does not realise that spades in a black suit) or for a misunderstanding which is nothing to do with an explanation. In the present case, the explanation was not clear (East said one thing but North heard something different) and the explanation was not made in the way required by the regulations. Hence East was in breach of Law 20F.

 

 

Also relevant in the Law Book is:

 

Law 12B.Objectives of Score Adjustment

1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.

 

East was an offender. I would argue that North was an innocent party in respect of East's infraction as North does not control East's hand or mouth. Hence if North would/might have pulled the double on seeing an accurate written explanation, then E/W should receive an appropriate (probably weighted) adjusted score. By default, N/S would receive the opposite adjusted score. Under the 2007 Laws, it is plausible (though somewhat harsh) that the TD could have judged North's failure to insist on a written explanation to be "wild or gambling", thus deeming all of N/S's damage to have been self-inflicted and leaving them to keep their table score.

 

Under the 2017 Laws, this no longer seems to be applicable:

 

(e) If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by an extremely serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by a gambling action, which if unsuccessful it might have hoped to recover through rectification, then:

(i) The offending side is awarded the score it would have been allotted as the consequence of rectifying its infraction.

(ii) The non-offending side does not receive relief for such part of its damage as is self-inflicted.

 

Failure to insist on a written explanation is not "a gambling action, which if unsuccessful it might have hoped to recover through rectification". It is directly related to the infraction, so the "extremely serious error" clause does not apply either.

[MinorKid]

I have to say this misunderstand can be cause by failure to use written explanation. East's verbal explanation is constrained before the play to avoid West's use of UI. After the play east can futher explain the intention of double.

Had north's question been written, East may provide more precise info without fear it cause UI to west.

 

 

Futhermore,

Penalty Double -> (subset) -> Lead Directing Double -> (subset) -> Call for a major lead, NS not use stayman -> (subset) -> West's Choice is Spades, view from his hand spades have nothing suggest East's Spade being Solid -> (Action) -> Lead Spades

Penalty Double include many types of hand. So we can't say East "penalty" was wrong. West have the right to change the lead of the suit upon a double.

 

Moreover, there no guarantee north w'd run given the precise explanation. South's 1NT opening is slightly flawed having no stopper in two suits.

 

But I think East's "Everyone play that way" was not a sufficient defense against concealed partnership agreement. Thus i may put 3NTX+3 into the mix (20%) into 3NTX-2 (80%). (Heart or Spade Lead) After the play, had East explained matters correctly there shall be no adjustments.

[Vampyr]

I have to say this misunderstand can be cause by failure to use written explanation. East's verbal explanation is constrained before the play to avoid West's use of UI. After the play east can futher explain the intention of double.

Had north's question been written, East may provide more precise info without fear it cause UI to west.

 

If East's verbal explanation is quiet enough West may not received any UI, but it is not an infraction anyway to transmit UI.

[jallerton]

I have to say this misunderstand can be cause by failure to use written explanation. East's verbal explanation is constrained before the play to avoid West's use of UI. After the play east can futher explain the intention of double.

Had north's question been written, East may provide more precise info without fear it cause UI to west.

 

Futhermore,

Penalty Double -> (subset) -> Lead Directing Double -> (subset) -> Call for a major lead, NS not use stayman -> (subset) -> West's Choice is Spades, view from his hand spades have nothing suggest East's Spade being Solid -> (Action) -> Lead Spades

Penalty Double include many types of hand. So we can't say East "penalty" was wrong. West have the right to change the lead of the suit upon a double.

 

Moreover, there no guarantee north w'd run given the precise explanation. South's 1NT opening is slightly flawed having no stopper in two suits.

 

But I think East's "Everyone play that way" was not a sufficient defense against concealed partnership agreement. Thus i may put 3NTX+3 into the mix (20%) into 3NTX-2 (80%). (Heart or Spade Lead) After the play, had East explained matters correctly there shall be no adjustments.

 

I agree that there's no guarantee that North would run on hearing of the lead directing double (hence the sensible suggestion from various posters to perform a poll). However, there is no legal basis for including any percentage of 3NTx+3. This is a (potential) misinformation case. If North passes out 3NTx then West (who has no UI) will still lead the same card and the defence will still cash the first six tricks (even if South has received an incorrect explanation it will not affect his play of the cards). If the poll suggests that North would pull to 4♣ some of the time then, apart from the percentage applied to the table result, all other possible assigned scores are based on North bidding 4♣ and what the TD judges would/might happen after that.

 

If East's verbal explanation is quiet enough West may not received any UI, but it is not an infraction anyway to transmit UI.

 

True, but in attempting to avoid transmitting UI, players tend to give verbal explanations quietly; but the fact that the explanations are so quiet increases the chance that they will be misunderstood. Hence the reason for the regulations requiring written explanations.

[MinorKid]

Is it legal for north to peek east's hand before his final pass?

[blackshoe]

True, but in attempting to avoid transmitting UI, players tend to give verbal explanations quietly; but the fact that the explanations are so quiet increases the chance that they will be misunderstood. Hence the reason for the regulations requiring written explanations.

If the explanation is written, no UI will be transmitted.

[Vampyr]

If the explanation is written, no UI will be transmitted.

 

A suggestiom: read a post before quoting it.

[VixTD]

To say that North is the player at fault for "accepting" a non-written explanation is completely missing the point. I've lost count of the number of times I have asked a question in writing and my screenmate has whispered an answer; when I hand them my pen, some take the hint, but others just repeat their answer verbally.

I agree that this part of the regulation is nonsense, and if you acted in this way I would rule that you had not accepted the spoken or gesticulated answer, as you have made more than one attempt to elicit a written answer from your opponent, and there's not much more you can reasonably be expected to do.

[Finch]

You might not like this regulation, but it's there. And I've been told it's not new this year either. TDs will rule according to it, whether you like it or not.

[Zelandakh]

In my world the written questions and answers are the best evidence on what has actually been asked and answered.

Absent such evidence I would rule that although there was agreement that questions were asked no evidence support any claim of misinformation.

This is plainly ridiculous pran - both sides agree that a question was asked. By your rules the lack of a written answer must surely be the issue here.

[Zelandakh]

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.

I can confirm this - I often cannot remember whether I said (or heard) something in English or German. I even answer in German fairly often when the speaker has addressed me in English and does not understand German at all. My colleagues find this hilarious, of course. :lol:

[Zelandakh]

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

The important lesson I take from that regulation is that a player should absolutely NOT comply with the rules if giving an explanation. All they are doing is providing evidence against themselves if things go wrong.

[pran]

The important lesson I take from that regulation is that a player should absolutely NOT comply with the rules if giving an explanation. All they are doing is providing evidence against themselves if things go wrong.

The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

As a written evidence is stronger than a spoken evidence the absence of written questions and explanations makes it more likely that the Director will apply Law 21B1(b) and rule mistaken explanation in such cases.

 

So it should always be in the interest of a player asking a question or giving an explanation to do so in writing when required by regulation and/or conditions of contest.

[Zelandakh]

So it should always be in the interest of a player asking a question or giving an explanation to do so in writing when required by regulation and/or conditions of contest.

It should be, yes, but that is clearly not the case under the current rules. Say for argument that East really had said "penalty" here. If they had written it down you would have ruled against them but as they only said it verbally and disputed having said that, you are not ruling against them. So tell me, what advantage would have East gained from giving a written explanation here?

[pran]

It should be, yes, but that is clearly not the case under the current rules. Say for argument that East really had said "penalty" here. If they had written it down you would have ruled against them but as they only said it verbally and disputed having said that, you are not ruling against them. So tell me, what advantage would have East gained from giving a written explanation here?

If "penalty" is an incorrect explanation then he deserves no "advantage". Do you want him to get away from one infraction of the laws by committing another (i.e. disobeying the rules)?

[Zelandakh]

If "penalty" is an incorrect explanation then he deserves no "advantage". Do you want him to get away from one infraction of the laws by committing another (i.e. disobeying the rules)?

He or she may not deserve an advantage but under your rules (s)he will obtain one; and apparently this is standard practice. I think this is appalling. The logical conclusion from your assertion that no advantage should be gained is that the law on this point is an ass.

[barmar]

As a written evidence is stronger than a spoken evidence the absence of written questions and explanations makes it more likely that the Director will apply Law 21B1(b) and rule mistaken explanation in such cases.

The Law that refers to the "absence of evidence to the contrary" only applies when you're trying to decide between MI and misbid, not when you're determining what the explanation actually was. The evidence it's talking about is presumably regarding the pair's agreements -- I think it assumes that the explanation was heard and understood, and the TD just needs to determine if that correctly describes the agreement.

[jhenrikj]

Adjusting the scores in favor of North is really to open a can of worms. Lets assume North did hear and understood the explanation but still decides to pass. If 3NT makes it's fine, if it doesn't he calls for the TD and claims he has been misinformed. East has no evidence to claim what he told north so what we are doing is allowing North change his mind after the board is played.

 

The simple solution is of course to assign a split score of 3NTX to NS and 5C to EW, not saying I can support this decision in the law, but the players will fore sure learn to write/demand explanation in writing the next time.

[blackshoe]

if you can't support it in law, you shouldn't do it at all.

[jhenrikj]

if you can't support it in law, you shouldn't do it at all.

 

On the other hand, I can't find anything in the laws that says I can't do it either, but I do agree with you in principle.