Sufficient explanation ?

[Cyberyeti]

[hv=d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1n2hp3c(p%2Fc)p3dp3hpp]133|100[/hv]

 

We had this auction at the weekend, the problem was the explanation of the 2♥ bid.

 

It was explained that it was "hearts and a minor", what it should have been explained as was 5 hearts and a 4-5 card minor (we play similar but this can be 4♥/5m in our case).

 

Where it caused a problem was the meaning of double, dummy has 3 hearts, partner the NT opener has 2, so if it's possible I have 4 hearts then X is 100% penalties. If it's known that overcaller has 5 then I can only have 3 so this has to be a "bid spades or take the money" type bid, and I don't make it. I doubled, back to partner who then asked and discovered that it did show 5♥ and pulled to 3♠, -1 on an unfortunate ruff, 3♥ was at least 2 down, so we lost out on the +200/300 we would have had with the correct explanation.

 

Director said "you should have checked", your fault, I said full disclosure should have applied.

 

I think I could have called the director when partner asked the question and had my bid back as he had not yet called, but he asked and then bid fast enough after the explanation that it didn't occur to me in time.

[helene_t]

"Hearts and a minor" is how this convention is usually called. If it matters whether it is 4 or 5, you can just ask.

 

It may not matter so much here. If 2♥ promises 4 we can be sure that responder has 3 so they might be in a 5-3 fit but then again they might be in a 4-3 fit. If 2♥ promises 5, they are certainly in a 5-2 fit.

[pran]

[hv=d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1n2hp3c(p%2Fc)p3dp3hpp]133|100[/hv]

 

We had this auction at the weekend, the problem was the explanation of the 2♥ bid.

 

It was explained that it was "hearts and a minor", what it should have been explained as was 5 hearts and a 4-5 card minor (we play similar but this can be 4♥/5m in our case).

 

Where it caused a problem was the meaning of double, dummy has 3 hearts, partner the NT opener has 2, so if it's possible I have 4 hearts then X is 100% penalties. If it's known that overcaller has 5 then I can only have 3 so this has to be a "bid spades or take the money" type bid, and I don't make it. I doubled, back to partner who then asked and discovered that it did show 5♥ and pulled to 3♠, -1 on an unfortunate ruff, 3♥ was at least 2 down, so we lost out on the +200/300 we would have had with the correct explanation.

 

Director said "you should have checked", your fault, I said full disclosure should have applied.

 

I think I could have called the director when partner asked the question and had my bid back as he had not yet called, but he asked and then bid fast enough after the explanation that it didn't occur to me in time.

The diagram does not match the auction as referred?

 

Director's statement: "You should have checked, your fault" is incorrect. It is the explaining player's responsibility to make sure that all relevant information is given with an explanation.

 

However in this situation I would expect "hearts and a minor" to imply at least 5 hearts (and at least 4 cards in a minor suit), so given the fact that the agreement is indeed at lest 5 hearts I am a little in doubt whether I would have ruled any damage from misinformation here.

[Cyberyeti]

"Hearts and a minor" is how this convention is usually called. If it matters whether it is 4 or 5, you can just ask.

 

It may not matter so much here. If 2♥ promises 4 we can be sure that responder has 3 so they might be in a 5-3 fit but then again they might be in a 4-3 fit. If 2♥ promises 5, they are certainly in a 5-2 fit.

 

No responder will have 3 hearts whether opener promises 4 or 5 I think, with 2 will just pass 2♥ most of the time.

[Cyberyeti]

The diagram does not match the auction as referred?

 

Director's statement: "You should have checked, your fault" is incorrect. It is the explaining player's responsibility to make sure that all relevant information is given with an explanation.

 

However in this situation I would expect "hearts and a minor" to imply at least 5 hearts (and at least 4 cards in a minor suit), so given the fact that the agreement is indeed at lest 5 hearts I am a little in doubt whether I would have ruled any damage from misinformation here.

 

Hearts and a minor is the normal Astro explanation where the suits can be 5-4 either way round, I was E and doubled which partner pulled to 3♠.

[pran]

Hearts and a minor is the normal Astro explanation where the suits can be 5-4 either way round, I was E and doubled which partner pulled to 3♠.

Individual customs, Astro is not that common where I play. I was indeed aware of the possibility.

 

In your case the explanation should then clarify (without any need for additional questions) when 5 hearts are "promised".

[blackshoe]

"Hearts and a minor" is how this convention is usually called. If it matters whether it is 4 or 5, you can just ask.

 

It may not matter so much here. If 2♥ promises 4 we can be sure that responder has 3 so they might be in a 5-3 fit but then again they might be in a 4-3 fit. If 2♥ promises 5, they are certainly in a 5-2 fit.

What a convention is called is not relevant. What should be disclosed is what the bid means, and they didn't do that.

[steve2005]

If your bids have different meanings depending on meaning of opps bid I think you should ask to make sure.

 

I was playing bridge for over thirty years never encountered a 4♥ 5 minor,

Then I played on BBO and did including local people and then Gib joined them.

 

Seems a bad idea, play DONT if you gonna, but 2♥ 45 means you play 1 level higher sometimes for no reason.

[wank]

no sympathy here.

[FelicityR]

no sympathy here.

 

I agree. It doesn't matter if you are playing a 12-14 or a 15-17 NT or whatever NT here. Partner has defined his/her hand, and if Dbl. isn't for penalties at this stage of the auction - on the third round against vulnerable opponents second-guessing their best contract - then having it as balancing/competitive action (even though the vulnerability is favourable to you) seems mightily strange. At the rubber bridge table - that's what I play mainly these days - it would be penalty, penalty, penalty.

[Cyberyeti]

I agree. It doesn't matter if you are playing a 12-14 or a 15-17 NT or whatever NT here. Partner has defined his/her hand, and if Dbl. isn't for penalties at this stage of the auction - on the third round against vulnerable opponents second-guessing their best contract - then having it as balancing/competitive action (even though the vulnerability is favourable to you) seems mightily strange. At the rubber bridge table - that's what I play mainly these days - it would be penalty, penalty, penalty.

 

The difference is in nuance, between 100% penalties and 80%+ penalties. Partner took the decision that we were winning the match anyway (we won 18-2 despite this), 3♠ might well make and the only thing we couldn't afford was -730.

[barmar]

When most players say that a bid shows two suits, and don't go into detail, it's quite common that it can be 4-5 either way, and sometimes players even stretch to bid it with 4-4. If your agreement is very specific about the length of one of the suits, there's no good reason not to mention it when explaining your bid, since it's different from common interpretation.

 

Seems a bad idea, play DONT if you gonna, but 2♥ 45 means you play 1 level higher sometimes for no reason.

Why would you play 1 level higher? If partner has heart tolerance he passes 2♥, he doesn't go for the minor.

[Tramticket]

I would always ask for more details on this type of auction. The terms Astro, Aspro, Asptro all sound too much alike, so that they are easily mis-heard. The responses are similar, but subtly different. It is an auction where I find it easiest to always ask.

[pran]

I would always ask for more details on this type of auction. The terms Astro, Aspro, Asptro all sound too much alike, so that they are easily mis-heard. The responses are similar, but subtly different. It is an auction where I find it easiest to always ask.

I would always ask for more details on this type of auction is strong evidence that the initial explanation is ("always") insufficient.

[Cyberyeti]

I would always ask for more details on this type of auction is strong evidence that the initial explanation is ("always") insufficient.

 

If he'd said "pin point astro" or whatever I would have asked more, when he said "hearts and a minor" without specifying 5 hearts, I just assumed it was 5-4 either way round as normally people specify if one suit is always 5.

[weejonnie]

If he'd said "pin point astro" or whatever I would have asked more, when he said "hearts and a minor" without specifying 5 hearts, I just assumed it was 5-4 either way round as normally people specify if one suit is always 5.

LAW 21 ‐ MISINFORMATION

A. Call or Play Based on Players Own Misunderstanding

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

 

Of course this is not necessarily the whole story however in England strong players are expected to protect themselves if they can do so without waking up the opponents or passing UI. (Some directors apply this guideline without remembering the qualifications - in this case it seems that asking for further clarification would not fall foul of those two restrictions).

[Cyberyeti]

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.

 

Of course this is not necessarily the whole story however in England strong players are expected to protect themselves if they can do so without waking up the opponents or passing UI. (Some directors apply this guideline without remembering the qualifications - in this case it seems that asking for further clarification would not fall foul of those two restrictions).

 

But is it purely misunderstanding ? They have given an incomplete explanation ? and I'm not sure what happens when those two things collide.

 

I assume they've told me what they know, and they haven't because they know the heart suit is 5 cards, I don't, I act on the explanation given and given that they haven't said the heart suit has to be 5 cards, I'm not assuming anything, they're telling me they don't know that it does.

[pescetom]

I usually explain bids like this with a phrase like "Hearts and a minor, tendentially 5-4". Many opponents will demand more precise detail about length, so I have to say something like "hearts will usually be 5 but occasionally 4, minor will usually be at least 4 but could occasionally be 3 if hearts are 5". I reckon I'm doing them a favour by initially proferring the "tendential" explanation (which is what is written in our agreements) although I'm sure pran will disagree :) I also suspect that some of those who "need" to know more are just fishing for a pretext to complain later, which is against the laws.

[pran]

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.

 

Of course this is not necessarily the whole story however in England strong players are expected to protect themselves if they can do so without waking up the opponents or passing UI. (Some directors apply this guideline without remembering the qualifications - in this case it seems that asking for further clarification would not fall foul of those two restrictions).

"Misunderstanding" in Law 21A refers to a player's misunderstanding of his own partnership's agreements, not to misunderstanding of opponents' explanations of their agreements when such explanations are incomplete in any way.

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. [...]

[blackshoe]

"Misunderstanding" in Law 21A refers to a player's misunderstanding of his own partnership's agreements, not to misunderstanding of opponents' explanations of their agreements when such explanations are incomplete in any way.

Well, that's a new one. Basis?

[pran]

Well, that's a new one. Basis?

Oh, I thought that was obvious?

It is not "your own misunderstanding" if you draw the wrong conclusion(s) from opponents misinformation. And such misinformation exists whenever an explanation is incorrect or incomplete in any way.

 

The way I understand Law 21A is that it applies when a player claims misunderstanding of opponents' correct information (and also if he claims that he has misunderstood his own side's agreements).

[blackshoe]

So personal opinion. Okay.

[barmar]

I would always ask for more details on this type of auction. The terms Astro, Aspro, Asptro all sound too much alike, so that they are easily mis-heard.

Since they never actually used any of those names, I don't see how this is relevant.

[weejonnie]

Is there misinformation though - if the description was "Hearts + a minor" then that is accurate (although not complete). Here the player relied on his own presumption as to the specific suit lengths promised, as opposed to finding them out (which he couldhave done). I would say he falls into this category.

[barmar]

Oh, I thought that was obvious?

It is not "your own misunderstanding" if you draw the wrong conclusion(s) from opponents misinformation. And such misinformation exists whenever an explanation is incorrect or incomplete in any way.

 

The way I understand Law 21A is that it applies when a player claims misunderstanding of opponents' correct information (and also if he claims that he has misunderstood his own side's agreements).

I think it also applies if the opponent alerts, but you decide not to ask for an explanation, but instead assume that you know what they're alerting about.

 

E.g. 1NT (2♣ Alert!)

 

If you assume it's Cappaletti showing a single suit, but they're playing DONT, you have no redress.

 

The issue in this thread is when they explain, but the explanation doesn't include all details. Does 21A apply because you could have asked for more info rather than assuming, or is it MI because they should have mentioned those details in the first place. How much cross-examination are players expected to do to protect themselves from making unwarranted assumptions?

 

For instance, in my experience, most people who play Michaels and Unusual NT expect them to show at least 5-5, but 2-suited NT overcalls are more often at least 5-4 either way. So if I hear an explanation of these conventions that doesn't get specific about the expected lengths, I'm not going to grill them. I expect that players who have unusually specific agreements to disclose them proactively. Unless they play almost exclusively in an insular environment where everyone plays like they do, I think they know that they're not mainstream and a generic explanation will be misleading.