[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2012-May-25, 06:18, said:

PeterAlan suggests that North was naive and perhaps did not deserve a ruling in his favour. Ok, consider East.

He is playing an artificial convention that is very rare in England - the vast majority play 2NT as either natural or balanced - and he did not explain it. Please could someone explain to me why he deserves a good board for not explaining it.

This is quite a common situation in MI cases.

[a]. The original explanation is not as thorough as it might have been (the explainer is at fault); but

[b]. The questioner could have protected himself by asking a follow-up question, but failed to do so (the questioner could have easily prevented the situation, so in that sense the questioner is also at fault).

In such cases, one could come to different conclusions reading the Law.

Possible Conclusion 1. The call was based on the player's own misunderstanding, Law 21A (is there an equivalent of this Law for plays?) and he was damaged by the failure to protect himself. Therefore the table result stands for both sides.

Possible Conclusion 2. The call/play would (or might) have been different had a thorough explanation being offered and "therefore" he was damaged by the misinformation. Therefore adjust the score (possibly weighted, but not split) for both sides.

Possible Conclusion 3. The call/play would (or might) have been different had a thorough explanation being offered and "therefore" he was damaged by the misinformation. Therefore adjust the score (possibly weighted) for the explainer's side.
However, the reliance on the incomplete answer and the failure to ask a follow-up question constitute a "wild or gambling action", so all of the damage is deemed to be self-inflicted and the questioner keeps the table score.


Perhaps we need guidance on how we decide between Possible Conclusions 1, 2 and 3.

VixTD, on 2012-May-25, 07:37, said:

A couple of good players I consulted (who also happened to be directors) didn't think North deserved any redress for the decision to play ♠10, but another thought they weren't looking at it from the perspective of a lesser player, and I think she was right. North didn't need to ask about the Blackwood response, as he already had the information he needed to defeat the contract, so I don't think he can be criticised for not asking, or not considering the implications.

I wasn't happy awarding 100% of 6♠-1, as I thought that North might well have played the same way given a correct explanation. I awarded both sides 70% 6♠(W)= and 30% 6♠(W)-1. Perhaps I was too hard on North. The referee thought that 50%-50% would have been more equitable when EW appealed, but he upheld the director's decision. He added that an expert North would not have received a favourable adjustment.

The 70/30 weighting seems fair to me. An important point to note is that, even with a complete understanding of the E/W methods, North could expect that his ♥A was very likely to be a trick, so based on the information available to the TD, there is a high chance that this particular North would have played ♠10 anyway.

[aguahombre]

jallerton, on 2012-May-25, 09:54, said:

The 70/30 weighting seems fair to me. An important point to note is that, even with a complete understanding of the E/W methods, North could expect that his ♥A was very likely to be a trick, so based on the information available to the TD, there is a high chance that this particular North would have played ♠10 anyway.

I don't understand. Your use of the terms "likely" and "high chance" argue for maybe 30/70 the oppposite way from what Vix ruled.

Also, does anyone address (from North's point of view) that if he thought from the explanation that the Ace of hearts was cashing he would have led it at trick one? Then, he would know he needed two trump tricks instead of one.

Or, how about the more obscure thought? Could East have actually "known" of the heart void? There is evidence to support this. East bid the slam off a key card and the spade queen. If he knew of the void, then their agreements are much more than disclosed.

[Cyberyeti]

jallerton, on 2012-May-25, 08:48, said:

Forgive me for being too bad and inexperienced, but with spades agreed as trumps, the only meaning I have come across for a 5♥ response to 4NT Roman Key Card Blackwood is 2 (or 5) key cards without the queen of trumps/significant undisclosed extra trump length.

Therefore I might well not bother asking about the meaning of 5♥.

True, but you're probably not likely to be playing against pairs that play straight Blackwood or Roman Blackwood (how do you know if it's KC unless you ask, neither bid was asked about according to the OP), you would at least make sure you knew what 5♥ meant if you were playing a pair that might be playing something other than keycard.

[barmar]

This thread reminds me somewhat of the thread about "weak takeout". The speaker and listener each had different ideas of what's implicit in the explanation: the speaker believed that "weak" in this context means less than opening strength, while the listener assumed it means the weaker part of the usual range for a takeout double.

In this thread, the listener assumed that since the bid was NT, that it implied somewhat balanced shape because the speaker didn't say otherwise. The speaker thought that not saying anything about shape obviously means any shape.

I'm not sure what a good solution to this is. We could require everyone to give extremely detailed explanations (as in the threads about asking bids, where people have said you should describe the kinds of hands that would ask the question), and specifically say that explanations must be explicit about both strength and distribution, but I fear that this would make the game very tedious. And the most likely consequence of that tedium would be that players would routinely ignore the requirement. So we'll just be back in the same situation, although we might feel more justified in ruling against the explainers, since we can point to a specific rule that they've violated by abbreviating their explanations.

[jallerton]

aguahombre, on 2012-May-25, 10:23, said:

I don't understand. Your use of the terms "likely" and "high chance" argue for maybe 30/70 the oppposite way from what Vix ruled.

No. I said that there was a high chance that this North would have played ♠10 anyway. This would lead to the table result of 6♠=, so I am implying a high percentage of 6♠= in the weighting. According to VixTD, his actual ruling was:

VixTD said:

I awarded both sides 70% 6♠(W)= and 30% 6♠(W)-1

aguahombre, on 2012-May-25, 10:23, said:

Or, how about the more obscure thought? Could East have actually "known" of the heart void? There is evidence to support this. East bid the slam off a key card and the spade queen. If he knew of the void, then their agreements are much more than disclosed.

This inference is not valid; you are trying to be far too subtle. These were clearly not particularly strong players and they would not think like that.

[PeterAlan]

My first post was hasty - I didn't give sufficient weight to the "any distribution" aspect, and I certainly agree that as we play the game now E/W's explanation should have made this clear. I still don't have much sympathy for N's play, though!

jallerton, on 2012-May-25, 14:22, said:

No. I said that there was a high chance that this North would have played ♠10 anyway. This would lead to the table result of 6♠=, so I am implying a high percentage of 6♠= in the weighting. According to VixTD, his actual ruling was:

VixTD said:

I awarded both sides 70% 6♠(W)= and 30% 6♠(W)-1

I've looked a bit more carefully at the hand, and W can always make 6♠ even if N plays low when W leads to ♠A at trick 2, by eliminating N's holdings in the side suits and then endplaying him in ♠. It's quite possible to find this line after ♠Q falls under the A, and provides further justification for VixTD's weighting.

[aguahombre]

Peter: I don't see it (not unusual for me to miss something, though). Seems as if Declarer either runs out of trumps or leaves lefty with JX and the heart ace behind K8 of trump and another card after roughing up.

[blackshoe]

RMB1, on 2012-May-24, 08:20, said:

It is not clear that an explanation was ever asked of 4NT/5♥.

Why does this indicate that we should assume N does not know the meaning of these bids?

[blackshoe]

RMB1, on 2012-May-24, 09:56, said:

Explanations are given in natural language (a dialect "bridge english"). Natural language contains assumptions, and speakers and listeners make assumptions. Players are not always speaking the same language, and make different assumptions, and misunderstandings occur. Players can avoid some misunderstandings by being aware of different meanings and assumptions used by other players.

Misunderstanding between explainer and opponents happen. If the misunderstanding is the fault of the opponent then the opponent has no redress but if the misunderstanding is the fault of the explainer then there is misinformation.

In this case, a 2NT rebid explained as "15-19" is taken to mean "like a traditional 2NT rebid but the range is wider: 15-19". The explainer should have been aware of this and should given a different explanation: 15-19, not necessarily traditional 2NT rebid shape".

First you assume that players must be aware of other players' different "bridge english" dialects. Then you say the proper explanation is to use the explaining player's "bridge english" dialect. How do you know the opponents have any idea what the explainer means by "traditional 2NT rebid shape"?

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2012-May-25, 04:58, said:

This was nowhere near natural, it was a convention.

All bids are conventions, but by convention, some bids are natural.

[blackshoe]

jallerton, on 2012-May-25, 08:48, said:

Forgive me for being too bad and inexperienced, but with spades agreed as trumps, the only meaning I have come across for a 5♥ response to 4NT Roman Key Card Blackwood is 2 (or 5) key cards without the queen of trumps/significant undisclosed extra trump length.

Therefore I might well not bother asking about the meaning of 5♥.

Would you ask the meaning of 4NT? The answer to that question will probably tell you the meaning of 5♥. Absent knowing what 4NT means, you cannot be sure that 5♥ means what you think it means.

[Trinidad]

jallerton, on 2012-May-25, 09:54, said:

The 70/30 weighting seems fair to me. An important point to note is that, even with a complete understanding of the E/W methods, North could expect that his ♥A was very likely to be a trick, so based on the information available to the TD, there is a high chance that this particular North would have played ♠10 anyway.

I understand your reasoning, but I don't agree with it. Let's assume that we agree that North was misinformed and that it was reasonable for him to understand from the explanation that West had a somewhat balanced hand, with at least a singleton heart.

With that information, North has a sure way to beat 6♠ by inserting the 10. It may well blow a trick, but it will secure that the contract is down, also when West gave the wrong answer in response to RKCB. (What do I know? Maybe West forgot the trump queen on the previous board. Although I admit that I would tell the TD that if that would happen.) The ♠10 cannot be a wrong card, if you are willing to potentially (in the case your team mates reach the slam) sacrifice an IMP to make 100% sure that the contract is set.

If North knows that 2NT could be any distribution, North does not have this sure way to beat 6♠. He will have to rely on West's RKCB response to get two trump tricks. North will not be tempted to play a high trump (unless he was signalling distribution ). Now, it is perfectly possible for the 10 to give the contract away.

Why would North now suddenly make the strange play of inserting the 10? He has no reason. IMO, it can't be right to deem that a player c/would make a strange play, for which he has no reason, just because he made that strange play in a different situation where he did have a reason. Estimating the probability that he will make this strange play as 70% seems to be an overestimate by a factor of 50 or more.

Rik

[jallerton]

Rik: I understand, but do not agree with, your reasoning.

The reason for North's strange play is that he feared that declarer, if holding ♠KQxxx, might take a first round finesse of ♠9. In my opinion (and I suspect that you agree), declarer would never such a play in practice. However, this particular North presumably did not share my view; he would still have had the same fear about the suit combination in spades whether he considered ♥A to be a very likely trick or an apparently certain one.

[Cyberyeti]

jallerton, on 2012-May-27, 16:43, said:

Rik: I understand, but do not agree with, your reasoning.

The reason for North's strange play is that he feared that declarer, if holding ♠KQxxx, might take a first round finesse of ♠9. In my opinion (and I suspect that you agree), declarer would never such a play in practice. However, this particular North presumably did not share my view; he would still have had the same fear about the suit combination in spades whether he considered ♥A to be a very likely trick or an apparently certain one.

I wonder if N thought for a bit then in panic thought declarer might read his spade holding from the pause.

[bluejak]

aguahombre, on 2012-May-25, 10:23, said:

Also, does anyone address (from North's point of view) that if he thought from the explanation that the Ace of hearts was cashing he would have led it at trick one? Then, he would know he needed two trump tricks instead of one.

Or, how about the more obscure thought? Could East have actually "known" of the heart void? There is evidence to support this. East bid the slam off a key card and the spade queen. If he knew of the void, then their agreements are much more than disclosed.

So, when a player is misinformed, the plan is to try to find any excuse whatever to avoid giving a ruling in his favour? Of course he probably should have led the ♥A based on the incorrect explanation given, but he didn't. That is not SEWoG since SEWoG does not apply before the infraction, so does not affect the ruling one iota as a matter of law.

The suggestion that he knew the heart void is just off the planet. He just made a bad lead and you want him shot for it.

barmar, on 2012-May-25, 11:06, said:

This thread reminds me somewhat of the thread about "weak takeout". The speaker and listener each had different ideas of what's implicit in the explanation: the speaker believed that "weak" in this context means less than opening strength, while the listener assumed it means the weaker part of the usual range for a takeout double.

In this thread, the listener assumed that since the bid was NT, that it implied somewhat balanced shape because the speaker didn't say otherwise. The speaker thought that not saying anything about shape obviously means any shape.

I'm not sure what a good solution to this is. We could require everyone to give extremely detailed explanations (as in the threads about asking bids, where people have said you should describe the kinds of hands that would ask the question), and specifically say that explanations must be explicit about both strength and distribution, but I fear that this would make the game very tedious. And the most likely consequence of that tedium would be that players would routinely ignore the requirement. So we'll just be back in the same situation, although we might feel more justified in ruling against the explainers, since we can point to a specific rule that they've violated by abbreviating their explanations.

It is nothing similar whatever. While I am confident what "weak takeout" means in the English game I accept that there was a fair amount of minority opinion otherwise. But no-one plays a natural no-trump to include a void as opener's first rebid - and the opponents were not told it was not natural.

In a situation where the vast majority of players play a bid as natural and you do not tell them it is not natural, then either it is natural or they have been misinformed - and unforgivably: there is no excuse.



This thread worries me. I have gained an impression over the last few years that a growing idea, especially in the USA, is to blame the victim. We do not want this in the game. A couple of my American friends on RGB suggest it is the effect of a growing view in normal life in the USA to blame the victim. Mabe so, but we do not want this to happen in bridge.

• Were the defenders misinformed? Yes.
  
• Were they damaged thereby? Yes.
  
• Could they have done better anyway? Yes.

We adjust because of #1 and #2: we do not refuse to adjust because of #3 unless Law 12C1B tells us not to.



You remember I had several issues with this forum and IE. iespell refused to work, MultiQuote also did not, Review the Complete Topic did not. Since then I have changed to Google Chrome, MultiQuote works again, Review the Complete Topic works again, and Google Chrome has its own spellchekka. But, the spellchekka only underlines wrong words sometimes, even though it always offers alternatives when you put the mouse on it. Any suggestions as to how to get it to work showing misspelt words consistently?

[mycroft]

So, there is a difference: the ACBL defines the Serious Error part of the "SEWoG" law as "failure to play bridge, for a person of your abililty, after the infraction." In my estimation, that is too low in non-expert games; but I realize that this is designed to combat the "less-than-perfectly-ethical pro" playing rules lawyer combined with the U.S. philosophy that "there is no unwritten law" (at least more so than in Commonwealth-style Common Law countries), so I go with it.

Whether people push the "failure to play bridge" too hard because *they* would never have made this error is arguable. But this case is much closer (to the point of at least having to look at it) to the ACBL definition of Serious Error than to the EBU one.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2012-May-30, 08:42, said:

In a situation where the vast majority of players play a bid as natural and you do not tell them it is not natural, then either it is natural or they have been misinformed - and unforgivably: there is no excuse.

I suspect they may have assumed that since the bid was alerted, it would not be expected to be natural. That may not be a great assumption, but I don't think it's unforgivable. They might be reasoning by analogy with how people alert and explain strong clubs. They typically just explain "16 or more points" -- most don't mention that it's artificial and says nothing about clubs.

Of course, the difference is that strong club systems are pretty common -- even if you don't play them yourself, most have encountered them, and can recognize that this is the explanation that goes with it. But an "any shape" 2NT in the OP's auction is not something most players will have encountered -- the more unusual your method, the more important it is to give a complete and explicit explanation.

[Cyberyeti]

barmar, on 2012-May-30, 14:05, said:

I suspect they may have assumed that since the bid was alerted, it would not be expected to be natural. That may not be a great assumption, but I don't think it's unforgivable. They might be reasoning by analogy with how people alert and explain strong clubs. They typically just explain "16 or more points" -- most don't mention that it's artificial and says nothing about clubs.

Of course, the difference is that strong club systems are pretty common -- even if you don't play them yourself, most have encountered them, and can recognize that this is the explanation that goes with it. But an "any shape" 2NT in the OP's auction is not something most players will have encountered -- the more unusual your method, the more important it is to give a complete and explicit explanation.

This particular case is interesting because they have given an accurate and complete explanation, it is 15-19 as they explained, any 15-19, it's just that people assume that this will be a balanced hand then don't protect themselves by checking as I would have.

[barmar]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-May-30, 14:40, said:

This particular case is interesting because they have given an accurate and complete explanation, it is 15-19 as they explained, any 15-19, it's just that people assume that this will be a balanced hand then don't protect themselves by checking as I would have.

It's accurate, but not very explicit. As I said, if you play an uncommon convention, the onus should be on you to provide all the information the opponents are likely to need. Specifying shape restrictions, or the lack thereof, should be part of this.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2012-May-30, 08:42, said:

So, when a player is misinformed, the plan is to try to find any excuse whatever to avoid giving a ruling in his favour? Of course he probably should have led the ♥A based on the incorrect explanation given, but he didn't. That is not SEWoG since SEWoG does not apply before the infraction, so does not affect the ruling one iota as a matter of law.

The suggestion that he knew the heart void is just off the planet. He just made a bad lead and you want him shot for it.

Am happy for you that you were able to get that out. However, your tirade had little to do with what I posted.

The discussion at the time was about weighting, not about whether there should be a ruling in his favor. SEWoG was not mentioned; I was addressing credibility. I wondered whether the degree of credibility given to North's contention about whether the heart ACE would be a cashable trick might be considered as part of the weighting, since his opening lead is a counter-indicator.

My question about whether the void might be "known" referred to East, not North, based on his choice to bid slam off two critical cards. A person familiar with E/W answered my concern about that; and he didn't even speculate whether I reside on his same planet.