[c_corgi]

lamford, on 2013-May-27, 16:31, said:

...
It says that the TD must be called for "an erroneous explanation", because it means exactly that. It does not say, nor imply, that the TD must be called for a failure to alert. Nor do the TDs I asked think they should be called, unless it is thought the opponents might be damaged or might want to change their last call, or, at the end of the auction, if they might have been damaged.

No, it says that what you do when you call the TD (as you must) is inform the opponents that partner's explanation was erroneous. It does not say "the player (who was identified by 20F5a) doesn't need to call the director in all the circumstances described (in 20F5a)". It may be clumsily worded, but it doesn't have the meaning you claim, either literally or through a common sense interpretation.

Did those TDs you consulted explain who decides if there might have been damage, for instance in the case of an inexperienced NOS?

[blackshoe]

Law 20F5{b} does indeed use the form "his partner's explanation was erroneous". Nonetheless I disagree completely with Paul, and I'd like to know who these TDs are to whom he spoke who said they agree with him - and how the question was phrased.

[lamford]

c_corgi, on 2013-May-27, 17:44, said:

Did those TDs you consulted explain who decides if there might have been damage, for instance in the case of an inexperienced NOS?

I would agree that some failures to alert meet the criteria of erroneous explanations, and the TD should then be called. This is especially the case with inexperienced NOS. All of the TDs agreed that it would disrupt the game to always call the TD, and, as I stated, when I did call a TD to mention a failure to alert the lack of completion of a transfer to a major (after a double), showing a doubleton, I was correctly told "I am sure your opponents will be aware of that." So, I think one should just follow the Law. Some failures to alert or wrong alerts will not be "erroneous explanations", but mere technical breaches of the rules in the Orange Book or ACBL regulations. These are adequately covered by advising the opponents and they can call the TD if they wish. All we need is common sense here.

[lamford]

c_corgi, on 2013-May-27, 17:44, said:

No, it says that what you do when you call the TD (as you must) is inform the opponents that partner's explanation was erroneous.

The first requirement has to be that partner's explanation was indeed erroneous. There are two requirements for this:
a) that he or she offered an explanation
b) that it was wrong
If partner did not alert although he should have done, but offered a correct explanation when asked about a bid, would you still call the director? Even blackshoe might find that daft.

[pran]

lamford, on 2013-May-27, 17:31, said:

I am using the EBU version of the Laws. That states:
20F5(b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous. (My emphasis). It does not say "in his opinion, his partner failed to alert or alerted incorrectly".

I should say it carefully uses "erroneous" rather than "mistaken" because "mistaken explanation" includes a failure to alert or wrong alert, as you point out.

There is no dispute that the opponents should be informed at the earliest opportunity of any alerting error. There is no dispute that the TD should be called when there is an erroneous explanation. The sole question is whether the TD should be called when there is a failure to alert or wrong alert.

Sure, I overlooked the use of "erroneous" in L20F5{b}.
But that doesn't essentially change anything in my post. A missing alert is one special case of mistaken explanation.

[lamford]

pran, on 2013-May-27, 18:09, said:

Sure, I overlooked the use of "erroneous" in L20F5{b}.
But that doesn't essentially change anything in my post.

Nothing ever changes anything in your posts. Even when everybody tells you are wrong.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2013-May-27, 17:56, said:

I would agree that some failures to alert meet the criteria of erroneous explanations, and the TD should then be called. This is especially the case with inexperienced NOS. All of the TDs agreed that it would disrupt the game to always call the TD, and, as I stated, when I did call a TD to mention a failure to alert the lack of completion of a transfer to a major (after a double), showing a doubleton, I was correctly told "I am sure your opponents will be aware of that." So, I think one should just follow the Law. Some failures to alert or wrong alerts will not be "erroneous explanations", but mere technical breaches of the rules in the Orange Book or ACBL regulations. These are adequately covered by advising the opponents. They can call the TD if they wish.

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. Neither is "I'm sure your opponents will be aware of that". Yes, just follow the law. The problem here is that you have come up with a very unusual interpretation of the law, so much so that I would say that doing as you suggest is not following the law.

[c_corgi]

lamford, on 2013-May-27, 18:01, said:

The first requirement has to be that partner's explanation was indeed erroneous. There are two requirements for this:
a) that he or she offered an explanation
b) that it was wrong
If partner did not alert although he should have done, but offered a correct explanation when asked about a bid, would you still call the director? Even blackshoe might find that daft.

That would be the case if 20F5b were presenting the "erroneous explanation" clause as the criteria by which you decide whether or not to call the director. But it isn't: the need to call the director has already been established and the clause (literally interpreted) merely tells you what to what to say when you do so.

I agree that a degree of common sense should be applied when deciding whether the director is needed in practice, but I don't agree with justifying it by pretending that the law has a literal meaning which supports this approach.

[aguahombre]

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.

[lamford]

c_corgi, on 2013-May-27, 18:16, said:

That would be the case if 20F5b were presenting the "erroneous explanation" clause as the criteria by which you decide whether or not to call the director. But it isn't: the need to call the director has already been established and the clause (literally interpreted) merely tells you what to what to say when you do so.

It says:
20F5(b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous.

If there was a failure to alert, but partner explained correctly when asked, you would now call the director and say "in my opinion my partner's explanation was erroneous", would you? The director would ask you "what was the correct explanation?" and you would say "the one my partner gave". Men in white coats would come to take you away.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-27, 18:13, said:

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]

aguahombre, on 2013-May-27, 18:19, said:

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]

c_corgi, on 2013-May-27, 18:16, said:

<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]

pran, on 2013-May-27, 18:33, said:

"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]

pran, on 2013-May-27, 18:33, said:

"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]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-27, 20:36, said:

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]

lamford, on 2013-May-27, 18:38, said:

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]

lamford, on 2013-May-27, 18:23, said:

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]

campboy, on 2013-May-28, 02:54, said:

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.