[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Aug 21 2010, 07:24 PM, said:

I think we're getting into the realm of what the laws should say, rather than what they do say. That said, I think Josh will agree that the line has to be drawn somewhere, and I don't think one case is really enough to justify drawing it somewhere else.

I disagree. The law as quoted in the first post seems to allow the director to have the bidder explain the meaning of his bid, no law need be changed. So why not do that here as it is reasonable for declarer to think the explanation was incorrect?

[blackshoe]

It's four am, and I can't sleep. Can't think very well either. So all I'll say at this point is that I think it's probably legal for the Director to send the 3♣ bidder's partner away from the table, and have the bidder explain whether he agrees with his partner's explanation (but not say what he has in his hand, or whether he has misbid or psyched or otherwise deviated from the agreement). I'm not sure it's a good idea, though at the moment I can't articulate why. Might have something to do with the feeling that if the bidder agrees with the explanation, and turns out to have a different kind of hand, declarer is likely to explode.

[pran]

lexlogan, on Aug 22 2010, 04:29 AM, said:

pran, on Aug 21 2010, 08:37 PM, said:

In our case the declarer should be able to trust that the Director if misinformation becomes evident will rule how many tricks declarer would have gotten with correct explanation and award a corresponding assigned adjusted score.

Any player with experience at an American bridge club would know better than to trust the director will get this sort of thing right. They aren't trained to do so, and few of them understand the logic of the laws well enough. Committees are practically unheard of at the club level. For what it's worth, the actual director told me he probably would not have adjusted the score, reasoning that South was experienced enough to know 3C wasn't Michaels. Of course this is absurd, since the director cannot adjust the score if, in fact, the pair in question had such an agreement but declarer assumed clubs meant clubs. And pairs have all sorts of silly agreements.

Disgusting

[pran]

blackshoe, on Aug 22 2010, 09:27 AM, said:

It's four am, and I can't sleep. Can't think very well either. So all I'll say at this point is that I think it's probably legal for the Director to send the 3♣ bidder's partner away from the table, and have the bidder explain whether he agrees with his partner's explanation (but not say what he has in his hand, or whether he has misbid or psyched or otherwise deviated from the agreement). I'm not sure it's a good idea, though at the moment I can't articulate why. Might have something to do with the feeling that if the bidder agrees with the explanation, and turns out to have a different kind of hand, declarer is likely to explode.

Certainly it is legal for the director to do so, but I, like blackshoe would not recommend it.

[lexlogan]

pran, on Aug 22 2010, 09:34 AM, said:

lexlogan, on Aug 22 2010, 04:29 AM, said:

pran, on Aug 21 2010, 08:37 PM, said:

In our case the declarer should be able to trust that the Director if misinformation becomes evident will rule how many tricks declarer would have gotten with correct explanation and award a corresponding assigned adjusted score.

Any player with experience at an American bridge club would know better than to trust the director will get this sort of thing right. They aren't trained to do so, and few of them understand the logic of the laws well enough. Committees are practically unheard of at the club level. For what it's worth, the actual director told me he probably would not have adjusted the score, reasoning that South was experienced enough to know 3C wasn't Michaels. Of course this is absurd, since the director cannot adjust the score if, in fact, the pair in question had such an agreement but declarer assumed clubs meant clubs. And pairs have all sorts of silly agreements.

Disgusting

On the flip side, our club has grown by leaps and bounds in the last 10 years; we have three rooms and have several times had 17 tables for a day game; nine used to be a "big game." It's a pleasant place to play if you concentrate on your own cards and don't worry too much about what other people are doing. I used to direct and 90% of players liked my style, but 10% were violently annoyed. Knowledge of the laws is not necessarily the most important skill for a director. Yes, I'd wish everyone understood and practiced full disclosure and active ethics and the directors got all their rulings right, but bridge at the club is still fun.

[CSGibson]

Would it be easier for declarer to ask follow-up questions, more along the lines of "have you actually discussed this sequence, or are you just guessing what it means?", and "has this sequence ever come up before?"

[pran]

CSGibson, on Aug 22 2010, 11:01 PM, said:

Would it be easier for declarer to ask follow-up questions, more along the lines of "have you actually discussed this sequence, or are you just guessing what it meants?", and "has this sequence ever come up before?"

I have a feeling that such questions, showing distrust, can easily be taken as accusation of dishonesty and thus be a violation of Law 74A2.

[CSGibson]

pran, on Aug 22 2010, 03:33 PM, said:

CSGibson, on Aug 22 2010, 11:01 PM, said:

Would it be easier for declarer to ask follow-up questions, more along the lines of "have you actually discussed this sequence, or are you just guessing what it meants?", and "has this sequence ever come up before?"

I have a feeling that such questions, showing distrust, can easily be taken as accusation of dishonesty and thus be a violation of Law 74A2.

I cannot see how that would be an accusation of dishonesty when calling the director and asking to cross-examine the partner who made the bid would not be called an accusation of dishonesty.

This is clearly asking follow-up questions that an experienced declarer might be expected to ask in order to get full protection of the laws, IMO, not questioning the intentions of the person giving the original answer, but instead questioning the accuracy of the response given based on their own knowledge and experiences.

[pran]

CSGibson, on Aug 23 2010, 12:06 AM, said:

pran, on Aug 22 2010, 03:33 PM, said:

CSGibson, on Aug 22 2010, 11:01 PM, said:

Would it be easier for declarer to ask follow-up questions, more along the lines of "have you actually discussed this sequence, or are you just guessing what it meants?", and "has this sequence ever come up before?"

I have a feeling that such questions, showing distrust, can easily be taken as accusation of dishonesty and thus be a violation of Law 74A2.

I cannot see how that would be an accusation of dishonesty when calling the director and asking to cross-examine the partner who made the bid would not be called an accusation of dishonesty.

This is clearly asking follow-up questions that an experienced declarer might be expected to ask in order to get full protection of the laws, IMO, not questioning the intentions of the person giving the original answer, but instead questioning the accuracy of the response given based on their own knowledge and experiences.

You question the truth of the first answer?

And as I have already stated: I don't believe that should be necessary: If the explanation turns out to be incorrect you shall be heard on a complaint that you because of the incorrect explanation has chosen an unfortunate line of play.

[blackshoe]

pran, on Aug 22 2010, 07:15 PM, said:

And as I have already stated: I don't believe that should be necessary: If the explanation turns out to be incorrect you shall be heard on a complaint that you because of the incorrect explanation has chosen an unfortunate line of play.

The OP suggested that at least part of the motivation for wanting to hear it from the bidder is that he wishes to achieve his good score through his own skill at playing the hand, and not through the assistance of the TD via score adjustment.

Personally, I think this a specious reason, because after all, if you know that there are two lines of play, and if you choose the right one, you'll get a good score, then if you choose the wrong one because you were misinformed, you will know, now and forever, that if you had not been misinformed, you'd have got it right.

[CSGibson]

pran, on Aug 22 2010, 04:15 PM, said:

You question the truth of the first answer?

I believe that it is ridiculous to assume that questioning the accuracy of the answer is the same as questioning the honesty of the person giving the answer.

[bluejak]

lexlogan, on Aug 21 2010, 05:51 AM, said:

He calls the director and states he would like East to confirm whether Michaels (i.e., length in both majors) is, in fact, the partnership agreement. If I were director, I would be inclined to make sure South understood that the answer would be authorized information for West, and then (per Law 20 F) instruct East to answer "yes" or "no", "Is that your partnership agreement?"

The EBU makes a strong recommendation that if there is doubt as to the possibility of MI you should call the TD immediately, so it is reasonable for this player to do so.

If I was the TD I would take both players away from the table separately to find out as best I could what their agreement actually is. If I believe declarer had been misinformed I would tell him so.

[bluejak]

pran, on Aug 21 2010, 09:37 PM, said:

jdonn, on Aug 21 2010, 05:34 PM, said:

By "artificial" I meant it would be given by the director instead of achieved at the table. Perhaps "assigned" is a better word, I apologize since obviously it caused you to miss the point entirely. Or then again, judging by how obvious it was what point I was trying to make, maybe that was simply destined to happen.

Fair enough.

But just for your information: An artificial adjusted score is one assigned when it is impossible to decide a regular score and is specified as a percentage score, for instance "Average plus", "Average" or "Average minus".

An assigned adjusted score is always expressed as a contract with a given number of tricks (or as a weighted average from more than one such assigned scores).

Both jdonn and pran have gone wrong, so let me explain.

A TD [or AC] awards an adjusted score.

They either award an assigned adjusted score under Law 12C1 - you could say they "assign a score" - or they award an artificial adjusted score under Law 12C2.

[pran]

bluejak, on Aug 23 2010, 03:30 PM, said:

pran, on Aug 21 2010, 09:37 PM, said:

jdonn, on Aug 21 2010, 05:34 PM, said:

By "artificial" I meant it would be given by the director instead of achieved at the table. Perhaps "assigned" is a better word, I apologize since obviously it caused you to miss the point entirely. Or then again, judging by how obvious it was what point I was trying to make, maybe that was simply destined to happen.

Fair enough.

But just for your information: An artificial adjusted score is one assigned when it is impossible to decide a regular score and is specified as a percentage score, for instance "Average plus", "Average" or "Average minus".

An assigned adjusted score is always expressed as a contract with a given number of tricks (or as a weighted average from more than one such assigned scores).

Both jdonn and pran have gone wrong, so let me explain.

A TD [or AC] awards an adjusted score.

They either award an assigned adjusted score under Law 12C1 - you could say they "assign a score" - or they award an artificial adjusted score under Law 12C2.

Except for using the word "assigned" instead of "awarded" about an artificial adjusted score I am at a loss on how my description is incorrect. And in particular I wonder how I am incorrect in reality (rather than in form)?

[jdonn]

Where I am at a loss is why I'm being corrected after clarifying exactly what I meant as well as apologizing for not making it clear. Not to mention after also clarifying that my point was being missed at the expense of semantics.

[bluejak]

When people use the wrong wording, especially in technical words, it is better if people who read it know what the correct words are.

Why am I doing it? To be helpful to other people reading the forum of course.

As for saying "I did nothing wrong except ..." I really can think of no answer!

[jdonn]

I'll leave it to you to figure out which sentence in your post was unhelpful. But I'm quite glad to see we agree that the director should use his legal powers to find a way to confirm whether or not the unlikely-sounding explanation is correct in order to let the hand be played normally.

[lexlogan]

Here, most of the discussion has been whether or not the director should permit South's question. Posting at rec.games.bridge, most of the replies were "send West away from the table", with an "of course" attitude toward the question and trying to get a genuine bridge result.

[pran]

bluejak, on Aug 23 2010, 04:52 PM, said:

When people use the wrong wording, especially in technical words, it is better if people who read it know what the correct words are.

Why am I doing it? To be helpful to other people reading the forum of course.

As for saying "I did nothing wrong except ..." I really can think of no answer!

I understand this as a confirmation that both jdonn and I were correct in substance, and that your critisism just concerned me accidentally writing "assign" an adjusted score instead of "award" an adjusted score when this score is artificial.

You say that this "error" creates a problem for people - I do indeed wonder?

[bluejak]

I find that people often get confused between the various adjusted scores, and I think the fact that they all begin with 'a' is a help to confuse.