[c_corgi]

 campboy, on 2012-May-02, 07:50, said:

The question I would ask anyone who wants to adjust here is "would you still adjust if the actual agreement was 11-14, but South assumed 6-11 or similar?" I think it is inconsistent to rule MI in both cases.

Ruling MI in either case assumes that S is entitled to redress if his interpretation of an ambiguous explanation is different to that intended. Therefore it would be inconsistent to rule MI in one and not the other.

[campboy]

 c_corgi, on 2012-May-02, 11:22, said:

Ruling MI in either case assumes that S is entitled to redress if his interpretation of an ambiguous explanation is different to that intended. Therefore it would be inconsistent to rule MI in one and not the other.

In order to rule misinformation there needs to be misinformation. We can rule MI if we think the explanation clearly meant one thing rather than the other. Obviously this can't be the case in both directions simultaneously.

[blackshoe]

What, exactly, is the definition of "misinformation"?

[barmar]

I don't think the Laws use the term "misinformation", they say "incorrect explanation". If an explanation is incomplete or ambiguous, you could rule that it's inherently incorrect.

There's only going to be damage if the ambiguity results in the opponent misinterpreting the explanation. But it doesn't matter whether the intent was X and the opponent thought it was Y, or vice versa.

[gordontd]

 barmar, on 2012-May-03, 00:56, said:

I don't think the Laws use the term "misinformation", t

Actually the term appears in the Laws on several occasions, though not in the definitions.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2012-May-03, 00:56, said:

I don't think the Laws use the term "misinformation", they say "incorrect explanation". If an explanation is incomplete or ambiguous, you could rule that it's inherently incorrect.

There's only going to be damage if the ambiguity results in the opponent misinterpreting the explanation. But it doesn't matter whether the intent was X and the opponent thought it was Y, or vice versa.

 gordontd, on 2012-May-03, 02:00, said:

Actually the term appears in the Laws on several occasions, though not in the definitions.

Four times, by my count, in Laws 20 and 21, not including Table of Contents, Index, and chapter headings.

 campboy, on 2012-May-02, 15:01, said:

In order to rule misinformation there needs to be misinformation. We can rule MI if we think the explanation clearly meant one thing rather than the other. Obviously this can't be the case in both directions simultaneously.

It seems to me that the fact that a player was misled by an explanation is prima facie evidence that the explanation was misleading ("Misleading explanation" is the phrase used in Law 75). "Misinformation", according to my dictionary, means "false or inaccurate information". If a player gives a true and accurate description of his partnership understanding, and his opponent is nonetheless misled, what then? I suppose 21A applies.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2012-May-03, 07:25, said:

If a player gives a true and accurate description of his partnership understanding, and his opponent is nonetheless misled, what then?

The AC rules in the opponent's favour.

[blackshoe]

So much for Law 21A, then.

[Cyberyeti]

 blackshoe, on 2012-May-04, 00:04, said:

So much for Law 21A, then.

The question here is whether a true and accurate but incomplete explanation can be ruled misleading because an alternative interpretation is so much more normal that the person hearing it doesn't realise there's any ambiguity to unravel.

If the explanation is obviously ambiguous, or is misinterpreted in a way the director does not think is reasonable, then 21A applies. The more normal the situation and both alternatives, the more likely 21A is to apply IMO.

[blackshoe]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-May-04, 01:55, said:

The question here is whether a true and accurate but incomplete explanation can be ruled misleading because an alternative interpretation is so much more normal that the person hearing it doesn't realise there's any ambiguity to unravel.

If the explanation is obviously ambiguous, or is misinterpreted in a way the director does not think is reasonable, then 21A applies. The more normal the situation and both alternatives, the more likely 21A is to apply IMO.

I'm sorry, this does not make sense to me.

[Cyberyeti]

 blackshoe, on 2012-May-04, 07:28, said:

I'm sorry, this does not make sense to me.

To exaggerate to make a point.

If I say I'm playing a strong club, and in fact I open 1♣ only on hands with 28 or more points so you dial 1100 after interfering, you might have a case. The explanation while true is an incomplete explanation of an extremely unusual agreement and misleading as it is very likely to be interpreted as something else without a second thought.

I actually have a situation like this with one of my partners. Our 2 suited bids are "Bad or good, but our view of good may be lighter than yours" the gap being about 9-13 if 5-5. We had a ruling which went all the way to the national authority where one of us bid on over a hesitation in a situation where it was mandatory by system to do so (a 6-5 12 count with tenaces over the opening bid), and really struggled to persuade anybody that this was actually what we played with just bad or good on the card.

[mycroft]

An incomplete explanation, if the incomplete part of it is the important part, is misleading whether what was said was 100% true and accurate. Also, while interesting, proving that a call wasn't a LA in one's system is a different beast from an MI case (although with similar issues of evidence).

I think if Cyberyeti said "true and accurate and *complete*", then it's a more interesting question. I wonder what the answer to that would be. Having said that, I'm not sure whether the OP case is "complete, but potentially misleading" or "incomplete, and potentially misleading"; the good news is that I'm pretty certain it wasn't "deliberately misleading".

On that note, for me, "weak TOX" means "shape for a TOX, but weaker than you'd expect"; so I would have got the right read of the explanation - but I can see (although wouldn't have at the time) the alternative "general TO strength, but we shade a point or two on both ends".

[Cyberyeti]

 mycroft, on 2012-May-04, 13:10, said:

An incomplete explanation, if the incomplete part of it is the important part, is misleading whether what was said was 100% true and accurate. Also, while interesting, proving that a call wasn't a LA in one's system is a different beast from an MI case (although with similar issues of evidence).

I think if Cyberyeti said "true and accurate and *complete*", then it's a more interesting question. I wonder what the answer to that would be. Having said that, I'm not sure whether the OP case is "complete, but potentially misleading" or "incomplete, and potentially misleading"; the good news is that I'm pretty certain it wasn't "deliberately misleading".

On that note, for me, "weak TOX" means "shape for a TOX, but weaker than you'd expect"; so I would have got the right read of the explanation - but I can see (although wouldn't have at the time) the alternative "general TO strength, but we shade a point or two on both ends".

I agree the UI is slightly different, but it has changed the way we explain the bid and would also cover the MI situation if somebody claimed damage because we treated a 14 count as a good hand and they then didn't bid game/slam.

I don't think they were deliberately misleading, but the problem is that the much more common occasions that you hear the "weak ToX" explanation (Hackett or the artificial 1x-1N overcall) it means 11-14 or similar.

[blackshoe]

 mycroft, on 2012-May-04, 13:10, said:

An incomplete explanation, if the incomplete part of it is the important part, is misleading whether what was said was 100% true and accurate. Also, while interesting, proving that a call wasn't a LA in one's system is a different beast from an MI case (although with similar issues of evidence).

"It isn't true, but it's accurate". — Sally Field, in "Absence of Malice".

[bluejak]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-May-04, 14:20, said:

I don't think they were deliberately misleading, but the problem is that the much more common occasions that you hear the "weak ToX" explanation (Hackett or the artificial 1x-1N overcall) it means 11-14 or similar.

I play "the artificial 1x-1N overcall". 3-11 is the range, not a pusillanimous 11-14.

[Cyberyeti]

 bluejak, on 2012-May-08, 12:07, said:

I play "the artificial 1x-1N overcall". 3-11 is the range, not a pusillanimous 11-14.

And what do you explain it as ?

[bluejak]

"A weak distributional takeout showing two or three of the unbid suits".

No-one has ever understood weak to be as strong as an opening bid.

[FrancesHinden]

What event was this in?
As far as I can work out this 2C overcall isn't currently permitted in any EBU event (if it promises 4+ cards in a particular suit e.g. promises both majors it's allowed at level 5 but that's it).

[Cyberyeti]

 FrancesHinden, on 2012-May-16, 14:27, said:

What event was this in?
As far as I can work out this 2C overcall isn't currently permitted in any EBU event (if it promises 4+ cards in a particular suit e.g. promises both majors it's allowed at level 5 but that's it).

National pairs final IIRC.

You are entirely right, and damn, that probably cost us some places and a load of greens/cash.

[Vampyr]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-May-16, 15:03, said:

National pairs final IIRC.

Is this not Level 5?