[billw55]

blackshoe, on 2012-June-18, 09:31, said:

But was "diamonds" spoken clearly?

There's more than one possible explanation for the problem.

There may be. I might even say that there usually is.

In this case, I have a hard time seeing how even a slurred or mumbled "diamonds" can sound like a clear and distinct "hearts" - which is what south claimed to have heard. Perhaps "hearts" was spoken at a nearby table and drifted into south's hearing? We can't know of course, but the mutual consistency of (1) the actual agreement, (2) west's actual hand, and (3) what north heard, convinces me that east did in fact say "diamonds". Or are we to believe that "hearts" was spoken in error, and north happened to mishear in such way as to match the actual agreement? I don't find that credible.

I remember once I failed to hear an opponent's alert, which resulted in me taking a different action than I would have had I heard it. After finding out, I mentioned to the op, "an alert would have helped." She said she did alert, and my partner promptly confirmed that she heard it. I quickly concluded that I had just missed it of my own accord, and made no further complaint. Here too, perhaps south should just accept that he heard incorrectly.

[blackshoe]

Oh, I'm quite willing to believe that East said "diamonds". What I'm not willing to insist on is that South heard something different because he wasn't paying attention. South is the injured party here, and I think a thorough investigation is needed before one rules that the injury does not rate rectification.

It may be true that South, having been told that East did indeed say "diamonds", ought to just accept that he heard incorrectly, but sometimes people don't do that, and the director gets involved, and the director has to deal with what is, not what ought to be.

[barmar]

Yes, the TD has to deal with it. But it sounds like the preponderance of the evidence supports that the explanation was given correctly and understandably. As I said above, it's reasonable to require players to ensure that an alert was noticed, and we can even require that they make a good faith to speak clearly when explaining (if you have food in your mouth, make some gesture to stop the auction while you finish chewing and then explain). But it's NOT reasonable to require them to ensure that the explanation was understood, there's no way for them to do this without overly burdening everyone.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2012-June-18, 16:14, said:

South is the injured party here, and I think a thorough investigation is needed before one rules that the injury does not rate rectification.

There is no doubt that South is the injured party. This is irrelevant to the discussion. Injuries do not lead to rectification, infractions do.

The question is "Who is liable for South's injury?".
The facts:
- North asked a question.
- It was answered correctly.

Conclusion: No infraction.

If South wanted to ask a question, he could have done so. South thought 2♠ meant spades + hearts, because he misheard. That is tough luck, as that injured South. But there cannot be doubt that South is liable for his own injury and not EW.

Of course, you don't have any reason to state the issue this sharp to South. He deserves our sympathy for his hard luck and will get it... but not in the form of a rectification.

Rik

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-June-19, 00:02, said:

But it's NOT reasonable to require them to ensure that the explanation was understood, there's no way for them to do this without overly burdening everyone.

It's certainly more care than is currently taken, but I think your last clause is an overbid - it's an additional "burden" sure, but is it really that great a one?

Trinidad, on 2012-June-19, 05:29, said:

There is no doubt that South is the injured party. This is irrelevant to the discussion. Injuries do not lead to rectification, infractions do.

The question is "Who is liable for South's injury?".
The facts:
- North asked a question.
- It was answered correctly.

Conclusion: No infraction.

If South wanted to ask a question, he could have done so. South thought 2♠ meant spades + hearts, because he misheard. That is tough luck, as that injured South. But there cannot be doubt that South is liable for his own injury and not EW.

Of course, you don't have any reason to state the issue this sharp to South. He deserves our sympathy for his hard luck and will get it... but not in the form of a rectification.

I agree there was no infraction. However, while South could have asked a question at his turn if he wanted to, why should he want to, when he thinks he already heard the answer? My point here is that "he could have asked if he'd wanted to" is a spurious argument. It's not relevant to your point — with which I agree, btw. But I don't have to like it.

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on 2012-June-19, 07:04, said:

It's certainly more care than is currently taken, but I think your last clause is an overbid - it's an additional "burden" sure, but is it really that great a one?

Yes. It is impossible to know whether someone has understood something unless they interact with you. Even then, there are some people who just don't or won't understand some things, and that is hardly your responsibility. The best you can be reasonably be expected to do is deliver an explanation that is reasonably capable of being understood.

[blackshoe]

iviehoff, on 2012-June-19, 08:20, said:

Yes. It is impossible to know whether someone has understood something unless they interact with you.

So? It's that hard to say "okay" or "I understand"? Gee, that last is four whole syllables! I guess that is too hard.

iviehoff, on 2012-June-19, 08:20, said:

Even then, there are some people who just don't or won't understand some things, and that is hardly your responsibility. The best you can be reasonably be expected to do is deliver an explanation that is reasonably capable of being understood.

If they don't, can't, or won't understand the explanation of the meaning of a bid, then either the explanation is lacking, or they shouldn't be playing bridge.

We've strayed out of 'simple rulings' into an area more suited for 'changing laws'. I don't propose that we change the laws or regulations, so let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that. Or, if you like, I can split off this part of the thread and move it.

[WellSpyder]

blackshoe, on 2012-June-19, 09:05, said:

So? It's that hard to say "okay" or "I understand"? Gee, that last is four whole syllables! I guess that is too hard.

Sorry, blackshoe, but I'm not sure I do understand - what you are suggesting, that is. Do you think we should all get into the habit of saying "I understand" every time an opponent explains a bid to one of the partnership? Or that we should ask each opponent "do you understand?" every time we give an explanation? I'm sure that would go down really well....

And, of course, it wouldn't actually help in the current instance, anyway, because south would have been happy to say "I understand" if he had been asked or if this became the normal thing to do! He did indeed understand, he just understood the wrong thing because he heard wrongly.

[blackshoe]

No, all I'm saying is that it doesn't seem to me that it's as hard to do that as was made out.

Look, all this stuff is kind of pointless anyway. I've already agreed that South gets no redress for his misunderstanding. I even quoted the relevant law. And as I said, I'm not proposing the law be changed or new regulations be introduced.

[aguahombre]

Where this thread turns out to have belonged, IMO, is in Off-line Bridge (subcategory, "etiquette").

Everyone agrees that there is no appropriate ruling on this "mess". The only possible item which might be subject to ruling would be:

If South just plain couldn't hear the answer (In the OP case, he thought he did hear, but what he thought he heard was not what was said), does he have the right to ask for a repeat now? I believe he does because later, when it is his turn to call, he perhaps should already have alerted partner's bid; and if he doesn't know what partner's bid meant after the explained convention he can't properly have known whether to alert.

All the rest of the thread is devoted to strong opinions about disclosure. One side (a couple of us) believe it is possible and advisable for the one explaining a convention to explain to both opponents clearly. The other side, and its upvoting adherents, disagree. They even go so far as to suggest it is physically difficult to talk to two or more people at the same time. Anyone who has addressed a group knows you don't face one part of the group and ignore the other part; and they have learned positioning and eye-contact methods to accomplish the task.

[bluejak]

barmar, on 2012-June-18, 08:36, said:

And since the TD wasn't at the table at the time of the explanation, he's not going to be able to rule any more objectively than we can here.

FrancesHinden, on 2012-June-18, 08:50, said:

And yes, the TD has exactly that problem - he wasn't at the table and he knows about as much as everyone on the forum. If he asked West to repeat what he said in exactly the same manner, I think he'd hear someone say spades & diamonds but not particularly loudly and with a fair amount of ambient noise.

I don't agree at all with either of these posts. One of our problems on forums is we cannot ask relevant questions to the actual people. A TD can and should. He can ask for the explanation to be repeated and here comments from the other three as to whether that is what was said, how it was said, and at what volume. TDs investigate and then judge: we can merely guess because we cannot investigate.

Sure, judgements are difficult for TDs, but they are still much much easier than for us who cannot ask the people concerned at the time.

aguahombre, on 2012-June-19, 11:06, said:

All the rest of the thread is devoted to strong opinions about disclosure.

Not all.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2012-June-19, 11:06, said:

If South just plain couldn't hear the answer (In the OP case, he thought he did hear, but what he thought he heard was not what was said), does he have the right to ask for a repeat now? I believe he does because later, when it is his turn to call, he perhaps should already have alerted partner's bid; and if he doesn't know what partner's bid meant after the explained convention he can't properly have known whether to alert.

Or he could just alert, and then say "it depends on what your bid meant, and I'm not sure of the answer to that because I did not clearly hear your partner's explanation". In fact, in the ACBL at least, if you're in doubt whether a call requires an alert, you should, per the regulation, alert.

aguahombre, on 2012-June-19, 11:06, said:

All the rest of the thread is devoted to strong opinions about disclosure. One side (a couple of us) believe it is possible and advisable for the one explaining a convention to explain to both opponents clearly. The other side, and its upvoting adherents, disagree. They even go so far as to suggest it is physically difficult to talk to two or more people at the same time. Anyone who has addressed a group knows you don't face one part of the group and ignore the other part; and they have learned positioning and eye-contact methods to accomplish the task.

Good point, that last.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-June-19, 09:05, said:

So? It's that hard to say "okay" or "I understand"? Gee, that last is four whole syllables! I guess that is too hard.

So he says, "Yes, I understand". But what he understood is that you said "hearts", even though you actually said "diamonds". How does that help?

It doesn't even help in the cases we've discussed in more complicated situations, like the thread about "weak takeout", where the explainer meant "less than opening strength", while the opponent assumed it meant "minimum opening strength".

To solve the issue in the current thread, you need the opponents to parrot the explanation back to you. And to solve the "weak takeout" issue, you need them to go further and restate it in other words. I stick with my earlier claim that this would be an onerous requirement if we had to do it for every explanation.

[paua]

iviehoff, on 2012-June-18, 07:16, said:

So what is West supposed to do, ask both his opponents to repeat the explanation back to him?

I would note that at North's turn to call only North is entitled to ask for explanations of the opponents' methods, and is explicitly barred from asking questions on behalf of his partner. I would therefore tend to the view that given North correctly heard an answer to a question North asked, then if South misheard it, that is South's problem. If the explainer was looking at North and speaking quietly and it matters to South, South can surely identify that it was difficult to hear and he might have misheard; he has the right to ask at his own turn.

People sometimes hear what they were expecting to hear. In such a case, I would put the responsibility for the misunderstanding on the hearer rather the speaker. It is impossible to know if that is what actually happened, but we can rule on the balance of probabilities.

Completely agree. North asked the question and the answer was provided to North. South must ask again at their turn to bid, even if only to clarify. "Spades and Hearts ?"
System cards would help.

[Zelandakh]

paua, on 2012-June-19, 16:39, said:

South must ask again at their turn to bid, even if only to clarify.

Is this correct? I have this problem quite often as explanations here are given in a language I find difficult to understand at the best of times and practically impossible when the speaker has their back to me. I generally say that I did not understand the explanation immediately which tends to get a slower response with the speaker facing me. Am I committing an infraction with this? Surely I am entitled to the explanation the first time, no?

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2012-June-21, 08:23, said:

Is this correct? I have this problem quite often as explanations here are given in a language I find difficult to understand at the best of times and practically impossible when the speaker has their back to me. I generally say that I did not understand the explanation immediately which tends to get a slower response with the speaker facing me. Am I committing an infraction with this? Surely I am entitled to the explanation the first time, no?

Well, that would be common sense, but...

Quote

Law 20F1: During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ auction… The partner of a player who asks a question may not ask a supplementary question until his turn to call or play.

My emphases. I suppose you could argue that "could you repeat that? I didn't hear it" isn't a "supplementary" question in the meaning of the law, but the clear intent is that you get to ask questions only at your turn.

[aguahombre]

The clear intent seems to be disclosure to the opposing pair when a player asks for an explanation. Asking the opponent to repeat what you didn't understand would be considered a supplementary (follow-up) question by someone with a different agenda.

[blackshoe]

That law doesn't say anything about disclosure to the opposing pair. It speaks to disclosure to the player who asked the question.

[aguahombre]

Maybe we should whisper in his ear.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2012-June-21, 09:35, said:

Maybe we should whisper in his ear.

That would certainly solve the problem of people violating the "can't ask solely for partner's sake" law.

Or maybe not. Even if partner can't hear the answer, he can see that you asked, and that might prompt him to ask at his turn when he might not have otherwise.