[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-11, 17:45, said:

And you would never hear that from me.

I was expressing a general policy, not anything specific to you.

When I'm playing with a pick-up partner, sometimes at the beginning of a round (especially in longer team matches) I'll inform the opponents that we're pickups, so we don't know each others' tendencies.

[ggwhiz]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-09, 14:22, said:

When RHO passed, I started to explain that we were a new partnership, etc.

It seems to me that if you ask for an explanation,

These two statements from the OP are contradictory as to whether an explanation was requested. The stated opinions are just that, opinions and there is no reason to take therm personally. I certainly don't mean them that way.

I like the idea of "PLEASE see the card" if it's legal. Probably gives the minimum UI to partner that they are unlikely to be able to act on even if they are inclined to.

[Phil]

ggwhiz, on 2012-March-12, 14:24, said:

I like the idea of "PLEASE see the card" if it's legal. Probably gives the minimum UI to partner that they are unlikely to be able to act on even if they are inclined to.

I also like the idea of "partner, leave the table for a second (albeit it is more proper if the director makes this instruction)"

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-12, 11:46, said:

Someone upthread suggested the proper way (or at least a proper way) to respond to a question about your partner's bidding when you aren't sure is "please look at the card". Is this a good approach, David?

I remember a discussion long time ago where the final (official) result was that a player may not avoid answering questions verbally by stating that (all) the requested information is available on the system card.

So "please look at our system card" is not full disclosure of agreements regardless how complete or detailed the system card has been filled in.

[gnasher]

pran, on 2012-March-12, 16:48, said:

I remember a discussion long time ago where the final (official) result was that a player may not avoid answering questions verbally by stating that (all) the requested information is available on the system card.

So "please look at our system card" is not full disclosure of agreements regardless how complete or detailed the system card has been filled in.

True, but it's certainly proper to say "I can't remember what it means, but it's on the convention card."

[blackshoe]

Phil, on 2012-March-12, 14:43, said:

I also like the idea of "partner, leave the table for a second (albeit it is more proper if the director makes this instruction)"

I would say that it is not proper for a player to issue this instruction.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2012-March-12, 16:48, said:

I remember a discussion long time ago where the final (official) result was that a player may not avoid answering questions verbally by stating that (all) the requested information is available on the system card.

So "please look at our system card" is not full disclosure of agreements regardless how complete or detailed the system card has been filled in.

So what should I say? I can't say "we're a new partnership", I can't say "I'm not sure", I can't say "look at the card", I can't say "I'm not sure, but..." (this one will get interrupted), I can't say "I have no clue " (which would be untrue). So what can I say?

[mjj29]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-12, 17:37, said:

So what should I say? I can't say "we're a new partnership", I can't say "I'm not sure", I can't say "look at the card", I can't say "I'm not sure, but..." (this one will get interrupted), I can't say "I have no clue " (which would be untrue). So what can I say?

You can write -4000 down on the score card and accept the bottom you deserve for not knowing your system inside-out (-;

A more serious suggestion is that I think it's perfectly fine to say "I'm not 100% sure, I believe we have an agreement, but I can't remember what it is. If you like you can either check the system card or we can ask the director if he can help us out" - or something along those lines. Possible other things, depending on the circumstances, might be "We have no agreement, since we've not played together before, but we have these other, similar agreements".

Some people might interrupt you still, I guess your options here are to keep talking anyway, to accept them not wanting to know and if that turns out to be an issue, let the director sort it out (or, probably, to give the rest of the explanation when the auction is over and they are now less likely to stop you), or call the director over yourself to demonstrate you _do_ in fact know how to give the right explanation without speculation in these cases.

[mrdct]

My jurisdiction, Australia, has a specific regulation that deals with this situation quite nicely:

7.7
If you know that partner’s call is alertable but you have forgotten its meaning, you should nevertheless alert. If asked, explain that you have forgotten the meaning. The Director should be called immediately. His normal action would be to send you away from the table and have your partner explain the meaning of the call.

If I was the forgetful one (or hadn't committed the convention card to memory in a new partnership) I would alert in the usual way and, if asked, I would say "let me just think about this for a moment" and if the asker then sought to "unask" the question, I wouldn't proffer any additional information or advice (such as have a look at what the convention card says) but I would immediately call the TD and ask if I could speak privately with him as I would be reluctant to overtly provide UI to partner that I have forgotten the agreement. My expectation is that the TD would then send me away from the table for my partner to provide an explanation of what our "partnership agreement" is about the call in question.

I don't think it's legal to ask an opponent to not answer question once it has been asked, although if a situation arises where you feel that in muddy waters the opponents are likely to be giving themselves more useful information than you are likely to get, calling the TD is the best course of action and then politely ask your opponent to wait until the TD gets here before answering the question further.

An alternative explanation, if my brain was working fast enough to quickly realise that I hadn't read the relevant section on the convention card, would be, "we didn't specifically discuss this but I'm fairly sure we have something down on our convention card that I can't immediately recall so we should get the director ... director please!".

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-12, 11:46, said:

Someone upthread suggested the proper way (or at least a proper way) to respond to a question about your partner's bidding when you aren't sure is "please look at the card". Is this a good approach, David?

I am not sure what is a good approach. Certainly some people have said so, but there is a danger of some obtuse opponents saying "If I wanted to look at the card, I would not have asked!".

I really think this is a question of attitude. The Laws do not cover what to do when you do not know the answer, and I think you have to muddle along as best you can, with the askee trying to be helpful, and the asker not being too obtuse. Nothing is perfect.

Phil, on 2012-March-12, 14:43, said:

I also like the idea of "partner, leave the table for a second (albeit it is more proper if the director makes this instruction)"

Of course, this creates UI immediately. It may not be hte best approach. Nevertheless, it has happened in my experience without problems.

blackshoe, on 2012-March-12, 17:37, said:

So what should I say? I can't say "we're a new partnership", I can't say "I'm not sure", I can't say "look at the card", I can't say "I'm not sure, but..." (this one will get interrupted), I can't say "I have no clue " (which would be untrue). So what can I say?

In my view, you can say any of these. Everything is in the attitude and approach. Certainly, sometimes anything you say will get an unfortunate response - just live with it.

[blackshoe]

mjj29, on 2012-March-12, 19:42, said:

You can write -4000 down on the score card and accept the bottom you deserve for not knowing your system inside-out (-;

A more serious suggestion is that I think it's perfectly fine to say "I'm not 100% sure, I believe we have an agreement, but I can't remember what it is. If you like you can either check the system card or we can ask the director if he can help us out" - or something along those lines. Possible other things, depending on the circumstances, might be "We have no agreement, since we've not played together before, but we have these other, similar agreements".

Some people might interrupt you still, I guess your options here are to keep talking anyway, to accept them not wanting to know and if that turns out to be an issue, let the director sort it out (or, probably, to give the rest of the explanation when the auction is over and they are now less likely to stop you), or call the director over yourself to demonstrate you _do_ in fact know how to give the right explanation without speculation in these cases.

I would get "I'm not 100…" out, then be told to STFU (okay, not in those words). I can't say "We have no agreement" when I suspect there's one on the card and I missed it.

Any of the solutions in that last paragraph is likely to get me labelled persona non grata by somebody.

[blackshoe]

mrdct, on 2012-March-12, 19:48, said:

My jurisdiction, Australia, has a specific regulation that deals with this situation quite nicely:

The only thing the ACBL reg says is that if it's alertable, I must alert, even if I don't remember the meaning.

[aguahombre]

Apparently, the Australian 7.7 agrees with ACBL. I like the rest of the stuff attributed to the Aussies on this topic.

[barmar]

The problem with telling the opponent to look at the system card is that it may not be very detailed. If it's an ACBL CC, the information is most likely just a checkbox or a convention name. So handing them your CC is much like just giving a convention name in answer to the question, and I think most jurisdictions say that this is not sufficient.

There may be some cases where you can work around this. For instance, if you can't remember whether you're playing regular or puppet Stayman, you can hand the opponent the card and say "If puppet Stayman is checked, it means ...; if not, it means ...".

[Trinidad]

In the case of the OP, it seems that the only agreement they had was to play what was on the card. In that case you shouldn't offer more details than what is on the card anyway.

Rik

[PeterAlan]

Blackshoe, your annotation of the bidding says that W "after Pass asked about 2♠". It's not clear to me from your OP whether the sequence was:

(1) (late) Alert, Pass by W, Question, or

(2) Pass by W, late Alert, Question

but I'd have thought (a) if it was (1), W has no business to be asking questions at that point, and (b) if it was (2) calling the TD would strictly have been the appropriate action by W if there was any likelihood of him wanting to change his call.

Also, I don't know about your local bidding systems and Alert rules, but is there any likelihood that W could have believed 2♠ was natural?

This is all a bit formal, of course, and in the context of a club game I can understand W just wanting to get on with the hand in as straightforward a way as possible. To answer your question, I think it would be better manners for W to be patient whilst you at least got out your explanation of the new nature of the partnership, and, if he felt it necessary to interrupt a bit further down the line, to do so in as low-key a way as possible, say with a hand gesture that says "Nothing more's needed" and / or perhaps saying "That's OK". So my sympathies are with you, but we all need a thick skin for some aspects of this game and I don't think you should take what actually happened too much to heart. Given your experience is so vastly greater than mine, I don't suppose you really need me to tell you that!

[blackshoe]

PeterAlan, on 2012-March-13, 06:27, said:

Blackshoe, your annotation of the bidding says that W "after Pass asked about 2♠". It's not clear to me from your OP whether the sequence was:

(1) (late) Alert, Pass by W, Question, or

(2) Pass by W, late Alert, Question

but I'd have thought (a) if it was (1), W has no business to be asking questions at that point, and (b) if it was (2) calling the TD would strictly have been the appropriate action by W if there was any likelihood of him wanting to change his call.

Also, I don't know about your local bidding systems and Alert rules, but is there any likelihood that W could have believed 2♠ was natural? I doubt my opponent would have thought it was natural, unless I didn't alert, but I could be wrong.

This is all a bit formal, of course, and in the context of a club game I can understand W just wanting to get on with the hand in as straightforward a way as possible. To answer your question, I think it would be better manners for W to be patient whilst you at least got out your explanation of the new nature of the partnership, and, if he felt it necessary to interrupt a bit further down the line, to do so in as low-key a way as possible, say with a hand gesture that says "Nothing more's needed" and / or perhaps saying "That's OK". So my sympathies are with you, but we all need a thick skin for some aspects of this game and I don't think you should take what actually happened too much to heart. Given your experience is so vastly greater than mine, I don't suppose you really need me to tell you that!

The alert and pass were simultaneous, I think. If not, the alert was a little bit later, maybe a half-second or so.

Very few around here play 2♠ as natural any more, but there are several different possible artificial meanings, all of which require an alert.

I'm generally pretty thick-skinned. In fact, at the table, I was mildly annoyed, but I just ignored that and shut up. It was here that I got really pissed off (and yes, I should have a thick skin here too).

[iviehoff]

So with West having passed before he could reasonable be expected to have perceived your alert, and you having alerted sufficiently late he could not reasonably be expected to perceive it, I think you recognised that you were in a MI situation, as mentioned in Law 20F4 "If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete he must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4." So the correct legal basis for this thread is the correct procedure in relation to correction of misinformation, not the correct procedures for giving explanations at the normal time. Unfotunately the law is even less helpful on this than on giving explanations in the first place.

Curiously, as far as I can see, the law does not at any point specify that a player who identifies he gave an incomplete or erroneous explanation should correct it or make it complete. It tells him only to call the director. The director is not told to instruct the player to correct the explanation either. At law 75B, players who recognise their partner's misexplanations are instructed to correct it at the proper time, as well as calling the director, but players who recognise their own misexplanation are given no instructions with regard to correction, well none that I can find. The player who made his bid with incomplete or erroneous information is given the option to change his bid, 21B1a. Surely he must first get the MI corrected, but the law doesn't say so. I know how much you hate making the law up, but every time we correct MI in this situation, we are all making it up.

We had a discussion in another thread about whether it was now that player's "turn" to bid again, for the purpose of seeking an explanation of the entire prior auction, without coming to consensus. Here I make a distinction between correction of the MI, and seeking explanations of the whole prior auction. It seems logical that the MI must be corrected, but do we extend that to a right to seek an explanation of the whole auction at this point? Although elsewhere I said in my opinion it looks like he can't, unless he does seek to exercise his right to change his bid, so it becomes his "turn" to bid again, I don't think that is really satisfactory. Others sought to argue that it becomes that player's "turn" again just because they have the right to consider whether to change their bid. I think that would be a good idea, but currently the law doesn't say so.

[barmar]

OK, now I think I see what was going on. You were trying to excuse the slight hesitation before the alert (because your mind was occupied trying to remember what you'd seen on the card), not warn that you weren't sure of the agreement. But the opponent apparently assumed you were doing the latter, and abruptly cut you off. Does this seem right?

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-March-13, 14:18, said:

OK, now I think I see what was going on. You were trying to excuse the slight hesitation before the alert (because your mind was occupied trying to remember what you'd seen on the card), not warn that you weren't sure of the agreement. But the opponent apparently assumed you were doing the latter, and abruptly cut you off. Does this seem right?

Yep.