[gnasher]

iviehoff, on 2013-September-09, 04:50, said:

Indeed and I have never been in any doubt of it. But there was an additional condition in my original query you haven't addressed.

In the present case there wasn't actually a misunderstanding. It seems to me to be taking things a step further to allow the NOS the (chance) benefit of a lead they would have made if they had falsely deduced that there had been a misunderstanding, a false deduction they might have fallen to from thinking that a corrected explanation implied a misunderstanding, whereas in fact it arose from incompetence.

Sorry, I was so keen to answer the question that I wanted to answer that I missed what you were actually asking.

We are supposed to restore equity, that is we recreate the state which would have existed without the infraction. If NS's expectation before the second infraction was to hear a corrected explanation, make a false inference from that correction, and fortuituously profit as a result, then that's what NS are entitled to, and that's what we should give them.

[mycroft]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-09, 15:01, said:

That is the way to go, sure. At expert level, it may actually happen. At club level, it's a crap shoot.

Absolutely. Thanks for thinking I'm an expert :-)

Currently at the club level, they hear either "what do you think it means" and get in the habit of answering that (and asking it, which is amusing when they get to my table) or hear "only describe your agreement. If you don't have one, say 'no agreement'" (and doing that whenever there isn't anything absolutely written down. Or, in some cases, explicitly not having discussions about things so that they still have 'no agreement', despite 1500 MPs worth of experience with each other) - and then having issues with "okay, what does this potential auction mean?" "and this one?" as I desperately try to get *some* idea what their options are, that of course, they all know.

My favourite of the latter is all the people who announce "could be short" that have NO CLUE, supposedly, when it could be short. I know some of them simply have no idea what "negative inferences" means, but some...

Quote

Teaching players to do this kind of thing is worse than herding cats.

Yep. And it doesn't help that when they get advice that's "easier" than what the TD tells them, they automatically assume that the rules have changed and they'll go with that.