[campboy]

PhilKing, on 2014-July-29, 05:14, said:

But the main point for me is that had North explained better or not at all, declarer WOULD have made the contract, and surely that is what matters.

No, it isn't. What matters is whether the information given was correct, and whether it was sufficiently clear. It is not unusual that knowing more about your opponents' methods will cause you to go wrong on a particular hand, but you can't get an adjusted score on the basis that they should have withheld true information.

As Gordon says, it is by no means clear that the information given was correct in this case. But if it was, it is difficult to see what more North could do to ensure that her meaning was understood.

Law 21A said:

No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding.

[barmar]

It seems to me that North and South were expressing similar things in different ways.

Taken literally, "no meaning" is clearly wrong. Every call has a meaning. She presumably meant "nospecial meaning." A natural Pass means you don't have a hand worthy of some other call.

North's explanation is consistent with the understanding that South would usually show a 4-card major if she had one, so

[gordontd]

A thought occurs to me: I don't know North, but making a wild guess from her name makes me wonder if her first language might not use indefinite articles. If she had been trying to say "usually does not have one four-card major", that would have been a lot closer to the truth.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2014-July-29, 07:55, said:

North's explanation is consistent with the understanding that South would usually show a 4-card major if she had one

But was this a partnership agreement?

I mean, I would tend to bid a four card major, if I had one. And I might well pass if I had two (unless I have the agreement that pass is penalty). That is simple bridge logic if you have a partner who "promises" at least 4-3 in the majors by doubling. It has nothing to do with a specific agreement.

If North would not have said anything at all, East would have thought that South had a reason for her pass. After N cards had been played she might have figured out that South didn't have a preference for either major (since she was 4-4).

So, I think that in reality South's pass meant that she had no preference for either major. That could be because she was 3-3, but it could also be that she was 4-4. But, of course, I don't know what the pass meant in reality since neither the TD, nor the AC seem to have bothered to ask NS. But it seems to me that the explanation by North was factually false in its content (South had no preference for a major, rather than denying a four card major), as well as in its context (it suggested that NS had some kind of special agreement, whereas in reality South's bidding was dictated by simple bridge logic).

Rik

Edit: The though of "one" vs "a" also occured to Gordon. (The posts crossed since I was writing this at work and people keep bugging me with work related stuff while I have more important things to do, such as post on BBF.)

[aguahombre]

gordontd, on 2014-July-29, 09:06, said:

A thought occurs to me: I don't know North, but making a wild guess from her name makes me wonder if her first language might not use indefinite articles. If she had been trying to say "usually does not have one four-card major", that would have been a lot closer to the truth.

She is quite Anglicised after all these years, but I am guessing her second attempt would have emphasized the article rather than the adverb if that was what she meant.

We are doing a lot of guessing. I am mildly curious why during the auction both K & L answered when only one opponent asked anything. I also speculate from experience playing against Kerry that SHE was actively ethical with an unsolicited "means nothing" to her screenmate, prompted by her actual holding, which she might not have bothered to do behind screens if she had some 3-3-4-3.

[nige1]

aguahombre, on 2014-July-29, 11:13, said:

We are doing a lot of guessing. I am mildly curious why during the auction both K & L answered when only one opponent asked anything. I also speculate from experience playing against Kerry that SHE was actively ethical with an unsolicited "means nothing" to her screenmate, prompted by her actual holding, which she might not have bothered to do behind screens if she had some 3-3-4-3.

It's hard to explain partnership style:

• If South's explanation was related to her actual holdings, it's more likely to help North than East.
• Similarly, if North's attempt to emphasise "usually" is based on inferences from the South's lead and the contents of her own hand, it's more likely to help South than East.
• East seems to have taken the emphasis on "usually" to mean that South was very unlikely to hold a 4-card major so that a holding of both majors was even less likely.
• Better for both North and South to give similar full and accurate explanations e.g. "Pass shows no immediate preference, for example, 44(xy), 42(xy), 33(xy), 32(xy)" (or whatever was their actual understanding). But this can be hard to do.

[aguahombre]

nige1, on 2014-July-29, 20:48, said:

It's hard to explain partnership style:

• If South's explanation was related to her actual holdings, it's more likely to help North than East.
• Similarly, if North's attempt to emphasise "usually" is based on inferences from the South's lead and the contents of her own hand, it's more likely to help South than East.
• East seems to have taken the emphasis on "usually" to mean that South was very unlikely to hold a 4-card major so that a holding of both majors was even less likely.
• Better for both North and South to give similar full and accurate explanations e.g. "Pass shows no immediate preference, for example, 44(xy), 42(xy), 33(xy), 32(xy)" (or whatever was their actual understanding). But this can be hard to do.

I don't see how those first two bullets are relevant to screen play; and the first one wouldn't even apply to regular play, since Kerry would have remained mute.

[nige1]

aguahombre, on 2014-July-29, 21:16, said:

I don't see how those first two bullets are relevant to screen play; and the first one wouldn't even apply to regular play, since Kerry would have remained mute.

Good points

[jallerton]

Trinidad, on 2014-July-29, 01:28, said:

But in this case there clearly was no understanding (implicit or explicit) since the explanation was significantly different on the two sides of the screen. There was not even an "Oh, I misbid" remark from South. So, it seems that the idea that South's pass (usually) denies a 4 card major came out of nowhere and was not the partnership agreement.

Rik

This raises the question of what constitutes a partnership understanding. When I go through hands we have played with partners/team-mates we might well discuss what we would call on certain hands after the sequence that has cropped up. If I recall a conversation from last year involving my partner I might well feel that we have a partnership understanding - which the opponents are entitled to know. If partner does not recall the same conversation, does this mean that we have an agreement or not?

By the way, on the Wagar hand it's quite possible that North and South had much the same idea as to which hands pass over the redouble, just that they explained it rather differently. Perhaps North was thinking that the most common hand type which passes has no 4-card major.

[Trinidad]

jallerton, on 2014-July-30, 15:01, said:

Perhaps North was thinking that the most common hand type which passes has no 4-card major.

That may be true (and I think it is). But that doesn't make it close to "usually no 4 card major".

Rik

[Fluffy]

Only those partnerships where both members know the rules very well are prepared to give the same expanation for a simple bid that is not alerted. Anytime my partner explains one of those I realice I would explain it very differently. Yet we understand the same.

[helene_t]

North's 2♣ bid suggests that she is actually not catering to South having 4-4 in the majors. 2♣ would be a bit silly if South is 4441. Maybe North's explanation was correct?

[barmar]

Fluffy, on 2014-August-01, 01:49, said:

Only those partnerships where both members know the rules very well are prepared to give the same expanation for a simple bid that is not alerted. Anytime my partner explains one of those I realice I would explain it very differently. Yet we understand the same.

My partner and I have a convention that we always explain slightly differently. After partner opens 1NT, if we want to show a minor, we first bid a puppet to the corresponding major; after partner accepts that putative transfer, we bid the next suit to transfer to the minor.

I explain it as: "Usually a transfer to <the major>, but could be the beginning of a sequence to transfer to <the minor>."
He explains it as: "Usually a transfer to <the major>, but could be a transfer to <the minor>."

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2014-August-01, 10:48, said:

I explain it as: "Usually a transfer to <the major>, but could be the beginning of a sequence to transfer to <the minor>."
He explains it as: "Usually a transfer to <the major>, but could be a transfer to <the minor>."

I wouldn't understand his explanation - I'd have to ask him for more information.

[cherdano]

PhilKing, on 2014-July-29, 05:14, said:

This hand produced a lot of hot air on Bridgewinners. Most of the comments focused on the alleged fact that North did nothing wrong (I broadly agree). But the main point for me is that had North explained better or not at all, declarer WOULD have made the contract, and surely that is what matters.

This point should really put an end to any discussion about grave injustice towards pro-actively ethically players. But then again, we are on the internets...

In any case, the most interesting aspect of this hand to me is that North and South clearly were not 100% on the same page. Seems a good example for the difference between a very good partnership and a great one - I would bet 10:1 that Meckwell would know their partner's action with 4432 in the auction (1D) X (XX).

[jallerton]

helene_t, on 2014-August-01, 02:46, said:

North's 2♣ bid suggests that she is actually not catering to South having 4-4 in the majors. 2♣ would be a bit silly if South is 4441. Maybe North's explanation was correct?

Would South risk passing with 4=4=4=1? Should South have run to 1♥ on her actual shape, planning to follow up with redouble if doubled?

I agree with Cherdano: whilst most partnerships play pass as 'neutral' here, few have discussed what each hand is going to call on every possible shape.

On this ruling, the TD/AC ought to have attempted to establish the extent of the N/S agreement: was North explaining their just the partnership understanding, or something more than that?

[lamford]

In Europe, North is not allowed to lower the screen and give some comment, even if trying to be helpful. I presume that the screen regulations are different in the US, and we have enough eminent US posters who can tell me if that is the case.

However, the misexplanation did not cause the contract to fail. Its failure was unrelated to the infraction and caused by an inability to think clearly about the diamond suit. If North had been dealt KT doubleton in diamonds, I would adjust.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2014-August-02, 11:18, said:

In Europe, North is not allowed to lower the screen and give some comment, even if trying to be helpful. I presume that the screen regulations are different in the US, and we have enough eminent US posters who can tell me if that is the case.

However, the misexplanation did not cause the contract to fail. It was unrelated to the infraction and caused by an inability to think clearly about the diamond suit. If North had been dealt KT doubleton in diamonds, I would adjust.

At first reading, I thought for a second that the antecedent of "it" is "the misexplanation". I suspect though that you intended the antecedent to be "the failure of the contract".

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2014-August-02, 11:18, said:

However, the misexplanation did not cause the contract to fail. It was unrelated to the infraction and caused by an inability to think clearly about the diamond suit.

You think that if the misexplanation had not occurred, she would have played the diamond suit the same way?

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2014-August-02, 11:42, said:

You think that if the misexplanation had not occurred, she would have played the diamond suit the same way?

You are right, and I completely missed an important point.

This post has been edited by lamford: 2014-August-03, 02:42