[sanst]

pran, on 2015-September-06, 02:59, said:

Ever since I read this I have wondered how anybody could be satisfied that the cards were marked identically? To me they are obviously not.

The cards were probably identical, but South SAID something different.

[blackshoe]

BudH, on 2015-September-04, 01:23, said:

North calls me as Director after the auction and before the opening lead and says they play 2H as natural in this auction. Both convention cards say Cappelletti direct seat only, but dealer North (the heart overcaller) treats that as meaning "direct seat by unpassed hand".

I decide this is misinformation despite the convention cards being identical because clearly the partnership is treating this auction differently.

BudH, on 2015-September-04, 08:52, said:

Effectively, North's convention (system) card said "Cappelletti direct seat by unpassed hand only" whereas South's said "Cappelletti direct seat only". Even though both cards were marked identically.

pran, on 2015-September-06, 02:59, said:

Ever since I read this I have wondered how anybody could be satisfied that the cards were marked identically? To me they are obviously not.

The cards were marked identically, but North thought the agreed meaning included the caveat "by an unpassed hand" and South did not agree.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2015-September-06, 05:51, said:

The cards were marked identically, but North thought the agreed meaning included the caveat "by an unpassed hand" and South did not agree.

OK.
So what confused me was that the post said: "South's said" instead of "South said".

(There is a major difference here, "South" refers to the player himself while "South's" refer to his convention card.)

[blackshoe]

Very few people proofread what they write on the Internet.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2015-September-06, 02:50, said:

Generally the latter. I think that 21B1b applies:
"The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary".

So, if someone clearly bids 2C naturally over 1NT, and his partner alerts and explains it as, say, Landy, then, unless both CCs have the same explanation of what 2C means, and not just the word "Landy", then the Director will presume Mistaken Explanation.

If there's no agreement to begin with, how can either the explanation or call be mistaken? A mistake is only when some action is inconsistent with the agreement, which doesn't even exist.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2015-September-07, 20:58, said:

If there's no agreement to begin with, how can either the explanation or call be mistaken? A mistake is only when some action is inconsistent with the agreement, which doesn't even exist.

It never fails to amaze me when players have what they think is an agreement (but understand the agreement differently) and people here think that those players can hide behind "no agreement".

[campboy]

barmar, on 2015-September-07, 20:58, said:

If there's no agreement to begin with, how can either the explanation or call be mistaken? A mistake is only when some action is inconsistent with the agreement, which doesn't even exist.

That makes no sense. If you don't have an agreement, but believe you do, you're mistaken. If, as a result of this belief you give an explanation, or make a call, that you wouldn't have done had you realised you had no agreement, then that is a mistaken explanation/call.

(Of course, I don't believe this applies to the original case, since I think there was an agreement there.)

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2015-September-07, 20:58, said:

If there's no agreement to begin with, how can either the explanation or call be mistaken? A mistake is only when some action is inconsistent with the agreement, which doesn't even exist.

If you are told they have an agreement when they don't, that is misinformation. The correct information is that they don't have an agreement or in some cases the correct information might be something like "we said we would play modified reverse Widget but we didn't discuss whether we both understand it to mean the same thing." A ruling should be given on the basis that you had received that correct information, not necessarily that you received the information of what the caller intended by the call.

[barmar]

gordontd, on 2015-September-08, 01:54, said:

If you are told they have an agreement when they don't, that is misinformation. The correct information is that they don't have an agreement or in some cases the correct information might be something like "we said we would play modified reverse Widget but we didn't discuss whether we both understand it to mean the same thing." A ruling should be given on the basis that you had received that correct information, not necessarily that you received the information of what the caller intended by the call.

For most first-time or casual partnerships, wouldn't it be the case that most of their agreements fall under "we agreed to play Widget, but didn't discuss whether we understand it to mean the same thing"? You sit down with a pick-up partner, spend 10-15 minutes going through the convention card checking off boxes, but how many of them do you discuss in detail? In effect, this means that unless you and your partner have a history, you can't provide much accurate disclosure at all, but I doubt this is what the Lawmakers intended.

This was the subject of a whole thread a few months ago, about what happens when partner A understands Widget to mean X, partner B thinks it means Y, but the "standard" meaning is actually Z.

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2015-September-08, 12:22, said:

For most first-time or casual partnerships, wouldn't it be the case that most of their agreements fall under "we agreed to play Widget, but didn't discuss whether we understand it to mean the same thing"?

Certainly. I often disclose with such a disclaimer.

barmar, on 2015-September-08, 12:22, said:

You sit down with a pick-up partner, spend 10-15 minutes going through the convention card checking off boxes, but how many of them do you discuss in detail? In effect, this means that unless you and your partner have a history, you can't provide much accurate disclosure at all, but I doubt this is what the Lawmakers intended.

More like 10-15 seconds! I do my best, but don't get upset if I get ruled against when we aren't on the same page.

barmar, on 2015-September-08, 12:22, said:

This was the subject of a whole thread a few months ago, about what happens when partner A understands Widget to mean X, partner B thinks it means Y, but the "standard" meaning is actually Z.

Yes. I was the TD who gave the ruling

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2015-September-07, 21:11, said:

It never fails to amaze me when players have what they think is an agreement (but understand the agreement differently) and people here think that those players can hide behind "no agreement".

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't think that. If one player explains a call as meaning X, and the other thinks it's meaning Y, the latter player should call the director at the appropriate time and explain his disagreement. The director, upon investigating and finding that in fact they don't have an agreement, should rule that the explanation "meaning X" was MI and apply the appropriate rectification. The only way anybody could be hiding here is if the player who thought it was meaning Y when he made the call decides "oh, I must have got it wrong" and does not call the director at all. In that case he's not hiding behind "no agreement" he's hiding behind "I guess partner's right and I misbid". Unless he is absolutely sure that's the case though he should call the director and let her sort it out.