[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2018-July-25, 08:59, said:

Well, that's a new one. Basis?

Oh, I thought that was obvious?
It is not "your own misunderstanding" if you draw the wrong conclusion(s) from opponents misinformation. And such misinformation exists whenever an explanation is incorrect or incomplete in any way.

The way I understand Law 21A is that it applies when a player claims misunderstanding of opponents' correct information (and also if he claims that he has misunderstood his own side's agreements).

[blackshoe]

So personal opinion. Okay.

[barmar]

 Tramticket, on 2018-July-24, 16:25, said:

I would always ask for more details on this type of auction. The terms Astro, Aspro, Asptro all sound too much alike, so that they are easily mis-heard.

Since they never actually used any of those names, I don't see how this is relevant.

[weejonnie]

Is there misinformation though - if the description was "Hearts + a minor" then that is accurate (although not complete). Here the player relied on his own presumption as to the specific suit lengths promised, as opposed to finding them out (which he couldhave done). I would say he falls into this category.

[barmar]

 pran, on 2018-July-25, 11:05, said:

Oh, I thought that was obvious?
It is not "your own misunderstanding" if you draw the wrong conclusion(s) from opponents misinformation. And such misinformation exists whenever an explanation is incorrect or incomplete in any way.

The way I understand Law 21A is that it applies when a player claims misunderstanding of opponents' correct information (and also if he claims that he has misunderstood his own side's agreements).

I think it also applies if the opponent alerts, but you decide not to ask for an explanation, but instead assume that you know what they're alerting about.

E.g. 1NT (2♣ Alert!)

If you assume it's Cappaletti showing a single suit, but they're playing DONT, you have no redress.

The issue in this thread is when they explain, but the explanation doesn't include all details. Does 21A apply because you could have asked for more info rather than assuming, or is it MI because they should have mentioned those details in the first place. How much cross-examination are players expected to do to protect themselves from making unwarranted assumptions?

For instance, in my experience, most people who play Michaels and Unusual NT expect them to show at least 5-5, but 2-suited NT overcalls are more often at least 5-4 either way. So if I hear an explanation of these conventions that doesn't get specific about the expected lengths, I'm not going to grill them. I expect that players who have unusually specific agreements to disclose them proactively. Unless they play almost exclusively in an insular environment where everyone plays like they do, I think they know that they're not mainstream and a generic explanation will be misleading.

[Cyberyeti]

 barmar, on 2018-July-26, 10:04, said:

I think it also applies if the opponent alerts, but you decide not to ask for an explanation, but instead assume that you know what they're alerting about.

E.g. 1NT (2♣ Alert!)

If you assume it's Cappaletti showing a single suit, but they're playing DONT, you have no redress.

The issue in this thread is when they explain, but the explanation doesn't include all details. Does 21A apply because you could have asked for more info rather than assuming, or is it MI because they should have mentioned those details in the first place. How much cross-examination are players expected to do to protect themselves from making unwarranted assumptions?

For instance, in my experience, most people who play Michaels and Unusual NT expect them to show at least 5-5, but 2-suited NT overcalls are more often at least 5-4 either way. So if I hear an explanation of these conventions that doesn't get specific about the expected lengths, I'm not going to grill them. I expect that players who have unusually specific agreements to disclose them proactively. Unless they play almost exclusively in an insular environment where everyone plays like they do, I think they know that they're not mainstream and a generic explanation will be misleading.

If I could like this post I would, you've summed it up perfectly.

[pescetom]

 Cyberyeti, on 2018-July-26, 10:30, said:

If I could like this post I would, you've summed it up perfectly.

Me too. But it also points out yet another weak area of the laws.

[pran]

I don't know about ACBL, but where I play the ALERT never says anything about whether a call is natural or not.

The ALERT here is simply a warning to opponents: "You may have interest in asking for our partnership understanding with this call".

The effect of ALERT is that unless opponents have ensured that they have received correct information they cannot afterwards claim misinformation.

This does of course not relinquish a partnership from the duty to make its partnership understandings available to its opponents. (Law 40A1b)

[Vampyr]

Just wish to note that when I am told the name of a convention I always ask what it means (if I am in a bad mood I will simply ask them again what the bid shows). Though I have never asked eg the length of the suits a Michaels bidder is showing, and have been burnt by this enough times that I should know better.

[Cyberyeti]

 pran, on 2018-July-26, 17:36, said:

I don't know about ACBL, but where I play the ALERT never says anything about whether a call is natural or not.

The ALERT here is simply a warning to opponents: "You may have interest in asking for our partnership understanding with this call".

The effect of ALERT is that unless opponents have ensured that they have received correct information they cannot afterwards claim misinformation.

This does of course not relinquish a partnership from the duty to make its partnership understandings available to its opponents. (Law 40A1b)

This reminds me of a case where an opp opens 2♣ and it's alerted, I look at the convention card which is folded and see "Benji Acol" on the front of it (so 2♣ is an Acol 2 in any suit), I use our conventional defence to this and it turns out they were playing 2♣ as "Acol 2 in any suit or a weak 2 in diamonds" which caused all sorts of chaos as partner realised this and I didn't, and we defend it like it's a weak 2 in diamonds, and is definitely not what ANYBODY would call Benji Acol.

[pran]

 Cyberyeti, on 2018-July-27, 03:28, said:

This reminds me of a case where an opp opens 2♣ and it's alerted, I look at the convention card which is folded and see "Benji Acol" on the front of it (so 2♣ is an Acol 2 in any suit), I use our conventional defence to this and it turns out they were playing 2♣ as "Acol 2 in any suit or a weak 2 in diamonds" which caused all sorts of chaos as partner realised this and I didn't, and we defend it like it's a weak 2 in diamonds, and is definitely not what ANYBODY would call Benji Acol.

Misinformation.
Just another case of an incorrect CC.
You should be able to rely upon a CC, but this seems very abbreviated, and a follow-up question would certainly be recommended.

[StevenG]

 pran, on 2018-July-27, 04:27, said:

Misinformation.
Just another case of an incorrect CC.
You should be able to rely upon a CC, but this seems very abbreviated, and a follow-up question would certainly be recommended.

An EBU CC has a very small box at the top "General Description of Bidding Methods". This is used for a very abbreviated description of the basic system. People do not write an essay in it. Further down the front page, which CY did not bother to look at, is "Other Aspects of System Which Opponents Should Note". This is where the weird stuff is described.

[Cyberyeti]

 StevenG, on 2018-July-27, 05:02, said:

An EBU CC has a very small box at the top "General Description of Bidding Methods". This is used for a very abbreviated description of the basic system. People do not write an essay in it. Further down the front page, which CY did not bother to look at, is "Other Aspects of System Which Opponents Should Note". This is where the weird stuff is described.

As usual they'd filed it under the bidding box and 4 other bits of paper and it was the older version of the CC without that box on the front. Also the 2♣/♦ bids are SPECIFICALLY what makes benji what it is, there is no variation, benji means EXACTLY one thing and this wasn't it, unlike the astro complications.

[blackshoe]

 Cyberyeti, on 2018-July-27, 06:17, said:

As usual they'd filed it under the bidding box and 4 other bits of paper and it was the older version of the CC without that box on the front. Also the 2♣/♦ bids are SPECIFICALLY what makes benji what it is, there is no variation, benji means EXACTLY one thing and this wasn't it, unlike the astro complications.

"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less." -- Humpty Dumpty

[barmar]

 pran, on 2018-July-27, 04:27, said:

You should be able to rely upon a CC, but this seems very abbreviated, and a follow-up question would certainly be recommended.

Yesterday in the Bruce 0-6000 LM Pairs, LHO (a junior champion) opened 2♦, which his partner alerted. I glanced over to the bidder's CC, and he nicely turned it around so I could read it easily. It just had the usual weak 2 stuff checked, although "Ogust" was crossed out on the line for diamonds.

I didn't say anything, nor ask for an explanation, but at the end of the auction my partner did ask. As I expected from the way the auction proceeded, they were playing Mexican 2♦, they'd just updated the CC incompletely. There was no damage, and I simply pointed out their mistake, which they were just as surprised about.

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2018-July-28, 09:35, said:

Yesterday in the Bruce 0-6000 LM Pairs, LHO (a junior champion) opened 2♦, which his partner alerted. I glanced over to the bidder's CC, and he nicely turned it around so I could read it easily. It just had the usual weak 2 stuff checked, although "Ogust" was crossed out on the line for diamonds.

I didn't say anything, nor ask for an explanation, but at the end of the auction my partner did ask. As I expected from the way the auction proceeded, they were playing Mexican 2♦, they'd just updated the CC incompletely. There was no damage, and I simply pointed out their mistake, which they were just as surprised about.

I once got fined 1VP for having my footnotes misnumbered.

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2018-July-28, 12:30, said:

I once got fined 1VP for having my footnotes misnumbered.

Were you defending your thesis on bridge squeezes?

[pescetom]

 Vampyr, on 2018-July-28, 12:30, said:

I once got fined 1VP for having my footnotes misnumbered.

I'd settle for my opponents being fined for having no CC

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2018-July-30, 09:42, said:

Were you defending your thesis on bridge squeezes?

LOL just the footnotes on the convention card. I had added something so the footnotes were off by one; the opponents were not damaged, so it is a mystery why they appealed over this.

Not long after that, my partner bid based on a CC that had an entirely incorrect description of a bid. A 1VP fine would have meant our winning the event, but one was not imposed. I think that it is very important that the EBU and other NBOs establish standard automatic penalties for this kind of infraction.

[blackshoe]

I don't know that I agree with "standard automatic penalties", at least the automatic part. TDs should be giving consistent rulings, though. If a 1 VP penalty is appropriate in the one case, then it's appropriate in the other as well.