[McBruce]

A player's RHO alerts his bid and explains it in the box. The explanation seems odd, so the player asks LHO in private whether there is an agreement. LHO gives a different answer in private and the player later claims damage, but the original explanation from RHO turns out to be correct. Do we adjust, or is the damage self-inflicted, or does it depend on the circumstances?

[mycroft]

So I'm clear:

• Player's RHO made a call, alerted and explained.
  
• Player thinks the explanation is fishy, asks LHO to explain the bid (passing AI to him that something's going on).
  
• LHO gives a different explanation. Player now knows there's a misunderstanding happening.
  
• Player likes LHO's explanation better, decides RHO just typed something that wasn't true, is happy to not clear up (or even mention) the misunderstanding, continues play.
  
• Turns out RHO was correct after all, and Player's relying on LHO's answer caused him to make a mistake and is now claiming damage.

So, let me guess, if it turned out LHO's answer was right, but partner relied on RHO's answer (because it was the only one she got), they'd claim damage again? What about if LHO was right, but RHO's confusion about the agreement meant that they found the unbiddable (but cold on the lie) slam? Damage again?

Player knew he had been misinformed (but not by whom), and decided not to get it clarified (or the TD to the table at the time). There was an infraction, he knows it (but nobody else at the table knows for sure - LHO probably has a pretty good guess, of course). He chose to play on, keeping the opponents in the dark.

Why is this any different than when the explanation IRL is "Bergen" and the card (which he reviewed at the start of the round) says "weak jump shifts"?

Alert Procedures said:

An opponent who actually knows or suspects what is happening, even though not properly informed, may not be entitled to redress if he or she chooses to proceed without clarifying the situation.

I think "may not be entitled" is a good place to start from. "Once you got two different answers to the meaning of the bid, why didn't you call me at that time?"
Please note, my teachers (well, not specifically Matt Smith, but the other two, you know who they are) are quite emphatic on this one - much more so than I am. "You were fine with it when they were the ones likely to be damaged."

[McBruce]

I agree with that, good clarification. It seems an uphill battle to get those who are flocking to Virtual Club games to care about such issues, though. Most of them are so happy to just play bridge that they care little about rules or ethics or even the results. Then you get a bridge lawyer who, thanks to private chat (and ghod knows he expects the moon if a response to his fishing expedition is public), discovers that opponents are having a misunderstanding and bids as though he is bulletproof knowing that they will probably work out their own auction before thinking about doubling, and my thread title is clear. Even IRL I have a rule of thumb that says that when you get back to the desk and match the auction given to the hand record, the angriest player will be the one that is farthest from the strength his bid seems to have shown.

[mycroft]

Oh, those people were there before. They are the ones who hear the explanation from the alert, and turn to the bidder and ask if it was right? They are the ones who hear the new-B pair (pun absolutely intended) go 1♣-p-2♣ no Alert, and complain that they would have done something if they had been told that (as is taught by all the 2/1 teachers in their area) 2♣ was (game-)forcing. They are the ones who used to get upset when the 15-17 "balanced" NT showed up with the stiff ♦A, and now do so when it's a married-4=4=3=2 14. Frequently they're also the ones who are surprised that 2♦ "Alert, Flannery"-p-2NT-AP is not allowed to stand when they do it (of course, 2♦ was mini-Roman, 2♥ was Flannery, and opener did in fact have a mini-Roman hand).

It's just a *different* set of "set them up, then claim damage" from RL partner-Alerting. The people are the same, and the games they play are the same. It just more noticeable to some more marks players than before, because it isn't "normal". On the other hand, I'm happy for the visibility. They'll start noticing it when the "count defence" to their 1NT happens IRL, or when they get "minimum acceptable disclosure", or when they get Law20G2'ed (or L20G1'ed, for that matter).

[barmar]

Law 21A:

Quote

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

The player knows that one of the explanations is wrong, but not which one. When he chooses wrongly which one to believe he's acting on the basis of his own misunderstanding, so receives no redress.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2020-May-19, 17:01, said:

Law 21A:
The player knows that one of the explanations is wrong, but not which one. When he chooses wrongly which one to believe he's acting on the basis of his own misunderstanding, so receives no redress.

No sorry, I don't buy that.
Either he has a right to obtain explanations from both opponents or he does not (f2f bridge laws address different scenarios and electronic bridge laws do not yet exist).
If he has a right to both explanations and they conflict, then he cannot be left to choose one at his own risk and judgement, that would be ludicrous (nor would it always be realistic or productive to call a human Director in such cases).
If he has a right to only the explanation from RHO, then he should not even be able to ask LHO and certainly cannot complain if RHO gives the correct explanation but he does not act upon it.

[barmar]

if he gets conflicting explanations, he can call the TD and try to get the conflict resolved.

But if he chooses not to do this, and makes his own decision about which explanation to believe, I think Law 21 applies.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2020-May-20, 15:12, said:

if he gets conflicting explanations, he can call the TD and try to get the conflict resolved.

But if he chooses not to do this, and makes his own decision about which explanation to believe, I think Law 21 applies.

And what is the TD supposed to do when called?
Such situations are already a mess in face to face unless the agreement is covered by a system card, online it can only get worse.
Laws to handle these situations realistically should have been determined by WBF and be reflected in the software.
I could live with a law saying that one obtains both alert and explanation from the system card or in its absence from RHO.
In which case the software should be encouraged/obliged to interpret the system card and should not allow an enquiry to LHO.

[jnichols]

pescetom, on 2020-May-20, 15:16, said:

And what is the TD supposed to do when called?
Such situations are already a mess in face to face unless the agreement is covered by a system card, online it can only get worse.
Laws to handle these situations realistically should have been determined by WBF and be reflected in the software.
I could live with a law saying that one obtains both alert and explanation from the system card or in its absence from RHO.
In which case the software should be encouraged/obliged to interpret the system card and should not allow an enquiry to LHO.

The TD can talk privately to the players and try to resolve the discrepancy. This is what happens in face to face. The director can then apply the Laws. We do it all the time when an alert/explanation doesn't match the system card.
No reason to do anything different online.

The software is what it is. There are lots of changes that can be made, but not overnight.

[McBruce]

I may be more of an optimist than my esteemed colleague mycroft (whom I shall miss greeting this year in Penticton), but the vast majority of these online explanations that don't make sense, prompting an ask to the other player, are due to poor written communications, or an assumption that something means what it doesn't. Offline, the funniest one I remember was a player asking an opponent about six or seven times to describe partner's Precision 2♣ opener: a joke was being told loudly at the next table and the first three tries were not clearly heard, but the next three or four were confusing, because the Chinese-Canadian player whose partner opened 2♣ said "it shows 11-15, with either a six-card club suit, or a five-card club suit with an unknown four-card major." This was perfect except that he substituted "neither...nor" for "either...or" which got the repeated response "so what DOES it show then?" By the time the joke at the next table was told and the loop had played itself out a few times, they finally got me over and it was easy to resolve and amusing to all.

[pescetom]

jnichols, on 2020-May-20, 15:45, said:

The TD can talk privately to the players and try to resolve the discrepancy. This is what happens in face to face. The director can then apply the Laws. We do it all the time when an alert/explanation doesn't match the system card.
No reason to do anything different online.

I'm a face to face TD too, and yes this is what happened then and what I do now. Do you think it usually works well?
I think there are a lot of good reasons for trying to do something better online, and the opportunity too.

[mycroft]

While I agree with you, McBruce - and I probably am more cynical, yes - this happens IRL as well. They get an answer they don't understand or don't think is right, and they ask the bidder immediately, "is that correct?" Which, IRL, makes for a bigger mess than it does online; any action bidder takes (besides calling the TD, and even that will be taken as rudeness) is detrimental to her.

Communication problems is one thing. Being told something, understanding it, and asking for confirmation is something else.

We don't know in the OP what the response was - whether it was the classic "two colours, barrage" (*) that translates badly from French, or whether it was just something that the bidder understood, but didn't believe. I will freely admit that my response would be coloured by my discussion with the players. But my "you knew there was a misunderstanding, you didn't clear it up at the time, it turned out to hurt you instead of the opponents, and *now* you want the director?" response is going to be what they will have to overcome.

(*) weak two-suiter, could be ♥ + ♦ of course...

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2020-May-20, 15:16, said:

Laws to handle these situations realistically should have been determined by WBF and be reflected in the software.

The problem with this is that the WBF had nothing to do (and probably were not even consulted) with the development of the software online sites use. I daresay the various sites aren't using the same software, either.

I was once told, by the guy then in charge of Microsoft's bridge site, that he didn't care whether the software conformed to the rules of the game as published by the WBF, nothing was going to change. And nothing has.