[helene_t]

waubrey, on Jun 9 2009, 08:10 AM, said:

I actually think the rule is poorly stated. If normal play can include careless play then it can include anything unless the ACBL has a definition of "careless play."

Careless play is the kind of mistakes that a player at this level would regularly make.

For me, failure to unblock a suit would be an example. I would get it right if it was posted as a forum problem but I frequently oops it at the table. So the director should not allow me to get an unblock right unless I state in the claim that I am going to unblock. Miscounting trumps (unless stating in the claim such as "I draw trumps in three rounds if required") would be another example.

OTOH, suppose I have two trumps + two clubs in hand and two trumps + two diamonds in dummy, no trumps out. I could fail to make all remaining tricks but the cross-ruff with no trumps out is such a routine play that the director should allow me to do it right.

Misclicks occur but clearly the director should not allow for it, since such a policy would make almost any claim invalid. Besides, if a stated line of play is correct then the claim is correct, nonwithstanding the fact that I might fail to follow my stated line due to a mechanical error.

[Lobowolf]

Codo, on Jun 9 2009, 03:14 AM, said:

no S was just no stopper.

Aside from that doubleton ace, that is.

Misinformation, what misinformation?

[Lobowolf]

Let's see, possible explanations...

1) No spades
2) No spade losers
3) No stopper


NONE of which was the case. Does it really matter whether it was deliberate, the results of a misclick, or the result of limited language skills? I guess you could put it under a magnifying glass to distinguish between subsequent and consequent damage, but why does it seem like people are bending over backward to favor the side that clearly misinformed the other side?

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Jun 9 2009, 11:58 AM, said:

Let's see, possible explanations...

1)  No spades
2)  No spade losers
3)  No stopper


NONE of which was the case.  Does it really matter whether it was deliberate, the results of a misclick, or the result of limited language skills?  I guess you could put it under a magnifying glass to distinguish between subsequent and consequent damage, but why does it seem like people are bending over backward to favor the side that clearly misinformed the other side?

I don't believe it is particularly relevant since no clarification was asked for at the time (or was it?) so how could he ever claim misinformation when he essentially didn't have information at all?

Anyway my earlier comments about the second ruling were more tending toward the perceived attitude being displayed, not the ruling which may well have been wrong.

[Codo]

Lobowolf, on Jun 10 2009, 01:55 AM, said:

Codo, on Jun 9 2009, 03:14 AM, said:

no S was just no stopper.

Aside from that doubleton ace, that is.

Misinformation, what misinformation?

But the explanation must not fit the hand.
Don't you frequently ask for a stopper when you have Ax yourself?

I do.

But as Josh pointesd out, this is not relevant for a case of misinformation. When I receive "no S" , I did not get an information at all.

[Lobowolf]

Codo, on Jun 10 2009, 01:16 AM, said:

But the explanation must not fit the hand.
Don't you frequently ask for a stopper when you have Ax yourself?

I do.

Yes, absolutely, but then the correct explanation is that the bid is "asking for a spade stopper," not "denying a spade stopper."

I agree that "no s" was very (sub-)minimalist.