[blackshoe]

Meh. There's an old story about a consultant, called in to a company because their machine stopped working. He came in, listened to the tale of woe, looked at the machine for a minute, took out a tiny screwdriver, and tweaked one screw on the face of the machine. It started right up. Company manager was ecstatic. "Thank you!" he cried. "Soon as you submit your bill, I'll pay it." The consultant took a piece of paper, wrote "Invoice" at the top, and wrote a line: "Consulting: $1200". "What!?" cried the manager. "$1200 for that! All you did was tweak one little screw!"The consultant took back the invoice, crossed out the one line, and wrote two new ones: "Tweaking: $5", and "Knowing where to tweak: $1195". The manager paid this bill.

The point is that directors are paid big bucks for their judgment. A TD who "judges" that the letter of the law shall always be enforced won't be a director long, as he will have demonstrated poor judgement.

What constitutes rudeness in any given circumstance is a matter of judgement, guided (one hopes) by common sense — which involves among other things the local standard of behavior. Something might be considered rude in England, and not rude in the US, or vice versa. Or rude by an older generation, and not rude by a younger. IAC, it's pointless to argue it, particularly when the protagonists are arguing from their different viewpoints.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Nov 19 2009, 12:07 PM, said:

When someone says he wants the bids explained by the partners, and despite this one of the players carries on explaining the bidding himself, he is making hte game less enjoyable for his opponents, and what is more, doing so deliberately. That is the sort of person who spoils the game for other people.

Incidentally, I never said I wouldn't comply with their request. In my personal experience that particular request has never been made against me, which is fine with me.

[shyams]

bluejak, on Nov 19 2009, 05:07 PM, said:

Quote

I am curious: why do you include the phrase "thereby upsetting the opponents"? I'd have expected simply "When someone breaks the rules, that person is wrong" -- but my honest belief is that no club would really be successful if they implemented all the Laws to the last word.

Because if he is not upsetting the opponents, and they do not mind, he is not wrong. Players break the rules in all sorts of ways, but if no-one at the table cares, so what?

OK, LOL. You MUST be right.

In any case, please feel free to re-apply your couple of statements to a revoke situation. Opp revokes, I notice it and point it out. But partner and I are not upset by the loss of a trick, and we don't care and we definitely don't want to call a director. So what?

[hanp]

If you leave the table to smoke a cigarette or order a drink at the bar, it isn't needless is it? You can hardly expect the bar to come to you and smoking is thankfully no longer allowed at the table.

In the club where I play it is normal that after every so many hands dummy gets drinks for all four players. If you always let the others get the drinks then that is considered rude.

But I guess it is not against the laws.

[blackshoe]

I suppose, Clintonesque, we can discuss the meaning of "need". Personally, I'd rather not.`

The thing about irregularities is that you don't have to point them out. So perhaps if you don't care that there was an established revoke, you shouldn't bother saying anything. But whether you say anything or not, if no one calls the director, and that's the end of it, fine. Just don't later call the director because you don't like the outcome.

[barmar]

Anyone know *why* 20F requires that explanations must be given by partner after the auction is over? In the case of declarer asking defenders, it makes sense from a UI perspective, for the same reason why we alert and explain partner's calls during the auction. But when a defender is asking, what difference does it make whether the answer comes from declarer or dummy? There's no more possibility of UI.

[duschek]

barmar, on Nov 20 2009, 12:44 AM, said:

Anyone know *why* 20F requires that explanations must be given by partner after the auction is over?  In the case of declarer asking defenders, it makes sense from a UI perspective, for the same reason why we alert and explain partner's calls during the auction.  But when a defender is asking, what difference does it make whether the answer comes from declarer or dummy?  There's no more possibility of UI.

Actually, Law 20F does not require 100% that explanations be given by the partner:

Law 20F said:

Except on the instruction of the Director replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question.

The opponents are entitled to a correct and accurate account of the agreements. They will most likely get it if given by the partner of the caller. If one player on the declaring side has given an incorrect explanation, his partner must correct it as soon as possible.

The opponents are not entitled to indications that a player has forgotten an agreement, though they will get such an indication if the error occurs during the auction. Therefore, no damage can occur if a correct explanation is given by declarer or dummy, whoever is able to give it.

[richlp]

shyams, on Nov 18 2009, 06:46 AM, said:

3. If opp. can prohibit me from speaking, and then partner's mistake causes a MI, can opps claim damage?

Regardless of the responses to questions 1 and 2..........

Assuming you are the declaring side, aren't you required to correct partner's misexplanation? If you start to do so and your opponents stop you, they have prevented you from fulfilling your obligations and should not be able to claim damage.

[blackshoe]

If I were, at the appropriate time, attempting to correct my partner's apparent misexplanation of our agreement, then either I will have already called the TD (which is what the law requires - you call the TD before you correct the explanation) or, when opponents try to silence me, I call him then.

[barmar]

duschek, on Nov 20 2009, 02:16 AM, said:

The opponents are entitled to a correct and accurate account of the agreements. They will most likely get it if given by the partner of the caller.

Why do you think that? If someone has forgotten the agreement, there's a 50% chance it's the bidder, and a 50% chance that it's his partner. Either way, the other one should correct him.

And if no one has forgotten, you'll get the same explanation from both of them.

[bluejak]

Let me summarise. According to Law and tradition the way to explain agreements is for a player to explain his partner's calls. The TD can decide otherwise though will only do so for a good reason.

In practice this rule is sometimes broken, especially when people are explaining at the end of an auction, and one person explains the whole auction. I think he should ask permission first, though not everyone agrees. Regardless of this, he must not continue if the opponents make it clear they want the rules to be followed.

Whether it might or might not be better for a person to explain his own calls is not a matter for this forum, and is no excuse for breaking the rules if the opponents are not prepared to tolerate such rule breaking.

The other time the rule is broken, in my experience, is when a player does not know whether he has an agreement. The TD should be called, who will send the player away from the table and ask his partner whether there is an agreement, and if so, what. Where I play this is done from time to time without the TD. For example, within the last week a opponent offered to leave the table so we could talk to his partner and we accepted. Again, such rule breaking must not be done unless all the players at the table are happy with it.