[lamford]

campboy, on 2013-May-28, 02:54, said:

if it only applied to verbal misexplanations, as you suggest, then there would be no requirement to tell opponents about partner's failure to alert at all.

I think it is implied by the rule that you do not tell them during the auction that you tell them at the end.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2013-May-27, 21:54, said:

Maybe I am mistaken, but I don't believe a word's meaning changes based on whether we call the director. And I don't believe the definition of "erroneous" versus "mistaken" changes when it is our partner instead of an opponent sending or receiving the information.

I don't believe I have a clue what you're talking about.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2013-May-28, 03:41, said:

I think it is implied by the rule that you do not tell them during the auction that you tell them at the end.

20F5a says you may not tell them during the auction. I can see how that implies that you may tell them afterwards, but not that you must. I think you need 20F5b to get "must".

[lamford]

campboy, on 2013-May-28, 10:52, said:

20F5a says you may not tell them during the auction. I can see how that implies that you may tell them afterwards, but not that you must. I think you need 20F5b to get "must".

I would say that it implies that you must tell them afterwards. I cannot see in this thread where I suggested that not telling them of a failure to alert or an incorrect alert is optional. You state that to do so without calling the TD is an infraction. Do you think that 20F5b uses "erroneous" whereas the previous clause had "mistaken explanation" just for literary style, or was there a reason why they used a stronger word when the director must be called? And do you think the player whose partner gave a correct explanation (but did not alert or alerted wrongly) should tell the TD that, in his opinion, his partner gave an erroneous explanation, which is your interpretation of 20F5(b)?

I submit that a player should only call the TD when, in his opinion, his partner gave an erroneous explanation. To call the TD and make a false statement cannot be the intention. Now you can argue that the TD must be called because there has been an irregularity, but there is a WBFLC minute, 2009 I think, that a more specific Law always takes priority over a general Law.

If the WBFLC had intended the player to have to call the TD when there was a failure to alert, they would have written:

20F5(b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous or his partner alerted incorrectly or failed to alert.

We know the WBFLC are meticulous in drafting the Laws, so it would be wrong to assume the wording is incorrect.

[barmar]

campboy, on 2013-May-28, 02:54, said:

The "in his opinion" is not a requirement for this law to apply, it is what he is supposed to say when this law does apply (whether or not it is actually true).

While it may not be a legal requirement, it's a practical human requirement. Why would a player think any of these clauses are relevant if he doesn't think his partner gave an incorrect explanation or alert?

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2013-May-28, 11:01, said:

We know the WBFLC are meticulous in drafting the Laws, so it would be wrong to assume the wording is incorrect.

We do? Is this some brand of English humo(u)r?

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-28, 16:06, said:

We do? Is this some brand of English humo(u)r?

No, it is international, called sarcasm. Some think that "irony" is more accurate.

[Vampyr]

Blackshoe you have confirmed my suspicion that you have no sense of humour. And I am sure I am not alone in this.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2013-May-28, 22:44, said:

Blackshoe you have confirmed my suspicion that you have no sense of humour. And I am sure I am not alone in this.

Not alone in that observation, or not alone in lacking a sense of humor?

[campboy]

barmar, on 2013-May-28, 15:11, said:

While it may not be a legal requirement, it's a practical human requirement. Why would a player think any of these clauses are relevant if he doesn't think his partner gave an incorrect explanation or alert?

He wouldn't, naturally. But failing to tell opponents at the appointed time is still an irregularity, IMO, even if the player is unaware that there is any MI to correct.

[mycroft]

aguahombre, on 2013-May-28, 22:55, said:

Not alone in that observation, or not alone in lacking a sense of humor?

Yes.

Spoiler

In the first-order-logic meaning of the phrase, of course.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2013-May-28, 22:44, said:

Blackshoe you have confirmed my suspicion that you have no sense of humour. And I am sure I am not alone in this.

Perhaps not. Is this a crime?

I suspect several of my friends would be surprised to hear this. <shrug>

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-29, 12:30, said:

Perhaps not. Is this a crime?

No. Nor is it s crime to be thick, which is another common cause of not getting others' jokes.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2013-May-30, 03:13, said:

No. Nor is it s crime to be thick, which is another common cause of not getting others' jokes.

I know that people who know me would be surprised to hear me described as "thick".

How far do you want to take this?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-30, 10:31, said:

I know that people who know me would be surprised to hear me described as "thick".

How far do you want to take this?

Did I say you were thick?

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2013-May-30, 11:32, said:

Did I say you were thick?

No, and I didn't say you did.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2013-May-28, 22:44, said:

Blackshoe you have confirmed my suspicion that you have no sense of humour. And I am sure I am not alone in this.

aguahombre, on 2013-May-28, 22:55, said:

Not alone in that observation, or not alone in lacking a sense of humor?

mycroft, on 2013-May-29, 10:41, said:

Yes.

Spoiler

In the first-order-logic meaning of the phrase, of course.

blackshoe, on 2013-May-29, 12:30, said:

Perhaps not. Is this a crime? I suspect several of my friends would be surprised to hear this. <shrug>

Vampyr, on 2013-May-30, 03:13, said:

No. Nor is it s crime to be thick, which is another common cause of not getting others' jokes.

blackshoe, on 2013-May-30, 10:31, said:

I know that people who know me would be surprised to hear me described as "thick". How far do you want to take this?

Vampyr, on 2013-May-30, 11:32, said:

Did I say you were thick?

blackshoe, on 2013-May-30, 11:43, said:

No, and I didn't say you did.

Moderator!!! Is this playground humour relevant to the laws of Bridge?

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2013-May-30, 18:41, said:

Moderator!!! Is this playground humour relevant to the laws of Bridge?

Nope.