[lamford]

 barmar, on 2016-March-30, 09:27, said:

What he thought at the time when he bid is irrelevant. An agreement doesn't cease to exist because someone temporarily forgot it.

True, but, as the AC said, East could produce no evidence that they ever had an agreement. It is similar to the Reno appeal. An agreement is not an opinion by one side or an entry on one CC that this is the agreement. It is possible that East forgot that they were playing Gerber. It is also possible that there was no such agreement.

From: "Details of ruling:
In consultation with the CTD, I polled a number of players to learn whether the changed explanation would affect the lead decision in any way."
We can conclude that the TD has decided that there was MI, and we should accept that.
85A1. In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect.

Therefore we award a PP for failure to correct "one ace" to "no agreement". And I still think South should have had some percentage of a diamond lead. But no diamond leader has come forward yet and there are no votes for a diamond in a separate poll. Where have all the experts gone?

Finally one person leads a diamond in the other thread. From previous posts he is one of the better players!

This post has been edited by lamford: 2016-March-30, 13:48

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2016-March-30, 11:00, said:

True, but, as the AC said, East could produce no evidence that they ever had an agreement. It is similar to the Reno appeal. An agreement is not an opinion by one side or an entry on one CC that this is the agreement. It is possible that East forgot that they were playing Gerber. It is also possible that there was no such agreement.

Statements by the players are evidence. Self-serving statements may not be as credible as written notes, but that doesn't mean they should be discounted entirely. The TD and AC have to judge how credible the players are.

I have Gerber agreements with most of my partners. But it comes up so rarely, I wouldn't be surprised if I or partner didn't recognize it when it happens.

[wank]

 lamford, on 2016-March-30, 11:00, said:

From: "Details of ruling:
In consultation with the CTD, I polled a number of players to learn whether the changed explanation would affect the lead decision in any way."
We can conclude that the TD has decided that there was MI, and we should accept that.

that doesn't follow at all. it results in much less aggro all round for the TD to consider whether there was damage or not first and when he decides there was none, to consider the issue of MI to be moot. there's no compulsion to which order one needs to consider the factors affecting such a ruling.

[jallerton]

If E/W had agreed the meaning of a 4♣ response to 1NT, then it should have been noted on the convention card. Presumably the TD and/or AC would have checked the convention card; we can probably infer from the 'no agreement' conclusion that the convention card was silent on this point. [If the convention card was not properly completed, that fact could itself be a reason for a PP.]

In the ordinary course of explanations, the bids are explained in order. East should have offered an explanation of the 4♣ bid and then his doubt would have come to light, allowing N/S to draw their own conclusions. Law 20F1 states:

Quote

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

One commentator has the impression that West explained the entire auction. Whilst this practice does not cause a problem when both partners are on the same wavelength, it does cause a problem in situations like the present case, by depriving the opponents of information which they would have known had the explanations been given by the correct opponents.

[lamford]

 wank, on 2016-March-30, 16:25, said:

that doesn't follow at all. it results in much less aggro all round for the TD to consider whether there was damage or not first and when he decides there was none, to consider the issue of MI to be moot. there's no compulsion to which order one needs to consider the factors affecting such a ruling.

The AC wrote: Nobody leads a diamond on this auction even with the correct disclosure of “No agreement”. Score stands. [My emphasis]. The word "correct" indicates that, in the opinion of the AC, there was MI.

It is worth mentioning here that a couple of people now lead a diamond. Possibly the strongest, Espen Erichsen, was commenting on the YC site. Of course, South at the table may not have been a peer of Espen, but I think the AC conclusion "Nobody leads a diamond" was too sweeping. I predict that far more will lead a diamond in the poll elsewhere after reading gszes's reasoning.

[WellSpyder]

 jallerton, on 2016-March-30, 16:45, said:

One commentator has the impression that West explained the entire auction. Whilst this practice does not cause a problem when both partners are on the same wavelength, it does cause a problem in situations like the present case, by depriving the opponents of information which they would have known had the explanations been given by the correct opponents.

So would you issue a PP when the whole auction is explained by one partner? I have heard TDs imply in the past that although it is not the normal procedure there is nothing wrong with it.

[blackshoe]

Law 20F1 says that, during the auction, "Except on the instruction of the Director, replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question." "Should" here means that departure from this procedure — one player explaining both his own and his partner's calls — is an infraction of law "not often penalized" (see the Introduction to the Laws). Law 20F2 addresses explanations after the final pass and throughout the play period, saying "Explanations should be given on a like basis to F1 above and by the partner of the player whose action is explained." So again one player explaining both players' calls is an infraction not often penalized.

I think the key here is the question of UI. During the auction, explaining one's own calls might pass UI to partner, more UI than just "it was an explanation", so it should be avoided. Similarly after the auction, if the explainer is going to be a defender. But if after the auction is over the explainer is going to be declarer, or for that matter, dummy, then UI is not generally a consideration, so while I would not say there is nothing wrong with it, I would say that it (usually) doesn't matter.

Note 1: The above is general. In the specific case in this thread, if it turns out that it does matter, then I would be more inclined to penalize it, but to carefully explain that the penalty is because of the unusual circumstance. Also, I consider a warning to be a form of PP - so I might not give one in MPs or IMPs, particularly if it's a first offense.

[barmar]

I could have sworn I read somewhere that the a review with explanations during the clarification period could be, and often is, given by presumed declarer. Maybe it's an ACBL guideline, because it's not in the Laws.

But regardless of which one is giving the explanation, if his partner thinks he gave an incorrect explanation he's required to correct it. So the infraction is in failing to correct MI, not in the wrong player doing the explanation.

[WellSpyder]

 barmar, on 2016-March-31, 09:43, said:

But regardless of which one is giving the explanation, if his partner thinks he gave an incorrect explanation he's required to correct it. So the infraction is in failing to correct MI, not in the wrong player doing the explanation.

But that misses the point, doesn't it? A player may realise his partner's explanation is correct, and therefore there is no reason to give a correction to the opponents, even though he didn't actually recall this agreement until he heard his partner's explanation of a later call. If each partner explains bids in turn then this misunderstanding will become clear, but if everything is left to his partner then it will not become clear. This means in the latter case that oppo have been disadvantaged by a violation of correct procedure that is apparently not normally punished. That seems to me to be unfortunate.....

[blackshoe]

It seems to me that if a contestant is damaged because of an opponent's infraction, it doesn't matter whether the infraction is normally penalized or not. The NOS are still entitled to a score adjustment.

[jallerton]

 WellSpyder, on 2016-March-31, 07:57, said:

So would you issue a PP when the whole auction is explained by one partner? I have heard TDs imply in the past that although it is not the normal procedure there is nothing wrong with it.

Not as a matter of course. This is consistent with blackshoe's point that this violation is "not often penalised". The implication from this is that there should be some circumstances in which this violation ought to be penalised. I would suggest that these circumstances should be the ones which cause a problem. In the present case, it seems from the AC write-up that the PP was awarded not so much for the wrong partner giving the initial explanation, but more for the bidder's partner not correcting it (implying that he would have given the same explanation had he explained the call himself).

I have to confess that I (and my partners) are sometimes guilty of this particular violation. Our reasoning is that it is often quicker and clearer for the explanation of the entire auction to be given in this way. However, we only do this for 'routine' auctions in which we are 100% sure that we are on the same wavelength. As soon as we reach a 'grey area', we'll revert to the correct procedure of the caller's partner making the explanations, in order to ensure that the opponents receive the information to which they are legally entitled.

[jallerton]

 blackshoe, on 2016-March-31, 12:05, said:

It seems to me that if a contestant is damaged because of an opponent's infraction, it doesn't matter whether the infraction is normally penalized or not. The NOS are still entitled to a score adjustment.

Yes, of course. But in this case, the TD reported:

Quote

In consultation with the CTD, I polled a number of players to learn whether the changed explanation would affect the lead decision in any way. Not one player of a poll of a dozen even considered leading a diamond when told there was no agreement.

So the reason why there was no score adjustment is that she concluded that no damage was caused by the misexplanation.

[aguahombre]

 jallerton, on 2016-March-31, 17:12, said:

Yes, of course. But in this case, the TD reported:



So the reason why there was no score adjustment is that she concluded that no damage was caused by the misexplanation.

So the problem was that the CTD characterized it as a misexplanation -- thus a violation of procedure. It is natural to look for some way to be the bidding police. They have an agreement; East's 5H bid ain't it. East says he knew that by the time of the disclosure period; the AC, in order to do something to E/W for their lucky bad bidding, chose to say the agreement never existed because nobody with an agreement ever momentarily forgets it.

[lamford]

 aguahombre, on 2016-March-31, 17:34, said:

So the problem was that the CTD characterized it as a misexplanation -- thus a violation of procedure. It is natural to look for some way to be the bidding police. They have an agreement; East's 5H bid ain't it. East says he knew that by the time of the disclosure period; the AC, in order to do something to E/W for their lucky bad bidding, chose to say the agreement never existed because nobody with an agreement ever momentarily forgets it.

No. We are told by jallerton from the full TD report:
"I thanked the players for their explanation then went to collect relevant information about the EW pair’s method and system via the Convention Card and by asking about implicit agreements in similar situations that could help to determine whether this was a misbid or misexplanation ruling."

Only then did the TD (and subsequently the AC) decide that East had not "forgotten" but there was no evidence that there ever was an agreement about 1NT-4C.

[barmar]

 WellSpyder, on 2016-March-31, 10:14, said:

But that misses the point, doesn't it? A player may realise his partner's explanation is correct, and therefore there is no reason to give a correction to the opponents, even though he didn't actually recall this agreement until he heard his partner's explanation of a later call. If each partner explains bids in turn then this misunderstanding will become clear, but if everything is left to his partner then it will not become clear. This means in the latter case that oppo have been disadvantaged by a violation of correct procedure that is apparently not normally punished. That seems to me to be unfortunate.....

The opponents aren't entitled to know that you had a misunderstanding. They're only entitled to your agreements. Sometimes the misunderstanding will become obvious as a result of explanations that are inconsistent with each other, but there's nothing in the Laws that say that the opponents need to be made aware of this.

Ideally, there would be a omniscient oracle that could provide explanations to the opponents without the players being involved. But since that's not feasible we put up with the imperfect system of explaining bids. The particular mechanism depends on the form of play -- online we explain our own bids, with screens bids are explained by each player to their screenmate, at normal f2f tables we explain partner's bids. Each of these mechanisms has different deficiencies.