Mistaken Explanation or Mistaken Call?
I found myself wondering about this when I hadn't had a director call in 2 hours.
Law 21B1(b): The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
This appears to assume that one or the other is possible but not both.
If partner alerts my call as "5-5 in the red suits" when I intended my call as "5-5 in the black suits" it can't be both.
Suppose my partner announces it as "hearts and diamonds" when I thought it was "hearts and a minor" but I happen to have hearts and diamonds. Is it a mistaken call? Have opponents been misled? (I deliberately use misled rather than misinformed.)
21B1(b) also seems to assume that the explanation is given by partner (it certainly makes more sense that way).
Suppose we are self-alerting. I think my call means "hearts and a minor" (which I explain) but it later transpires that my partner took it as hearts and diamonds. System card is unclear.
Does 21B1(b) apply? Is my explanation deemed to be misinformation?
Comments
Jeremy methinks you have too much time on your hands :cold_sweat:
However, I think you probably have to read 21B1(b) in conjunction with and after reading 21B1(a).
Probably Law 75 is more appropriate to the other points
"If partner alerts my call as "5-5 in the red suits" when I intended my call as "5-5 in the black suits" it can't be both." No it can't; so first principles are that you have to look at the system card. If the explanation fits the bid then fine. If not then there is an infraction and there maybe damage. I say maybe as we don't know yet if there is damage.
"partner announces it as "hearts and diamonds" when I thought it was "hearts and a minor" but...." Well, in that senario they have been proven to be able to see through the backs of cards but there doesn't appear to be any "damage". After all Diamonds are a minor, just that partner is a little more accruate than you would expect. Also don't forget you only "thought" and didn't read it off that awful system card!! :open_mouth:
"we are self-alerting. I think my call means "hearts and a minor" (which I explain) but it later transpires that my partner took it as hearts and diamonds" Not sure but again i think it will depend on whether there has been an infraction and any "provable" damage. Did partner say it was Hearts and diamonds? No, so as long as you treat the bid by partner as you would normally then all is Ok.
I would also say that someone needs to clear up the system card!
Cheese can give you bad day dreams so cut out the cheese. :cookie:
I await someone to put us both out of our misery!
CMOT_Dibbler
An explanation of something other than the partnership agreement is a mistaken explanation even if it happens to fit the hand of the player who made the call. It can cause damage, too (imagine if the same bidding sequence comes up on the next board, and the opponents don't ask because they think they know what it means).
Note that it is possible for both a call and the explanation to be mistaken; this happens when both partners have forgotten the partnership agreement, and their mistaken ideas about what the call means are not only different from the agreement, but also from each other. Generally speaking, I'd expect the Director to treat this the same way as a "regular" mistaken-explanation case.
There was a famous case involving Garozzo where he was told that his opponents were playing 4cM when they were in fact playing 5cM. Because the player in question actually held five hearts she didn't correct her partner's misexplanation, but Garozzo successfully argued that he would have made a different, more successful lead if he had know their true agreement.
I once had an odd situation where I had briefly forgotten the agreement and made a bid. Partner forgot the agreement in exactly the same manner as I forgot it and gave the explanation I would have given were I self-alerting. I won the contract and found myself obliged to correct the misexplanation by partner, even though it accurately described my hand.
If you think it's "H+m" and your partner thinks it's "H+D" then there may have been a mistaken explanation. If the agreement is "H+m" and your partner has misexplained, there still could be damage, even though you have what your partner has explained you to have.
For example, when our opponents make a two-suited overcall, we have different agreements depending on whether both suits are specified, or only one (or none over a short club). So our bids mean different things after (say) 1S (2S) hearts and a minor, than after 1S (2S) hearts and diamonds.
Playing live with screens, there's real potential for the auction to go off the rails if one side of the screen describes it one way, and the other side of the screen the other, no matter what the agreement is.
But even without that, suppose the auction starts 1S (2s) and your partner describes it as hearts and diamonds, while you think the agreement is hearts and a minor.
It's possible that we would get to the right contract against "hearts and a minor" but we don't against "hearts and diamonds" (for example, after hearts and a minor we play 2NT as a transfer to clubs but after hearts and diamonds we play 3C as natural, perhaps it makes a trick difference which way up a club contract is played)
So (i) you still need to explain at the end of the hand that you think partner gave the wrong explanation and (ii) you might get ruled against if the TD agrees. If you said nothing, and it didn't come up again, would anyone ever find out? Probably not, but that isn't the point.
(We do have an agreement for what we play if they can't remember what they play)
And yes, if you are self-alerting, and you alert and describe what you have, but it isn't actually the partnership agreement, you have still given misinformation and you could possibly still get ruled against. (There was a hand in virtual Eastbourne last year where this happened, for example.)