[Cascade]

campboy, on 2014-January-01, 15:47, said:

Well, only if it's actually a variation. The player might routinely ask in this situation.

No. This is irrelevant. An opponent will not necessarily know your tempo in other similar situations. The purpose of an unvarying tempo is so that from one situation to another you do not convey additional information. You don't have the luxury of multiple tempos for various different situations.

[gnasher]

Are we all speaking the same language?

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2013-December-31, 18:23, said:

In the context of Law 20F5, a mistaken alert is a mistaken explanation. I know that because it says so:
'Mistaken explanation' here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require.

An incorrect alert is a mistaken explanation, but that doesn't mean that an alert is an explanation. It's just saying that this law also applies in the case of incorrect alerts, i.e. that "mistaken explanation" is short for "mistaken explanation, failure to alert/announce, or unnecessary alert/announcement". But it doesn't necessarily extend to other laws regarding explanations.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2014-January-01, 16:27, said:

And do you not find your condition included in "deceives and/or misleads an opponent" ???

Not necessarily.

[pran]

pran, on 2014-January-01, 16:27, said:

And do you not find your condition included in "deceives and/or misleads an opponent" ???

blackshoe, on 2014-January-01, 20:37, said:

Not necessarily.

Well, if an opponent asked (me) a question that deceived and/or misled me and it turned out that he had no bridge reason for asking that question I would certainly feel annoyed and have my enjoyment of the game interfered with.

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2014-January-01, 19:24, said:

An incorrect alert is a mistaken explanation, but that doesn't mean that an alert is an explanation. It's just saying that this law also applies in the case of incorrect alerts, i.e. that "mistaken explanation" is short for "mistaken explanation, failure to alert/announce, or unnecessary alert/announcement". But it doesn't necessarily extend to other laws regarding explanations.

Yes, I know. When I prefaced my remarks with the words "In the context of Law 20F5", I meant that what I was about to say applied in the context of Law 20F5, but not necessarily in any other context. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

In any case, I don't see why it's relevant whether an alert is an explanation in other contexts. The remark that led to this discussion was Blackshoe's post #48, where he incorrectly (and uncharacteristically) said "An alert is not an explanation, and only mistaken explanations require a TD call and correction." My post about Law 20F5 was intended to refute the second half of this sentence.

[helene_t]

CSGibson, on 2013-December-30, 14:55, said:

I find this analogous to your behavior after a skip bid - you are supposed to study your hand and put on your thinking face, even if the only thing you are thinking about is where you want to eat after the session.

Yes, I agree that it would be a good practice always to have a look at opps' cc when they alert something (unless it is obvious to everybody that you know what the alert is about, such as when opps alert Stayman in the Netherlands).

But the difference is that the law/regulations do not require you do to so.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2014-January-01, 19:24, said:

An incorrect alert is a mistaken explanation, but that doesn't mean that an alert is an explanation. It's just saying that this law also applies in the case of incorrect alerts, i.e. that "mistaken explanation" is short for "mistaken explanation, failure to alert/announce, or unnecessary alert/announcement". But it doesn't necessarily extend to other laws regarding explanations.

gnasher, on 2014-January-02, 02:57, said:

Yes, I know. When I prefaced my remarks with the words "In the context of Law 20F5", I meant that what I was about to say applied in the context of Law 20F5, but not necessarily in any other context. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

In any case, I don't see why it's relevant whether an alert is an explanation in other contexts. The remark that led to this discussion was Blackshoe's post #48, where he incorrectly (and uncharacteristically) said "An alert is not an explanation, and only mistaken explanations require a TD call and correction." My post about Law 20F5 was intended to refute the second half of this sentence.

Yes, that was sloppy of me.

I stand by "an alert is not an explanation", while recognizing that Law 20F5 includes incorrect alerts in the term "mistaken explanation". Andy asserts (correctly, I think) that this inclusion applies only in the context of Law 20F5. This apparently means that an incorrect alert, later realized by a player who made it, does not invoke Law 20F4. Frankly, I would like to think otherwise, but 20F4 makes no mention of alerts. So unless the inclusion, in Law 20F5 of incorrect alerts in "mistaken explanation" applies in some larger context that includes Law 20F4 (and may include other laws), incorrect alerts are treated differently depending on who makes them. While I feel that it would be sensible to treat them the same way, I see no basis for believing the lawmakers intended that, and certainly no basis for ruling as if they did.

My #48 was in the course of a conversation with RSliwinski about precisely this point. He felt that the inclusion in 20F5 does apply to 20F4 and therefore did not understand why I said otherwise and disagreed with me. Hopefully this post will clarify my position, at least.

[richlp]

ggwhiz, on 2013-December-28, 16:45, said:

If 3♦ was some sort of Bergen West has an auto 7♥ bid. Jxxx and AKxxxx(x) in the red suits? Maybe a spade void for the (unsound) reason for bidding on?

West didn't unalert the alert of 3♦ and is stuck with the Bergen interpretation imo and the slightest even imperceptible flinch by East would clue him in so all doubt should be resolved in favor of N/S.

Haven't read the entire thread, but I didn't see my question addressed in the next 5 or so posts so here goes..............

If 3 ♦ is some kind of Bergen, why (and at what point) does West have an auto 7♥bid? AFAIK, regardless of which particular version of Bergen is being played, all 3♦ shows is a heart raise with more than pre-emptive values and less than a game force. The expectation of 4-6 in the reds can't possibly be accurate. Even opposite two aces, and therefore no minor suit loser, are the chances of covering the 3rd round spade loser good enough to warrant bidding the grand - even for a player in the class of one who would Blackwood with the West hand?

When my Bergen Raise partner bid 7♦ my strong inclination is to suspect an original misbid - what else can it be, a try for 7NT rather than 7♥?

I would cancel the 7♦ bid and rule the contract to be 6♥.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-02, 11:48, said:

Yes, that was sloppy of me.

I stand by "an alert is not an explanation", while recognizing that Law 20F5 includes incorrect alerts in the term "mistaken explanation". Andy asserts (correctly, I think) that this inclusion applies only in the context of Law 20F5. This apparently means that an incorrect alert, later realized by a player who made it, does not invoke Law 20F4. Frankly, I would like to think otherwise, but 20F4 makes no mention of alerts. So unless the inclusion, in Law 20F5 of incorrect alerts in "mistaken explanation" applies in some larger context that includes Law 20F4 (and may include other laws), incorrect alerts are treated differently depending on who makes them. While I feel that it would be sensible to treat them the same way, I see no basis for believing the lawmakers intended that, and certainly no basis for ruling as if they did.

My #48 was in the course of a conversation with RSliwinski about precisely this point. He felt that the inclusion in 20F5 does apply to 20F4 and therefore did not understand why I said otherwise and disagreed with me. Hopefully this post will clarify my position, at least.

There is still Law 20F6. This means that a player who is misled by an alerting mistake is still entitled to a score correction. Though I agree with you that an alerting mistake is not a mistaken explanation, it is still "misinformation", so 20F6, and therefore 21 (and 47E), are applicable.

Rik

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2014-January-03, 17:36, said:

There is still Law 20F6. This means that a player who is misled by an alerting mistake is still entitled to a score correction. Though I agree with you that an alerting mistake is not a mistaken explanation, it is still "misinformation", so 20F6, and therefore 21 (and 47E), are applicable.

Rik

Possibly true, but beside the point.

[gnasher]

pran, on 2014-January-01, 13:15, said:

A question without bridge reason is clearly a violation of Law 74A2 if it deceives and/or misleads an opponent.

The only way to make 74A2 workable is to limit it to extraneous remarks or actions. Otherwise it would be illegal to bid a grand slam, make a penalty double, make a deceptive play, or call the director.

The right to ask a question is set in Law 20F, so Law 74A2 cannot override that right.

[pran]

gnasher, on 2014-January-04, 03:45, said:

The only way to make 74A2 workable is to limit it to extraneous remarks or actions. Otherwise it would be illegal to bid a grand slam, make a penalty double, make a deceptive play, or call the director.

The right to ask a question is set in Law 20F, so Law 74A2 cannot override that right.

Law 74A2 applies to [...] any action that [...]

A question is an action.

A question without bridge reason is an extraneous action.

So yes, Law 74A2 overrides Law 20F when the conditions given in Law 74A2 are satisfied.

[gnasher]

pran, on 2014-January-04, 04:15, said:

A question without bridge reason is an extraneous action.

Which law says that?