USBF Chicago

[blackshoe]

I find the view that because North was given an accurate description of East's hand, he has no recourse even though that description was MI to be rather interesting. North will view South's bidding in the context of the explanation he was given, yet South will act in the context of the (correct, as it happens) explanation he was given. So the MI North received may well cause him to misinterpret his partner's bidding. Should NS not get redress in such a case? Note: I'm not saying that this misinterpretation necessarily happened here, only asking about the general principle.

[axman]

I find the view that because North was given an accurate description of East's hand, he has no recourse even though that description was MI to be rather interesting.

 

 

 

North will view South's bidding in the context of the explanation he was given, yet South will act in the context of the (correct, as it happens) explanation he was given. So the MI North received may well cause him to misinterpret his partner's bidding. Should NS not get redress in such a case? Note: I'm not saying that this misinterpretation necessarily happened here, only asking about the general principle.

I do not find the view at all interesting. I do find it misguided for the reasons you point out.

 

It is possible for a ME to be substantial [as was here] but irrelevant [as was here].

 

Notably here, there was no claim by N of damage and in light of third party sources it is further notable that there was no claim by N during the hearing after the CC. But, had** there been, there is the persuasive proposition that for however inspired the extremely agressive vul OC was, it also sowed the seeds of the insurmountable problem [eg uncertainty as to the value of the hand]/ lack of ability to recognize the existence of a problem that occurred at the 5 level. and it is this that dispels any credibility to a [hypothetical] assertion by N of damage.

 

** if there had been I would be curious as its basis

[pran]

I find the view that because North was given an accurate description of East's hand, he has no recourse even though that description was MI to be rather interesting. North will view South's bidding in the context of the explanation he was given, yet South will act in the context of the (correct, as it happens) explanation he was given. So the MI North received may well cause him to misinterpret his partner's bidding. Should NS not get redress in such a case? Note: I'm not saying that this misinterpretation necessarily happened here, only asking about the general principle.

There is (from what we now know) no doubt that North was given misinformation.

 

Even if this misinformation was a correct description of the cards held by the offender (East) North-South are still entitled to redress for any damage they suffer because of this misinformation.

 

An example could be if North makes an incorrect interpretation of South's calls because he assumes that South has called with the same information that North has received. If such misinterpretation leads to damage for North-South then of course rectification (adjusted score) is justified.

 

However, I doubt that North in this case can show any reasonable relation between the misinformation received by him and the poor result for his side on the board?