missing in the system

[blackshoe]

Rectification is not punishment. Had the director been called when the MI came to light (before the opening lead), the legal rectification would have been that East would have been given the opportunity to change his last call. I doubt very much he would have done so. Law 21B3 would kick in, so that if, after the play, the TD judges that NS gained an advantage from the irregularity, he will adjust the score. No punishment, just rectification. But it didn't happen, and in part EW is responsible for that. Had it happened, the TD might have judged that NS didn't gain advantage, in which case no adjustment. Or he might have judged otherwise, in which case he would have adjusted to an assigned score using whichever part of Law 12C1 applies in the jurisdiction.

[ggwhiz]

I agree with all you stated but am not clear on the mis-information part. The information given seems to have been correct and conform to the obligations?

 

Therefore there was no MI, just a mis-bid.

[MBV53]

This is clearcut ruling of Law75.

LAW 75 - MISTAKEN EXPLANATION OR MISTAKEN CALL

 

After a misleading explanation has been given to opponents the responsibilities of the players (and the Director) are as illustrated by the consequences of this following example:

 

North has opened 1NT and South, who holds a weak hand with long diamonds, has bid 2{, intending to sign off; North explains, however, in answer to West’s inquiry, that South’s bid is strong and artificial, asking for major suits.

 

A. Mistake Causing Unauthorized Information

 

Whether or not North’s explanation is a correct statement of partnership agreement, South, having heard North’s explanation, knows that his own 2{ bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is “unauthorised information” (see Law 16A), so South must be careful to avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information (see Law 73C). (If he does, the Director shall award an adjusted score.) For instance, if North rebids two no trump, South has the unauthorised information that this bid merely denies a four-card holding in either major suit; but South’s responsibility is to act as though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak response, showing maximum values.

 

B. Mistaken Explanation

 

The actual partnership agreement is that 2{ is a natural signoff; the mistake was in North’s explanation. This explanation is an infraction of Law, since East-West are entitled to an accurate description of the North-South agreement (when this infraction results in damage to

East-West, the Director shall award an adjusted score). If North subsequently becomes aware of his mistake, he must immediately notify the Director. South must do nothing to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues; after the final pass, South, if he is to be declarer or dummy, should call the Director and must volunteer a correction of the explanation. If South becomes a defender, he calls the Director and corrects the explanation when play ends.

 

C. Mistaken Call

The partnership agreement is as explained — 2{ is strong and artificial; the mistake was in South’s call. Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands. (Regardless of damage, the Director shall allow the result to stand; but the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.) South must not correct North’s explanation (or notify the Director) immediately, and he has no responsibility to do so subsequently.

what system card supports that matters! That is the evidence. The TD should enquire for implicit understanding.

LAW40B1b:- Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a partnership understanding. A convention is included, unless the Regulating Authority decides otherwise, among the agreements and treatments that constitute special partnership understandings as is the case with any call that has an artificial meaning.

MBVSubrahmanyam.

India

[blackshoe]

The first post in this thread has been revised. It now clearly states that 2♥ is a transfer, so it requires an alert. There was no alert. That's MI.

[Free]

Ok thanks for the answers so far. Now let me get this straight. North explains the 2♥ call as natural. West can't Dbl (Dbl = takeout) so he passes. North passes and so does East. Now South should explain that 2♥ was a transfer. What would happen if EW call the TD at this point?

[blackshoe]

If?! Attention was drawn to an irregularity. The TD should be called.

After the final pass, South, if he is to be declarer or dummy, should call the director and must volunteer a correction of the explanation.

The TD will apply Law 21, and give East the chance to change his last call, which he presumably will decline. The TD will tell them to play out the hand, and if EW then feel they were damaged, to call him back, at which time he will consider adjusting the score.

[Cyberyeti]

If?! Attention was drawn to an irregularity. The TD should be called.

After the final pass, South, if he is to be declarer or dummy, should call the director and must volunteer a correction of the explanation.

The TD will apply Law 21, and give East the chance to change his last call, which he presumably will decline. The TD will tell them to play out the hand, and if EW then feel they were damaged, to call him back, at which time he will consider adjusting the score.

... to the same +300 they'd have got out of 4♠x or 5♦x ? Not convinced I'd go on to 5♥ which looks pretty sick if the trumps misbehave.

[Free]

Lets say EW call the TD, the auction is turned back. If it's explained as a transfer, West will definitely change his call to Dbl (which is penalty, 2♠ would be takeout). I suppose North can change his pass as well after this, and the deal continues like nothing happened. So basically, in this case where the players follow procedure, NS aren't rewarded nor punished for missing in their system, right?

[blackshoe]

No. The irregularity (correctly) didn't come to light until after both West and East had passed, so only East gets the chance to change his call. Now, if North had realized his error before East's final pass, and immediately called the TD (as he should) then West would have the opportunity to change his call.