Crockfords Final 4 (EBU)

[bluejak]

So if East would assert that she would have bid 3♦ directly over the 3♣ bid with correct information she had better said so to the Director the first time. Instead she decided to execute her option to change her closing PASS on the ground that this call had been made under influence of the misinformation. Of course that too may be true, but it is too late to claim that she would have bid 3♦ after the play is completed when she said nothing to that effect when the Director was called (first time).

This is clearly incorrect. The Law is clear: if you make a call which is judged to lead to damage when it is too late to correct it then you deal with it by an adjustment - see Law 21B3. This has nothing to do with any other call later [unless SEWoG applies].

 

You cannot deny redress when the Laws give it because th player did not say so at the time. Nowhere does this appear in the Laws.

[pran]

May I remind you that I wrote:

There is obviously need for a clarification of laws here:

 

East is not offered the option to change her PASS following the 3♣ bid, she is offered the option to change her (closing) PASS following the 3NT bid. In any case the reason for changing a call must be that the particular call to be changed was made under influence of an incorrect information.

So if East would assert that she would have bid 3♦ directly over the 3♣ bid with correct information she had better said so to the Director the first time. Instead she decided to execute her option to change her closing PASS on the ground that this call had been made under influence of the misinformation. Of course that too may be true, but it is too late to claim that she would have bid 3♦ after the play is completed when she said nothing to that effect when the Director was called (first time).

So if East would assert that she would have bid 3♦ directly over the 3♣ bid with correct information she had better said so to the Director the first time. Instead she decided to execute her option to change her closing PASS on the ground that this call had been made under influence of the misinformation. Of course that too may be true, but it is too late to claim that she would have bid 3♦ after the play is completed when she said nothing to that effect when the Director was called (first time).

This is clearly incorrect. The Law is clear: if you make a call which is judged to lead to damage when it is too late to correct it then you deal with it by an adjustment - see Law 21B3. This has nothing to do with any other call later [unless SEWoG applies].

 

You cannot deny redress when the Laws give it because th player did not say so at the time. Nowhere does this appear in the Laws.

Do you say the same when you (strongly) suspect that East became aware of the advantage of a 3♦ bid at the time, only after the auction had progressed beyond the next call from West?

 

The director must judge and rule, often based on probabilities, whether a call for which a Law 21B3 ruling is requested was really made under the influence of MI or if the player simply later discovered that the call had been unfortunate.

 

East here will have a much better case if she informs the Director that where she really would have made a different call with correct information was when she called PASS after the 3♣ bid but that she now at least tries to save her interest the best she can by changing her closing PASS.

 

Law 21B1 rulings should be almost automatic from a request by NOS, Law 21B3 rulings must be subject to judgement.

[bluejak]

When a player is damaged by MI your job as a TD is to adjust, not to find some excuse to give an offending side an undeserved good result.

 

Furthermore, the Laws say so: inventing your own Laws about what happens when someone does not say something in the middle of an auction is not good directing practice.

[campboy]

Many players will not say anything at the time about calls which they may no longer change, for fear of giving UI to partner and/or helping opponents. I believe it is good practice for the TD to actively prevent the player from giving UI in this manner. Certainly you should not consider that a player would not have acted differently on the basis that she failed to mention it at an inappropriate time. Of course it is a judgement ruling, and you might have valid reasons for judging that the player would not have acted differently, but this ain't one.

[pran]

When a player is damaged by MI your job as a TD is to adjust, not to find some excuse to give an offending side an undeserved good result.

 

Furthermore, the Laws say so: inventing your own Laws about what happens when someone does not say something in the middle of an auction is not good directing practice.

If the player is damaged, sure, that is not the question.

 

There has been MI - no question about that.

A player has made a call at the time of the MI - no question about that.

 

The player claims that a different call would have been made with correct information, and as a consequence a better result would have been obtained, so the player has been damaged by the MI.

 

Do I understand you correct that the Director in this case shall adjust without in any way trying the validity of the player's claim?

 

I resent any allegation that I am inventing my own laws.

 

Law 21B1{a} states: Until the end of the auction period and provided that his partner has not subsequently called, a player may change a call without other rectification for his side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent (My enhancement)

 

Law 21B3 (When it is too late to change a call and the Director judges that the offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity he awards an adjusted score) opens for adjustment when the conditions in Law 21B1{a} (other than the time limit) are satisfied and as a consequence NOS is damaged.

 

The way I read Law 21B3 the condition in Law 21B1{a} that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation is still a prerequisitre for adjusting the score under Law 21B3.

 

Do you disagree?

[campboy]

Do I understand you correct that the Director in this case shall adjust without in any way trying the validity of the player's claim?

No one is saying that. The issue is that your stated reasoning for rejecting the player's claim (that she did not mention it during the auction) is not sound; why should she mention it then?

 

Of course we should assess whether it is likely that the player would have bid 3♦ with correct information. I think it is resonably plausible. I might have bid 3♦ if told 3♣ was weak but I definitely wouldn't if told 3♣ was forcing.

[pran]

No one is saying that. The issue is that your stated reasoning for rejecting the player's claim (that she did not mention it during the auction) is not sound; why should she mention it then?

 

Of course we should assess whether it is likely that the player would have bid 3♦ with correct information. I think it is resonably plausible. I might have bid 3♦ if told 3♣ was weak but I definitely wouldn't if told 3♣ was forcing.

"No one is saying that"??? That is exactly how I understand Bluejak's persistent statements that the existence of MI (alone) requires the director to adjust the score.

 

I have never required East (in order to secure a possible Law 21B3 adjustment) to having stated (early) that she would have bid 3♦ right away over the 3♣ bid with correct information, but I have pointed out the fact that she would have avoided any doubt about her eligibility to such adjustment if she did not delay the relevant indication until end of play. That would have strengthened her case significantly.

[gordontd]

I have never required East (in order to secure a possible Law 21B3 adjustment) to having stated (early) that she would have bid 3♦ right away over the 3♣ bid with correct information,

Yes, you did.

 

So if East would assert that she would have bid 3♦ directly over the 3♣ bid with correct information she had better said so to the Director the first time. Instead she decided to execute her option to change her closing PASS on the ground that this call had been made under influence of the misinformation. Of course that too may be true, but it is too late to claim that she would have bid 3♦ after the play is completed when she said nothing to that effect when the Director was called (first time).

[bluejak]

"No one is saying that"??? That is exactly how I understand Bluejak's persistent statements that the existence of MI (alone) requires the director to adjust the score.

 

I have never required East (in order to secure a possible Law 21B3 adjustment) to having stated (early) that she would have bid 3♦ right away over the 3♣ bid with correct information, but I have pointed out the fact that she would have avoided any doubt about her eligibility to such adjustment if she did not delay the relevant indication until end of play. That would have strengthened her case significantly.

You said that if a player does not tell you during the hand what she is going to do you are going to rule against her. You made this an absolute with no reference to the strength of her case or whether she had been damaged or anything else. This is illegal and very bad TD practice.

[pran]

You said that if a player does not tell you during the hand what she is going to do you are going to rule against her. You made this an absolute with no reference to the strength of her case or whether she had been damaged or anything else. This is illegal and very bad TD practice.

My own practice is to ask (when MI is first revealed) if any of the NOS players would have done anything different with correct information. And I make sure they are fully aware of the provisions in both Laws 21B1 and 21B3.

[WellSpyder]

My own practice is to ask (when MI is first revealed) if any of the NOS players would have done anything different with correct information.

But aren't you then creating potentially awkward UI problems for the NOS? What happens if one of the OS then claims that a NOS player only made the bid he did because of something he learned about what his partner wanted to do but wasn't allowed to do?

[pran]

But aren't you then creating potentially awkward UI problems for the NOS? What happens if one of the OS then claims that a NOS player only made the bid he did because of something he learned about what his partner wanted to do but wasn't allowed to do?

Did I imply that partner would learn anything? The players learn that I ask, but they do not learn the answers.

[VixTD]

The danger of creating UI is one problem, but just let me try another tack for a moment. Players are not always certain of what they would have done had the auction taken a different turn, and whether or not they're certain the director doesn't always agree with them. Suppose the auction goes:

 

.1NT....X....3♣...P

.3NT....P.....P....P

 

The player in the passout seat, when told that 3♣ was misexplained, thinks, "well, I would have bid 3♦ a round earlier, but now the auction has reached 3NT I can't let them play there undoubled", what do you expect her to do? Pass 3NT and stake everything on the director believing she would have bid 3♦? Suppose the director decides that she (her peers) would bid 3♦ only some of the time, and pass the rest? Is she supposed to accept some of the score for 3NT undoubled, or say afterwards to the director "well if you're not going to let me bid 3♦ of course I would have doubled 3NT"?

 

If she didn't double 3NT when she had the chance, she's in a weaker position to claim now that she would have done. She should make her best judgement in the situation she finds herself in. If that situation changes she has to change her judgement. Of course the director will look carefully to see if her claims are plausible, and take any necessary action if they might be wild or gambling double-shots, but that's common to most MI situations.

[WellSpyder]

Did I imply that partner would learn anything? The players learn that I ask, but they do not learn the answers.

So is your advice to talk to each member of the NOS away from the table? I seem to remember asking a while ago in this thread about whether it was normal to talk to the players away from the table in a case about MI, but I don't recall seeing a response to this - my apologies if I missed it.

[bluejak]

I think discussing what you would do in potential situations during the hand is very unfair on all four players at the table, unnecessarily disrupting play, and pretty unhelpful. I strongly advise against it. Fortunately I know of no TD [ok, one!] who does it.

[pran]

I think discussing what you would do in potential situations during the hand is very unfair on all four players at the table, unnecessarily disrupting play, and pretty unhelpful. I strongly advise against it. Fortunately I know of no TD [ok, one!] who does it.

Play has already been disrupted by the irregularity, the objective is to get it back on tracks as quick and fair as possible. Just establishing at this time that a player is unhappy with his call in view of the misinformation doesn't mean much additional delay.

 

How do you apply Law 21B1{a} "when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent" without asking some questions? Because the player states so at the time without knowing for sure whether the change of call will be fortunate or not - right?

 

How do you apply Law 21B3 "and the Director judges that the offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity" to ascertain that the player's call which it was too late to change really (likely) was influenced by the misinformation and not just a post mortem analysis claim?

[bluejak]

You judge Law 21B1A by asking as few questions as possible, primarily relying on the player's honesty and the fact that you can check it afterwards.

 

Of course post mortem analysis comes into every judgement ruling. That is no excuse for messing the game up for players. You just have to use your judgement afterwards.

[pran]

You judge Law 21B1A by asking as few questions as possible, primarily relying on the player's honesty and the fact that you can check it afterwards.

Precisely.

Of course post mortem analysis comes into every judgement ruling. That is no excuse for messing the game up for players. You just have to use your judgement afterwards.

And the post mortem claim carries far less weight in itself than when indicated at the critical moment. I don't discard a post mortem claim but take the less weight into consideration when judging it.

 

So where do we disagree?

[bluejak]

I follow normal procedures which involve disrupting play as little as possible and allowing all possibilities to be considered at the end in judgement cases.

 

You disrupt play as much as possible so as to hold some poor non-offending player to an opinion that should not be binding on him anyway.

 

We are not close.