Misinformation

[Flem72]

Lately I've been reading NABC casebooks, trying (struggling) to understand what circumstances constitute violations of different kinds. Here's a new one, and even after the panel explained its decision, I still don't get it. What considerations constrain misinformation? by which I mean, I guess (a) when is misinformation harmful to the non-offenders and when is it not and (b) if there is harm, what result constitutes equity?

 

N-S vul, IMPs. Auction was:

 

N......E..... S.....W

1N*-DBL-RDBL--P

P- **2D------P - 3D

 

* = 11-14

**= inquiry about the rdbl, explained as 10+ HCP

 

Turns out that the N-S agreement is that RDBL is a weak runout. E held 16 real, W held 8. At the other table, E-W made an easy 3N, and 1NXX, vul, is down 3 or 4 depending on the lead, while 2CX, N-S's runout contract, is down 2 or 3, depending on the lead. N said at the director call that she forgot their agreement, which was on both cards.

 

Should there be an adjustment? If so, what should it be? How can I get Bobby Wolff to come to the game and make the "Convention Disruption" ruling?

 

Regards and Happy Trails,

 

Scott Needham

Boulder, Colorado, USA

[campboy]

You have got your questions in the wrong order. Equity is what might have happened without the infraction, i.e. if E/W were correctly informed. Having decided what that is, damage exists if because of the infraction they got a worse score. Here if E/W were correctly informed East would pass and the result would be 1NTxx making some number of tricks. Whether or not you give a weighted score depends on jurisdiction; I assume in this case not.

 

Note that, since the infraction is the misinformation of E/W, "without the infraction" simply means that E/W know what is going on; it does not mean that North knows what is going on, so she would still pass.

[blackshoe]

Should there be an adjustment? Yes. Campboy explains why.

 

What should it be? In North America, the offending side (N/S in this case) get "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred". From what you say in the OP, that sounds like -2200 for 1NTXX by N down four. The non-offending side get "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred". Again, this looks like +2200 for 1NTXX by N down four. Sometimes a result that is "at all probable" isn't "likely", so you give a split score, but that doesn't appear to be the case here.

 

How can you get Bobby Wolff to come to the game and make the "Convention Disruption" ruling? Pay him a lot of money. But you don't want him - "convention disruption" is not a legal basis for a ruling.

[Flem72]

Here if E/W were correctly informed East would pass

 

But if E-W were correctly informed, N would have correctly remembered their agreement, would not pass the XX, but would start bidding 4-carders up the line. With the actual cards, N-S admit they would've stopped in 2C, which would be doubled for down 2 or 3, both scores beating the other table's 3N = for 400. So, if I understand correctly, the score should be adjusted to that result, down 3 based upon blackshoe's comment...?

[Bbradley62]

But if E-W were correctly informed, N would have correctly remembered their agreement, would not pass the XX...

No. You basically imagine that a third party correctly informs E/W as to N/S's agreements without cluing-in North.

[RMB1]

But if E-W were correctly informed, N would have correctly remembered their agreement, ...

 

Not necessarily, E-W might have read the correct agreement from the convention card.

[Trinidad]

Another way to look at is is that EW are entitled to the correct explanation. North is not entitled to it and will have to remember his agreements himself.

 

The fact that North doesn't remember the agreement does not mean that EW are not entitled to the correct explanation.

 

Yet another way: The fact that North forgot is not an infraction. So we will not correct that. The fact that EW were misinformed is the infraction. We will fix that by giving EW the correct information.

 

Rik

[Flem72]

We will fix that by giving EW the correct information.

 

You mean "fix" by imagining E-W had the proper info in the reconstruction?

 

Related: Does E have the right, before her 2D call, to ask S if the explanation was correct?

[blackshoe]

Related: Does E have the right, before her 2D call, to ask S if the explanation was correct?

 

Law 20F1 says, in part, "except on the instruction of the director, replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question". So no, east can't ask south if the explanation was correct.

[Flem72]

Law 20F1 says, in part, "except on the instruction of the director, replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question". So no, east can't ask south if the explanation was correct.

 

I don't get this, seems backassward looney to me. N has been asked by opps to explain a call made by S. N's explanation is incorrect _according to their agreements_. S knows it is incorrect _according to their agreements_. It seems to me that the best way to handle such situations is to allow the question by E, and allow N-S immediately to suffer the results of their misinformation, which, up to the point where E might ask, has only affected N-S's auction. Should there not be another rule for 'replies given by the partner of the player who made the explanation in question'? I know I have been asked before whether partner's explanation was correct, but perhaps it was at the close of the auction....

[blackshoe]

Law 20F5:{a} A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. “Mistaken explanation” here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require.

{b} The player must call the director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is

(i) for a defender, at the end of the play.

(ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction.

 

So if your partner's explanation is incorrect, you say nothing until the appropriate first legal opportunity, and then you call the director, and then you explain the problem.

 

Yeah, nobody calls the director for this. They're all wrong. :lol:

[Mbodell]

So if your partner's explanation is incorrect, you say nothing until the appropriate first legal opportunity, and then you call the director, and then you explain the problem.

 

Yeah, nobody calls the director for this. They're all wrong. :lol:

 

I sometimes call for the director so does that make me less wrong because I sometimes do it, or more wrong because I know you are always supposed to?

 

Note that if E had passed and ended the auction then S can correct it and E can get their final pass back. So if the situation was the bid was explained as a weak run out (but the actual agreement was 10+), but the nt bidder still passed, and then E passed, then the XX could say, actually it shows 10+ and E could get their pass back and try the 2D if they wanted. Obviously this doesn't always work. The easiest way to avoid it is to not forget or misexplain your agreements.

[blackshoe]

I sometimes call for the director so does that make me less wrong because I sometimes do it, or more wrong because I know you are always supposed to?

 

Yes. Or no. Take your pick. B-)

[Flem72]

So if your partner's explanation is incorrect, you say nothing until the appropriate first legal opportunity, and then you call the director, and then you explain the problem. Yeah, nobody calls the director for this. They're all wrong. :lol:

 

At least that's clear.

 

A big part of the problem here was that the director, though well liked by most, is a dunce. She seems to have the Roman numerals down, but the capital letters confuse the heck out of her -- and forget about the (ii) subdivisions. She asked the players what they wanted her to do about it.

[Flem72]

Note that if E had passed and ended the auction then S can correct it and E can get their final pass back. So if the situation was the bid was explained as a weak run out (but the actual agreement was 10+), but the nt bidder still passed, and then E passed, then the XX could say, actually it shows 10+ and E could get their pass back and try the 2D if they wanted. Obviously this doesn't always work. The easiest way to avoid it is to not forget or misexplain your agreements.

 

But E did not pass b/c the error was the explanation that S held 10 HCP, when in fact he held about 3.

 

So only after the 3D call was passed out did S -- who fortunately understands the obligations better than I do; I'm always running to find a director to ask what my obligations are -- informed E-W of the misinformation.

 

I think I'll ask our local BOD to get the Unit Recorder to offer some classes on basic and frequent situations. Maybe a few of our directors would attend!!

[Vampyr]

A big part of the problem here was that the director, though well liked by most, is a dunce. She seems to have the Roman numerals down, but the capital letters confuse the heck out of her -- and forget about the (ii) subdivisions. She asked the players what they wanted her to do about it.

 

Is this director the Chief TD at the club in question? Or are there other directors or players who have been on a director's course? If there is no one on hand to consult, there is probably a list of referees available for telephone rulings, and these might be a help to this director.

[blackshoe]

Is this director the Chief TD at the club in question? Or are there other directors or players who have been on a director's course? If there is no one on hand to consult, there is probably a list of referees available for telephone rulings, and these might be a help to this director.

 

 

North America. Probably a proprietary club, the owner is the director. Highly unlikely there is a list of referees. There may be one or two others who've been on a course, or just taken the exam without a course (which is how I became a director), but in a small club that too is unlikely.

[barmar]

I regularly play in what's probably one of the smallest ACBL clubs (1 weekly game, usually 7-9 tables). We have at least 3 certified club directors among the regulars.

 

But I admit we're probably quite unusual.

[mycroft]

So, for misinformation cases, the TD should rule as if the opponents had the correct information, and the MI pair continue to be confused. I'm guessing that with the correct information, pass is automatic, and so I'd be ruling -1600 or -2200, depending on the cards.

 

You're supposed to call the TD before correcting MI. Usually, not a big deal. Here, even knowing I'm signing the -16, I'm calling the TD *before* they get to start telling each other what they "would have done." - as I would whenever:

- the MI is "likely" to mean they would have done something else with the correct information, or

- I'm having to wait until the end of the hand to correct the MI as I'm on defence.

 

As far as asking the bidder, there's two reasons why that's a bad idea -

1) so, you allow South to put North back on track of what's going on. He shouldn't use that information, but, still.

2) you're not going to be damaged.

 

Having said that, in cases where you're "pretty certain" you're being misinformed, call the TD at the time. I got a ruling in Seattle where "I think, but don't know whether this is a transfer or not, given the double (but I'm passing anyway)" didn't get me anything because I could have cleared it up with the TDs help at the time.