More UI and LA

[blackshoe]

It depends on whether there is a possibility the NOS would end in 3NT with the correct explanation. In the ACBL, the NOS get the best score that was "likely" had the infraction not occurred, so if 3NT was "likely" they get that. And the OS get the worst score (for them) that is "at all probable" — this is a less stringent criterion — so they would get the score for 3NT making, and in some cases the NOS would not get that score. If 3NT was not likely, the NOS get the score for 4♥-1.

 

That's how to rule when the MI was only provided once. Earlier, you suggested asking again during the clarification period for the specific purpose of inducing a second infraction. I'm not going to try to find something in the laws to justify my reaction to that, but my reaction is that it's unethical. Nonetheless, if it happens, the TD must consider how (or if) it affects any score adjustment. David Stevenson suggested that "In effect, when there are two possible adjustments for two infractions, we take the one that benefits the non-offenders more." Fair enough, says I. We ignore the first infraction in this case, and give both sides the score for 3NT making. But I don't like it. David, is this really how you would rule?

 

Summary of this case: jurisdiction ACBL. Auction starts 1NT-(2♣), the latter is alerted and explained (responder asked before bidding) as "clubs and hearts". The actual agreement is that 2♣ is natural. As a result, the NOS do not find their 4-4 heart fit, and end in 3NT. This goes down 2 because declarer plays LHO for hearts he does not have. 4♥ would have gone down 1.

 

Question 1: to what do you adjust the scores?

 

During the clarification period, presumed declarer asks again for an explanation of 2♣ and again is told "hearts and clubs". So again he misplays it.

 

Question 2: does this change the score adjustment? Specifically, do you adjust to 4♥-1 in the first case, and 3NT making in the second?

 

Question 3: is my reaction to the reason for asking the question a second time justified?

 

Questions are directed to David. Not saying others can't respond, but I'm looking specifically for his opinion.

Edited November 13, 2012 by blackshoe
added the actual agreement about 2C

[bluejak]

As is often the case with judgement rulings I have looked at the logic of the Laws in posts, but am less interested in the actual ruling and the judgement. So I would have to re-read the whole thread to say how I would rule.

 

Let me look at the second case you give here. One side was misinformed about the meaning of a call. They were misinformed twice but that seems quite irrelevant to me. The MI affected both the bidding and the play, and under Law 12C1E we just adjust to what would have happened without the MI. Since declarer would apparently have made 3NT without the MI I just adjust to 3NT= for both sides.

 

So what was I talking about earlier? Well, having merely answered a post, which is what I do rather than re-read the whole thread each time, I may have missed the point of the post, but I was concerned with a case where [for example] declarer misinforms the opposition during the bidding. At the end of the auction dummy was required to correct this and does not.

 

Without the MI, the opposition might have found a good save, or even beaten the contract. If I judge that they would have beaten the contract with sufficient likelihood for the standards in Law 12C1E then I adjust to that - possibly for only one side if only one standard is met. If I don't think one or both standards is met, then I adjust for the failure to sacrifice.

 

Some people will argue that under the original MI if we adjust we should adjust to the sacrifice and then the question of beating the final contract is moot. Not in my view. We have two infractions, the Laws do not tell us what to do with multiple infractions. If we read Law 12C and consider each infraction we do not adjust if there is no damage. If we adjust for the second infraction and then consider the first infraction then to adjust for that would give the non-offenders a worse score, thus there is no damage from the first infraction.

 

But asking again the same question of the same person and getting the same answer does not seem to me to be a multiple infraction: MI was given.

[blackshoe]

I should have said, in #76, that the actual agreement was that 2♣ was natural. I'll go fix that.

[bluejak]

Earlier, you suggested asking again during the clarification period for the specific purpose of inducing a second infraction. I'm not going to try to find something in the laws to justify my reaction to that, but my reaction is that it's unethical.

 

Question 3: is my reaction to the reason for asking the question a second time justified?

It occurs to me that I really did not answer this. I think it might be considered sharp practice, but I doubt it is legally unethical. Anyway, how would you know?

[blackshoe]

It occurs to me that I really did not answer this. I think it might be considered sharp practice, but I doubt it is legally unethical. Anyway, how would you know?

I wouldn't, unless he admitted it. B-)

[sailoranch]

Earlier, you suggested asking again during the clarification period for the specific purpose of inducing a second infraction. I'm not going to try to find something in the laws to justify my reaction to that, but my reaction is that it's unethical.

For what it's worth, I don't think this is unethical at all. We're asking a question, we're supposed to get the correct answer, and all we're hoping to get is the result that we would achieve with the correct explanation. If the opponents have a problem, I would call the director and explain exactly what I was doing.

 

As I've mentioned, this does leave a bad taste in my mouth, but only because it's an exercise necessary to protect our equity, not because we're doing anything wrong.

 

Let me look at the second case you give here. One side was misinformed about the meaning of a call. They were misinformed twice but that seems quite irrelevant to me. The MI affected both the bidding and the play, and under Law 12C1E we just adjust to what would have happened without the MI. Since declarer would apparently have made 3NT without the MI I just adjust to 3NT= for both sides.

Intuitively, I think this is the equitable ruling, but I am still left wondering what I should have been saying this entire thread. So before I go throw myself a party, I wanted to verify that you noticed that without the initial alert and MI, NOS would definitely reach 4♥-1.

 

So what was I talking about earlier? Well, having merely answered a post, which is what I do rather than re-read the whole thread each time, I may have missed the point of the post, but I was concerned with a case where [for example] declarer misinforms the opposition during the bidding. At the end of the auction dummy was required to correct this and does not.

 

Without the MI, the opposition might have found a good save, or even beaten the contract. If I judge that they would have beaten the contract with sufficient likelihood for the standards in Law 12C1E then I adjust to that - possibly for only one side if only one standard is met. If I don't think one or both standards is met, then I adjust for the failure to sacrifice.

 

Some people will argue that under the original MI if we adjust we should adjust to the sacrifice and then the question of beating the final contract is moot. Not in my view. We have two infractions, the Laws do not tell us what to do with multiple infractions. If we read Law 12C and consider each infraction we do not adjust if there is no damage. If we adjust for the second infraction and then consider the first infraction then to adjust for that would give the non-offenders a worse score, thus there is no damage from the first infraction.

The sample case was basically this scenario, only with the NOS as the declaring side. The difference, of course, is that the defense isn't required to correct the MI at the end of the auction, so no second infraction. The thought was that declarer might protect himself by asking the opponent to explain the call again, and if he gets the same MI, it would create a new infraction and point at which to adjust.

 

But asking again the same question of the same person and getting the same answer does not seem to me to be a multiple infraction: MI was given.

It's not clear to me why this is. Does the obligation to provide a correct explanation expire once you've already given MI? In other words, does something override 20F1 and 20F2 (with 40B4)?

 

 

Thanks for both of your replies.

[mjj29]

Summary of this case: jurisdiction ACBL. Auction starts 1NT-(2♣), the latter is alerted and explained (responder asked before bidding) as "clubs and hearts". The actual agreement is that 2♣ is natural. As a result, the NOS do not find their 4-4 heart fit, and end in 3NT. This goes down 2 because declarer plays LHO for hearts he does not have. 4♥ would have gone down 1.

 

Question 1: to what do you adjust the scores?

 

During the clarification period, presumed declarer asks again for an explanation of 2♣ and again is told "hearts and clubs". So again he misplays it.

 

Question 2: does this change the score adjustment? Specifically, do you adjust to 4♥-1 in the first case, and 3NT making in the second?

 

Question 3: is my reaction to the reason for asking the question a second time justified?

 

Questions are directed to David. Not saying others can't respond, but I'm looking specifically for his opinion.

I would have thought the correct logic here is as follows:

 

• if they had been correctly informed the first time they would have reached 4H and gone 1 off.
  
• if they had been correctly informed the second time they would have made 3NT
  
• comparing to adjusting for multiple revokes, we give the most favourable adjustment for the NOS (3NT=) to both sides
  

 

However, I don't think it's proper for a side to get MI repeated just on the off chance you have a situation like this. If there is reason to believe that the first explanation was wrong, of course, then the NOS may have an obligation to protect themselves by double-checking.

 

(Of course the _correct_ adjustment in the second case may be 50% 3NT=, 50% 3NT-2 since without the MI I don't think it obviously places the hearts either way round and at MPs that may or may not be better than 4H - 1)

[bluejak]

It's not clear to me why this is. Does the obligation to provide a correct explanation expire once you've already given MI? In other words, does something override 20F1 and 20F2 (with 40B4)?

No, but the infraction is that the opposition were misinformed as to the meaning of a call. I really don't see that they were misinformed twice by the same person makes any difference.

 

Incidentally if someone asks again, the likelihood seems to me that he is asking again because he does not believe or did not remember or wants further details or is not quite sure about the answer in the vast majority of cases, not that he is asking again to try to set up some dubious legal position that is not even entirely clear.

[blackshoe]

No, but the infraction is that the opposition were misinformed as to the meaning of a call. I really don't see that they were misinformed twice by the same person makes any difference.

 

Incidentally if someone asks again, the likelihood seems to me that he is asking again because he does not believe or did not remember or wants further details or is not quite sure about the answer in the vast majority of cases, not that he is asking again to try to set up some dubious legal position that is not even entirely clear.

I agree with both of these paragraphs, but in the case at hand, the OP stated that his purpose was indeed to elicit a second iteration of the MI, unlikely though that is.

[sailoranch]

No, but the infraction is that the opposition were misinformed as to the meaning of a call. I really don't see that they were misinformed twice by the same person makes any difference.

The consequence is that if it's not an infraction, those laws no longer require the offender to correct the MI. Well, 20F4 is still supposed to, but as I was thoroughly chastised for discussing before, this requires that offender remember his agreement and be honest enough to admit to it. And since there's no actual infraction, Law 23 does not provide protection against, dare I say it, someone who would take advantage.

 

The argument is that the second instance of MI is not an infraction because NOS is making the same decision before and after the repeat MI, but I disagree that that is the criterion for determining whether something is an infraction or not. And there is actual damage done when the NOS would get a better result with a corrected explanation than they would expect from an adjustment for the first instance of MI.

[blackshoe]

The criterion for determining whether something is an infraction is whether the laws say don't do it. The laws say don't give MI, so giving it is an infraction. The question is not whether the second instance is an infraction, but whether it makes any difference to the ruling. The second question is whether you can obtain a better score for yourself by getting the OS to repeat the infraction at a time of your choosing.

[sailoranch]

The criterion for determining whether something is an infraction is whether the laws say don't do it. The laws say don't give MI, so giving it is an infraction. The question is not whether the second instance is an infraction, but whether it makes any difference to the ruling. The second question is whether you can obtain a better score for yourself by getting the OS to repeat the infraction at a time of your choosing.

Right, the premise is that the adjustment under Law 21B3 or 47E2b for a call or play based on MI is to adjust for the initial infraction. This means that the adjustment you would receive if you don't ask can be worse than the result you expect when you ask later and the opponents give the correct answer. As we've established, if we call this an infraction, NOS are entitled to the more favorable adjustment.

 

Yes, it's silly that you can get a better ruling by asking a question you're already supposed to know the answer to, but it's a result of the premise I mentioned. Disallowing NOS to "gain" through this means they are stuck with the MI and will get a worse result than they would have received had they been properly informed the second time, and the only way for them to achieve the best result is to guess they've been given MI.

[blackshoe]

The question is whether your approach has, or should have, any basis in law.

 

There are lots of times people don't achieve the best possible result. The laws are not designed, nor should they be, to guarantee that they do.

[sailoranch]

The question is whether your approach has, or should have, any basis in law.

 

There are lots of times people don't achieve the best possible result. The laws are not designed, nor should they be, to guarantee that they do.

 

The Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. They are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged.

[blackshoe]

Yes, I'm aware of that. Doesn't change what I said.

[sailoranch]

The basis in law is that offender is still required to give a correct explanation in response to a question. 20F1 and 20F2, along with 40B4.

 

Whether it should be in Law is another matter, but I've made clear my views as to the proper remedy.

[blackshoe]

Then I guess we're done here.

[bluejak]

The consequence is that if it's not an infraction, those laws no longer require the offender to correct the MI. Well, 20F4 is still supposed to, but as I was thoroughly chastised for discussing before, this requires that offender remember his agreement and be honest enough to admit to it. And since there's no actual infraction, Law 23 does not provide protection against, dare I say it, someone who would take advantage.

 

The argument is that the second instance of MI is not an infraction because NOS is making the same decision before and after the repeat MI, but I disagree that that is the criterion for determining whether something is an infraction or not. And there is actual damage done when the NOS would get a better result with a corrected explanation than they would expect from an adjustment for the first instance of MI.

Please explain this to me: I am afraid it makes no sense.

 

Incidentally, at no time did I say that giving MI was not an infraction: of course it is an infraction. I said it makes no difference if done twice rather than once.

[sailoranch]

Please explain this to me: I am afraid it makes no sense.

 

Incidentally, at no time did I say that giving MI was not an infraction: of course it is an infraction. I said it makes no difference if done twice rather than once.

 

Sorry I misunderstood. The discussion was aimed at a situation where the adjustment for a call or play based on MI would be worse than the adjustment for the later infraction.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sk9haq9dat863ck53&w=s765h5dkqj542cq72&n=sat2hj76d97cjt986&e=sqj843hkt8432dca4&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1n2c2spp3dppdppp]399|300|1NT announced as 15-17. 2C overcall alerted as a single suiter.[/hv]

 

After N's 2♠ response, E asked S what the bid was. S told him he thought it was natural.

 

After the hand was played with W off 3 for -500, N called me and told his opponents that their agreement was systems on after an overcall and his bid was a transfer to 3♣.

 

The three directors noodled on this a while, committee'd it by a top-level player, and I have since inquired of two other top-level players. If I had gotten consistent answers, I wouldn't be posting here. Among the responses are adjusted score for N/S of 3♣ making 3 (+110), 3♠ by E/W off 2 (+100 for N/S), and no adjustment. At the game, we settled on 3♠ off 2. Since this was a team game, there is no difference in the scoring between 3♣ by N/S making 3 and 3♠ by E/W off 2, but 9 IMPs when compared to 3♦X by E off 3.

 

As always, I enjoy picking the brains of this august group and eagerly await your thoughts.

 

This was the OP case. Here you said the proper weighted ruling was:

 

Outside the ACBL, for both sides:

 

. 20% of 3♦ doubled -3, NS +500

+ 10% of 3♠ doubled -2, NS +300

+ 70% of 2♠ -2, NS -100

 

If West asks South to explain the 2♠ call again and receives the correct info this time, then West can be confident that there's been a misbid and passes. If West receives the same MI, then the adjustment for the latter infraction would be 100% 2♠-2 (IMO), the expectation had the second infraction not occurred.

[bluejak]

If West asks South to explain the 2♠ call again and receives the correct info this time, then West can be confident that there's been a misbid and passes. If West receives the same MI, then the adjustment for the latter infraction would be 100% 2♠-2 (IMO), the expectation had the second infraction not occurred.

The Law on adjustments basically says that you adjust for the damage that occurred because of the infraction. The infraction is misinforming the other side. I would adjust as though the other side were not misinformed which is what I believe the law requires.