Correct Procedure

[lamford]

The hand does not matter, but this is an issue I have not seen before. North, for example, makes a call alerted and explained correctly as a transfer, say. East makes a call. South makes a call. While West is thinking, South states, "I think I have misexplained my partner's call". The director is called and North wants to speak to the TD away from the table, but the TD declines. The TD then offers East the opportunity to change his bid, but North is unhappy about this as the call was not based on misinformation and therefore cannot be changed. The TD thinks this objection gives UI to South, and tells North he cannot object and asks South to explain what she thinks the bid means. She changes her explanation to "no agreement". East is allowed his bid again (possibly incorrectly) and he and South make the same call, and the auction continues. Fortunately, there was no damage from the new MI or from the UI, but there could easily have been. Should the TD have first established whether there was misinformation, and should North have stated to the TD that the call was explained correctly, even though this gave UI to South who was now uncertain about her original explanation?

 

Confused

Tunbridge Wells

[gnasher]

To allow a change of call, the Director merely has to determine that East's call "could well have been influenced by misinformation". He doesn't have to establish that the misinformation definitely occurred.

 

So, he tells North to be quiet, allows East to change his call, and tells South that she has UI. He may also give North a procedural penalty for the illegal attempt to correct his partner's (second) explanation during the auction.

 

If it later turns out that the original explanation was correct and the correction was incorrect, then he applies 40B4 to the second explanation.

[lamford]

To allow a change of call, the Director merely has to determine that East's call "could well have been influenced by misinformation".

It does not say "was influenced by what could well have been misinformation" which might allow your approach. To allow the change of call, the TD has to establish whether there was misinformation. If there was none, it is impossible for East's call to have been influenced by misinformation. So, I think it is quite in order for North to object. North asked to speak to the TD away from the table, and attempted to object to the TD allowing an illegal change of call. I think there is director error here, as the first thing the TD should do is establish whether there was misinformation or not. If that gives UI, then South cannot use it, of course. Perhaps the right approach in such a situation is to send South away from the table while establishing (or trying to establish) which explanation is correct, and I have seen directors do this in similar situations.

[gnasher]

It does not say "was influenced by what could well have been misinformation" which might allow your approach.

It doesn't have to say that. You are interepreting "could well have been influenced by misinformation" as "received misinformation and could well have been influenced by it", but that's simply not what those words mean. The wording of the law allows all of:

- There was misinformation and damage (and this is sufficiently likely)

- There was misinformation but no damage

- There was no misinformation

 

So, I think it is quite in order for North to object.

Yes, I realise that you would never do something that you thought wasn't in order.

[lamford]

It doesn't have to say that. You are interepreting "could well have been influenced by misinformation" as "received misinformation and could well have been influenced by it", but that's simply not what those words mean.

I am interpreting it pretty much that way. Let us break it down. "could well have been" means that there is a reasonable chance (there has been much discussion of how much chance before and it does not matter how much that is). "influenced by misinformation" must surely require the person to have received misinformation to have been influenced by it. Would you say that someone who is a teetotaller and has never drunk or taken any drugs "could well be driving under the influence". We have to agree to differ. I think that an absolute prerequisite for allowing somebody to change his bid is that he received misinformation. You don't. But even the headings of Law 21 and the sub-sections: "Call based on misinformation" show that my interpretation is correct. And it is the "decision to make the call" which "could well have been based on misinformation". It is logical to conclude that if there was none, the decision to make the call could not have been based on misinformation.

 

Also I do not understand the cross reference to Law 17E in Law 21. What has that got to do with it?

[pran]

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 (see Law 17E). Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation.

So in order to correctly apply this Law the Director must first of all investigate and establish sufficient foundation to judge that misinformation has in fact been given.

 

How he does this is up to him, but it should be quite clear that if he refuses to hear either the player who made the call in question or the player who explained it or both and it eventually turns out that he because of this has made an incorrect judgement then we obviously have a Director's error.

 

I consider silencing North when he requests to be heard is such an error. However, North must not argue with the Director when being silenced but simply (and immediately) appeal this ruling.

[lamford]

So in order to correctly apply this Law the Director must first of all investigate and establish sufficient foundation to judge that misinformation has in fact been given.

 

How he does this is up to him, but it should be quite clear that if he refuses to hear either the player who made the call in question or the player who explained it or both and it eventually turns out that he because of this has made an incorrect judgement then we obviously have a Director's error.

 

I consider silencing North when he requests to be heard is such an error. However, North must not argue with the Director when being silenced but simply (and immediately) appeal this ruling.

It worries me that you seem to be completely right, and gnasher seems to be completely wrong, as it is often the other way round.

[Finch]

Just because North thinks the original explanation was right doesn't mean there hasn't been misinformation.

I see no evidence from the story given that the original explanation was right and the correction to 'no agreement' was wrong.

[lamford]

Just because North thinks the original explanation was right doesn't mean there hasn't been misinformation.

I see no evidence from the story given that the original explanation was right and the correction to 'no agreement' was wrong.

That is right. Therefore the TD should try to establish which it is, starting with the CC. In the actual case the original explanation was right, and on the convention card. And the word "correctly" in line one of the story was the evidence you were looking for.

 

Sometimes the TD will have no idea whether the original explanation was right, or the correction. I guess "85A1: In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities" applies. If there is doubt it certainly falls into the "could well be influenced by misinformation", in that there could have been misinformation, and it could have influenced the player.

 

At our club, somebody alerted a 2NT response to 1S and explained it as Lebensohl. He later thought he might have been mistaken, and, as the TD, I guessed that he was right. Nothing to do with this case.

[campboy]

IMO "could well have been influenced by misinformation" means what gnasher said. "Could well have been influenced by the misinformation" would mean there definitely was misinformation, which could well have have influenced ...

[gnasher]

Would you say that someone who is a teetotaller and has never drunk or taken any drugs "could well be driving under the influence".

That's not a comparable situation, because in the case in the original post we don't know that South's first explanation was correct.

 

Here is a valid analogy: I see somebody driving a car erratically, and I say that they "could well be driving under the influence". I haven't investigated the possibility that the driver is tetotal. Nevertheless, my statement is reasonable and not untrue.

 

We have to agree to differ.

Normally when one suggests "agreeeing to differ", it's a suggestion that each party desist from trying to persuade the other to their point of view. So why was this suggestion followed by five more sentences of you trying to tell me why you think I'm wrong?

[lamford]

Here is a valid analogy: I see somebody driving a car erratically, and I say that they "could well be driving under the influence". I haven't investigated the possibility that the driver is tetotal. Nevertheless, my statement is reasonable and not untrue.

However, we can investigate whether misinformation has occurred, and both pran and I think that is the right approach. The opponents are also more likely to get the correct information and the UI rules constrain the side giving the correct information. And I shall avoid trying to persuade you further; the other sentences were also for the benefit of other readers of the thread, not just to persuade you. I was surprised that you do not seem to think the TD should take steps to establish whether there was misinformation, or I am misquoting you?

[lamford]

IMO "could well have been influenced by misinformation" means what gnasher said. "Could well have been influenced by the misinformation" would mean there definitely was misinformation, which could well have have influenced ...

If you think the WBFLC is that careful with the use of the definite article, why are there so many examples of poor wording in the Laws? And there is no "the" in any of the headings of Law 21. I would think that misinformation is not preceded by "the" just as "bad manners" would not be.

 

And does anyone know what the cross-reference to 17E means? That seems to deal with three consecutive passes, one or more not in rotation. Hard to imagine which of those passes could well be based on misinformation; maybe a faulty compass point on the board?

[Cyberyeti]

I was East, it actually got more complicated than this in that "undiscussed" left me in a situation I've posted before where I have to bid with no sensible way of making a decision, if the bid is natural X=T/O, if it's artificial, X shows the suit bid, if it's an "either a decent hand raise of partner's suit or weak with the suit bid" which was one of the possible meanings then it's undiscussed for us, so I took the director away from the table to explain my problem with X, and partner and I were shown the CC so I could then take a clearcut action.

 

All this shenanigans caused the one board to take up the whole 15 mins for the 2 board round, we were awarded 50-50 for the unplayed second board, is that correct too ? as I felt we were not really the cause of the delay.

 

Irrelevant to the thread but amusing:

 

 

It added to the whole sense of comedy that Lamford's partner had opened 1♠ with ♦ Qxxxx and out and the disputed bid was Lamford's 2♣ transfer to ♦ which his partner completed, I haven't looked at the hand to see if Lamford should have bid again, but after a brief attempt at science my partner gave up and just punted 6♣ which made +1 for a reasonable score, but we were kept out of 6♠+1 where we had a fit of AKx/J109xx and having diagnosed the psyche it was easy to drop Qx offside

 

[lamford]

and partner and I were shown the CC so I could then take a clearcut action.

That is what the TD should have established immediately, as North suggested to her. And you are allowed to indicate that you were at the table, but not the other players, under forum rules.

[jallerton]

That is what the TD should have established immediately, as I suggested to her. And you are allowed to indicate that you were at the table, but not the other players, under forum rules.

 

In that case, you have broken the forum rules on the other thread by naming the event and thus allowing your partner to be identified!

[lamford]

In that case, you have broken the forum rules on the other thread by naming the event and thus allowing your partner to be identified!

My partner has agreed to that. It was she who wanted to appeal.

[gnasher]

I was surprised that you do not seem to think the TD should take steps to establish whether there was misinformation, or I am misquoting you?

You are correct.

 

The TD should restore the situation to what it should have been had South not inadventently broken the rules. South should have described what she believed to be the partnership's methods, and East should have received that description before he made his call. So the TD restores to that situation.

 

LamfordNorth should not have intervened to correct his partner's explanation, and the TD was quite right to prevent his doing so.

[lamford]

The TD should restore the situation to what it should have been had South not inadventently broken the rules. South should have described what she believed to be the partnership's methods, and East should have received that description before he made his call. So the TD restores to that situation.

South did describe correctly what she believed to be the partnership methods before East made his call. East made his call. South made her call. Then South thought she had given an incorrect explanation and the TD was called. The TD made no attempt to find out what the correct explanation was, and would not speak to North away from the table, and wanted to allow East to replace his call. East had asked to speak to the TD away from the table when he was allowed to change his call, and he indicates what he said in another post. North eventually persuaded the TD to speak to him away from the table, and told her that the original explanation was correct and that the CC would show this. The TD returned and the CC was shown to both opponents, but not to South. I believe there were several director errors:

 

a) When she arrived at the table she should have established whether misinformation had been given.

 

b) as Pran says, she should have listened to North who wanted to tell her that there had been no call based on misinformation, and both CCs had the original correctly alerted meaning on the card

 

c) if UI is passed then it would be NS's fault, and they would have to suffer the consequences. The TD should not have used that as a reason not to find out the correct agreement and to find out if misinformation had been given. The opponent was put in a worse position as a result.

 

d) she still allowed East to change his call after discovering from the CC that North's call had been correctly alerted and explained! Of course, he made the same call, but that is not the point.

 

And on the unplayed board, I agree the opponents should get 60%. NS should get 50% or even 40% given that they caused it not to be played. If there had been no TD error, however, it would have been resolved immediately, so there is some argument for 45% for NS for the other board.

[lamford]

North should not have intervened to correct his partner's explanation, and the TD was quite right to prevent his doing so.

North did not intervene to correct his partner's explanation. North's intervention - asking the TD to speak to her away from the table - was solely to prevent the TD giving East his bid again, when he had not made a call based on misinformation.

[lamford]

I was East, it actually got more complicated than this in that "undiscussed" left me in a situation I've posted before where I have to bid with no sensible way of making a decision

I agree. And the TD could ask South to leave the table and should establish whether the bid is truly undiscussed. Or even ask North, but tell South the reply is UI to her. It would be good if one or two TDs replied on here as to what the advised procedure is. Certainly on the County TD course, we were told to establish the correct agreement always in any situation. If it is on the CC it can be shown without giving UI. But gnasher seems to think differently.

[Vampyr]

All this shenanigans caused the one board to take up the whole 15 mins for the 2 board round, we were awarded 50-50 for the unplayed second board, is that correct too ? as I felt we were not really the cause of the delay.

 

In a sense we were, but on the other hand the director should simply have sent me away and had partner give the correct agreement, or have him show it on the convention card as finally happened. So we were probably both entitled to A+ due to director's error.

[blackshoe]

Is the correction period over? Yes? Then the director's ruling stands.

 

The facts in the OP seem to be that:

 

1. North made a call.

2. South alerted.

3. South explained North's call as a transfer.

4. East and South called, and while West was thinking, South said he thought he had misexplained North's call.

5. Somebody called the director.

6. At some point after the director arrived, North asked to speak to him away from the table.

7. The director declined North's request.

8. Apparently, South did not correct his explanation.

9. Apparently, the director did not investigate the available evidence to determine the actual meaning, per agreement, of North's call.

10. Apparently, the director simply told East he could change his call.

11. Whether East changed his call is not in evidence.

12. There was no damage.

 

Facts 1 through 7 are not in dispute. Item 8 seems unlikely but no evidence was presented to indicate whether South did change his explanation, or to what he changed it. Items 9 through 11 are frankly appalling as examples of directorial procedure. As for item 12, if there was no damage, the table result should stand. As we are not told that it was changed, let's assume it was not.

 

Two questions were then asked in the OP:

 

1. Should the TD have first established that there was misinformation?

2. Should North have stated to the TD that the original explanation was correct?

 

My answer to the first question depends somewhat on the meaning of "first". If "first" means "before giving a ruling," then yes. If it means "before South corrects his explanation", then maybe. The TD has some discretion here. Law 20F4 says "If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4." The law is flawed - it doesn't say anything about the player telling the director what he thinks the correct explanation is. So the director should investigate - in this case by looking at the system card, for starters. He should not ask South to "correct" his original explanation until he is sure that South needs to do so. If after investigation the director determines the original explanation was correct, he should tell South so, and tell the table to get on with the hand. If the TD determines the original explanation was wrong, he should tell south to correct it, and then tell the table to get on with the hand.

 

My answer to the second question is an unqualified "no". Under no circumstances should North say anything until the proper legal time per Law 20F5.

[lamford]

My answer to the second question is an unqualified "no". Under no circumstances should North say anything until the proper legal time per Law 20F5.

So, if the TD asks North at the table or away from it whether the original explanation was correct, should he say, "I am not prepared to answer per 20F5"? I cannot agree that this Law applies to questions from the director for the purpose of establishing misinformation under 21B. Common sense says that it does not. That is why it should be done away from the table. When the director judges that the decision to make the call could not have been influenced by misinformation, and he refuses a 21B1(a) correction, then the opponents know that the original information was correct.

 

I think that this information should be unauthorised to the person trying to correct his originally correct explanation, but there is an argument from 16a1c that it is authorised to everyone: "it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations". So, when the TD says, "sorry you can't have a 21B1a correction", everyone knows that the original explanation was correct. This is undesirable, and the information should be UI to South in our example. So I am not certain I agree with this: "If after investigation the director determines the original explanation was correct, he should tell South so, and tell the table to get on with the hand."

[blackshoe]

No, of course not. If the TD asks a player a direct question, at or away from the table, the player should answer it as completely and as honestly as he can.

 

I do think that Law 16A1{c} makes the answer to the TD's question AI. Whether that's undesirable is another question.

 

Do you suggest that the TD should allow South to "correct" his already correct explanation, perforce giving MI to EW and UI to North, when he knows from his investigation that the original explanation was correct? I think that's absurd.