Missinformation

[Manastorm]

East is given information A and west B about an agreement. Why isn't A and B the actual agreement? Isn't an admission that I miss spoken and yes partner is correct just self serving and gains advantage. After all one side was given the right information and the other not, instead of potentially both sides were given missinformation. Secondly, if A and B is deemed the correct agreement, then it could well be an illegal agreement with due consequences. Why system notes at home dictate what the agreement is instead of what actually happened at the table? Why should the notes have any relevance in the case?

[weejonnie]

The law states

 

"1. When the partnership agreement is different from the explanation given, the explanation is

an infraction of Law. When this infraction results in damage to the non‐offending side, the

Director shall award an adjusted score."

 

With regards to information A and information B being given then unless the information is identical then the partnership agreement is different.

 

It is up to the Director to find out if there is an agreement, but one player has given an incorrect explanation - and then:

 

3. When there is an infraction (as per B1 or D2) and sufficient evidence exists as to the agreed

meaning of the call, the Director awards an adjusted score based upon the likely outcome

had the opponents received the correct explanation in a timely manner. If the Director

determines that the call has no agreed meaning, he awards an adjusted score based upon

the likely outcome had the opponents been so informed.

 

If East is given the correct explanation (assuming one exists) then there is no problem for him - but if West has been given an incorrect explanation and his subsequent actions have resulted in damage.

 

Note that "(b) The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the

absence of evidence to the contrary."

 

One assumes, therefore, that system notes are evidence of what the correct explanation is.

 

You are also correct that if the agreement is decided to be 'A and B' and the combination is illegal then the TD would normally assign an Artificial adjusted score (60%-40%) if the NOS have not done as well.

[gordontd]

The TD uses whatever evidence is available to decide what the pair's agreement actually is and on occasion it will be deemed that the true agreement is an illegal agreement by virtue of being "either A or B".

[Vampyr]

What is the time limit for claiming misinformation when using screens screens, as you willnormally only discover that different explanations were given until after the session.

[steve2005]

The TD uses whatever evidence is available to decide what the pair's agreement actually is and on occasion it will be deemed that the true agreement is an illegal agreement by virtue of being "either A or B".

How is an agreement being A or B an illegal agreement?

Certainly if agreement is A or B, it should not be explained as A at one table and B at another. it should be explained as A or B at both tables.

 

 

[paulg]

How is an agreement being A or B an illegal agreement?

Certainly if agreement is A or B, it should not be explained as A at one table and B at another. it should be explained as A or B at both tables.

gordontd only implied it was a possibility, but a typical example would be a disagreement whether Ghestem applies over a one club opening that promises 3+ clubs.

 

Agreement A is three clubs shows a weak jump overcall in clubs. Agreement B is that three clubs shows a two-suited hand with the red suits. Both A and B are legal in the EBU, but 'either A or B' is not a permitted agreement.

[weejonnie]

An example in the EBU would be a defence to 1NT whereby initially a 2♦ call starts out as Astro (Hearts and Diamonds), but the person then rebids 3♦ and his partner then says "Oh he only has diamonds".

 

Playing 2♦ as Diamonds is Legal (Level 2)

Playing 2♦ as Astro (Hearts and Diamonds) is Legal (level 2)

Playing 2♦ as 'either hearts and diamonds or just diamonds' is illegal (Level 2)

[barmar]

East is given information A and west B about an agreement. Why isn't A and B the actual agreement?

Forgetting your agreement does not mean you have changed your agreement. One of the explanations is presumably correct, the other one is incorrect (it's also possible for both to be wrong, but probably rare).

Why should the notes have any relevance in the case?

That's the point of system notes, you record your agreements there.

 

It's possible that you changed agreements, but didn't update the notes. If the player whose explanation agrees with the notes admits that this happened, but they forgot about the change, the TD has to judge whether to believe him.

[Vampyr]

I have several times had an auction such as 1NT-(2♠) explained as spades or spades and a minor. Is this permitted because it is over a NT opening, wh here anything is allowed?

 

Who is Miss Information, anyway? I would love to meet her.

[blackshoe]

East is given information A and west B about an agreement. Why isn't A and B the actual agreement? Isn't an admission that I miss spoken and yes partner is correct just self serving and gains advantage. After all one side was given the right information and the other not, instead of potentially both sides were given missinformation. Secondly, if A and B is deemed the correct agreement, then it could well be an illegal agreement with due consequences. Why system notes at home dictate what the agreement is instead of what actually happened at the table? Why should the notes have any relevance in the case?

 

What is the time limit for claiming misinformation when using screens screens, as you willnormally only discover that different explanations were given until after the session.

 

Law 92B:The right to request or appeal a Director’s ruling expires 30 minutes after the official score has been made available for inspection unless the Tournament Organizer has specified a different time period.

 

Forgetting your agreement does not mean you have changed your agreement. One of the explanations is presumably correct, the other one is incorrect (it's also possible for both to be wrong, but probably rare).

 

That's the point of system notes, you record your agreements there.

 

It's possible that you changed agreements, but didn't update the notes. If the player whose explanation agrees with the notes admits that this happened, but they forgot about the change, the TD has to judge whether to believe him.

If both possibilities are wrong, then either the actual agreement is some C, or there is no agreement. The latter is more likely.

 

System notes are relevant if they're available on-site. If they were left at home, too bad.

 

I have several times had an auction such as 1NT-(2♠) explained as spades or spades and a minor. Is this permitted because it is over a NT opening, wh here anything is allowed?

It depends on just what the explainer is trying to say. One possibility: "it's either spades or spades and a minor, I forget which". Another: "spades, but partner often has a minor as well". The former is MI, the latter isn't. If anything is allowed, any of the three possible agreements is legal.

[paulg]

I have several times had an auction such as 1NT-(2♠) explained as spades or spades and a minor. Is this permitted because it is over a NT opening, where anything is allowed?

This is permitted in the EBU (Level 4), SBU, EBL, and WBF because they do not regulate defences to one no trump.

 

It is also permitted in the ACBL (GCC) because it promises a known suit.

 

I suspect other NBOs will permit it for one of these reasons.

 

A one spade overcall of a natural opening bid, showing spades or spades and a minor, would also be permitted in these jurisdictions because it promises at least four cards in a known suit.

[barmar]

"Spades or spades+minor" basically just means he has spades, and if they happen to have a second suit it's not hearts (presumably there's some other way to show both majors).