[blackshoe]

pran, on 2014-March-10, 07:05, said:

If, however, (as here) South fails to use his opportunity to change his call according to the corrected information, possibly because he assumed that North had based his double on the incorrect information, he does so on his own risk and enjoys no redress for damage that would have been avoided had he used this opportunity.

I don't think South's reason for not changing his call is relevant. He had the choice, he made the wrong one. He said himself he would have bid hearts had he been thinking clearly. I do think Law 12B2 prohibits a score adjustment here. The only question remaining is whether EW should receive a PP, and if so whether that PP should be a warning or in MPs or IMPs, for East's failure to ensure that both opponents were aware of the alert. I think a warning is appropriate; I don't think a PP in points is appropriate.

Out of curiosity, I might ask North what he would have done if he'd heard the alert, but the answer has no bearing on the ruling. I would also ask him why he didn't speak up during the Clarification Period when he heard folks talking about an alert that didn't happen. That answer won't affect the ruling either, but it gives the TD the opportunity to remind him to speak up when this happens.

My ruling: Result stands (Law 21, Law 12B2); PP(Warning) to EW (BB 4A8, Law 90).

[VixTD]

Can I just check that I understand the thinking of some of you on this? Here's another matchpoint problem:

---

At the end of the auction South calls the director and says that the announcement that 2♦ showed hearts was incorrect; their agreement was that it was a weak takeout into diamonds. This is established to the director's satisfaction, he judges there was misinformation and offers East the chance to retract his final pass if he would have called differently at that point given the correct information.

A double from West of a 2♦ transfer would show diamonds and suggested a lead, but not much interest in competing. A double of a natural weak takeout would show a takeout of diamonds and opening values (or not much less). East judges that if West has the former hand type he should stick with his pass, but if she has the latter he should bid 3♠.

In deciding whether to change his final call, East should assume that West doubled a natural 2♦ bid and not an artificial one. He should bid 3♠ and expect an adjustment from the director if it turns out (as he suspects it will) that East actually has some diamond honours and no spade support. If East were to stick with his pass and complain afterwards when West (unexpectedly) turns up with a 4-4-1-4 twelve count that he was unable to show because of the misinformation, he'll receive no redress from the director.

Is that right?

[helene_t]

Doesn't sound right. Why wouldn't it be AI to East that West was told that 2♦ was a transfer when he doubled it?

The OP question is more complicated because of the issue with partner not having seen the alert.

[iviehoff]

VixTD, on 2014-March-10, 09:06, said:

At the end of the auction South calls the director and says that the announcement that 2♦ showed hearts was incorrect; their agreement was that it was a weak takeout into diamonds. This is established to the director's satisfaction, he judges there was misinformation and offers East the chance to retract his final pass if he would have called differently at that point given the correct information.

A double from West of a 2♦ transfer would show diamonds and suggested a lead, but not much interest in competing. A double of a natural weak takeout would show a takeout of diamonds and opening values (or not much less). East judges that if West has the former hand type he should stick with his pass, but if she has the latter he should bid 3♠.

In deciding whether to change his final call, East should assume that West doubled a natural 2♦ bid and not an artificial one. He should bid 3♠ and expect an adjustment from the director if it turns out (as he suspects it will) that East actually has some diamond honours and no spade support. If East were to stick with his pass and complain afterwards when West (unexpectedly) turns up with a 4-4-1-4 twelve count that he was unable to show because of the misinformation, he'll receive no redress from the director.

Is that right?

No, I don't think so. This is different because here there was an announcement that the bid was hearts, and that is AI. That is different from your partner failing to ask about a bid, which is UI. You know exactly what your partner knew when your partner made the bid, because both the fact of and content of the announcement is AI. Now the attempted knock-down of this would have your partner then piping up saying "Well I knew the announcement was nonsense, but I wasn't helping the opposition out by drawing this to their attention. I knew that you'd be protected from the consequences by the MI laws if you didn't also manage to work that out and see what I was up to." But I think that is silly, because having got the announcement the player can rely on the information given, even if he knows it is wrong, and he is taking an unnecessary risk by saying he knows it is wrong.

There is an intermediate case, which is the more common one than these extremes, and is the more difficult one. In fact I thought about writing about it in my previous post, but had second thoughts. This is where your partner explicitly asks about a bid (likely alerted). Now players are supposed to ask for themselves, not for their partners, but it seems to be taken as read that you don't have to repeat your partner's request for explanation, and so the information provided by one partner's question is treated as AI to both the partnership. Now one can make an argument that the fact that one's partner asked for and heard the explanation is UI, only the content of the explanation is AI, how it arose is not. But I think that is twisting things in a silly way to make it different from the announcement case above. I think it is best to treat it just like the announcement above, and that's what people seem to do.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-10, 07:56, said:

I would also ask [North] why he didn't speak up during the Clarification Period when he heard folks talking about an alert that didn't happen.

Because that would give UI to South.

[VixTD]

iviehoff, on 2014-March-10, 10:46, said:

No, I don't think so. This is different because here there was an announcement that the bid was hearts, and that is AI. That is different from your partner failing to ask about a bid, which is UI. You know exactly what your partner knew when your partner made the bid, because both the fact of and content of the announcement is AI.

I'm not quite sure why this is different from the situation where one opponent alerts to show the call is not natural. Where does the boundary lie? Suppose the auction started:

1NT - 3♣ - X - all pass

Double is takeout of clubs if 3♣ is showing clubs, but partner alerted it because they thought it was a transfer to diamonds. If 3♣ showed diamonds the double would show strength in clubs.

The alert is AI to the opening side. Would it make a difference if both members of the opening side knew that the only possible meanings of 3♣ for this pair was either natural or diamonds?

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2014-March-10, 11:02, said:

Because that would give UI to South.

Uh, huh. What is the "I" part of this UI, and what do you think south might do with it?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-10, 07:56, said:

Quote

If, however, (as here) South fails to use his opportunity to change his call according to the corrected information, possibly because he assumed that North had based his double on the incorrect information, he does so on his own risk and enjoys no redress for damage that would have been avoided had he used this opportunity.

I don't think South's reason for not changing his call is relevant. He had the choice, he made the wrong one. He said himself he would have bid hearts had he been thinking clearly. I do think Law 12B2 prohibits a score adjustment here. The only question remaining is whether EW should receive a PP, and if so whether that PP should be a warning or in MPs or IMPs, for East's failure to ensure that both opponents were aware of the alert. I think a warning is appropriate; I don't think a PP in points is appropriate.

Out of curiosity, I might ask North what he would have done if he'd heard the alert, but the answer has no bearing on the ruling. I would also ask him why he didn't speak up during the Clarification Period when he heard folks talking about an alert that didn't happen. That answer won't affect the ruling either, but it gives the TD the opportunity to remind him to speak up when this happens.

My ruling: Result stands (Law 21, Law 12B2); PP(Warning) to EW (BB 4A8, Law 90).

South's reason for not changing his call is not relevant and I inserted the word "possibly" just to make that (implicitly) clear.

As far as I can see we agree completely on the ruling.

[Oof Arted]

VixTD, on 2014-March-07, 13:56, said:

South was not the Secretary Bird, but was familiar with the laws. I must confess: it was me. I'd got it into my mind first of all that "3♣ = a two-suiter, therefore X = penalties" but didn't adjust my thinking when I found that one of the suits shown was the suit bid. If I'd had my wits about me I'd have bid hearts.

Of course North's asking or not asking is UI to me, but surely the only way to avoid using UI in these situations is to assume that partner didn't ask because she didn't need to ask. How else do you avoid being influenced by the UI?

I didn't ask for a ruling because I didn't think I deserved one, but I might have had taken pity on a player less well versed in the laws. I do think I was put in an awkward situation by the misinformation, even if I should have extricated myself without too much difficulty.

Quietly hanging yourself is the best option here Vix

[VixTD]

Oof Arted, on 2014-March-11, 03:43, said:

Quietly hanging yourself is the best option here Vix

I thought I'd already done that. It doesn't answer my question, though.

[iviehoff]

VixTD, on 2014-March-10, 13:19, said:

I'm not quite sure why this is different from the situation where one opponent alerts to show the call is not natural. Where does the boundary lie?

The difference is between using an inference from the fact that your partner did not ask the meaning of an alerted call - UI - and using the fact of an announcement - AI. Also You are going too far in saying an opponent "alerts to show the call is not natural". You don't know what the alert is until you find out why. An alert could be a natural bid but with some negative inference they feel the need to draw to your attention.

In the first case, partner bid without asking; you then asked and got a wrong explanation, subsequently corrected. It is using UI to assume that partner bid on any basis other than the correct explanation, because it is UI to you that partner did not ask and therefore you can't think what he might know. But if partner had asked and got the wrong explanation, then you should assume he bid on the basis of the wrong explanation, because otherwise we back ourselves into the corner of saying that you have to ask again.

[mfa1010]

I think the situations are equivalent. I think we always have to rely on partner having the right information. Otherwise we are using UI about what partner didn't do to investigate their system.

For all we know, partner took the convention card after the announcement, found out about the discrepancy, asked for clarification and got the right answer... But we know he didn't do that? Right, and that is UI! It doesn't matter that this process would have let to some AI for us also (their explanation) - partner's being passive is UI. We can't use that UI to make conclusions about his hand.

Less dramatically, partner might just well have realized the mistake (again maybe from the CC) and chosen to say nothing. That would be normal, if he had a clear pass, because why wake them up? When he had a bid, it would be highly speculative, because his bid means different thing in different contexts, but he may have done that. It is perfectly ok to do, only can he not claim misinformation afterwards, when he knows about the system. Again we can't use partner's passitivity to help us guess what he might have realized or not.

It follows that if we for instance double 3♦, we are using UI to conclude, that he does indeed have diamonds. Doubling 3♦ would be an illegal bid.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-10, 23:01, said:

Uh, huh. What is the "I" part of this UI, and what do you think south might do with it?

The "I" is that North has a takeout double of clubs. I think that if South received this "I", he would do what Law 16 says he should do.

[iviehoff]

mfa1010, on 2014-March-11, 13:43, said:

For all we know, partner took the convention card after the announcement, found out about the discrepancy, asked for clarification and got the right answer... But we know he didn't do that? Right, and that is UI!

I believe I already covered this point. If partner decides to ignore the explanation he was given by proper procedure in the correct and public manner, and looks instead at a convention card and decides to believe that instead, he does that at his own risk. That is because he can rely upon the explanation that was given to him following proper procedure, even if it subsequently turns out to be incorrect. I therefore should also be able to rely that the information he was acting upon was the information that was given in the proper correct and public manner.

You mention the possibility of him having a quiet clarification discussion with an opponent, which would be an irregularity. The correct method of getting a corrected explanation is to call the TD and getting a proper revised explanation in a public manner that I can rely upon as AI also. So I think such irregular clarification activities must also be treated in the same way.

[Trinidad]

When we keep the missed alert out of the equation, this case is relatively simple to me:

South does not know what he should think of North's bidding. This is caused by the misinformation by EW. South is allowed to change his call. If this solves the problem then that is great. If it doesn't, there will be an AS, resolving all problems that were created by EW.

South does not have to assume that North has a bid that fits the misinformation and South does not have to assume that North has a bid that fits the correct information. South is non-offending and the mess is created by the offenders. Unless he commits a SEWoG with respect to both possible meanings for North's bidding (e.g. bids 7NT), we will adjust the score for both sides.

That is part one. Part two is the missing fact that North missed the alert. If I judge that EW were responsible for North missing the alert then nothing changes.

If I judge that it was North's fault that he missed the alert then I will subtract the part of the damage that was caused by North's error from the adjustment for NS. I consider it a SEWoG* after the infraction. EW still get the full adjustment.

Summarizing: EW will always get the full adjustment for their misinformation. Whether NS get the full adjustment depends on whether they committed a SEWoG.

Rik

* In my opinion, missing the alert is unrelated to the question whether the bid required an alert.

Edited to correct a miscommunication (how appropriate for this discussion )

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2014-March-12, 05:17, said:

When we keep the missed alert out of the equation, this case is relatively simple to me:

South does not know what he should think of North's bidding. This is caused by the misinformation by EW. South is allowed to change his call. If this solves the problem then that is great. If it doesn't, there will be an AS, resolving all problems that were created by EW.

South does not have to assume that North has a bid that fits the misinformation and South does not have to assume that North has a bid that fits the correct information. South is non-offending and the mess is created by the offenders. Unless he commits a SEWoG with respect to both possible meanings for North's bidding (e.g. bids 7NT), we will adjust the score for both sides.

That is part one. Part two is the missing alert. If I judge that EW were responsible for North missing the alert then nothing changes.

If I judge that it was North's fault that he missed the alert then I will subtract the part of the damage that was caused by North's error from the adjustment for NS. I consider it a SEWoG* after the infraction. EW still get the full adjustment.

Summarizing: EW will always get the full adjustment for their misinformation. Whether NS get the full adjustment depends on whether they committed a SEWoG.

Rik

* In my opinion, missing the alert is unrelated to the question whether the bid required an alert.

Missing alert where alert is required (by Law or regulation) is itself misinformation.

[barmar]

pran, on 2014-March-12, 05:40, said:

Missing alert where alert is required (by Law or regulation) is itself misinformation.

Failing to alert is misinformation. Missing a properly made alert is inattention, not misinformation.

You could claim that it's not possible to miss a properly made alert, since regulations require the alerter to ensure that it was noticed -- missing it would be de facto evidence that the alerter failed. As I suggested earlier, I think this is taking things too far -- I think the alerter is required to make a good faith effort, but unless we change procedures to require acknowledgements from the opponents he can never be totally sure.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2014-March-12, 02:47, said:

The "I" is that North has a takeout double of clubs. I think that if South received this "I", he would do what Law 16 says he should do.

If the director asks North a question, should North refuse to answer it? If North answers the question, and South is now constrained by UI, does not South have a legitimate complaint against the director?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-12, 10:31, said:

If the director asks North a question, should North refuse to answer it? If North answers the question, and South is now constrained by UI, does not South have a legitimate complaint against the director?

That is why the Director should be very careful about what questions he asks at the table and when to take a player away from the table.

As a general rule information passed verbally between the Director and a player is AI to any player being in a position to hear it.

[blackshoe]

I'm not sure I would buy that missing an alert is a serious error within the meaning of the laws. First, I've seen too many alerts where the alert itself was not obvious and the alerter did not comply with the "ensure both opponents are aware of the alert" provision of the laws. Second, do you include in those who have committed an error by missing the alert the hard of hearing and the deaf? (That, btw, is why there's a visual component to an alert - notwithstanding that the visual component is rarely presented by the alerter). I suppose if you judge that the alert was missed solely because the player was paying insufficient attention to the game you could call it an error, but I'm still not convinced it rises to "serious". Hm. I'll ask that question in a new thread, I think.