[soldatoJ]

---

Now, before the lead, West Ask for explanation again, and now Dummy(North) point out that the 2D was not explained correctly.

North said, 2D was 4-card in D.

So, as a director, what options is now available to non-offending side?

1) Is that East could change his last call? (If he want to do something?)

2) Is that West could change his last call? (If he want to do something?)

3) What else?

SoldatoJ

[gordontd]

soldatoJ, on 2011-May-15, 01:14, said:

---

Now, before the lead, West Ask for explanation again, and now Dummy(North) point out that the 2D was not explained correctly.

North said, 2D was 4-card in D.

So, as a director, what options is now available to non-offending side?

1) Is that East could change his last call? (If he want to do something?)

2) Is that West could change his last call? (If he want to do something?)

3) What else?

SoldatoJ

East can change his last call in the light of the misinformation. Otherwise, play continues but EW can call the director back at the end of the hand with a view to getting an adjustment if they think the misinformation might have damaged them earlier in the hand.

[Mbodell]

gordontd, on 2011-May-15, 01:59, said:

East can change his last call in the light of the misinformation. Otherwise, play continues but EW can call the director back at the end of the hand with a view to getting an adjustment if they think the misinformation might have damaged them earlier in the hand.

Also, consider the UI after the hand if the 2♦ was alerted.

[iviehoff]

Mbodell, on 2011-May-15, 17:44, said:

Also, consider the UI after the hand if the 2♦ was alerted.

Well apparently, alerted or not, it was misexplained at some time during the auction, so there probably was UI. From a situation of ignorance as to the hands and exactly what happened, one might hazard a guess that S's calls have a look of unauthorised panic to them. But we would need to know N and S's cards, and exactly what was explained when. Without that, we can't judge whether in fact there was abuse of UI.

[jh51]

iviehoff, on 2011-May-16, 02:10, said:

Well apparently, alerted or not, it was misexplained at some time during the auction, so there probably was UI. From a situation of ignorance as to the hands and exactly what happened, one might hazard a guess that S's calls have a look of unauthorised panic to them. But we would need to know N and S's cards, and exactly what was explained when. Without that, we can't judge whether in fact there was abuse of UI.

I fail to see how South has UI, as he is the one who would have alerted 2♦. So I fail to understand the remark that south's calls have the look of unauthorized panic. It would seem perfectly reasonable if he has spades for him to rebid spades. The question that would have to be looked into is whether North, who does have UI, has taken advantage of the UI.