[sailoranch]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-08, 16:09, said:

Absolutely not. What makes you think so?

You just said that if South makes another inquiry and receives the same MI, it's not an infraction, or at least that it doesn't affect the ruling. This means the OS have every reason not to give a correct explanation, even when asked, when doing so would let a game through, and the NOS basically have no redress.

[blackshoe]

sailoranch, on 2012-November-08, 16:27, said:

You just said that if South makes another inquiry and receives the same MI, it's not an infraction, or at least that it doesn't affect the ruling. This means the OS have every reason not to give a correct explanation, even when asked, when doing so would let a game through, and the NOS basically have no redress.

I didn't say a repeat of the original MI is not an infraction. I did say it doesn't affect the ruling — and it doesn't. The OS have "every reason" to give a correct explanation, unless they wish to be branded as cheats. No doubt there are players who would deliberately cheat in this way. They may get away with it once or twice, but eventually they will be found out. At that point an ethics hearing can be convened to take appropriate action.

The law requires that someone in the misinforming partnership call the director and report the misinformation at the appropriate time. Failure to do so, when caught, should result in a hefty procedural penalty, whether the score is adjusted or not.

[sailoranch]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-08, 22:05, said:

I didn't say a repeat of the original MI is not an infraction. I did say it doesn't affect the ruling — and it doesn't. The OS have "every reason" to give a correct explanation, unless they wish to be branded as cheats. No doubt there are players who would deliberately cheat in this way. They may get away with it once or twice, but eventually they will be found out. At that point an ethics hearing can be convened to take appropriate action.

The law requires that someone in the misinforming partnership call the director and report the misinformation at the appropriate time. Failure to do so, when caught, should result in a hefty procedural penalty, whether the score is adjusted or not.

If it's an infraction, then why doesn't it affect the ruling? Why aren't NOS entitled to an adjustment to the score they would have received had the infraction not occurred?

[blackshoe]

sailoranch, on 2012-November-08, 22:30, said:

If it's an infraction, then why doesn't it affect the ruling? Why aren't NOS entitled to an adjustment to the score they would have received had the infraction not occurred?

Because there are two infractions. The laws don't handle this situation well, but even if you start with the second infraction, you still have to deal with the first.

[sailoranch]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-08, 22:37, said:

Because there are two infractions. The laws don't handle this situation well, but even if you start with the second infraction, you still have to deal with the first.

I thought you made the adjustment more beneficial to the NOS, since this is the only one that provides redress for the damage from both infractions.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-08, 22:37, said:

Because there are two infractions. The laws don't handle this situation well, but even if you start with the second infraction, you still have to deal with the first.

That is not true. The laws handle the situation for multiple independent infractions very well. They describe clearly what to do for one infraction and multiple infractions should be handled as separate cases.

If there are n subsequent infractions by the NOS, there will be n+1 possible results: After each infraction there will be a result with the infraction and one without the infraction. They may be weighted or split, but each result can be calculated as a score for the NOS in MPs, IMPs, total points or whatever.

For each individual infraction you will need to make a decision: If the score with the infraction is better (or equal) than the score without, we do not adjust since there is no damage. If the score with the infraction is worse than the score without, we will adjust since there is damage.

The overall result, counting all the infractions, is that the NOS will get the most advantageous of these n+1 possible results.

------

When it comes to the matter of giving the same MI twice, it is clear that these are not two independent infractions. IMO repeating the MI is not even an infraction at all.

Suppose (as an example) that my partner and I have agreed to play natural advances to fourth seat 1NT overcalls. I overcall 1NT in fourth seat, my partner bids 2♦, I alert, my RHO asks and I mistakenly explain "Transfer to hearts". RHO bids something, I bid 2♥ and LHO looks at his hand and doesn't believe the explanation so he (foolishly) decides to ask again about the 2♦ bid. I -still confused- explain again "Transfer to hearts".

This second reply contains zero (0) information, nothing, zilch, zit. It said what everybody knew already. If it doesn't give any information, there cannot be misinformation either.

Rik

[Zelandakh]

I thought of something else along this theme. Say that the OS become the declaring side but reach a very bad contract that should score worse than the normal one. However, there is a misdefence caused because of the MI. Am I right in thinking that in this case the NOS would get the benefit of the normal score for the bad (table) contract since the lack of a correction to the MI is a new and independant infraction?

[gnasher]

sailoranch, on 2012-November-08, 16:27, said:

You just said that if South makes another inquiry and receives the same MI, it's not an infraction, or at least that it doesn't affect the ruling. This means the OS have every reason not to give a correct explanation, even when asked, when doing so would let a game through, and the NOS basically have no redress.

How many players do you know who would intentionally delay correcting a misexplanation in order to gain an advantage?

[sailoranch]

Trinidad, on 2012-November-09, 03:05, said:

When it comes to the matter of giving the same MI twice, it is clear that these are not two independent infractions. IMO repeating the MI is not even an infraction at all.

Suppose (as an example) that my partner and I have agreed to play natural advances to fourth seat 1NT overcalls. I overcall 1NT in fourth seat, my partner bids 2♦, I alert, my RHO asks and I mistakenly explain "Transfer to hearts". RHO bids something, I bid 2♥ and LHO looks at his hand and doesn't believe the explanation so he (foolishly) decides to ask again about the 2♦ bid. I -still confused- explain again "Transfer to hearts".

This second reply contains zero (0) information, nothing, zilch, zit. It said what everybody knew already. If it doesn't give any information, there cannot be misinformation either.

Rik

No information and misinformation are both failures to provide an accurate explanation of the call. If you described a call as "no information" the first time and claimed it wasn't an infraction, the director would laugh at you. And if we're saying that the second time MI is not an infraction, it means that your opponent is no longer entitled to the correct description.

You're right in that the NOS has received no new information and would make the same decisions with or without the repeat of the MI, but I don't see how this is a basis for concluding that it relieves the offender of the obligation to describe his side's agreements accurately the second time around. The problem, of course, is that if we accept that this is in fact a new infraction, it means that we would have to give the NOS the more favorable adjustment, 3NT= in Zel's scenario, whereas without the non-information, they would get 4♥-1. If you think such a huge swing for a non-event seems silly, I would agree with you.

gnasher, on 2012-November-09, 04:44, said:

How many players do you know who would intentionally delay correcting a misexplanation in order to gain an advantage?

None that would admit it. But the real issue is that even the honest players in this situation would normally fail to give a correct explanation and end up gaining.

[VixTD]

Zelandakh, on 2012-November-09, 04:08, said:

I thought of something else along this theme. Say that the OS become the declaring side but reach a very bad contract that should score worse than the normal one. However, there is a misdefence caused because of the MI. Am I right in thinking that in this case the NOS would get the benefit of the normal score for the bad (table) contract since the lack of a correction to the MI is a new and independant infraction?

In your original problem (South opens):

1NT - 2♣(1) - 2♥(2) - P
3NT - AP

(1) agreement natural, mistakenly alerted and explained as ♥ + other
(2) cue-bid showing four spades

The TD has to work out the possible outcomes if NS received a correct explanation, but East thought it was something else. I'd work out how likely it is for NS to reach 3NT, 4♥ or anything else, and then how many tricks they are likely to make in each case. Of course when playing the hand they will be aware that West has shown clubs and will play accordingly, as they will have been given a correct explanation.

In your new situation, suppose it goes:

1NT - 2♣(1) - P - 4♥
AP

(1) as above

Now West is under obligation to correct the misexplanation before the opening lead. If they don't, this is treated as a separate infraction from the original misexplanation, and NS are entitled to the result that was likely had they bid in ignorance but made an opening lead in their state of enlightenment, if that's the best result available to them. (Of course the auction may be re-opened and the doubles may start flying, but let's just assume that doesn't happen, or doesn't lead to a better score for NS.)

[bluejak]

sailoranch, on 2012-November-06, 19:12, said:

If there are two irregularities, one being the misexplanation and the other being the failure to correct it, where does Law 12 say that we have to adjust for the earlier one rather than the later one?

It doesn't. Of course you can look at both irregularities.

Trinidad, on 2012-November-07, 01:20, said:

The failure to correct it is not an irregularity. It only is an irregularity once the partner of the explainer doesnot correct the explanation at the appropriate time.

Giving misinformation is something that occurs "instantaneously". That is the infraction. It is not an ongoing, "continuous" infraction for the time that he MI hangs over the table. Maintaining the misinformation is only an infraction if you become aware that you gave misinformation and then don't correct it.

You are required to correct by Law. Thus the failure to correct is both an irregularity and an infraction, and an adjustment may be given.

blackshoe, on 2012-November-08, 22:37, said:

Because there are two infractions. The laws don't handle this situation well, but even if you start with the second infraction, you still have to deal with the first.

That is true. But, if there is no damage, you do not adjust. So, where the later infraction leads to a greater adjustment for the non-offending side, the earlier infraction now provides no damage. In effect, when there are two possible adjustments for two infractions, we take the one that benefits the non-offenders more.

gnasher, on 2012-November-09, 04:44, said:

How many players do you know who would intentionally delay correcting a misexplanation in order to gain an advantage?

None, really. But infractions get adjustments whether intentional or not.

[Trinidad]

David, do you realize at all that what you are writing now means that your post #3 was completely wrong?

Now, you say that not correcting the MI is an infraction. Since the MI was not corrected at the point where West bid 3♦, there was an infraction at that point in time. Then, following your reasoning in your last posts, you will have to adjust the score based on that infraction.

This means: You take that infraction away and give an AS. To assign this AS, the TD will make the decisions on West's behalf, using the knowledge that West has, including the information that he had from the previous infractions: the initial wrong explanation and the not correcting the MI up to then. This means you have to rule based on this knowledge for West:

1) 2♠ shows clubs
2) South has originally explained it as natural. NS have a misunderstanding. This information comes from a previous, separate infraction.

In your earlier post #3, you wrote that you don't use the 2nd piece of information (and I agree with that) since you are correcting the infraction reasoning from the point where the MI was given. But if not correcting MI is considered and infraction, you will have to adjust for the infraction that South didnot correct the MI right before South bid 3♦.

If you would do that, then it is strange to assign a weighted AS. No West would ever bid, knowing that their vulnerable opponents at IMPs have a misunderstanding, since bidding will give them a chance to right their wrong.

Rik

[bluejak]

I have re-read #3 which seems correct to me.

I think your deductions from what I say just do not follow.

When you adjust you do not do so on the basis of the player getting the correct info and the effect at the table of the wrong info. That is still correct, and unaffected by my later post which seems unconnected to me.

[Trinidad]

Maybe you should read what the discussion is about, particular posts 24, 27, and clarified in 29 and 31.

You just argued that not correcting the MI is an infraction (albeit unintentional, because the player doesn't realize that he has given MI) and that it gets adjusted whether it is intentional or not:

bluejak, on 2012-November-09, 08:57, said:

But infractions get adjustments whether intentional or not.

I know that you mean that #3 is correct, but that is not what you argue later when you say that not correcting the MI just prior to the 3♦ bid is a separate infraction (which -I am sure- you don't mean to say).

Rik

[barmar]

There are two issues involved:

1. Adjusting the board because the NOS's play or defense was incorrect as a result of the MI. This should always be done, regardless of whether it was intentional or not.

2. A PP to the OS for failing to correct the MI. I don't believe that a player can be expected to correct MI if they don't know it has been given. 20F4 specifically says "If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete"; if he doesn't realize it, he's obviously not required to call the TD (what would prompt him to?), so what infraction has occurred? 20F5 doesn't have this qualifier, it just says "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation" and then explains his obligations; but I believe the law is just making the assumption that only one of the members of the partnership is confused about their agreements, or they meant to say "A player who believes his partner has given a mistaken explanation" (in fact, 20F5b says that when he eventually calls the TD, he should inform them that "in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous".

[blackshoe]

sailoranch, on 2012-November-05, 17:36, said:

Exactly, South failed to correct the MI before/after the 3♦ call pursuant to 20F4. Why can't we use Law 23 to adjust?

I want to address this point. 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 emphasis is mine. That conditional clause means that if the player has not realized that his own explanation was in error, his failure to correct that explanation is in no way an irregularity or infraction of law. Furthermore, the primary criterion for application of Law 23 is that the putative offender could have known that his alleged offense could damage the opponents. I suspect most players who have given it any thought "could know" that not correctly explaining your agreements could damage opponents, but that's not what Law 23 is about. In this case, a player who believes he has given a correct explanation, even if he's wrong, cannot know that he might damage the opponents thereby. So Law 23 cannot apply.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2012-November-09, 08:57, said:

You are required to correct by Law. Thus the failure to correct is both an irregularity and an infraction, and an adjustment may be given.

We're talking here about a player who gave a mistaken explanation correcting that information. If he does not realize his explanation was incorrect, he has not committed an infraction by not correcting it. See my previous post.

bluejak, on 2012-November-09, 08:57, said:

That is true. But, if there is no damage, you do not adjust. So, where the later infraction leads to a greater adjustment for the non-offending side, the earlier infraction now provides no damage. In effect, when there are two possible adjustments for two infractions, we take the one that benefits the non-offenders more.

We do? Okay, if you say so.

[c_corgi]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-10, 14:21, said:

We're talking here about a player who gave a mistaken explanation correcting that information. If he does not realize his explanation was incorrect, he has not committed an infraction by not correcting it. See my previous post.

What about a player who has become unsure about whether his (or partners for that matter) explanation is wrong? It seems reasonable to wait for the end of the hand and find out rather than giving opponents information to which they are not entitled. But if it turns out the explanation was wrong, the opponents were entitled to the correct information. Were they also entitled to the correction and hence knowledge of the misunderstanding? I would think so, but then how would you distinguish this situation from the one you describe, where he says nothing because he hasnt realsied there is a possibility of being wrong?

[blackshoe]

You would distinguish it by his statement that he "became unsure".

That said, I'm not sure that "I am unsure" is the same thing as "I now realize my previous explanation was wrong", so I'm not sure that failing to correct when one is unsure is an infraction of law. It does seem to be an application of "active ethics" to correct, specifying your lack of certainty.

As for the partner of an explainer, the law is specific as to when he is supposed to correct the explanation, so failure to do so before that time is again not an infraction of law. The pertinent law (20F5) starts "a player whose partner has given an incorrect explanation…" so again the law assumes you are sure. In this case I would suggest that "active ethics" is more certain to be the right thing to do.

[sailoranch]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-10, 14:09, said:

I want to address this point. 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 emphasis is mine. That conditional clause means that if the player has not realized that his own explanation was in error, his failure to correct that explanation is in no way an irregularity or infraction of law. Furthermore, the primary criterion for application of Law 23 is that the putative offender could have known that his alleged offense could damage the opponents. I suspect most players who have given it any thought "could know" that not correctly explaining your agreements could damage opponents, but that's not what Law 23 is about. In this case, a player who believes he has given a correct explanation, even if he's wrong, cannot know that he might damage the opponents thereby. So Law 23 cannot apply.

Right, and the natural consequence is that Law 20F4 is not enforceable. We have a scheme where a player would get +600 with the correction and -100 without the correction, and an opponent could knowingly flout 20F4 and have no way of being caught. Yes, there are players who would try to gain advantage in this situation, and part of the reason there aren't more is because Law 23 and similar provisions entitle a NOS to an adjustment in most situations where a player could purposely infringe.

My broader point is that a player can fail to give a correct explanation and earn a much better score thereby, whether he does so purposefully or not. It has been argued that it's not even an infraction for a player to provide MI in response to a question if he has already given that MI previously in the deal. And even if it were an infraction, the NOS is only getting the favorable adjustment by suspecting he's been given MI and knowing that he can gain by asking a question to which he's already supposed to know the answer.