[Trinidad]

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?

Because we are supposed to use Law 12. That means that we remove the infraction, which was the misinformation at the point in the auction where it was given.

Rik

[Trinidad]

schulken, on 2012-November-06, 15:54, said:

While much of the discussion in this forum has centered on what W should do in the passout seat with the auction at 2♠ by N, we considered that E, having received an accurate explanation of transfer to ♣, may have taken advantage of the clearly artificial ♠ bid and doubled.

That would be nice, if the double would show spades. But it only does if you have specifically agreed that it shows spades. For most pairs it would tell West to show his suit, which is exactly what East doesn't want, since he can see that West will bid diamonds.

Rik

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2012-November-06, 16:21, said:

That would be nice, if the double would show spades. But it only does if you have specifically agreed that it shows spades. For most pairs it would tell West to show his suit, which is exactly what East doesn't want, since he can see that West will bid diamonds.

I think many pairs have a default agreement that doubling an artificial bid shows something in that suit. Either 2NT or cue bidding the suit that the opponent was transfering to would be a better way to tell partner to bid his suit.

[sailoranch]

Trinidad, on 2012-November-06, 16:15, said:

Because we are supposed to use Law 12. That means that we remove the infraction, which was the misinformation at the point in the auction where it was given.

Rik

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?

[Trinidad]

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?

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.

Rik

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2012-November-06, 16:32, said:

I think many pairs have a default agreement that doubling an artificial bid shows something in that suit. Either 2NT or cue bidding the suit that the opponent was transfering to would be a better way to tell partner to bid his suit.

That may well be true, but I think that many pairs have the specific agreement that a double by the advancer of a Cappelletti 2♣ overcall (or a DONT double) specifically asks the overcaller to name his suit. To me that is part of the convention.

But I may well be overestimating the fraction of players that have such detailed agreements. It's probably a good idea to ask EW. At least I think that is better than assuming that they play some kind of default agreement that doesn't/shouldn't apply in the auction at hand.

I know this sounds like a lame comparison, but I see it the same as: Most pairs have the default agreement that they will bid their longest suit first. Yet, with a 3=3=2=5 hand, most players will respond 2♦ to a Stayman 2♣. Why? Because it's part of the convention. (And for this example I am fairly certain that many people do have agreements that are this detailed. )

Rik

[sailoranch]

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.

Rik

First, South could well have remembered and failed to correct the MI, which is why I am bringing up Law 23. If we don't adjust for that, then Law 20F4 must be completely unenforceable and we're giving South every reason to keep his mouth shut.

Second, and probably more controversially, I think that each call based on MI is itself an irregularity. After all, Law 21 is all about rectifying such, and rectification is specified for irregularities. We're mainly getting hung up over whether the irregularity specified in 21B3 refers to the gift of MI or the call based on the MI. I contend it's the latter, because it avoids scenarios like these where adjusting for the explanation would lead to a worse score for the NOS than they would have expected with knowledge of the opponents' methods. It would also render the above business about 20F4 unnecessary.

The adjustment that's being advocated (70% +200, 30% penalty) must be worse than the NOS would have expected if they had simply known the opponents' agreements and the entire system of alerts and explanations had not existed. It also adjusts to a scenario, that South correctly explains but then misbids, that would pretty much never happen in real life, and our hypothetical West, not knowing he's inside the Matrix, is required to judge under the assumption that real life rules still apply.

I'm aware that I have less experience in these matters than other posters here. But if this is really the correct adjustment, it seems clear to me that the offenders will have gained because of the MI, and the Laws or their popular interpretation need to be revised.

[Trinidad]

sailoranch, on 2012-November-07, 04:07, said:

First, South could well have remembered and failed to correct the MI, which is why I am bringing up Law 23. If we don't adjust for that, then Law 20F4 must be completely unenforceable and we're giving South every reason to keep his mouth shut.

Sure, it is possible that South remembered and failed to correct the MI. That would be an infraction. But why do you assume that South committed an infraction when you don't have any indication that he did? Are you also assuming that I stole a car yesterday, just because it is possible that I did?

sailoranch, on 2012-November-07, 04:07, said:

Second, and probably more controversially, I think that each call based on MI is itself an irregularity.

There is no basis in the Laws for that idea.

sailoranch, on 2012-November-07, 04:07, said:

The adjustment that's being advocated (70% +200, 30% penalty) must be worse than the NOS would have expected if they had simply known the opponents' agreements and the entire system of alerts and explanations had not existed.

I think you are misunderstanding what is being advocated. The TD's decision that is advocated is: NS get a a score of -200, EW get a score of +200. I think that we are all unanimous about that (given that this occurred in the ACBL). This is exactly what would have happened if there were no alerts

The confusion might arise from what David would do if this would be a ruling outside the ACBL. In that case the TD would have to weight all the possible results that might have been obtained without the misinformation. However, outside the ACBL, this case is also simple: No sane West would reopen the bidding, at IMPs, at this vulnerability, when South passes a forcing bid. That means that all possible results are 2♠-2. David thinks that West might reopen, 30% of the times even. That is his judgement. I think it is clear that I don't share his view.

Rik

[sailoranch]

Right, I am talking about David's weighted ruling, but situations where rolling back to the initial explanation instead of the MI-tainted action would be common enough. Say West misinforms the opponents, but South reaches a better contract as a result of the MI, but ends up going down, also as a result of the MI. It makes sense to me that South should be entitled to the correct information after the auction and before the play, in which case he would make, but would end up with a less favorable adjustment after rolling back to the original MI event. Here, a West who remembers the correct explanation is required to inform the TD, but has every incentive not to do so and no way of being caught.

Another quirk is that a player that is about to take an action based on the MI can actually get the later adjustment simply by asking the opponent to repeat the MI explanation. So in order to protect your equity, you must suspect that the opponents have given you MI in the first place, or you have to just ask about the opponents' entire auction before every call. This would favor experienced players who have more reason to believe something's amiss, or in the latter case, paranoid rules lawyers.

[blackshoe]

I'm not at all sure I understand you, sailoranch, but… If the NOS obtains a better result than they would have obtained absent an infraction, there has been no damage, and so there would be no score adjustment.

[sailoranch]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-07, 16:02, said:

I'm not at all sure I understand you, sailoranch, but… If the NOS obtains a better result than they would have obtained absent an infraction, there has been no damage, and so there would be no score adjustment.

I'm saying that the NOS receive a worse table result than they would have without the initial MI, but there's an intermediate point at which they could have gotten an even better result if they had received the correct information. At that point, if they ask the opponents to repeat the MI, it would create a new infraction and the NOS would get an adjustment at that point to the best result.

[blackshoe]

sailoranch, on 2012-November-07, 20:02, said:

I'm saying that the NOS receive a worse table result than they would have without the initial MI, but there's an intermediate point at which they could have gotten an even better result if they had received the correct information. At that point, if they ask the opponents to repeat the MI, it would create a new infraction and the NOS would get an adjustment at that point to the best result.

Would it create a new infraction? I'm not so sure of that, but I don't think it matters much either. Your hypothetical situation seems extremely unlikely to me.

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-07, 21:45, said:

Would it create a new infraction? I'm not so sure of that, but I don't think it matters much either. Your hypothetical situation seems extremely unlikely to me.

It seems perfectly likely. A vulnerable South opens 1NT, West overcalls 2♣ alerted as showing hearts and another suit but meant as natural. North now bids 2♥ as Stayman for spades and, after East passes, South bids 2NT, which West passes and North raises to 3. Without the MI N-S would have played in 4♥ after a normal Stayman auction but this goes down one (-100) on the obvious ♣ lead and a ruff. 3NT would make on the normal line of play (+600) but goes down 2 (-200, table result) after playing West for heart length (ie related to the infraction).

The question is, are N-S entitled to 3NT= or do they have to be content with 4♥-1? That is, can they take the room contract with the infraction but the correct line of play without it (3NT= here), or do they have to take the expected contract regardless and the whole bidding based on the MI thrown out too (ie 4♥-1). Before this thread I thought that +600 would be awarded here but the comments here and a close reading of the Laws suggests that -100 is actually correct. Is it?

[lamford]

schulken, on 2012-November-06, 15:54, said:

E, having received an accurate explanation of transfer to ♣, may have taken advantage of the clearly artificial ♠ bid and doubled.

That is worse for the non-offenders, allowing North to bid again, so I think we allow the Pass, and then allow West to Pass.

[schulken]

Zelandakh, on 2012-November-08, 04:26, said:

It seems perfectly likely. A vulnerable South opens 1NT, West overcalls 2♣ alerted as showing hearts and another suit but meant as natural. North now bids 2♥ as Stayman for spades and, after East passes, South bids 2NT, which West passes and North raises to 3. Without the MI N-S would have played in 4♥ after a normal Stayman auction but this goes down one (-100) on the obvious ♣ lead and a ruff. 3NT would make on the normal line of play (+600) but goes down 2 (-200, table result) after playing West for heart length (ie related to the infraction).

The question is, are N-S entitled to 3NT= or do they have to be content with 4♥-1? That is, can they take the room contract with the infraction but the correct line of play without it (3NT= here), or do they have to take the expected contract regardless and the whole bidding based on the MI thrown out too (ie 4♥-1). Before this thread I thought that +600 would be awarded here but the comments here and a close reading of the Laws suggests that -100 is actually correct. Is it?

I don't see any adjustment. There is a mistaken call, but the declaring side has been given an accurate description of the defenders' agreement. If these types of :slips" occur frequently, they may become CPUs.

[Zelandakh]

schulken, on 2012-November-08, 08:33, said:

I don't see any adjustment. There is a mistaken call, but the declaring side has been given an accurate description of the defenders' agreement. If these types of :slips" occur frequently, they may become CPUs.

Sorry, I thought this was clear for there to be MI - the agreement is natural. East got confused because they play Asptro with another partner.

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2012-November-08, 04:26, said:

It seems perfectly likely. A vulnerable South opens 1NT, West overcalls 2♣ alerted as showing hearts and another suit but meant as natural. North now bids 2♥ as Stayman for spades and, after East passes, South bids 2NT, which West passes and North raises to 3. Without the MI N-S would have played in 4♥ after a normal Stayman auction but this goes down one (-100) on the obvious ♣ lead and a ruff. 3NT would make on the normal line of play (+600) but goes down 2 (-200, table result) after playing West for heart length (ie related to the infraction).

The question is, are N-S entitled to 3NT= or do they have to be content with 4♥-1? That is, can they take the room contract with the infraction but the correct line of play without it (3NT= here), or do they have to take the expected contract regardless and the whole bidding based on the MI thrown out too (ie 4♥-1). Before this thread I thought that +600 would be awarded here but the comments here and a close reading of the Laws suggests that -100 is actually correct. Is it?

Quote

Law 21B3: When it is too late to change a call and the Director judges that the offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity, he awards an adjusted score.

Quote

Law 12B:
1. The objective of a score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1(b) below.
2. The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

So what is the damage? It's the difference between the table result, and the expectation "had the infraction not occurred". If it had not, presumably North would have doubled to ask for majors. In that case, if I understand your scenario, they would probably end in 4♥. Suppose the jurisdiction is ACBL. If there is no possibility that they might have ended in 3NT, then the adjustment for NS is to 4♥-1. If 3NT is a "likely" contract, the adjustment for NS is to 3NT=. For the OS (EW), the adjustment would be to 4♥-1 in the first case, and to 3NT= if that contract is "at all probable". So you might end up with a split score. In the rest of the world, you might weight the scores, say 90% 4♥-1 and 10% 3NT=, for both sides.

The declarer may ask again for an explanation of 2♣ during the play, and he may get the same explanation he got originally. This makes no difference to the ruling.

[Zelandakh]

Thanks Andy. That confirms the reading of the rules is correct and you either get the table result or the full MI, without reference to any "intermediate steps". I believe this also fully answers sailoranch's query.

[sailoranch]

Zelandakh, on 2012-November-08, 09:11, said:

Thanks Andy. That confirms the reading of the rules is correct and you either get the table result or the full MI, without reference to any "intermediate steps". I believe this also fully answers sailoranch's query.

If so, it's a shameful thing, because it implies that the NOS, once misinformed, are no longer entitled to the correct explanation of the opponents' methods. Are we really saying that the obligation for disclosure (40B4 and 20F, I guess) just doesn't apply anymore, as long as you've already misled the opponents?

[blackshoe]

sailoranch, on 2012-November-08, 15:46, said:

If so, it's a shameful thing, because it implies that the NOS, once misinformed, are no longer entitled to the correct explanation of the opponents' methods. Are we really saying that the obligation for disclosure (40B4 and 20F, I guess) just doesn't apply anymore, as long as you've already misled the opponents?

Absolutely not. What makes you think so?