[pretender]

N-S play DONT

W opens 1NT, N forgets and misbids 2H (showing H+S) with a heart suit.
E asks, gets told by N he has hearts. E makes a negative double.
S asks, gets told E's X is negative. At this point, S has 4 spades and 2 hearts and passes the double.

Is there an infraction?

If this was at an open table, then there was clearly UI when N explained he had hearts.

But let's say there were screens/online, and E was the only one who got N's explanation.
1. Can S then claim that E's "negative double" explanation constituted enough AI for him to make a decision that partner had hearts?
2. Even if there was AI, was it derived from N's MI such that there is still an infraction?
3. How to rule overall?

[blackshoe]

O. Yes, there's an infraction. North's explanation to East is MI. It is possible that South's pass is evidence of a second infraction: a concealed partnership understanding. But at the moment the only evidence of this is the fact that South passed, and that's not enough. TD needs to ask some questions, but he should not ask them until the hand is over, because they will certainly compromise the rest of the auction and the play.
1. South can claim whatever he likes. However, I wonder how it is, behind screens, that North is explaining to East, and East is explaining to South. It seems pretty clear that either this happened on line, or it's hypothetical, or the information given is incorrect. IAC, the claimed argument does not convince me.
2. I know of no way that AI can be derived from MI in such a way that there's an infraction.
3. "Play it out, call me back after the hand if you feel you were damaged."

This is a judgement ruling. You do not make a judgement ruling without consulting with others (directors or players, as appropriate). Also, you do not make a judgement ruling involving a score adjustment until the hand is over. You can't, because you can't know whether there was damage until then.

[gnasher]

In summary, and disregarding the question of how we got here:
- North gave MI to East.
- North's explanation affected the meaning of East's call.
- East explained his own call to South.
- East's explanation of his own call gave South information about North's intended meaning.
- We want to know the status of this last piece of information.

That seems straightforward. The part of East's explanation that tells South about North's hand is UI, because it fails the test of Law 16A1:
1. A player may use information in the auction or play if:
a. it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source; or
b. it is authorized information from a withdrawn action (see D); or
c. it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following); or
d. it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information.

It doesn't derive from the "legal procedures authorized in these laws", because giving MI is a breach of those procedures.

[PhilKing]

East might make a negative double of a DONT 2♥ with 2245 2254 1354 1345 1444 etc, and the opener may have five hearts. South may as well saw his own legs off or chew them off with his weasel teeth.

[barmar]

The question seems to presume that in this context "negative double" means 3-suited, short in hearts; perhaps East actually explained it in more detail than stated in the OP. He seems to be using a specific scenario to raise a general question: if East's explanation of his bid implies a misexplanation from North to East, is South allowed to make that inference?

In another thread I mentioned "fruit of the poisonous tree" in jurisprudence. I think this is another case where it applies. East only made his bid because he was given MI from North.

[pretender]

As long as there is no concealed partnership agreement, it is not illegal to my knowledge to play for partner to have psyched or misbid.

To answer barmar, the description of the double was just "negative". If the player is going to take the risk that partner may have psyched or misbid, it's reasonable that the player also took it upon himself to interpret "negative" in a specific way.

In the end, I think the other posters are right in that East only made his bid and explanation because of the MI from North, and that should be the infraction. However, I'm also not sure it's addressed properly in the laws, even from gnasher's law 16A1. The deal was indeed played online, where the self-alerting came up. Perhaps new laws should be written to address specific issues that might arise from that?

Let's take this a step further with a couple hypothetical followups.

1. Actual table result. Let's say South decides he has AI enough to guess that partner has hearts and passes, resulting in 2HX.

2. Hypothetical result. Let's say East explained the double as "points". Without UI, South has no reason to do anything other than correct to spades, at which point the final contract will either be 2SX or 3HX.

Let's assume both 2SX or 3HX would be worse than 2HX. If, as some posters have determined, there was an infraction, would you rule that the table result of 2HX wouldn't stand and force N-S into one of the other results?

[Zelandakh]

 pretender, on 2013-May-03, 08:27, said:

As long as there is no concealed partnership agreement, it is not illegal to my knowledge to play for partner to have psyched or misbid.

If you play for your partner to have psyched without a good AI reason for this to be the case then you almost certainly do have a CPU. But Ed has already touched on this aspect.

[blackshoe]

There has been a murder. You are found near the victim with the victim's blood on your hands and clothes. Are you "almost certainly" the murderer, or does the legal system require more evidence than this?

If a player tells me that he did whatever he did because he believed his partner had psyched or misbid, I'll be asking him to explain why he believed that. I will not be assuming there is a CPU.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2013-May-03, 13:56, said:

There has been a murder. You are found near the victim with the victim's blood on your hands and clothes. Are you "almost certainly" the murderer, or does the legal system require more evidence than this?

If a player tells me that he did whatever he did because he believed his partner had psyched or misbid, I'll be asking him to explain why he believed that. I will not be assuming there is a CPU.

Unless he can (other than from past experience with this partner) show very good reason for such belief I would certainly rule concealed (implied) partnership understanding (Law 40C1: Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership’s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system.)

[blackshoe]

I'm aware of the law, Sven. Did you, when you gathered evidence, find that there were "repeated deviations"? No? Then how can this law apply?

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2013-May-03, 14:36, said:

I'm aware of the law, Sven. Did you, when you gathered evidence, find that there were "repeated deviations"? No? Then how can this law apply?

It Depends on what reason he gives for "fielding his partner's deviation from partnership understanding" and is (another) matter of TD judgement.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2013-May-03, 13:56, said:

There has been a murder. You are found near the victim with the victim's blood on your hands and clothes. Are you "almost certainly" the murderer, or does the legal system require more evidence than this?

If a player tells me that he did whatever he did because he believed his partner had psyched or misbid, I'll be asking him to explain why he believed that. I will not be assuming there is a CPU.

In the murder analogy, it's probably not sufficient for a conviction, but it may be probable cause for an arrest. In criminal law, conviction requires "proof beyond reasonable doubt"; the Laws of Duplicate Bridge contain no suggestion that such a high standard of proof is required for Director rulings. Considering the time available for making rulings, I don't even think the civil law standard "preponderance of the evidence" would apply. I think it's just "what the director thinks is likely".

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2013-May-04, 15:37, said:

Considering the time available for making rulings, I don't even think the civil law standard "preponderance of the evidence" would apply. I think it's just "what the director thinks is likely".

Quote

Law 85A1: In determining the facts, the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect.

Sure sounds like "preponderance of the evidence" to me.

[mr1303]

If this was EBU land, there's a good case for amber fielded misbid here surely?

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2013-May-04, 18:10, said:

Sure sounds like "preponderance of the evidence" to me.

OK, but there are practical limits to the amount of evidence you can gather and weight. You can't hold a trial and question lots of witnesses (e.g. past partners and opponents to determine the player's style and integrity).

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2013-May-05, 20:26, said:

OK, but there are practical limits to the amount of evidence you can gather and weight. You can't hold a trial and question lots of witnesses (e.g. past partners and opponents to determine the player's style and integrity).

Sure. The law refers to "the evidence he (the TD) can collect".

[Zelandakh]

There has been a murder. You are found in the victim's house next to the body with the victim's blood on your hands and clothes. The victim is a stranger to you (1). When asked, your reason for entering the house is that "the front door looked pretty" (2).

This is a better "murder" analogy. (1) and (2) are the equivalent of not having a good AI reason for the action. Note that for a CPU in this analogy to exist does not mean that we are the killer. There would also be concealment if we were having a relationship with the victim or were in the process of robbing the house. So which is more likely, given that we are healthy and sane - that we entered the house without reason and ended up in the incriminating circumstances, or that we had some other reason for entering the house? Of course, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt we will need a little bit more evidence, but that is not the standard required in bridge.