[gnasher]

Sorry about the theoretical phrasing of this question. It does relate to a situation that actually occurred, but I don't want to cloud things by including the actual hand.

East has UI. The UI suggests 3♦ over other alternatives. He bids 3♦.

After the hand, he tells you that his hand was missorted. You believe him. With the hand he thought he had, 3♦ would have been the only legal action.

Should you adjust the score?

[FrancesHinden]

Not if you believe him, but that's quite a big 'if'. I've heard the excuse 'sorry I missorted my hand' so often to explain one of partner's absurdities and I usually don't believe it.

[whereagles]

Andy, the framework you present us is somewhat rethorical If you believe the guy, result stands is the only "logical alternative".

Of course, Frances' doubts are quite pertinent.

[chrism]

In general, the Laws don't require that we look into a players mind. In this case, looking at 16B1b:
A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it
do we add an implicit "and holding the same cards" or "and holding the cards the player thinks that he holds"? I think the latter is a very dangerous interpretation, since it requires the TD or committee to believe or disbelieve a player's assertion about their state of mind every time they claim a mis-sort - and making this interpretation explicit would open the door to many more claims like that.
A revoke does not become exempt from the provisions of the law because a player missorted his hand; in the same way, I think that without explicit words to the contrary, Law 16B1b applies to the cards actually held - and the "class of players" should not be restricted to habitual missorters, nor should the "methods of the partnership" include a propensity for missorting.

Your decision not to include the hand exemplifies the problem - how would a TD poll this? Give a player the actual hand, or give the hand that the TD believes the original player thought he had? Or present an actual hand of cards missorted the same way and see if the pollee notices they are missorted?

Without UI, the consequences of missorting are rub of the green, just as without UI a player is free to make tactical bids, take unusual views, etc. Once there is UI, the options are constrained, and in this instance I believe they are constrained to the LAs for the cards actually held, though that is not explicitly spelled out in any law that I can see. I would apply that interpretation even if the player produced evidence, e.g. from a kibitzer or a video camera that the hand was indeed missorted.

[Cyberyeti]

FrancesHinden, on 2014-June-15, 02:25, said:

Not if you believe him, but that's quite a big 'if'. I've heard the excuse 'sorry I missorted my hand' so often to explain one of partner's absurdities and I usually don't believe it.

Neither do I, but it has happened genuinely to me once, I opened 1N on a 4234 hand, partner transferred to spades and at that point I realised both black suits were the same shape and weren't spades.

[campboy]

I suppose the question is whether we consider the "class of player involved" to be players that have made the same mistake. We do when the player has forgotten his system, so for consistency we should do so here too.

However, this concerns me from a fairness point of view. Suppose that the situation was the other way around -- pass is only an LA with the mis-sorted hand. Now, following the same principle, we should adjust the score, because pass was an LA for the class of player involved. But in practice we won't be able to, because we won't know about the mis-sort; it is not in the player's interest to mention it.

[Mbodell]

I caught my missort in an interesting way yesterday. I held a 3=5=2=3 hand with the only points the KQJTx of hearts. My LHO openend 1♦ and partner overcalled 1♠ and RHO passed. I was trying to figure out with my weak hand should I just simple raise or with such a good heart suit should I show hearts. I decided I'd check to see how good my spots were in the other suits and noticed that while I had 97x of spades and 9x of diamonds I also seemed to have T8x of spades. I decided a fit jump with 5 heats and 6 card spade support wasn't quite right so just bid 4♠ which made. My RHO had an 8 card club suit and they were cold for 5♣ but they never managed to bid it.

[Zelandakh]

Surely the mis-sort is a reason not to give a PP rather than a reason to allow the 3♦ call without adjustment? The LAs from a poll of peers have not changed because of the mis-sort and there is nothing in the rules to say that the LAs should be formed based upon what the player thinks they should be.

[fbuijsen]

I am a bit surprised by the idea that "result stands" is considered as an option.

The factual situation is quite clear: There is UI, and it suggests bidding 3♦ over other alternatives. So when the director has to judge the situation, that is sufficient reason to adjust the score.
I don't see how the reason why the offender chose the 3♦ bid is at all relevant. Whether he missorted his hand, or whether he genuinely considered 3♦ to be the only LA, or whether he just doesn't understand the situation, it's all irrelevant.
Given the laws, the director has tro adjust because he gained an advantage (presumably) by choosing the LA that was suggested by the UI.

I would probably refrain from giving a PP for the offense (even if I otherwise would have) if I believe the player's given reason for choosing the 3♦ bid.

[helene_t]

campboy, on 2014-June-15, 05:12, said:

Suppose that the situation was the other way around -- pass is only an LA with the mis-sorted hand. Now, following the same principle, we should adjust the score, because pass was an LA for the class of player involved. But in practice we won't be able to, because we won't know about the mis-sort; it is not in the player's interest to mention it.

This is a problem but it relates to a different situation.

Here, the player did what was ethical given the information he had. To me it seems obvious that Frances is right.

[mycroft]

I think the person (assuming they're not trying to pull one) is perfectly ethical, and about to get a ruling not in his favour. If that's the biggest bad/unlucky ruling he's involved in, or I'm involved in, I'll be surprised.

Cookie, Crumbles, That's. I will probably be empathetic, but will likely pull out the Probst Cheat.

[weejonnie]

I can't imagine 3♦ would be allowed - the TD will do a poll on the hand that is not mis-sorted, not one that is. Would 21A apply (A player has no recourse if he makes a call on his own misunderstanding?)

[Cyberyeti]

There is one circumstance where I think you might allow the 3♦, if he's made a previous bid much more consistent with the missort than the actual hand. At that point I think you look at whether there is any LA with the hand he thought he held. eg the hand is 3343, the guy thinks it's 3163 and opens 1♦ when it's in his 1N range then bids 3♦.