[RMB1]

RMB1, on 2011-June-29, 16:46, said:

A similar problem was doing the rounds at the level of WBF LC a year or so ago (I hope I get his right).

South is dealer and opens 2♥ and is raised to 4♥. 2♥ is weak (in fact and by agreement) but when asked (before the opening lead) North says it is strong. West did not double the final contract, and would not double if 2♥ was weak (or if it was strong) and North knew this when he bid 4♥. But West would double if 2♥ was weak and North thought it was strong when he bid 4♥. 4♥ will not make.

Two questions:

• South corrects the explanation before the opening lead, is West allowed to change his final Pass to Double?
  
• South does not correct the explanation before the opening lead, but the corrrect explanation comes to light at the end of the hand. Are East/West entitled to an adjustment on the basis that had South corrected at the right time, West would have changed his final Pass to Double?

joostb1, on 2011-June-30, 13:06, said:

The matter was discussed in Sao Paulo in September 2009 (WBF LC minute Brazil 2009 - 1 and WBF LC minute Brazil 2009 - 2) and after a lengthy discussion it was determined:
" a) that Law 21B1 applies in respect of a call that has been made; the Director is required to judge whether the call “could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player”. Unless he judges that in possession of the correct information (only) the player could well have made a different call no change of call under Law 21B1 is allowed nor is an adjusted score under Law 21B3.
(b) that when under Law 20F4 an explanation is corrected before the auction has closed the Director is pointed to Law 21B. This law does not indicate how the Director should then proceed* but it was agreed that the player may use both the misexplanation and the correct information.
[*Secretary’s note: in these circumstances a 1998 minute indicates that the Regulating Authority may give guidance.]"

As far as I can see, this means that if South corrects when he is supposed to, and West has a chance to change his final Pass, then West can use the extra information that North thought 2♥ was strong when he bid 4♥. But if South does not correct when he is supposed to, West will not get an adjusted score on that basis that he would use the correct information and the extra information. This does not seem a great incentive for South to correct when he is supposed to.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps not, but if South needs an incentive, perhaps directors should be more willing to apply procedural penalties. The law does, after all, say that he "must" correct the explanation, and also that when a player fails to do something he "must" do, that is "a serious matter indeed" - more serious than failure to do what he "shall" do, which "will incur a procedural penalty more often than not".

[gordontd]

RMB1, on 2011-June-30, 16:06, said:

As far as I can see, this means that if South corrects when he is supposed to, and West has a chance to change his final Pass, then West can use the extra information that North thought 2♥ was strong when he bid 4♥. But if South does not correct when he is supposed to, West will not get an adjusted score on that basis that he would use the correct information and the extra information. This does not seem a great incentive for South to correct when he is supposed to.

That's my understanding of it too - Max Bavin gave a paper at San Remo on this topic last year.

[mrdct]

RMB1, on 2011-June-30, 16:06, said:

A similar problem was doing the rounds at the level of WBF LC a year or so ago (I hope I get his right).

South is dealer and opens 2♥ and is raised to 4♥. 2♥ is weak (in fact and by agreement) but when asked (before the opening lead) North says it is strong. West did not double the final contract, and would not double if 2♥ was weak (or if it was strong) and North knew this when he bid 4♥. But West would double if 2♥ was weak and North thought it was strong when he bid 4♥. 4♥ will not make.

Two questions:

• South corrects the explanation before the opening lead, is West allowed to change his final Pass to Double?
  
• South does not correct the explanation before the opening lead, but the corrrect explanation comes to light at the end of the hand. Are East/West entitled to an adjustment on the basis that had South corrected at the right time, West would have changed his final Pass to Double?

On these facts South certainly has an obligation to correct the misexplanation immediately, but I don't see how that would give West the opportunity to wind-back his final pass and replace it with a double as his final pass wasn't influenced in any way by a mis/non-alert or misexplanation. The fact that North bid 4♥ apparently thinking that South was strong is AI to West which may influence his opening lead selection. Accordingly, 1 = no; 2 = only to the extent to which a superior defence may have been found if South had corrected North's misexplanation.

[jallerton]

RMB1, on 2011-June-30, 16:06, said:

As far as I can see, this means that if South corrects when he is supposed to, and West has a chance to change his final Pass, then West can use the extra information that North thought 2♥ was strong when he bid 4♥. But if South does not correct when he is supposed to, West will not get an adjusted score on that basis that he would use the correct information and the extra information. This does not seem a great incentive for South to correct when he is supposed to.

gordontd, on 2011-June-30, 16:31, said:

That's my understanding of it too - Max Bavin gave a paper at San Remo on this topic last year.

In the scenario Robin cites, a player has breached Law 20F5[b]. As the player has gained an advantage through failing to comply with Law 20F5[b], why can't the TD use Law 12A1 and Law 12C to adjust for this infraction?

I do find the wording of a lot of these WBFLC minutes surprising.

Quote

The matter was discussed in Sao Paulo in September 2009 (WBF LC minute Brazil 2009 - 1 and WBF LC minute Brazil 2009 - 2) and after a lengthy discussion it was determined:
" a) that Law 21B1 applies in respect of a call that has been made; the Director is required to judge whether the call “could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player”. Unless he judges that in possession of the correct information (only) the player could well have made a different call no change of call under Law 21B1 is allowed nor is an adjusted score under Law 21B3.
(b) that when under Law 20F4 an explanation is corrected before the auction has closed the Director is pointed to Law 21B. This law does not indicate how the Director should then proceed* but it was agreed that the player may use both the misexplanation and the correct information.
[*Secretary’s note: in these circumstances a 1998 minute indicates that the Regulating Authority may give guidance.]"

Law 21B [in subsection 1(a)] advises that the TD should only allow a change of call when he judges that "the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given by an opponent". As we must follow the Laws, I agree with mrdct's observations.

Also, whilst Law 20F4 does point to Law 21B but it equally points to Law 40B4:

Law 20F4 said:

4. A side that is damaged as a consequence of its opponents’ failure to provide disclosure of the meaning of a call or play as these laws require, is entitled to rectification through the award of an adjusted score.

[dburn]

Assume screens as currently arranged: West (and South) would have no idea that North thought 2♥ was strong, and West would not have changed his call. Is the notion that, upon finding out that North had told East that 2♥ was strong, West could double the final contract?

Assume the Kaplan Paradigm: East-West are entitled to knowledge of the North-South methods, and to nothing else. If the North-South methods are (demonstrably) that 2♥ is weak, that is all West is allowed to know. He would not have doubled given that knowledge; how can he double now?

Moreover, under the Kaplan Paradigm I don't agree with mrdct at all: West would not know that North thought that 2♥ was strong, and cannot claim redress on the grounds that had he known this, he would defend differently. After all, had he known this (while also knowing that South knew that 2♥ was weak), West would bid differently; if we don't allow him to do the latter, on what basis do we allow him to do the former?

Of course, the Kaplan Paradigm (despite being the only logical possibility according to Law 40 and the only desirable possibility according to common sense) is not fully capable of implementation in practice. It implies that whereas it is OK for people to deviate from their system (whether deliberately or accidentally as long as no prior partnership understanding is involved), it is not OK for the opponents to acquire in any way the knowledge that this deviation has taken place. But as a practical matter, especially without screens, sometimes the opponents are legally mandated to alert or explain or answer questions in a way that informs of the existence of a cock-up. And such information may be, per the Laws, authorised to those opponents.

For myself, I would greatly prefer that the "principle of full disclosure" was always considered to conform to the Kaplan Paradigm: the opponents are entitled to know what methods you play, and they are not entitled to know that either of you has departed from those methods in some impromptu fashion, as long as that fashion is truly impromptu. But I would also prefer that a player may if he wishes consult the IMP scale during the auction. The WBFLC has a different view from mine in both cases. Either it is mad or I am, but in keeping with its view of full disclosure I will not at present opine which.

[gordontd]

The problem is that if a pair corrects their misinformation in time, and it reveals a misunderstanding, their opponents are allowed to use that knowledge of the misunderstanding - in this case to double.

On the other hand, if the pair fails to correct the misinformation, knowledge of the misunderstanding will not a part of any adjusted score.

Thus as things stand players might well gain from failing in their duty to correct misinformation.

[jallerton]

gordontd, on 2011-July-02, 02:18, said:

On the other hand, if the pair fails to correct the misinformation, knowledge of the misunderstanding will not a part of any adjusted score.

Thus as things stand players might well gain from failing in their duty to correct misinformation.

There have been two infractions here:

1. The original misinformation.

2. The failure to correct the explanation as required by Law 20F5.

Although knowledge of the misunderstanding may not form part of any adjusted score in relation to the first infraction, why do you think this knowledge cannot be taken into account when assessing rectification for the second infraction?

[iviehoff]

jallerton, on 2011-July-04, 16:08, said:

There have been two infractions here:

1. The original misinformation.

2. The failure to correct the explanation as required by Law 20F5.

Although knowledge of the misunderstanding may not form part of any adjusted score in relation to the first infraction, why do you think this knowledge cannot be taken into account when assessing rectification for the second infraction?

Rectification of the second infraction would appear to fall under Law 23. Looks fairly clear to me. Not a MI case at all.

The game with screens is simply different. You can't correct your partner's misexplanation. So the opposition can no longer see that there might have been a misunderstanding/misbid, and take advantage of that. But without the ability to correct the explanation, the risk of a MI adjustment is larger. On balance, on average, I would think it is better to be able to correct partner's misexplanations, even though it won't always remove all the MI damage. Sight of the misunderstanding is a mixed blessing to the NOS. They often can't really be sure whether it is a misbid or a misexplanation, and take any action at their own risk.

[jh51]

So that I might understand this better:

It would seem to me that when playing with screens, MI might not come to light until the play of the hand is done. Assume East and North are on the same side of the screen, and North mis-informs East about a bid by South. If North becomes dummy, he might not become aware that his explanation and the correct explanation are different until play reveals this.

Thus it might not be possible to correct MI at the time that it should be done without screens. In my example, North might be convinced that his explanation was correct and that South did not have his bid.

Am I correct on this?

[FrancesHinden]

jh51, on 2011-July-05, 14:49, said:

So that I might understand this better:

It would seem to me that when playing with screens, MI might not come to light until the play of the hand is done. Assume East and North are on the same side of the screen, and North mis-informs East about a bid by South. If North becomes dummy, he might not become aware that his explanation and the correct explanation are different until play reveals this.

Thus it might not be possible to correct MI at the time that it should be done without screens. In my example, North might be convinced that his explanation was correct and that South did not have his bid.

Am I correct on this?

Yes. Requests for MI rulings can come quite late in matches with screens because you don't always find out about the MI until you see the hand records/discuss with partner at the end of the set.

[bluejak]

dburn, on 2011-July-01, 21:23, said:

Of course, the Kaplan Paradigm (despite being the only logical possibility according to Law 40 and the only desirable possibility according to common sense) is not fully capable of implementation in practice. It implies that whereas it is OK for people to deviate from their system (whether deliberately or accidentally as long as no prior partnership understanding is involved), it is not OK for the opponents to acquire in any way the knowledge that this deviation has taken place. But as a practical matter, especially without screens, sometimes the opponents are legally mandated to alert or explain or answer questions in a way that informs of the existence of a cock-up. And such information may be, per the Laws, authorised to those opponents.

I thought that the Kaplan Paradigm applied when ruling, but that does not mean players are not allowed to find out and use the fact that opponents do not know what they are doing, just that adjustments are not based on such knowledge.