[jillybean]

---

Before passing, South asked What is 3♥? East replied, Intermediate Jump Overcall


After the final pass, West advised there had been Misinformation, 3♥ is just a garbage bid, no agreement. Director was called.
We were told to play the hand and call back if there was any damage.

Result 4♥-2, Director called back, N/S claim they were damaged, how do you rule?

[blackshoe]

Okay NS, exactly how were you damaged?

[jillybean]

South, given the right information I'm going to take some action over 4H; bid 4S or double.

West, If you bid 4S, I will bid 5H

[Cyberyeti]

jillybean, on 2023-February-09, 04:32, said:

South, given the right information I'm going to take some action over 4H; bid 4S or double.

West, If you bid 4S, I will bid 5H

I think double is most likely and until W's ill judged comment, that would be the limit of the possible damage as 4♠ doesn't make on the obvious lead.

I probably adjust to 4♥x-2

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2023-February-09, 04:32, said:

South, given the right information I'm going to take some action over 4H; bid 4S or double.

West, If you bid 4S, I will bid 5H

I am inclined to take both at their word and award a solomonic 50% split between 4♥x-2 and 5♥x-3.

[sanst]

It looks like the director made a mistake. N should have been given the opportunity to change his or her call.
West’s explanation is, to say the least, ambiguous. If there’s no agreement, explicit or implicit, it’s up the the opponents and partner to figure out what the hand might be. If there’s some form of agreement, e.g. ‘garbage’, say so and don’t claim that there’s no agreement. The TD should figure out what it is, garbage or no agreement. If this is a regular pair, it’s less likely that there really is no (implicit) agreement.
Maybe a poll would have made clear what players of the same ability would have chosen. I don’t blame S for not doubling 4♥, but it would not have been my choice to pass. As pescetom wrote, a solomonic decision is called for, but I would also take 4♥-2, the table result, into account.

[jillybean]

If North is given the opportunity to change their final pass, are comments made by South after the correction of wrong explanation AI?
It is South who first bid after the MI and would have acted differently, why is the bidding not rolled back to South?

[barmar]

sanst, on 2023-February-09, 08:07, said:

It looks like the director made a mistake. N should have been given the opportunity to change his or her call.

This is not true.

Law 21B1 says that a player may only change a call that was based on MI if their partner has not subsequently called. So we can only back up to the last call by the NOS. In this case, this is S's final pass.

[axman]

jillybean, on 2023-February-09, 11:13, said:

If North is given the opportunity to change their final pass, are comments made by South after the correction of wrong explanation AI?
It is South who first bid after the MI and would have acted differently, why is the bidding not rolled back to South?

This is my reason:

When a player is misinformed it is akin to improper deception. The damage being that he was influenced to not do what he would have done (distinct from what he might have) or to do what he would not have done. The remedy of do over is an attempt to fight it out at the table on as level as practical playing field.

Practically, going back more than one turn disturbs** the playing field beyond repair. In many cases MI is immaterial to one or both players and the TD can inquire both before rolling back to that turn as to what the turns would have been for the purpose of ascertaining damage (should the do over not save the comparison) while minimizing contamination.

** the information from rolling back two turns puts the player with the earlier turn in the position of knowing information from partner that he would not have without the remedy. This imbalance of turns destroys the justice that comes from the practice of alternating turns. Thus, rolling back more than one turn is irreparable.

[jillybean]

Both pairs are regular partnerships.
South was not given the option to take back their pass.

[jillybean]

axman, on 2023-February-09, 11:51, said:

This is my reason:

When a player is misinformed it is akin to improper deception. The damage being that he was influenced to not do what he would have done (distinct from what he might have) or to do what he would not have done. The remedy of do over is an attempt to fight it out at the table on as level as practical playing field.

Practically, going back more than one turn disturbs** the playing field beyond repair. In many cases MI is immaterial to one or both players and the TD can inquire both before rolling back to that turn as to what the turns would have been for the purpose of ascertaining damage (should the do over not save the comparison) while minimizing contamination.

** the information from rolling back two turns puts the player with the earlier turn in the position of knowing information from partner that he would not have without the remedy. This imbalance of turns destroys the justice that comes from the practice of alternating turns. Thus, rolling back more than one turn is irreparable.

Thanks. So is it accurate to say, in cases of MI and failure to alert, both of which are generally not disclosed until the end of the auction, or completion of the board, rolling back the auction to the non offenders final pass may not be sufficient to restore equity?

[axman]

jillybean, on 2023-February-10, 12:52, said:

Thanks. So is it accurate to say, in cases of MI and failure to alert, both of which are generally not disclosed until the end of the auction, or completion of the board, rolling back the auction to the non offenders final pass may not be sufficient to restore equity?

The closest that the law gets to defining equity is L70BCDE the predicate being L70A. The law does not define damage. So your query does not have meaning. Anyway, it would not be incorrect to say that infractions can give the other side a leg up. As for justice...

[barmar]

jillybean, on 2023-February-10, 12:52, said:

Thanks. So is it accurate to say, in cases of MI and failure to alert, both of which are generally not disclosed until the end of the auction, or completion of the board, rolling back the auction to the non offenders final pass may not be sufficient to restore equity?

I think this is a reasonable conclusion.

Which is why the Laws allow the TD to assign a result if the proscribed rectification is not sufficient. They have to judge what the likely result would have been absent the irregularity.

But there are also many cases where there's no damage at all. If the NOS wasn't bidding, the MI during the auction probably had little impact. If they're given the correct information at the end of the auction, it shouldn't impact their defense. The MI will mainly affect the auction if it was competitive, or if a player might have doubled an artificial bid for the lead and lost this opportunity due to the MI.

[paulg]

jillybean, on 2023-February-10, 12:52, said:

Thanks. So is it accurate to say, in cases of MI and failure to alert, both of which are generally not disclosed until the end of the auction, or completion of the board, rolling back the auction to the non offenders final pass may not be sufficient to restore equity?

This is similar to the revoke law, where the prescribed penalty may not restore equity and the TD is empowered to do that.

[jillybean]

paulg, on 2023-February-14, 02:36, said:

This is similar to the revoke law, where the prescribed penalty may not restore equity and the TD is empowered to do that.

Yes, but not at "my club". Perhaps this is where we could use a simplified set of laws for games vs. top flight events.

I was under the impression the revoke law was 1 or 2 tricks back to the non offenders, which at times does not seem to restore equity as the board had been fouled by the revoke. I see now that 64C does address that.


C. Redress of Damage 1. When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to trick adjustment, the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2023-February-14, 14:51, said:

Yes, but not at "my club". Perhaps this is where we could use a simplified set of laws for games vs. top flight events.

I was under the impression the revoke law was 1 or 2 tricks back to the non offenders, which at times does not seem to restore equity as the board had been fouled by the revoke. I see now that 64C does address that.


C. Redress of Damage 1. When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to trick adjustment, the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score.

In it's way this *is* a simplification for at the club: the Director can hide behind an adjusted score if he isn't really sure how to apply the law in the first place