[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-06, 21:38, said:

lali said:

But does the TD have to right to ask to see cards for the sole purpose of deciding whether an op can make any call?

When a player has unauthorized information, he is constrained not to take advantage of it [Law 73C]. When the TD is called in a case where a player has UI from his partner, he is bound by the laws to tell the player in receipt of UI of this obligation, but he cannot tell the player what he can or cannot call.

Lali said "op" (short for opponent). The TD wasn't making a UI ruling, he was judging the reasonableness of the player's claim that he would have acted differently during the auction if given a correct explanation.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-October-07, 17:30, said:

Lali said "op" (short for opponent). The TD wasn't making a UI ruling, he was judging the reasonableness of the player's claim that he would have acted differently during the auction if given a correct explanation.

Okay, I think I get it now. There was a suggestion of misinformation via an incorrect explanation of the 3♥ bid. The suggestion was made by the bidding side, when the putative dummy correctly called the director after the final pass but before the opening lead was faced and explained that he believed his partner's explanation was incorrect. The TD apparently took this at face value, as we're told he did not look at anyone's system card. Did he ask putative declarer whether he agreed that he'd misexplained? I'll assume not, since we weren't told of it. "The opponent" spoke to the TD away from the table, claiming he would have "preempted 3♠" if given a correct explanation. I presume the opponent in question was putative declarer's RHO, as his claim doesn't make any sense otherwise. OTOH, as someone mentioned mentioned in the thread, 3♠ over 3♥ isn't much of a preempt. I would give more credence to "I would have bid 3♠ for the lead" but set that aside. The TD looked at this player's hand, told him he was out of his mind, and to go back and play out the deal.

The TD's first mistake seems to have been failure to investigate whether the explanation was in fact MI. If it wasn't MI, there was no infraction, and the TD would tell 'em to get on with the play. So let's assume there was MI. Law 21 says that the player of the NOS who was last to call may be given the opportunity to change that last call if "the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent". It looks to me like the TD, when he told the player that "no one would ever interfere with your hand" was in fact ruling that the criterion of Law 21 for a change of call has not been met. So now the TD tells him to go back and play the hand. As I've said before, the TD should not be looking at hands at this point, but other than that the ruling does not seem unreasonable.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-07, 19:15, said:

Okay, I think I get it now. There was a suggestion of misinformation via an incorrect explanation of the 3♥ bid. The suggestion was made by the bidding side, when the putative dummy correctly called the director after the final pass but before the opening lead was faced and explained that he believed his partner's explanation was incorrect. The TD apparently took this at face value, as we're told he did not look at anyone's system card. Did he ask putative declarer whether he agreed that he'd misexplained? I'll assume not, since we weren't told of it. "The opponent" spoke to the TD away from the table, claiming he would have "preempted 3♠" if given a correct explanation. I presume the opponent in question was putative declarer's RHO, as his claim doesn't make any sense otherwise. OTOH, as someone mentioned mentioned in the thread, 3♠ over 3♥ isn't much of a preempt. I would give more credence to "I would have bid 3♠ for the lead" but set that aside. The TD looked at this player's hand, told him he was out of his mind, and to go back and play out the deal.

The TD's first mistake seems to have been failure to investigate whether the explanation was in fact MI. If it wasn't MI, there was no infraction, and the TD would tell 'em to get on with the play. So let's assume there was MI. Law 21 says that the player of the NOS who was last to call may be given the opportunity to change that last call if "the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent". It looks to me like the TD, when he told the player that "no one would ever interfere with your hand" was in fact ruling that the criterion of Law 21 for a change of call has not been met. So now the TD tells him to go back and play the hand. As I've said before, the TD should not be looking at hands at this point, but other than that the ruling does not seem unreasonable.

I fully agree with blackshoe here, but I want to emphasize the fact that if declarer now knows that the Director has looked at RHO's hand and then ruled that there is no substance in his claim that he would have bid different given correct information during the auction then declarer (and also LHO) is in possession of UI because of this error by the director! The final result can very well become a Law 82C ruling.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2012-October-08, 00:52, said:

I fully agree with blackshoe here, but I want to emphasize the fact that if declarer now knows that the Director has looked at RHO's hand and then ruled that there is no substance in his claim that he would have bid different given correct information during the auction then declarer (and also LHO) is in possession of UI because of this error by the director! The final result can very well become a Law 82C ruling.

According to the OP, the conversation in which the TD said that took place away from the table, so unless his comment was repeated at the table, there's no problem. Of course, if the comment was so repeated, yes, 82C may come into play.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-08, 06:52, said:

According to the OP, the conversation in which the TD said that took place away from the table, so unless his comment was repeated at the table, there's no problem. Of course, if the comment was so repeated, yes, 82C may come into play.

The crucial question is whether TD away from the table may have given the player some instruction that probably depends on something TD learned about the player's hand. If so then the other players at the table know that the subsequent actions by that player quite likely is a consequence of what TD learned during that conversation in private.

This is the primary reason why I never care much about taking a player away from the table except for the purpose of allowing his partner to explain a call without him hearing that explanation.

Thus I never take a player away to hear for instance what he intended with a call (e.g. insufficient bid) before I make a ruling related to that call. In such cases I make sure the player(s) understand the relevant laws and that I may examine the situation afterwards to see if I approve of the selected action eventually taken at the table.

[aguahombre]

pran, on 2012-October-08, 08:13, said:

The crucial question is whether TD away from the table may have given the player some instruction that probably depends on something TD learned about the player's hand. If so then the other players at the table know that the subsequent actions by that player quite likely is a consequence of what TD learned during that conversation in private.

This is the primary reason why I never care much about taking a player away from the table except for the purpose of allowing his partner to explain a call without him hearing that explanation.

Thus I never take a player away to hear for instance what he intended with a call (e.g. insufficient bid) before I make a ruling related to that call. In such cases I make sure the player(s) understand the relevant laws and that I may examine the situation afterwards to see if I approve of the selected action eventually taken at the table.

That last paragraph, while intended to be another example on point, actually creates an off-topic issue. I agree that all players should remain at the table while we are determining whether an IB is intentional. But, after determining that the IB was not a finger-fumble and that the IB is not accepted we might need to talk to the offender away from the table about system to determine if we can allow his correction without restriction on his partner.

[pran]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-08, 08:37, said:

That last paragraph, while intended to be another example on point, actually creates an off-topic issue. I agree that all players should remain at the table while we are determining whether an IB is intentional. But, after determining that the IB was not a finger-fumble and that the IB is not accepted we might need to talk to the offender away from the table about system to determine if we can allow his correction without restriction on his partner.

You can make sure that he (and the other players) are aware of the conditions and then let him change his call at his own decision subject to a subsequent adjustment if you end up not accepting his reason for changing his call.

The moment you either accept or refuse to accept his desired change of call after hearing his reasons you reveal facts about his hand to the other players even if they have not heard what call the player wished to make.

My experience is that most times you do not need any such conversation with the player in order to make your ruling.

[aguahombre]

pran, on 2012-October-08, 09:44, said:

The moment you either accept or refuse to accept his desired change of call after hearing his reasons you reveal facts about his hand to the other players even if they have not heard what call the player wished to make.

I disagree. You might be revealing facts about their system, which are AI to both sides. But, You are not revealing what the offender wants to bid. Back at the table, you either allow the substituted call per 27B1(b) or you don't. If you don't, the offender's partner will be barred; if you do, there is no inappropriate leakage and it is the offender himself who reveals the call he wishes to make by making the call.

Either way, the TD has solved a problem rather than creating one by taking the offender away from the table.

[jeffford76]

Whether or not you agree with it, it is standard procedure in the ACBL when misinformation is given for the director to talk to both players on the other side to ask them what they might have done on earlier rounds with correct information. The idea is to get a feel for what would have likely happened if correct information had been given at the time, and to do so before they know how the hand plays out and know what the right answer is.

That said, all that should happen at that point is to listen to the player, and send them back to play the hand. There is absolutely no purpose in the director giving an opinion on the merit of the proposed change.

[blackshoe]

The question the TD needs to answer for himself is whether the call the player already made "could well have been influenced" by MI. If so, the player may change his call. If not, he may not. So the further question is can the TD determine that without looking at the player's hand? I think he can — the answer depends on the nature of the MI, rather than the player's actual holding. In this case, for example, the information that 3♥ also showed ♠ might well deter a player from bidding ♠ himself. However, that doesn't matter at this point. The only call that can be changed is opener's RHO's last pass, and that only if the pass was deemed to have been influenced by the MI. Also, the explanation is UI to the 3♥ bidder, so the TD needs to consider whether he had a LA to 5♦ (assuming he bids it on the new auction). That depends on what he has in his hand, but of course the TD will not look at that until after the play is concluded.

IMO the facts are these:

1. Opener explained his partner's 3♥ call as showing hearts and spades.
2. Responder, at the end of the auction, and before the opening lead was faced (or chosen?) called the director and informed him and the players that in his opinion the bid showed both minors and spade shortness.
3. Opener's RHO averred that he would have made a different call had he had the correct information.

Opinions:

1. Opener's RHO's last pass is unlikely to have been influenced by the MI. It's more likely to have been influenced by the fact the auction is at the six level.
2. Responder has UI from his partner's (mis)explanation.
3. Responder's correction of opener's MI is AI to opener. In the play, this won't matter unless the opening side become defenders (which I consider unlikely).

Relevant Laws:

Quote

21B1{a}: Until the end of the auction period and provided that his partner has not subsequently called, a player may change a call without other rectification for his side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent (see Law 17E). Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation.

Quote

16B1:
(a) After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.
(b) 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.

Quote

16B3: When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director when play ends. The Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender.

Quote

73C: When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information.

My ruling: "Opener's RHO may change his final pass if he so desires. If he does, the auction proceeds normally from that point, but the responder should keep in mind his obligation not to take advantage of any inference from partner's misexplanation. After the auction is over, play shall proceed normally, with the same caveat to the responder during the play. If, after the play, the other side considers that either player of the opening side has taken advantage of UI, call me back".

I think I've got it straight - and now I have to go.