[WellSpyder]

pran, on 2011-June-09, 02:29, said:

My own practice is to ask (when MI is first revealed) if any of the NOS players would have done anything different with correct information.

But aren't you then creating potentially awkward UI problems for the NOS? What happens if one of the OS then claims that a NOS player only made the bid he did because of something he learned about what his partner wanted to do but wasn't allowed to do?

[pran]

WellSpyder, on 2011-June-09, 03:11, said:

But aren't you then creating potentially awkward UI problems for the NOS? What happens if one of the OS then claims that a NOS player only made the bid he did because of something he learned about what his partner wanted to do but wasn't allowed to do?

Did I imply that partner would learn anything? The players learn that I ask, but they do not learn the answers.

[VixTD]

The danger of creating UI is one problem, but just let me try another tack for a moment. Players are not always certain of what they would have done had the auction taken a different turn, and whether or not they're certain the director doesn't always agree with them. Suppose the auction goes:

.1NT....X....3♣...P
.3NT....P.....P....P

The player in the passout seat, when told that 3♣ was misexplained, thinks, "well, I would have bid 3♦ a round earlier, but now the auction has reached 3NT I can't let them play there undoubled", what do you expect her to do? Pass 3NT and stake everything on the director believing she would have bid 3♦? Suppose the director decides that she (her peers) would bid 3♦ only some of the time, and pass the rest? Is she supposed to accept some of the score for 3NT undoubled, or say afterwards to the director "well if you're not going to let me bid 3♦ of course I would have doubled 3NT"?

If she didn't double 3NT when she had the chance, she's in a weaker position to claim now that she would have done. She should make her best judgement in the situation she finds herself in. If that situation changes she has to change her judgement. Of course the director will look carefully to see if her claims are plausible, and take any necessary action if they might be wild or gambling double-shots, but that's common to most MI situations.

[WellSpyder]

pran, on 2011-June-09, 05:47, said:

Did I imply that partner would learn anything? The players learn that I ask, but they do not learn the answers.

So is your advice to talk to each member of the NOS away from the table? I seem to remember asking a while ago in this thread about whether it was normal to talk to the players away from the table in a case about MI, but I don't recall seeing a response to this - my apologies if I missed it.

[bluejak]

I think discussing what you would do in potential situations during the hand is very unfair on all four players at the table, unnecessarily disrupting play, and pretty unhelpful. I strongly advise against it. Fortunately I know of no TD [ok, one!] who does it.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-June-09, 18:33, said:

I think discussing what you would do in potential situations during the hand is very unfair on all four players at the table, unnecessarily disrupting play, and pretty unhelpful. I strongly advise against it. Fortunately I know of no TD [ok, one!] who does it.

Play has already been disrupted by the irregularity, the objective is to get it back on tracks as quick and fair as possible. Just establishing at this time that a player is unhappy with his call in view of the misinformation doesn't mean much additional delay.

How do you apply Law 21B1{a} "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" without asking some questions? Because the player states so at the time without knowing for sure whether the change of call will be fortunate or not - right?

How do you apply Law 21B3 "and the Director judges that the offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity" to ascertain that the player's call which it was too late to change really (likely) was influenced by the misinformation and not just a post mortem analysis claim?

[bluejak]

You judge Law 21B1A by asking as few questions as possible, primarily relying on the player's honesty and the fact that you can check it afterwards.

Of course post mortem analysis comes into every judgement ruling. That is no excuse for messing the game up for players. You just have to use your judgement afterwards.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-June-10, 06:58, said:

You judge Law 21B1A by asking as few questions as possible, primarily relying on the player's honesty and the fact that you can check it afterwards.

Precisely.

bluejak, on 2011-June-10, 06:58, said:

Of course post mortem analysis comes into every judgement ruling. That is no excuse for messing the game up for players. You just have to use your judgement afterwards.

And the post mortem claim carries far less weight in itself than when indicated at the critical moment. I don't discard a post mortem claim but take the less weight into consideration when judging it.

So where do we disagree?

[bluejak]

I follow normal procedures which involve disrupting play as little as possible and allowing all possibilities to be considered at the end in judgement cases.

You disrupt play as much as possible so as to hold some poor non-offending player to an opinion that should not be binding on him anyway.

We are not close.