[dickiegera]

WE play flip flop and 2NT is a weak raise in diamonds. This was not alerted. South forgot. Marked weak on both cards, no questions asked. Before opening lead I North explained the failure to alert.

---

Director was called by East and we were told to play the board and he would look at the results afterwards.
On the spade lead made 2NT. If I would have taken finesse would have made 3.

The popular result was 4♠ 170 for E/W all tho the hand record says E/W should only make 3♠ 140

Director gave E/W an adjusted score of 170 to E/W.

Is this correct???

Thank you

[pran]

dickiegera, on 2017-September-26, 06:16, said:

WE play flip flop and 2NT is a weak raise in diamonds. This was not alerted. South forgot. Marked weak on both cards, no questions asked. Before opening lead I North explained the failure to alert.

---

Director was called by East and we were told to play the board and he would look at the results afterwards.
On the spade lead made 2NT. If I would have taken finesse would have made 3.

The popular result was 4♠ 170 for E/W all tho the hand record says E/W should only make 3♠ 140

Director gave E/W an adjusted score of 170 to E/W.

Is this correct???

Thank you

Impossible to say without knowing all four hands.

But failure to alert is by definition (and law) misinformation, and as it is too late for East to change his last call the Director's ruling to play on is correct.

The Director must then (after play is completed) assess a likely result with correct information on the 2NT bid and adjust the result accordingly if he judges that E/W was damaged.

An adjustment to 3Sp +1 doesn't seem incorrect here, but alternatives might be appropriate.

[Cyberyeti]

pran, on 2017-September-26, 06:30, said:

Impossible to say without knowing all four hands.

But failure to alert is by definition (and law) misinformation, and as it is too late for East to change his last call the Director's ruling to play on is correct.

Too late for E, but W should have been offered a chance

17D The auction period ends when, subsequent to the
end of the auction as in Law 22A, either defender
faces an opening lead.

21B 1. (a)
Until the end of the auction period (see Law 17D) 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.
Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation.

Before the opening lead would seem to be early enough unless ACBL doesn't use the new laws unadjusted.

Raises a question or two.

W exercises the right to change his bid, is his pass cancelled ? has he now called ? If it is cancelled, can E now say his partner hasn't called and have his bid back ?

Also what's the UI situation of W changing his call knowing E summoned the director and may have wanted to bid.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-September-26, 07:38, said:

Also what's the UI situation of W changing his call knowing E summoned the director and may have wanted to bid.

Interesting. We have (on whether the TD call is UI): "it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following) <snip>."

We also have (in B1): "Any extraneous information from partner that might suggest a call or play is unauthorized. This includes remarks, questions, <snip>"

All West can conclude here from the TD call is that his partner called the TD because of a failure to alert. It would quite wrong to only call the TD if East wanted West to now replace the final pass with a reopening double but not to call the TD otherwise. If East always calls the TD when there is failure to alert then there is no UI and this seems the best approach.

[pran]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-September-26, 07:38, said:

Too late for E, but W should have been offered a chance

17D The auction period ends when, subsequent to the
end of the auction as in Law 22A, either defender
faces an opening lead.

21B 1. (a)
Until the end of the auction period (see Law 17D) 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.
Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation.

Before the opening lead would seem to be early enough unless ACBL doesn't use the new laws unadjusted.

Raises a question or two.

W exercises the right to change his bid, is his pass cancelled ? has he now called ? If it is cancelled, can E now say his partner hasn't called and have his bid back ?

Also what's the UI situation of W changing his call knowing E summoned the director and may have wanted to bid.

Quite true, but I should strongly doubt that West (who presumably already has shown his strength) is in any position to reopen the auction at this point. An argument that East because of the misinformation has been unable to show whatever strength he might have is irrelevant, West must call on his own cards and what has been shown by his partner.

We need West's hand to judge on this, he needs an extraordinary hand to make another strong call here, and we should probably have to wait for the "post mortem" judgement.

[WellSpyder]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-September-26, 07:38, said:

Too late for E, but W should have been offered a chance

[....]

Raises a question or two.

W exercises the right to change his bid, is his pass cancelled ? has he now called ? If it is cancelled, can E now say his partner hasn't called and have his bid back ?

Also what's the UI situation of W changing his call knowing E summoned the director and may have wanted to bid.

I agree with the first part of this, but I don't think the questions you raise amount to much. The law talks about W changing his bid, not cancelling it. I think he has made a call until he changes it. Then he has made a different call. So at no stage can his partner legitimately claim that W hasn't made a call.

I don't think UI is a significant problem here, either. E summoned the TD following an irregularity, which is the right thing to do. (Indeed there was more than one irregularity, since N should have called the TD himself before providing the correct explanation.) I don't see how W can know anything about East's hand from the TD call, and neither do I think EW should suffer any UI constraints that arose directly from North's failure to call the TD before correcting the explanation.

[Cyberyeti]

The question I was really asking comes in 2 bits.

Is W allowed to draw his own conclusion via AI from E calling the TD, and blatantly use the info that E might have wanted to bid and thus take an otheriwse dubious action ?

If he can and it would have worked, can he claim an adjustment purely on the basis of director error if the director didn't give him his bid back and wasn't going to otherwise adjust ? (even if it was somewhere between not obvious and insane to take further action without the extra info)

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-September-26, 08:34, said:

The question I was really asking comes in 2 bits.

Is W allowed to draw his own conclusion via AI from E calling the TD, and blatantly use the info that E might have wanted to bid and thus take an otheriwse dubious action ?

If he can and it would have worked, can he claim an adjustment purely on the basis of director error if the director didn't give him his bid back and wasn't going to otherwise adjust ? (even if it was somewhere between not obvious and insane to take further action without the extra info)

West is allowed to draw an inference from the fact that East did not double 2NT but might well have doubled 2NT if it had been a weak raise. If his partner always calls the TD whether he wanted to bid or not, then there is no UI, otherwise, as you say, there is.

It is awkward for West. He does not know whether some number of diamonds will be better for the opponents than defending 2NT, but he should have been given the choice. The TD should poll half a dozen peers of West and ask what they do with all the AI, and without partner's TD call to confuse issues.

[barmar]

WellSpyder, on 2017-September-26, 08:21, said:

(Indeed there was more than one irregularity, since N should have called the TD himself before providing the correct explanation.)

Unfortunately, this is one of those requirements that's almost universally ignored. Players routinely just correct misinformation, and depend on the opponents to call the TD if they think it might make a difference.

However, I don't think West should infer anything from East calling the TD, except that East knows that the Laws say someone should. He might not necessarily have a hand that wanted to bid something, he may just know that his partner can change his call, and want to give him the opportunity. Or he might not know what the specific consequences are, and wants to make sure that the TD explains them.

I think West should make the normal call he would have made had the auction been the same except with the proper alert and explanation.

[pran]

barmar, on 2017-September-26, 10:31, said:

I think West should make the normal call he would have made had the auction been the same except with the proper alert and explanation.

That is the purpose of:

Law 21 B 1 {a} said:

[....] 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. Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation.

Just the fact that East called TD does not as such justify West changing his last call.

[steve2005]

pran, on 2017-September-26, 15:08, said:

That is the purpose of:

Just the fact that East called TD does not as such justify West changing his last call.

I don't get it. There was an irregularity. So you call the director or at least someone does. This hardly means they are sending information.

[mikestar13]

steve2005, on 2017-September-26, 20:23, said:

I don't get it. There was an irregularity. So you call the director or at least someone does. This hardly means they are sending information.

West shouldn't be trying to draw inferences like "East must have a good hand, if he had a poor hand he wouldn't call TD. So I should change my pass." This is a very different situation from "I passed because I thought 2NT was a good raise or perhaps a good balanced hand that didn't want to redouble. Had I known it was a weak raise, I'd have had an obvious bid/double"

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2017-September-26, 10:31, said:

Unfortunately, this is one of those requirements that's almost universally ignored. Players routinely just correct misinformation, and depend on the opponents to call the TD if they think it might make a difference.

That doesn't make it any less an infraction. I don't think a TD should ignore it just because "it's universally ignored" by players.

[pran]

steve2005, on 2017-September-26, 20:23, said:

I don't get it. There was an irregularity. So you call the director or at least someone does. This hardly means they are sending information.

Well, mikestart13 got it - and got it correct.

[sanst]

I think that the real question is whether the score awarded by the TD is right. He made a mistake by not offering W the opportunity to change his last call. From the AS it's clear that he assumed that EW would have ended in a spade contract, making 10 tricks. Therefore the score should have been 4♠=, as the majority of the pairs made. Now EW get a meager result, although they were disadvantaged by the failure to alert and the TD's fault, which is inot, as Law 12C1b states, as "nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the infraction not occurred".
Next time, please give all hands.

[lamford]

sanst, on 2017-September-27, 03:56, said:

I think that the real question is whether the score awarded by the TD is right. He made a mistake by not offering W the opportunity to change his last call. From the AS it's clear that he assumed that EW would have ended in a spade contract, making 10 tricks. Therefore the score should have been 4♠=, as the majority of the pairs made. Now EW get a meager result, although they were disadvantaged by the failure to alert and the TD's fault, which is inot, as Law 12C1b states, as "nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the infraction not occurred".
Next time, please give all hands.

The OP states: "The popular result was 4♠ 170 for E/W", which is ambiguous but 4S= looks too generous. I agree we should always have all the hands.