[RMB1]

pran, on 2013-May-24, 13:13, said:

Hasn't anybody grasped the significance in that if North had the correct information on the 3♦ bid (by East) that information must have been given by West?

As others have pointed out, North being correctly informed does not mean West correctly informed him. This is certainly not the assumption when we rule.

But even in real life, North may be corrected informed:

• He might have read the E/W convention card.
  
• He might ask West, after West's pass, and West may now remember and give the correct alert/explanation.

[pran]

lamford, on 2013-May-24, 13:26, said:

pran, on 2013-May-24, 13:13, said:

Hasn't anybody grasped the significance in that if North had the correct information on the 3♦ bid (by East) that information must have been given by West?

No, because that is not the way to rule, and I am surprised that as experienced a TD as you should make this mistake. We assume that West gives the correct information to North, but continues to act on his mistaken belief that 3D is weak with diamonds. Alternatively we could assume that North has access to all the EW system notes, and we can also assume that for South, so both will pass out 3D undoubled if it is in their interest to do so. On this occasion they can make 4H, so they may not.

But I agree that 3Dx is not a plausible score, as East will just assume that Pass of the double is either encouraging or discouraging, and will bid 3S.

Law 12B1 said:

The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1(b).

(My Enhancement)

North could of course have obtained the correct information in several ways but he didn't.

He was damaged because of the infraction that West gave misinformation.
Could this infraction have occurred if West had given the correct information?
Of course not, the infraction is giving the misinformation as such, and the only way West could have passed without committing this infraction is if he had a brain damage.

Can North claim damage on the ground that he would have passed with correct information for instance from looking at opponents' system notes or making another question to West? No, he didn't take any such action so that damage in case is the result of his own failure to do any such thing.

So the judgement must be based on what could likely have happened had West given correct information (in which case he himself obviously would have bid something over 3♦).

[lamford]

pran, on 2013-May-24, 17:58, said:

North could of course have obtained the correct information in several ways but he didn't.

He was damaged because of the infraction that West gave misinformation.
Could this infraction have occurred if West had given the correct information?
Of course not, the infraction is giving the misinformation as such, and the only way West could have passed without this infraction is if he had a brain damage.

Can North claim damage on the ground that he would have passed with correct information for instance from looking at opponents' system notes or making another question to West? No, he didn't take any such action so that damage in case is the result of his own failure to do any such thing.

So the judgement must be based on what could likely have happened had West given correct information (in which case he himself obviously would have bid something over 3♦).

Clearly they do things differently in Norway. Is it irrelevant how North obtains the correct information. West is deemed to give the information and still pass with gritted teeth. Had the infraction not occurred means "if North had not been misinformed".

Now I think jallerton would rule as you would, but only with screens.

[pran]

lamford, on 2013-May-24, 18:01, said:

Clearly they do things differently in Norway. Is it irrelevant how North obtains the correct information. West has to give the information and still pass with gritted teeth. Had the infraction not occurred means "if North had not been misinformed". West has no right to remember his methods from the opponent's question. To do so would be a breach of 73C.

Now I think jallerton would rule as you would, but only with screens.

True if North receives the correct information after West has passed. But that is not the situation.

Without the irregularity West would have remembered the correct agreement when he gave the information (alert) and bid accordingly.

[lamford]

pran, on 2013-May-24, 18:13, said:

True if North receives the correct information after West has passed. But that is not the situation.

But you rule as though both North and South did receive the information before West passed, and West still passes. At least every other TD in the world, without exception, does.

[pran]

lamford, on 2013-May-25, 06:49, said:

But you rule as though both North and South did receive the information before West passed, and West still passes. At least every other TD in the world, without exception, does.

The point is that if West becomes aware of his error and rectifies his explanation after he has made a call then he of course may not change this call (which he had already made).

But if West becomes aware of his error and rectifies his explanation before he makes his call in that turn nobody can force him to make the call he originally intended (which he has not yet made). Then West is free to make whatever call he wants.

And as the misinformation was the failure to alert the irregularity occured at the moment he should have alerted, and that was before even South called after the 3♦ bid.

So had the irregularity not occurred then West would have known the true explanation of the 3♦ bid long time before his own turn to call, and nobody shall make me believe that West in that case would have passed.

[Trinidad]

Pran, there are a few things happening, more or less at the same time:

1) West forgets the agreement.
2) As a result of 1), West misbids.
3) As a result of 1), West gives misinformation.

The point is that of these 3 only one is an irregularity. Hence, that is the only thing that will be corrected when an AS is given.

1) It is not an irregularity to forget an agreement
2) It is not an irregularity to misbid
3) But it is an irregularity to give misinformation

Therefore, an AS assumes that everything stays the same, until the irregularity has an effect on the outcome. This happens when North could have passed out 3♦. At that point, West has already passed, so we will not change that.

Even if West would have some action after the correction (say that South doubled 3♦, North passes and East calls something), we do not correct for the fact that West has forgotten the agreement. After all, that is not an infraction. Only if something radical will happen, we will say that this will wake up West and we will continue as if he now remembers his agreement. But until then, West will remain asleep, not only at the table, but also in assigning an AS.

Rik

(Edited for clarification, thanks to Vampyr)

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2013-May-25, 13:38, said:

And as the misinformation was the failure to alert the irregularity occured at the moment he should have alerted, and that was before even South called after the 3♦ bid.

You assume that the auction needs to be corrected from the moment the irregularity (MI) occurred. This assumption is wrong.

The effect of the irregularity on the score for the NOS needs to be corrected. As long as the irregularity doesnot affect the outcome, nothing is corrected. The irregularity doesn't affect anything at the point that it occurred. The effect only came at North' turn to call. And then West had already passed.

Rik

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2013-May-26, 11:26, said:

Pran, there are a few things happening, more or less at the same time:

1) West forgets the agreement.
2) As a result of 1), West misbids.
3) As a result of 1), West gives misinformation.

The point is that of these 3 only one is an irregularity. Hence, that is the only thing that will be corrected when an AS is given.

1) It is not an irregularity to forget an agreement
2) It is not an irregularity to misbid
3) But it is an irregularity to give misinformation

Therefore, an AS assumes that everything stays the same, until the irregularity has an effect on the outcome. This happens when North could have passed out 3♦. At that point, West has already passed, so we will not change that.

Even if West would have some action after the correction (say that South doubled 3♦, North passes and East calls something), we do not correct for the fact that West has forgotten the agreement. After all, that is not an infraction. Only if something radical will happen, we will say that this will wake up West and we will continue as if he now remembers his agreement. But until then, West will remain asleep, not only at the table, but also in assigning an AS.

Rik

(Edited for clarification, thanks to Vampyr)

Your Logic is apparently based on the assumption that West would still have forgotten the agreement (1) and still misbid (2) had he not given misinformation (3).

My Logic is based on the assumption that had the irregularity (3) not occurred it is because West would have remembered the agreement (1) and therefore (probably) not misbid (2).

I leave it to you to figure out the probability that West would still have misbid had he remembered the agreement and given correct information.

[barmar]

The point is that you have to consider how EW remember their agreement and choose their bids separately from how NS are informed of the agreements.

[pran]

barmar, on 2013-May-26, 14:30, said:

The point is that you have to consider how EW remember their agreement and choose their bids separately from how NS are informed of the agreements.

The point is that as TD I must consider what likely would have been the damage:

Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1(b).

And as I see no way here that West would not have bid in connection with giving correct information I must assess a likely outcome based on a bid by West over 3♦ when judging the damage caused by the misinformation.

If this is incorrect then the correct adjustment must be to 3♦doubled, a contract everybody (as far as I have noticed) have discarded.

But why?: East has UI that West misunderstood his own bid, running now is obviously suggested by this UI and must therefore be cancelled. And West is bound by his own misunderstanding so he has no more reason to run after the double than he had before.

[ArtK78]

pran, on 2013-May-26, 15:54, said:

The point is that as TD I must consider what likely would have been the damage:

Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1(b).

And as I see no way here that West would not have bid in connection with giving correct information I must assess a likely outcome based on a bid by West over 3♦ when judging the damage caused by the misinformation.

If this is incorrect then the correct adjustment must be to 3♦doubled, a contract everybody (as far as I have noticed) have discarded.

But why?: East has UI that West misunderstood his own bid, running now is obviously suggested by this UI and must therefore be cancelled. And West is bound by his own misunderstanding so he has no more reason to run after the double than he had before.

Your conclusion is one of the most bizarre things ever posted on these Fora.

East heard his partner open 1♠, and you think that somehow he should be required to pass out 3♦x because he has UI about his partner's understanding of East's 3♦ call?

Totally absurd.

[pran]

ArtK78, on 2013-May-26, 21:08, said:

Your conclusion is one of the most bizarre things ever posted on these Fora.

East heard his partner open 1♠, and you think that somehow he should be required to pass out 3♦x because he has UI about his partner's understanding of East's 3♦ call?

Totally absurd.

What is the systemic meaning of passing out 3♦?
It must be for play since North has the option of closing the auction.

Now East has UI that suggests otherwise and is prevented from selecting any action that could be suggested by this UI.

But I agree with you, the whole idea of disregarding how the auction most neccesarily would have been different also for the offending side absent the irregularity is bizarre.

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2013-May-26, 14:18, said:

Your Logic is apparently based on the assumption that West would still have forgotten the agreement (1) and still misbid (2) had he not given misinformation (3).

No, my logic is based on the fact that West did forget the agreement and did misbid. Those are West's actions and there is no reason at all to change those actions because they are not caused by an irregularity. (West gave MI because he forgot the agreement. West didnot forget the agreement because he gave MI.)
West's pass was not caused by an irregularity, therefore it stays. The 3♥ bid by North was caused by the MI. So, the 3♥ bid can be changed when an AS is assigned.

pran, on 2013-May-26, 14:18, said:

My Logic is based on the assumption that had the irregularity (3) not occurred it is because West would have remembered the agreement (1) and therefore (probably) not misbid (2).

You cannot reverse causation. The irregularity didnot cause West to forget the agreement. West forgetting the agreement (no irregularity) caused the MI (irregularity).

You are under the misconception that an AS needs to be based on removing the cause for the irregularity (i.e. removing the forgetting). But an AS is based on removing the irregularity itself (the MI), not the cause. So, West keeps forgetting the agreement, but through some Deus ex machina (in plain English: "Act of the TD") NS do not suffer from the irregularity.

Rik

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2013-May-27, 03:18, said:

You are under the misconception that an AS needs to be based on removing the cause for the irregularity (i.e. removing the forgetting). But an AS is based on removing the irregularity itself (the MI), not the cause. So, West keeps forgetting the agreement, but through some Deus ex machina (in plain English: "Act of the TD") NS do not suffer from the irregularity.

Rik

Law 12 instructs the director to consider the (likely) outcome had the infraction not occurred and compare that to the actual table result.

In order to do that the director must (among other items) determine how the auction would have been different. Usually this implies evaluation of the calls subsequent to the irregularity, but when (as here) there is a direct relation between an earlier call and the irregularity then also this earlier call must be evaluated.

Or can you show any reasonable path to West correctly alerting the 3♦ bid while still having passed in the situation as he did?

[Zelandakh]

This is a subject that comes up regularly - a recent example where the OP was under the same misapprehension as pran and had the process explained as to why this ruling is incorrect.

[billw55]

pran, on 2013-May-24, 17:58, said:

Can North claim damage on the ground that he would have passed with correct information for instance from looking at opponents' system notes or making another question to West? No, he didn't take any such action so that damage in case is the result of his own failure to do any such thing.

What on earth?

A question was asked and an answer given. But you say north did not do enough to get correct information, and thus damaged himself? If you really believe this policy I don't want to play against you.

[pran]

billw55, on 2013-May-28, 06:49, said:

What on earth?

A question was asked and an answer given. But you say north did not do enough to get correct information, and thus damaged himself? If you really believe this policy I don't want to play against you.

Be careful when you quote so that you do not accidentally drop out something essential.

I continued:
So the judgement must be based on what could likely have happened had West given correct information (in which case he himself obviously would have bid something over 3♦).

My point was that the only way North could have received correct information in the situation was if West had given that information, and the only way West could have given correct information was if he was aware of the correct partnership understanding. But in that case West could not possibly have passed out the 3♦ bid, so 3♦ is not one of the possible contracts to be considered for the expectation had the infraction not occurred (Law 12B1).

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2013-May-28, 15:08, said:

My point was that the only way North could have received correct information in the situation was if West had given that information, and the only way West could have given correct information was if he was aware of the correct partnership understanding.

The point is that North is entitled to correct information about the EW agreements in all situations: Those where West is aware of the partnership understanding and those where West isn't.

The right to correct information about opponents' agreements is absolute and does not depend on whether opponents are aware of their agreements.

Everybody understands that at the table West could not have given the correct information, since he didn't have it available. Nobody is angry at West. But North is still entitled to the correct information, so in assigning an AS the TD will give it to him, obviously without helping West to remember his agreements. That West has to do on his own. He is not entitled to TD assistance in remembering his own agreements.

Rik

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2013-May-28, 21:27, said:

The point is that North is entitled to correct information about the EW agreements in all situations: Those where West is aware of the partnership understanding and those where West isn't.

The right to correct information about opponents' agreements is absolute and does not depend on whether opponents are aware of their agreements.

Everybody understands that at the table West could not have given the correct information, since he didn't have it available. Nobody is angry at West. But North is still entitled to the correct information, so in assigning an AS the TD will give it to him, obviously without helping West to remember his agreements. That West has to do on his own. He is not entitled to TD assistance in remembering his own agreements.

Rik

Please consider just this question which is essential to determine the damage from the infraction:

What is the expectation on the board at the moment West should have alerted the 3♦ bid, i.e. just before South made his subsequent pass, had there been no irregularity?

West would have alerted, and if asked explained the 3♦ bid correctly. Is it at all possible that West then would have passed?