[Vampyr]

pran, on 2013-May-29, 01:01, said:

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

West did pass. The opponents are entitled to correct information; West is not -- and certainly not retrospectively!

[Zelandakh]

Pran, what you are suggesting would make it that a pair would get a large advantage by providing as little information on their CCs as possible. Think of it a different way, if North had access to a complete copy of the E-W system notes, what would be the expectation after West's pass? I am genuinely shocked to hear this line of argument from someone with your level of experience.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2013-May-29, 01:01, said:

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?

You seem to believe that the only way North could get correct information is by West alerting before calling. Clearly this is nonsense.

[ArtK78]

If North was suspicious that something odd was happening after getting an explanation from West of the meaning of the 3♦ call he could call the TD, request that West leave the table and have East provide his understanding of the partnership agreement (not what East meant by his call). This is time consuming, but it does solve the issue of West forgetting his partnership agreement.

[billw55]

ArtK78, on 2013-May-29, 05:59, said:

If North was suspicious that something odd was happening after getting an explanation from West of the meaning of the 3♦ call he could call the TD, request that West leave the table and have East provide his understanding of the partnership agreement (not what East meant by his call). This is time consuming, but it does solve the issue of West forgetting his partnership agreement.

True, north could do this. But he is under no obligation to do so, and his failure to do so in no way reduces his right to correct information. Furrthermore, it would be embarrassing, time consuming, and possibly a little insulting should the initial information turn out to be correct. So I would not really recommend it.

pran, on 2013-May-29, 01:01, said:

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?

No, it is not at all possible. And, this is not at all relevant.

Your questions are not at all essential to determining the damage from the infraction. The essential question is: what is the likely result if west made the error, but north still had correct information? This is the difference that you are not understanding. And clearly, the answer is 3♦ passed out.

I suggest you consider that being in a minority of one in such a knowledgeable group should tell you something.

[WellSpyder]

billw55, on 2013-May-29, 06:48, said:

I suggest you consider that being in a minority of one in such a knowledgeable group should tell you something.

+100

[pran]

billw55, on 2013-May-29, 06:48, said:

True, north could do this. But he is under no obligation to do so, and his failure to do so in no way reduces his right to correct information. Furrthermore, it would be embarrassing, time consuming, and possibly a little insulting should the initial information turn out to be correct. So I would not really recommend it.


No, it is not at all possible. And, this is not at all relevant.

Your questions are not at all essential to determining the damage from the infraction. The essential question is: what is the likely result if west made the error, but north still had correct information? This is the difference that you are not understanding. And clearly, the answer is 3♦ passed out.

I suggest you consider that being in a minority of one in such a knowledgeable group should tell you something.

After consulting my friend in the Norwegian LC I admit being wrong here.

(I should add that I have never had any situation where precisely this question has been relevant.)

[mycroft]

Oddly enough, I get it all the time (say once a year or so). Granted it's in the hallway or the bar after the game when I get corralled by all of the hard done by player's friends telling me it's a good thing I'm a director, because otherwise I'd have to learn to play the game; but in exchange I'm only a part-time TD, so I don't get as many opportunities for this to happen as my colleagues.

But then there are players around here who believe it would be wrong-to-the-point-of-stupid to not use partner's explanations in working out how to bid, especially in situations where they are clearly having a misunderstanding. A players. So maybe I get this more than some.

[barmar]

billw55, on 2013-May-29, 06:48, said:

True, north could do this. But he is under no obligation to do so, and his failure to do so in no way reduces his right to correct information. Furrthermore, it would be embarrassing, time consuming, and possibly a little insulting should the initial information turn out to be correct. So I would not really recommend it.

He doesn't have to do it, but when we adjust we can rule as if he had. So we assume NS get correct information even though EW's auction goes off the rail.