[affe82]

I was asked my opinion in a case yesterday from which arose 3 questions.

In a 24board team match, level intermediate (not that it matters much) the following occurs:

1♠ - p - 2N* - p
3!♥** - p - 6♠ - all pass

*alerted and explained as jacoby transfer, 4+♠ FG, asking hand type
** alerted and explained as cuebid denying ♦ cue and not minimum.

Bidding finishes and prior to lead declarer informs defence that there was a misexplaination in the bidding (we understand this explaination to be the one of 3♥ since this is the only bid explained by his partner). Opening leader does not ask what is the correct explaination but his partner does and is told by declarer that he has no right knowing this now since it is not his time to act. Opening leader still does not ask (some further investigation regarding actual circumstances here might be in order but I was not directing, my advice was asked) and leads. Slam makes. Upon realizing declarer was off 2 top tricks on different lead director is summoned and it is claimed that under correct explaination the setting lead would have been found.

Leader's hand:

xx
AQxxx
Txx
xxx

Correct information according to system notes was that 3♥ showed some extras and short clubs.
On a ♥ lead slam would fail since declarer had xx to xx in the suit.

How would you rule?

My questions:
The director decided to make a poll with correct information, not mentioning the mishap of wrong explaination at all (i did not find this investigation particulary useful). Players of comparable skill mostly did not lead ace of ♥ or a ♥.
To me ace of hearts looks to be on the money with correct information. With the corrected information at table - i.e. knowing what LHO thought it meant and what it did mean - ace of ♥ stands out by a mile.

1) with above information. do you let defenders change lead to ace of ♥, 6♠ -1?
2) by not investigating the true answer what 3♥ meant before leading to the slam has opening leader forfeited his right to correction based on incorrect information?
3) when evaluting what lead what would have been chosen given correct information is it correct to analyze the hand based only on the correct information or in the light knowing what the player giving the incorrect information thought his partner held (here we "know" a ♥ stopper was what LHO was looking for based on his bidding, he is likely to have a good stop in ♦ and a source of tricks somewhere so the setting lead is more easily found with the inference that he thought partner held ♥ cue than with solely correct information)?

[mycroft]

1) This is a weighted score jurisdiction, right? I'm giving some fraction of -1; probably what the poll gave me plus 10% for "equity" plus another X% for "with both explanations, the heart lead is more likely yet." Because:

2) whether or not what declarer did was lawful - it's arguable, but I usually see "correct the misexplanation" rather than "state that there is misinformation"; certainly declarer is required by Law to call the TD before explaining that there is misexplanation, and if I believe that the opponents have been damaged by failure to do that, I'm willing to rule on that as well. Yes, this is one that is observed more in the Law than in the breach (especially with "yeah, it was a Transfer" and the like), but in this particular case, it is so likely that the TD is going to be needed that failure to call as required is an infraction deserving rectification.

3) Yes, you should give the problem with the correct information - anything else biases the poll. Whether the TD uses the "with both explanations, it's X% more likely..." or not is her own judgement - that's what you're paying her for.

I'm telling declarer to walk away from the edge of the legal cliff, and next time follow the spirit of full disclosure and simply volunteer the correct explanation at the appropriate time. If he's known for "trying to disclose as little as he can get away with", now's the time for a Standard PP to wake him up.

[campboy]

Declarer is required to tell the TD that the explanation was incorrect. But was there a TD? OP says it was a 24-board match; if it was played privately then what he did is more reasonable.

I would ask opening leader why he didn't ask what the correct information was, but I am not inclined to adjust. The fact that he did not ask is strong evidence that he would have made the same lead in any case.

[billw55]

Why on earth did opening leader not want a corrected explanation !?

[mycroft]

I have no idea why the opening leader wouldn't want the correct explanation. I also have no idea why declarer didn't volunteer it. If there is sympathy for me to one side, it's the side that didn't misexplain.

[bluejak]

My sympathy would be the other way: declarer told them a call was misexplained, and opening leader did not ask. Why on earth would we have the slightest sympathy for opening leader?

Ok, let me put it another way: did MI cause damage? No, it did not. The mis-explanation was effectively corrected, and opening leader's lack of interest in the correct explanation let the slam though. So there was no damage from MI, no adjustment.

[Fluffy]

Looks like a captain-soldier pair, one player is better than the other, and the lesser one just expects the more experienced one to do all the stuff related to explanations, directors, etc. Sitting there and saying nothing. Happens to me constantly with clients, and used to happen to me when playing with inexperienced juniors as well. It is so frustrating at times.