[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-April-06, 16:10, said:

I was East, it actually got more complicated than this in that "undiscussed" left me in a situation I've posted before where I have to bid with no sensible way of making a decision

I agree. And the TD could ask South to leave the table and should establish whether the bid is truly undiscussed. Or even ask North, but tell South the reply is UI to her. It would be good if one or two TDs replied on here as to what the advised procedure is. Certainly on the County TD course, we were told to establish the correct agreement always in any situation. If it is on the CC it can be shown without giving UI. But gnasher seems to think differently.

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-April-06, 16:10, said:

All this shenanigans caused the one board to take up the whole 15 mins for the 2 board round, we were awarded 50-50 for the unplayed second board, is that correct too ? as I felt we were not really the cause of the delay.

In a sense we were, but on the other hand the director should simply have sent me away and had partner give the correct agreement, or have him show it on the convention card as finally happened. So we were probably both entitled to A+ due to director's error.

[blackshoe]

Is the correction period over? Yes? Then the director's ruling stands.

The facts in the OP seem to be that:

1. North made a call.
2. South alerted.
3. South explained North's call as a transfer.
4. East and South called, and while West was thinking, South said he thought he had misexplained North's call.
5. Somebody called the director.
6. At some point after the director arrived, North asked to speak to him away from the table.
7. The director declined North's request.
8. Apparently, South did not correct his explanation.
9. Apparently, the director did not investigate the available evidence to determine the actual meaning, per agreement, of North's call.
10. Apparently, the director simply told East he could change his call.
11. Whether East changed his call is not in evidence.
12. There was no damage.

Facts 1 through 7 are not in dispute. Item 8 seems unlikely but no evidence was presented to indicate whether South did change his explanation, or to what he changed it. Items 9 through 11 are frankly appalling as examples of directorial procedure. As for item 12, if there was no damage, the table result should stand. As we are not told that it was changed, let's assume it was not.

Two questions were then asked in the OP:

1. Should the TD have first established that there was misinformation?
2. Should North have stated to the TD that the original explanation was correct?

My answer to the first question depends somewhat on the meaning of "first". If "first" means "before giving a ruling," then yes. If it means "before South corrects his explanation", then maybe. The TD has some discretion here. Law 20F4 says "If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4." The law is flawed - it doesn't say anything about the player telling the director what he thinks the correct explanation is. So the director should investigate - in this case by looking at the system card, for starters. He should not ask South to "correct" his original explanation until he is sure that South needs to do so. If after investigation the director determines the original explanation was correct, he should tell South so, and tell the table to get on with the hand. If the TD determines the original explanation was wrong, he should tell south to correct it, and then tell the table to get on with the hand.

My answer to the second question is an unqualified "no". Under no circumstances should North say anything until the proper legal time per Law 20F5.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2014-April-06, 19:58, said:

My answer to the second question is an unqualified "no". Under no circumstances should North say anything until the proper legal time per Law 20F5.

So, if the TD asks North at the table or away from it whether the original explanation was correct, should he say, "I am not prepared to answer per 20F5"? I cannot agree that this Law applies to questions from the director for the purpose of establishing misinformation under 21B. Common sense says that it does not. That is why it should be done away from the table. When the director judges that the decision to make the call could not have been influenced by misinformation, and he refuses a 21B1(a) correction, then the opponents know that the original information was correct.

I think that this information should be unauthorised to the person trying to correct his originally correct explanation, but there is an argument from 16a1c that it is authorised to everyone: "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". So, when the TD says, "sorry you can't have a 21B1a correction", everyone knows that the original explanation was correct. This is undesirable, and the information should be UI to South in our example. So I am not certain I agree with this: "If after investigation the director determines the original explanation was correct, he should tell South so, and tell the table to get on with the hand."

[blackshoe]

No, of course not. If the TD asks a player a direct question, at or away from the table, the player should answer it as completely and as honestly as he can.

I do think that Law 16A1{c} makes the answer to the TD's question AI. Whether that's undesirable is another question.

Do you suggest that the TD should allow South to "correct" his already correct explanation, perforce giving MI to EW and UI to North, when he knows from his investigation that the original explanation was correct? I think that's absurd.

[pran]

lamford, on 2014-April-06, 17:23, said:

And on the unplayed board, I agree the opponents should get 60%. NS should get 50% or even 40% given that they caused it not to be played. If there had been no TD error, however, it would have been resolved immediately, so there is some argument for 45% for NS for the other board.

It appears to me that the main reason for the delay was the Director's error.
So the AAS on the unplayed board should be 60% to both sides (Law 82C).

[campboy]

lamford, on 2014-April-06, 15:51, said:

If you think the WBFLC is that careful with the use of the definite article, why are there so many examples of poor wording in the Laws? And there is no "the" in any of the headings of Law 21. I would think that misinformation is not preceded by "the" just as "bad manners" would not be.

Oh, they aren't. But when what they actually wrote matches what I believe they intended, I see no reason to rule as though they meant something different and were careless with the wording.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2014-April-07, 02:27, said:

Oh, they aren't. But when what they actually wrote matches what I believe they intended, I see no reason to rule as though they meant something different and were careless with the wording.

It seems that you and gnasher are clinging to the potentially missing "the" in a clause which already has an absurd cross-reference, because this is all that you have left to defend your position. Most others think that the director should only allow a correction when he considers that the decision to make a call may have been based on misinformation, and this requires misinformation, and the TD must establish if there was any. A legal friend of mine thinks that "the decision to make the call could well have been based on misinformation" means that the test is as follows:
a) was there misinformation? If not, he does not allow a change of call.
b) would the person have bid differently if he had correct information? If he judges that he could well have, he allows the change of call.

"could well have been" qualifies "based", not "misinformation".

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2014-April-06, 22:39, said:

Do you suggest that the TD should allow South to "correct" his already correct explanation, perforce giving MI to EW and UI to North, when he knows from his investigation that the original explanation was correct? I think that's absurd.

No, I think that the players at the table acted correctly, even though gnasher would have given North a PP. Finally the TD allowed North to persuade him or her to show the CC to EW, but he or she still ludicrously allowed a correction to East's call, even though, by then, he or she knew the original explanation and alert was correct. I agree with blackshoe that the TD handled it very poorly. He or she was the same one as ruled two tricks to NS in the defensive claim thread posted on the same day.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2014-April-07, 08:13, said:

No, I think that the players at the table acted correctly, even though gnasher would have given me a PP. Finally the TD allowed North to persuade him or her to show the CC to EW, but he or she still ludicrously allowed a correction to East's call, even though, by then, he or she knew the original explanation and alert was correct. The TD was the same one as ruled two tricks to NS in the defensive claim thread posted on the same day.

I think the TD was quite close to giving you a PP as well. I think she took the attitude of "shut up and let me rule whether I'm right or wrong and it can be sorted out afterwards". TBF there was little problem in allowing a change of call as it would be very strange if I was going to change it given no change in information.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-April-07, 08:31, said:

I think the TD was quite close to giving you a PP as well. I think she took the attitude of "shut up and let me rule whether I'm right or wrong and it can be sorted out afterwards". TBF there was little problem in allowing a change of call as it would be very strange if I was going to change it given no change in information.

I agree with the first two sentences, and I would have appealed against the PP - to the national authority if necessary. When a player asks to speak to the TD away from the table, that request should be granted. As Pran confirms - and he is a very experienced TD.

On the third sentence, that is not the point. You could change the call, and get a second bite at the cherry. Your partner would know that the first call was based on correct information, and the second call was as well, and he would know your first choice call and second choice call. All AI. So you would and should get two calls for the price of one, because of TD error. It is like a late alert. Someone bids 2H, a transfer, but it is not alerted, and I pass (in normal tempo). Now there is a late alert. I can and do call the TD and then change my bid, if suitable, to double, and partner knows that I would not have bid over a natural 2H and did double a transfer. And I was quite close to making a formal complaint about the TD to the EBU after the event. Especially after the botched claim ruling (for which I was asked to serve on the AC, but recused myself as I was half of the appealing side, and it was agreed that it was impractical to hold an appeal on site as everyone was leaving and we would allow a referee to handle it!). In football, managers complain about referees all the time, but that seems to be out of place in the sedate world of bridge. However football does not allow appeals against yellow cards, and I think bridge should not allow appeals against PPs either, for what it is worth.

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-April-07, 08:31, said:

I think the TD was quite close to giving you a PP as well. I think she took the attitude of "shut up and let me rule whether I'm right or wrong and it can be sorted out afterwards". TBF there was little problem in allowing a change of call as it would be very strange if I was going to change it given no change in information.

I think he meant himself originally, because he has referred to himself as North elsewhere in this thread.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2014-April-07, 09:06, said:

I think he meant himself originally, because he has referred to himself as North elsewhere in this thread.

I think that all ostriches are aware by now that I was North and you were South, Cyberyeti was East and an unnamed person was West.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2014-April-07, 09:11, said:

I think that all ostriches are aware by now that I was North and you were South, Cyberyeti was East and an unnamed person was West.

West doesn't frequent these boards, but I think is quite amused when people refer to me by my board handle at tournaments, as the handle goes back to a humorous article in an old county magazine about a local yeti sighting which clearly referred to me (understandable to those who know what I look like).

[aguahombre]

lamford, on 2014-April-07, 08:09, said:

"could well have been" qualifies "based", not "misinformation".

The WBF version of L21 says "could well have been influenced by...". It qualifies "influenced", which IMO is even stronger in support of your position.

[barmar]

If South had given an incorrect explanation initially, North wouldn't be allowed to say anything about it until a much later time (the correction period if NS become declarer, after the hand if they defend). Is there really any justification in the Laws that he should be allowed to do anything about the MI just because it's part of South "correcting" his previous explanation?

There seems to be a real paradox here. The only way for the TD to prevent East from changing his call is by determining that South's attempted correction is incorrect. But North isn't allowed to correct his partner's change of explanation. There doesn't seem to be any obvious priority to these two requirements.

The way I would probably handle this is to allow South to change his explanation, and treat it as if the original explanation was incorrect, so allow East to change his call. Then at the end of the hand, if it turns out that the opponents were damaged by this incorrect change, I would adjust the score.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2014-April-07, 08:09, said:

"could well have been" qualifies "based", not "misinformation".

I disagree. The way I naturally read it is the same as gnasher: "could well have been" qualifies "based on misinformation". Your interpretation hadn't really occurred to me before. I can see that it is one possible interpretation, but it seems to me to be less literal, less likely to have been intended, and to produce a less sensible law. So I'm going to stick to my original interpretation, unless the RA tells me otherwise.

[jallerton]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-April-07, 08:31, said:

I think the TD was quite close to giving you a PP as well. I think she took the attitude of "shut up and let me rule whether I'm right or wrong and it can be sorted out afterwards". TBF there was little problem in allowing a change of call as it would be very strange if I was going to change it given no change in information.

lamford, on 2014-April-07, 08:40, said:

I agree with the first two sentences, and I would have appealed against the PP - to the national authority if necessary.

What would this PP have been for? It sounds as though it might actually have been a DP, in which case it would not be appealable (DPs do fit in with your football yellow card analogy!).

lamford, on 2014-April-07, 08:40, said:

When a player asks to speak to the TD away from the table, that request should be granted. As Pran confirms - and he is a very experienced TD.

Yes, I think the White Book might recommend this, but players shouldn't really be asking to speak to the TD in the first place; it almost invariably creates UI for the player's partner. It should be the TD who decides when, if at all, it is appropriate to send a player away from the table.

[gnasher]

Since when has a finite verb been able to qualify anything?

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2014-April-07, 12:18, said:

Yes, I think the White Book might recommend this, but players shouldn't really be asking to speak to the TD in the first place; it almost invariably creates UI for the player's partner.

Then rewrite the White Book. The TD will tend to assume that the correction is the true understanding, unless North asks to speak to her away from the table. And it would be a PP, not a DP: "failure to comply promptly with tournament regulations or with instructions of the Director", which is appealable. So when North asks the TD to speak to her away from the table, and the TD refuses, if North tries to persuade her, as happened, then North could get a PP. None of the things which the County TD course suggests merit a a DP - such as swearing or insulting an opponent or the TD - occurred. The PP would be appealable and if the AC decided North was correct to press the point, then the PP could be overturned.