[barmar]

szgyula, on 2016-February-17, 02:42, said:

Just one side remark: I can not interpret the 'If you knew that "everyone" in an area plays it one way...' argument. One bid is either alertable or it is not.

Some of the alert regulations refer to things like "highly unusual and unexpected" and "a weak bid that sounds strong". These can only be interpreted with respect to what most people play, since the regulations don't give any specific definition of what "sounds strong" means.

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2016-February-16, 09:05, said:

IMHO the Director must never announce to the involved players any ruling that could be influenced by his knowledge about cards yet to be played.

Where in my post did I involve a TD ruling based on his knowledge of the cards? I was talking about a case where MI comes to light before the opening lead (in which case the TD should rule immediately, since one of the players may be allowed to change his call) and a case of MI that comes to light after the opening lead (in which case the TD should rule after the hand).

Rik

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2016-February-18, 03:21, said:

Where in my post did I involve a TD ruling based on his knowledge of the cards? I was talking about a case where MI comes to light before the opening lead (in which case the TD should rule immediately, since one of the players may be allowed to change his call) and a case of MI that comes to light after the opening lead (in which case the TD should rule after the hand).

Rik

How can a TD rule damage from MI without knowledge of the cards held by the player(s) involved?

MI can well be established even before the opening lead, but damage from such MI cannot be established before end of play without disclosing important information about closed hands.

If a player claims that he wants to change his call because of established MI during the auction period he should be allowed to do so, subject to possible adjustment at end of play if the Director then finds that the claim was unjustified.

[blackshoe]

Rik's reason for ruling on the question "was there MI?" in the first example has nothing to do with whether there was damage. The director need not even look at the hands. The question is answered by investigate the pair's bidding agreements.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2016-February-18, 17:54, said:

Rik's reason for ruling on the question "was there MI?" in the first example has nothing to do with whether there was damage. The director need not even look at the hands. The question is answered by investigate the pair's bidding agreements.

True, but the important ruling in MI cases is what damage, if any, was caused by the MI.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2016-February-18, 18:11, said:

True, but the important ruling in MI cases is what damage, if any, was caused by the MI.

So it's not important that the last member of the NOS to call gets to change his call if he wants?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2016-February-18, 17:54, said:

Rik's reason for ruling on the question "was there MI?" in the first example has nothing to do with whether there was damage. The director need not even look at the hands. The question is answered by investigate the pair's bidding agreements.

pran, on 2016-February-18, 18:11, said:

True, but the important ruling in MI cases is what damage, if any, was caused by the MI.

blackshoe, on 2016-February-18, 20:11, said:

So it's not important that the last member of the NOS to call gets to change his call if he wants?

I did write "true" about that part of the ruling (which is, or at least should be) routine.

We don't require the Director to the table when there is agreement on hesitations, only when a ruling is needed on the possible damage from the hesitation.

We could similarly have done without the Director to the table also when there is agreement on misinformation, and saved his presence for ruling on possible damage. However we obviously do not trust the players' knowledge on Law 21B so the Director is needed twice in such cases: first for allowing change of call and second for ruling on possible damage.

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2016-February-19, 04:06, said:

I did write "true" about that part of the ruling (which is, or at least should be) routine.

It seems as if in this case it wasn't as routine as you like it to be: After all, the TD didn't know immediately whether the 2♥ bid required an alert. (And this is something he should know in a reasonable time, if the potential MI comes to light before the opening lead.)

Rik

[barmar]

pran, on 2016-February-18, 11:02, said:

How can a TD rule damage from MI without knowledge of the cards held by the player(s) involved?

In a MI case there are two rulings required: first, what the NOS can do as soon as the MI comes to light (change their last call), and second, whether and how to adjust the result. Only the latter requires knowledge of the cards.

The first is so mechanical that I suppose you didn't consider it to be a "ruling". But technically it is.

[pran]

barmar, on 2016-February-19, 10:01, said:

In a MI case there are two rulings required: first, what the NOS can do as soon as the MI comes to light (change their last call), and second, whether and how to adjust the result. Only the latter requires knowledge of the cards.

The first is so mechanical that I suppose you didn't consider it to be a "ruling". But technically it is.

Precisely.
And yes, I am fully aware of the technicality.