Posted 2009-October-26, 08:53
In Britain, if someone said they played "better minor", I would be aware of the possibility that they might think that "better" referred only to better suit length, not better suit quality when the suits are of equal length. So I wouldn't be sure that I had received any statement at all about how they opened minors when they are 33 or 44. If I wanted to know, I would ask further, though prefacing my question with words suggesting that there was inconsistent use of the words "better minor". In fact, if I heard what W said about the 33 and 44 situation, I would probably conclude that they were playing "better minor", with that restricted definition.
So I don't necessarily find what EW said here was inconsistent with what was on the card, nor that they necessarily denied playing "better minor". But that would depend upon what was the expected range of meaning for "better minor" in the country in question.
So, NS asked what was the style and possibly got a rather incomplete answer. I'm not convinced NS actually investigated whether EW were playing "better minor".
OP is from Romania, so I guess that might be the country where we need to know how the phrase "better minor" is used.
The TD has to decide whether there is sufficient evidence that EW are playing what they say they are playing. The laws tell us that without evidence to the contrary we should assume misinformation rather than misbid. Probably in this case we say misbid. But we should listen to what EW say. Maybe they can point to earlier hands in the evening where they got it right and their opponents can vouch for them.
The next question is whether the MI they got is in fact relevant to changing NS bidding. NS is interested in whether EW are playing better minor, which was written on the card. But, depending upon what better minor means in that locality, it seems to me that EW didn't actually necessarily say anything inconsistent with it, and NS didn't necessarily seek to try and find it out.
Incidentally, all NS are entitled to is a description of what EW are playing, not the use of specific phrases such as "better minor" which NS might interpret differently from EW.
If ultimately we agree there was misinformation, and NS were actually misinformed on the fact they were interested in, then finally we need to decide whether we believe they would have done something different. If we aren't quite sure, and the probability method hasn't been locally disapplied, then we can apply a probability to it.
jdonn says there is no damage. But the definition of damage is that if, correctly informed, you would have taken a different action that would have had a different outcome (according to the method for evaluating that different unknown outcome), then you are damaged.