[blackshoe]

The scenario: You are called to the table by North to find that no one is vulnerable, and east is dealer. There is a card face up in front of East. South is a weak player, North perhaps a bit less so. EW are experienced duplicate players, not necessarily strong (if the strength of their bridge ability makes a difference, please so stipulate). North provides the following information:

The bidding went 1♣-P-P-2♠, East having opened. Before calling, East asked South "is that weak?" South replied "Yes," although clearly with some doubt. North says that he believes the leading question may have influenced South's answer, and that in fact they've not discussed this auction, and that he (North) believes that making a weak jump in this position is not standard. In any case, after the question and answer, the hand was passed out. East then made the opening lead face up. At this point, North called the TD.

How do you rule?

[bixby]

You say any jurisdiction, but my answer is based on ACBL rules. In the ACBL, the following principles apply (see the ACBL alert procedures):

* When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of the agreement.
* The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question.
* Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given automatically.

So notwithstanding the form of East's question, it was South's duty to give correct information. South indicated that North's bid was weak whereas the correct answer appears to be that the bid is undiscussed. (Of course I would find out what the real agreement is. But let's assume North is correct and the bid is undiscussed.) So South gave misinformation.

It was North's duty to inform E/W of the misinformation at the first legal opportunity, which was at the conclusion of the auction, before the opening lead (Law 20F5b). North incorrectly waited until after the opening lead.

It is too late to back up to the auction period and give West a chance to retract his final pass, because the play period has begun irrevocably (Law 41C). But I would give East a chance to change his opening lead (Law 47E2).

The deal should then be played out. If E/W were damaged in the auction from the incorrect explanation, I would award an adjusted score. Otherwise the table score should stand, as the misinformation was corrected in time for normal play.

[bluejak]

I agree that the jurisdiction is critical: in the ACBL a bad question is no excuse for a bad answer. When the EBU discussed it some time ago, their decision was to give no guidance because of different views as to the effect of a question on the answer.

I have had this situation as a player a few times recently: when my partner has asked such a question I have given her a friendly lecture on why you do not. It is distressingly normal for someone to reply "Yes, I suppose so" when asked "Is it ...?" when if asked "What is that?" they would reply "I am not sure".

Of course, there is the problem of not calling the TD. East did not despite West's doubt, no doubt trying for the double shot. This is one situation that the EBU has covered, saying how important it is to call the TD in potential MI cases.

I suppose it depends on East's ability, but this strikes me very much as a good player trying to take advantage of a poor player. It is not easy to see damage anyway: I think it is just intimidation.

[gnasher]

bixby, on Jan 23 2010, 09:29 PM, said:

North incorrectly waited until after the opening lead.

Did he? We're not told how much time elapsed between West's final pass and East's face-up lead. It may be that North was drawing breath to call the director when East led.

If East had properly led face-down, that might well have allowed North sufficient time to correct the explanation. It's not North's fault that East broke the rules.

[bixby]

Yes, I missed that detail. I agree that it would be correct to inquire into how much time elapsed between the final pass and East's face-up lead. If there was not enough time for North to correct the misinformation, I would not give East the opportunity to change his lead.

[aguahombre]

Agree with Gnasher's concerns. North called the Director --that is a clue that he really wanted to correct the explanation but was not given time to do so before the opening lead was faced. North's heart is in the right place, and I would lean in his direction.

Point number two: West passed the opening bid by his partner at the one-level. How likely is it that --given any other information, he would now bid at the 3-level?

East was not damaged either. When the explanation was "weak" he still chose not to act opposite a partner who could not respond at the one-level.

Who cares whether the distribution of the opponents' strength is on leader's right or his left? the leader cares, but not enough to even bother making a face down lead.

[blackshoe]

I agree with Gnasher's view - when I thought this one up, I was thinking that North didn't have time to call the TD before the lead came down.

[richlp]

blackshoe, on Jan 23 2010, 03:07 PM, said:

North says that he believes the leading question may have influenced South's answer, and that in fact they've not discussed this auction, and that he (North) believes that making a weak jump in this position is not standard.

I didn't think this was presented as a misinformation case nor had it anything to do with correcting South's explanation.

Maybe I'm wrong again, but I thought North called the TD to complain about the form of the question. He felt that East had essentially planted an answer in South's mind and caused him to misbid.