[Jlall]

Phil, on Apr 1 2010, 12:16 PM, said:

OleBerg, on Apr 1 2010, 02:28 AM, said:

They should have alerted, but it is not considered enough to adjust the score.

Its a difficult situation with the director not allowing the undo of the last pass with the knowledge of the MI.

Frankly, I don't think its relevant that West should double 5♣, regardless of the meaning. What is relevant is that she wanted to double a preemptive 3♣ / 5♣ but couldn't.

So a split score makes no sense nor does 'no adjustment'.

If you do something completely terrible after being damaged, you don't get redress. Getting damaged does not alleviate you from your duty to play bridge after it happens. So it is definitely relevant.

On the other hand the other guys should not gain from failing to alert, so I still think a split score is right.

[Phil]

Jlall, on Apr 1 2010, 12:21 PM, said:

If you do something completely terrible after being damaged, you don't get redress.

If West is allowed to change her call based on the MI before the opening lead is faced, the auction period isn't over by definition. Clearly, she said, "had I known 3♣ was preemptive, I would have doubled".

The fact that the director didn't know the law should not enter into it, nor should the player's 'bridge judgment'.

If East was the hand that needed to double, I would agree, since her last pass can't be reversed.

[Phil]

...however, here's what I am confused about.

Related to 22B.1 and 21B.1.a, is if NS never disclose the agreement, or EW never ask, what happens after dummy is faced and the failure to alert is found out then? Since the auction period is over, West can't take back her call any more, but the Director won't issue an adjustment based on the MI, so the best EW can do is a split score.

Doesn't make sense to me

[RMB1]

OleBerg, on Apr 1 2010, 07:28 AM, said:

Quote

And a refreshing course for the TD seems to be obvious too. How can he not judge that the last call can be changed?

He might be called to the table later. Or he might have forgot the rule. It is quite new.

The relevant laws did not change in 2007, so the law is at least 13 years old.

I can't find a 1987 law book but I don't think they changed in 1997, so the law is probably at least 23 years old.

[RMB1]

Phil, on Apr 1 2010, 06:05 PM, said:

Related to 22B.1 and 21B.1.a, is if NS never disclose the agreement, or EW never ask, what happens after dummy is faced and the failure to alert is found out then? Since the auction period is over, West can't take back her call any more, but the Director won't issue an adjustment based on the MI, so the best EW can do is a split score.

Doesn't make sense to me 

There is some difference in rulings depending on when misinformaiton comes to light. But I don't think it necessarily applies in this case.

If the misinformation does not come to light before dummy is spread, the offending side have committed two infractions: failure to alert 3♣, and failure to correct the failure to alert once the auction has (apparently) finished. The offending side should get an adjustment to 5♣X and a procedural penalty (warning or fine). But neither of these need benefit the non-offending side.

It is the concensus of this thread that failure to X 5♣ was a serious error regardless of the (lack of) explanation of 3♣, and implicitly that there should a split score. The law that requires a split score is Law 12C1b, which requires "a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action". I don't think failing to double can be wild or gambling, but I accept that failing to double was a serious error. But I do not think that the serious error was "unrelated to the infraction": we are adjusting for the offending side because the non-offending side were likely to avoid their error given the right information. So I do not think Law 12C1b does not appy, and the adjusted score 5♣X-4 should be awarded to both sides.

The application/interpretation of "serious error (unrelated to the infraction)" in the 2007 Laws is not yet fixed but I think the above is a reasonable approach.

[OleBerg]

Phil, on Apr 1 2010, 07:54 PM, said:

Jlall, on Apr 1 2010, 12:21 PM, said:

If you do something completely terrible after being damaged, you don't get redress.

If West is allowed to change her call based on the MI before the opening lead is faced, the auction period isn't over by definition. Clearly, she said, "had I known 3♣ was preemptive, I would have doubled".

The fact that the director didn't know the law should not enter into it, nor should the player's 'bridge judgment'.

If East was the hand that needed to double, I would agree, since her last pass can't be reversed.

If the director was indeed called to the table before the opening lead was faced, and he didn't allow North to change her call, and it is later discovered that he should have, I'm fairly sure then, that 60%/60% is the correct ruling.

The TD has made a mistake that makes it impossible to make a fair ruling. None of the players should pay for this. (Again, to lazy to look up things.)

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

it is either Pass or X, 5S is out.

I am not good at playing MP, so dont ask me, what to choose,
but I think it wont matter a lot, and maybe because of this Pass
will rate to be better.
I doubt that we will be able to beat to compensate for making 4S=,
unless they are red and we are green, in which case you should
double, but than are they insane?

With kind regards
Marlowe