[uday]

This happened in a tourney. UNDOs were disabled.

South alerted and explained his first PASS as "SORRY, WRONG CLICK"
West alerted his second double as "ALLOWING CORRECTION OF MISCLICK"

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

Pass 1♥ 2♦ Dbl
Pass 2♥ Pass 3♦
Dbl 3♥ Pass Pass!
Dbl RDbl Pass Pass
4♦ Pass Pass Dbl
Pass Pass Pass



I don't know what to think. I think the Bridge World would argue that W was wrong to make the X just to allow S an UNDO, no matter how kindly the X was meant

Whats the correct ruling at the table by a TD, later by an AC ?

[keylime]

Perfect case for assigned scores here. Once par is determined then we can go from there.

Question becomes this: is a split score the most fair? Problem with this is we can't as TD's give split scores in the software.

[Gerardo]

If results can be adjusted following the Laws, 3♥ for both plus a (not light) PP for NS.

If results can't be adjusted, NS would be fined with 100% of a top.

We have no PPs. Long ban from tourneys for South.

[hotShot]

1) Following the law, West should not be nice.
2) Giving (false) UI is not a infriction of the law, but using UI's given by partner is one.
3) Using a UI given by opponents is legal and on ones own risk.

So I think the simple rules are not helpful for sportsmanship. I would like to correct the score, but i don't see a law for it.
The score could be corrected, if someone intentionally made an infriction knowing he might benefit from it, but you need a infriction for that.
North was using an UI for his redbl, but it was given by opponents, so no infriction there.

If I had been TD at least south would be on my blacklist before i even start thinking about the bridge laws. North behaviour will be noted in the players note, and he'll be blacklisted at the next offence. I will apologize to west, for the poor standards of the law to sportsmanship.

Those of you who adjust the score, on what base do you do that? I'll be glad to learn about it.

[Brandal]

uday, on Apr 16 2005, 09:20 PM, said:

This happened in a tourney. UNDOs were disabled.

South alerted and explained his first PASS as "SORRY, WRONG CLICK"
West alerted his second double as "ALLOWING CORRECTION OF MISCLICK"

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

Pass 1♥ 2♦ Dbl
Pass 2♥ Pass 3♦
Dbl 3♥ Pass Pass!
Dbl RDbl Pass Pass
4♦ Pass Pass Dbl
Pass Pass Pass



I don't know what to think. I think the Bridge World would argue that W was wrong to make the X just to allow S an UNDO, no matter how kindly the X was meant

Whats the correct ruling at the table by a TD, later by an AC ?

I might lose my right to arrange tourneys now,
but if I was TD here on BBO and this occured,
I would adjust to 3HN= 140

it's probably completely utterly wrong bridgewise
and i'm sure if it is someone will tell me why

I would also instruct S,W and N to just accept
that we all misclick sometimes and not try to
construct ways to help,and/or take advantage of such
help.

[MickyB]

Looks like a miscommunication to me - South's "Sorry, wrong click" was probably because alerting the pass was accidental, not the pass itself! Once West has doubled to give South another chance, what is South meant to do? The board is unplayable without an undo for West. I can't see any redress for West under the laws, but if the situation happened in one of my tourneys I would adjust to 3♥ if the number of tricks looked determinable. And no bans for anyone

[Gerardo]

LAW 73 - COMMUNICATION
D. Variations in Tempo or Manner

2. Intentional Variations
A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the call or play is made.

E. Deception
A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play (so long as the deception is not protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience). It is entirely appropriate to avoid giving information to the opponents by making all calls and plays in unvarying tempo and manner.

F. Violation of Proprieties
When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent,

2. Player Injured by Illegal Deception
if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C).


Seems to me Law 73F2 gives ground for an adjusted score, but I'm no TD.
South still gets his/her PP

[hrothgar]

Gerardo, on Apr 17 2005, 08:48 AM, said:

If results can be adjusted following the Laws, 3♥ for both plus a (not light) PP for NS.

If results can't be adjusted, NS would be fined with 100% of a top.

We have no PPs. Long ban from tourneys for South.

Please explain your reasoning.

[hrothgar]

First comment:

Unfortunately, you aren't going to be able to find any exact precedence on this one. Our case books are based on Face-2-Face bridge. The differences in the playing environment are sufficient that I'm not aware of any good analogous cases...

Equally significant, the relevant Law in this case is Law 21.

Quiting Law 21.

LAW 21 - CALL BASED ON MISINFORMATION
A. Call Based on Caller's Misunderstanding
A player has no recourse if he has made a call on the basis of his own misunderstanding.
B. Call Based on Misinformation from an Opponent
1. Change of Call

Until the end of the auction period (see Law 17E), a player may, without penalty, change a call when it is probable that he made the call as a result of misinformation given to him by an opponent (failure to alert promptly to a conventional call or special understanding, where such alert is required by the sponsoring organisation, is deemed misinformation), provided that his partner has not subsequently called.
2. Change of Call by Opponent Following Correction

When a player elects to change a call because of misinformation (as in 1., preceding), his LHO may then in turn change any subsequent call he may have made, without penalty (unless his withdrawn call conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side, in which case the Director may assign an adjusted score). (For unauthorised information from withdrawn calls, see Law 16C.)

3. Too Late to Change Call

When it is too late to change a call, the Director may award an adjusted score (Law 40C may apply).

Note: It is important to note that the remedy for misinformation which is discovered during the auction permits the damaged side to roll back the auction.

Tournaments that do not permit undo's are inherently in violation of this Law. (This raises an interesting point... Should Director's have the option to selectively enable Undo's even in no-Undo tournaments in order to conform to the regulatory structure...)

--------------

Here are my own thoughts.

From the sounds of things, the whole incident occured when South misadvertently alerted his negative double. South attempted to correct by explaining that it was a "misclick". South intended that this explanation applied to the alert. West assumed that the explanation applied to the Double...

--------------

On to the ruling:

The ruling itself is actually relatively simple:

If the Director, like me believes that South "Misclick" explanation applied to the alert rather than the Double, Apply Law 21B. Assign an Average to both side.

South gets a lecture regarding the need to improve the precision of his explanations.

The entire table gets a lecture about the need to Call the Director at the point in time at which the irregularity gets discovered. Equally significant, the Director needs to make things clear that equity needs to be maintained through correctly application of the Laws and not through "Charity" from opponents. Indeed, a harsh Director might even impose a proceedural penalty against West.

If the Director beleives that South was willfully Cheating things get a bit more harsh... At this point in time Law 73 could indeed be applied.

[luke warm]

i agree with micky, i think the explanation for the 'pass' alert was meant to say "i accidently alerted 'pass', pardon me'

[mink]

I cannot believe that South's explaination was intended to mislead opps. This would be really ridiculous, you cannot forsee what advantage you might have, but it is likely to cause trouble. So I believe that South really misclicked in some way, and felt that he should tell opps about this. If I had to judge if this would help opps or mislead them, I would rather think that it would help them, so Law 73F2 cannot be applied. Of course, South should not tell anybody, but as long as he does not tell his partner, no harm has been done so far. East/West are allowed to use this information, but at their own risk.

Now West, knowing this is a non-undo tourney, likes to change the rules and makes an absurd call in order to help South. This can never work, of course, and West takes the role of the host here, granting an "undo" that is not intended to be allowed by the host. What do you expect North and South to do now? West has done something absurd, and tells opps that he has done something absurd. This is a legal information for North and South. I am quite astonished that some think North and South should do anything else than trying to find the best contract in the given situation, as one always should.

The word "sportsmanship" does not not appear in the laws, and it is good so. There is no obligation for anybody to protect opps after they made an error. If you just bid and play, give correct expanations and try not to use any UI, you can never do something wrong. If there was any obligation not to make the best calls if opps make some kind of mistakes, it would be very difficult to draw the line between when is this required and when not. Therefore the best solution is the existing one: it is not required at all.

As far as the director is concerend, he could be called by South after the misclick and would tell him just to do nothing, not tell opps about it and live with it. Or the director could have been called by West when seeing the information about the misclick, and West could ask the director if he should double in order to give South a second chance. The director would say, "no, just call what you think is good for your side".

But after both sides chose not to call the director when errors could still be prevented, I see nothing what the director should do now after all happened like it did.

Karl

[Gerardo]

OK, my mistake. Assumed South's mischief all along. However, in these cases, better to put "no alert", harder to misunderstand.

I believe TDs are the only ones who should have access to UNDO in tourneys.

If called in proper time, would instruct the auction to end in some number of ♥s, and instruct people to play and defend 3♥, and adjust afterwards, faster than several UNDOs I think

[mink]

hrothgar, on Apr 17 2005, 04:39 PM, said:

...
If the Director, like me believes that South "Misclick" explanation applied to the alert rather than the Double, Apply Law 21B. Assign an Average to both side.
...

Nobody can really know what South's original intentions were. All we are told is that there was a misclick. There is no reason to believe that this information was wrong. Everything else is an interference by us or by West, and if this finally turns out wrong, Law 21A should be applied.

But anyway, the double by West is not something suggested by the information "South made a misclick". Rather, I would always pass now because I would think that opps maybe just failed to bid their game. As there is no logical connection between the information and the double, Law 21 cannot be applied at all.

Karl