Correct misinformation asap?

Partner opens 2D which you describe as strong (Benji) bidding proceeds
2D - 2S - P - 3S
P -
You now remember 2D is weak.
Is this the time to correct the announcement - after summoning the director.
At the table the correction was made without the director and 4S was a flat board making 6 with a well fitting combined 27 count.
So all was well ?

Comments

  • Law 20F4(a) deals with this. Somewhat curiously, it gives the player the option. He may correct the error immediately, but his obligation is only to correct it before the end of the Clarification Period (i.e. before the opening lead is faced). In either case the TD must be called.

    In practice, of course, the TD won't be called very often, especially when there is a playing TD, but the requirement to call the TD is a sensible one as the players may not be aware that the TD can rewind the auction. In this case the failure to call the TD seems to have done no harm.

    I have to say that as a player I would always correct the misinformation as soon as I became aware of it. Apart from the fact that it seems fair to opponents to do this, I would rather that it there was any question of the auction being re-wound, the TD should re-wind it and my opponents should make a bridge decision as to whether to change a call, rather than getting into adjusted score territory on the basis of the TD's judgement of whether the misinformation affected the auction at that point. Of course an adjusted score may still be in point if the opponents might have made a different call at a point too far back for the auction to be re-wound, and were thereby damaged.

  • TagTag
    edited July 23

    No, things were not all well. Firstly, under 20F4 the player's obligation was to call the director. This is a "must" law and failure to do so warrants a penalty, which may be in the form of a warning.

    The player could have chosen to call the director at the point you describe but is under no obligation to do so at that time. If he does call the director then, it is the director's decision whether to make the correct explanation known and whether to offer 4th seat the opportunity to change his last bid under law 21B, since the 3S bid might have been influenced by the misinformation. Since the 2S bid was likely also influenced by the misinformation, the director might just allow the bidding to finish and consider whether to assign an adjusted score later. Note that the 2S bid cannot now be changed, since the partner has made a subsequent bid.

    If the player doesn't call the director earlier, he must call the director before the end of the clarification period. Note that the 2D bidder cannot correct the explanation before the end of play.

    We don't know whether this pair would have found the slam with the correct explanation. That others didn't is not relevant and it's possible that they would have found the slam without the misinformation. The director could factor this into an adjusted score.

    I will add, though, that in my experience, this whole scenario is common on a club night and most directors will let it all slide unless there's an objection from someone. Also, if anyone does raise an objection then they'll be the ones being viewed with displeasure for causing a nuisance and trying to win by using the rules. Clearly this is another matter and a tad off-topic.

  • @Tag said:
    it is the director's decision whether to make the correct explanation known and whether to offer 4th seat the opportunity to change his last bid under law 21B, since the 3S bid might have been influenced by the misinformation.

    I don't see this in the laws, about the director deciding whether or not to make the correct explanation known. Where did that come from? Nor indeed whether or not to allow the last call of the NOS to be replaced, providing it could well have been influenced by the misinformation.

  • Tag
    No doubt you're correct but a tricky conversation if the director arrives at that stage of the auction.
    As offender needs to be careful not to actually correct the explanation presumably should (must) say something like "I misdescribed the 2D bid". Tthe director may need to hear the correction away from the table before making a decision.
  • @gordonrainsford said:

    @Tag said:
    it is the director's decision whether to make the correct explanation known and whether to offer 4th seat the opportunity to change his last bid under law 21B, since the 3S bid might have been influenced by the misinformation.

    I don't see this in the laws, about the director deciding whether or not to make the correct explanation known. Where did that come from? Nor indeed whether or not to allow the last call of the NOS to be replaced, providing it could well have been influenced by the misinformation.

    Have I misread 21B1(a)? "Until the end of the auction period (see Law 17D) and provided that his partner has not subsequently called, a player may change a call without other rectification for his side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent."

    Maybe I was mistaken about whether the misinformation should immediately be corrected after calling the director. I can't currently find whatever prompted my earlier comment.

  • My understanding of the "best practice" here is to correct your own misinformation ASAP if you realise you made a mistake, but if you realise your partner has misexplained, to correct in the clarification period (if presumed declarer or dummy) or after the hand (if a defender). It's important to correct misinformation but it's also important to keep the amount of unauthorised information down.

    In any case, if an opponent has bid before you can get the correction in, you should call the Director.

  • @ais523 said:
    My understanding of the "best practice" here is to correct your own misinformation ASAP if you realise you made a mistake, but if you realise your partner has misexplained, to correct in the clarification period (if presumed declarer or dummy) or after the hand (if a defender).

    As indicated in my previous post I would agree with you about best practice when you realise you have mis-explained partner's call, although Law 20F4(a) gives you an option as to timing.

    When it is a case of partner having mis-explained your call, it is not strictly a matter of best practice, as Law 20F5 is fully prescriptive as to precisely when the director should be called and the misinformation corrected.

    @ais523 said:
    It's important to correct misinformation but it's also important to keep the amount of unauthorised information down.

    It is useful to keep UI down, but it's not generally an infraction to provide UI, and sometimes it can't be avoided.

    @ais523 said:
    In any case, if an opponent has bid before you can get the correction in, you should call the Director.

    I don't agree with this. I don't see why an opponent's subsequent call affects your choice under Law 20F4 or your lack of choice under Law 20F5.

    @Tag said:
    No, things were not all well...
    We don't know whether this pair would have found the slam with the correct explanation. That others didn't is not relevant and it's possible that they would have found the slam without the misinformation. The director could factor this into an adjusted score.

    I misread the OP and misled myself into thinking that "flat board" meant "no damage". Of course an adjusted score is possible if the NOS think that they might have bid the slam with timely correct information.

Sign In or Register to comment.