[pran]

axman, on Jun 24 2010, 02:18 AM, said:

pran, on Jun 23 2010, 06:14 PM, said:

Well, your information given here does not match the information given in the (official?) USBF bulletin. Nowhere do I find any statement to the effect that West misinformed South, not once and definitely not more than once.

QUOTE
The committee felt that, despite the incorrect explanations that South was given,...
UNQUOTE

Note my lack of emphasis on the plural of explanations.

Yes, that statement appears in the writeup without any foundation other than that different explanations were given by East and West. The way I read the writeup AC made no attempt to establish which (if any) of the explanations was correct.

If we shall believe the other information available (and I see no reason not to) then South was given the correct explanation, but the AC simply assumed otherwise.

[peachy]

[quote name='pran' date='Jun 24 2010, 03:23 AM'] QUOTE
The committee felt that, despite the incorrect explanations that South was given,...
UNQUOTE

Note my lack of emphasis on the plural of explanations. [/QUOTE]

If we shall believe the other information available (and I see no reason not to) then South was given the correct explanation, but the AC simply assumed otherwise. [/quote]
The hand diagram says:

3D (explained as a
preemptive heart
raise by East to
North and explained
as a WJS
in comp by West to
South

The writeup says:

The committee felt that, despite the incorrect explanations that South was given,...

I think it is plain and clear from the writeup that South was given MI (incorrect explanation). Do you have reason to believe the writeup is wrong on this fact?

[pran]

peachy, on Jun 24 2010, 05:53 PM, said:

The hand diagram says:

3D (explained as a
preemptive heart
raise by East to
North and explained
as a WJS
in comp by West to
South

The writeup says:

The committee felt that, despite the incorrect explanations that South was given,...

I think it is plain and clear from the writeup that South was given MI (incorrect explanation).  Do you have reason to believe the writeup is wrong on this fact?

Quote from: http://bridgewinners...-trials?start=5

However EW had it marked on their convention card as a weak jump shift, therefore South was not given any incorrect information by his screen mate.

Edit (added):

I did a further lookup on the quoted article and found the following comment by Michael Shuster: (I had to click a tag to display the comment)

Where's the merit?
I find South's contention that he would have done anything other than double to be completely disingenuous.
1) I don't believe the contention that a limit raise+ opposite a 1-level overcall creates a force at the 5-level.
2) Why did North double 5D? That action suggests defense, as does the South hand. That action suggests defense, as does the South hand. They were definitely never bidding to 5S.
3) The North player was the only one who technically had MI, but it was MI from the bidder which was accurate information. He can't complain. South had no MI. (The committee received evidence that the 3@D call was natural by agreement).
4) So why no AWMW. Seems too easy.

(The enhancement is mine)

[peachy]

pran, on Jun 24 2010, 02:00 PM, said:

Edit (added):

I did a further lookup on the quoted article and found the following comment by Michael Shuster: (I had to click a tag to display the comment)

This addition is a COMMENT on a website, where that reader commented on the case, and it is just as valuable or as worthless as your or my comments. Or anybody else's. I don't consider it as "giving additional FACTS" to the case.

[pran]

peachy, on Jun 24 2010, 08:25 PM, said:

pran, on Jun 24 2010, 02:00 PM, said:

Edit (added):

I did a further lookup on the quoted article and found the following comment by Michael Shuster: (I had to click a tag to display the comment)

This addition is a COMMENT on a website, where that reader commented on the case, and it is just as valuable or as worthless as your or my comments. Or anybody else's. I don't consider it as "giving additional FACTS" to the case.

Do you reject the informations: EW had it marked on their convention card as a weak jump shift and: The committee received evidence that the 3@D call was natural by agreement as untrue?

They appear to me being presented as facts?

[blackshoe]

I find the view that because North was given an accurate description of East's hand, he has no recourse even though that description was MI to be rather interesting. North will view South's bidding in the context of the explanation he was given, yet South will act in the context of the (correct, as it happens) explanation he was given. So the MI North received may well cause him to misinterpret his partner's bidding. Should NS not get redress in such a case? Note: I'm not saying that this misinterpretation necessarily happened here, only asking about the general principle.

[axman]

blackshoe, on Jun 24 2010, 03:25 PM, said:

I find the view that because North was given an accurate description of East's hand, he has no recourse even though that description was MI to be rather interesting.



North will view South's bidding in the context of the explanation he was given, yet South will act in the context of the (correct, as it happens) explanation he was given. So the MI North received may well cause him to misinterpret his partner's bidding. Should NS not get redress in such a case? Note: I'm not saying that this misinterpretation necessarily happened here, only asking about the general principle.

I do not find the view at all interesting. I do find it misguided for the reasons you point out.

It is possible for a ME to be substantial [as was here] but irrelevant [as was here].

Notably here, there was no claim by N of damage and in light of third party sources it is further notable that there was no claim by N during the hearing after the CC. But, had** there been, there is the persuasive proposition that for however inspired the extremely agressive vul OC was, it also sowed the seeds of the insurmountable problem [eg uncertainty as to the value of the hand]/ lack of ability to recognize the existence of a problem that occurred at the 5 level. and it is this that dispels any credibility to a [hypothetical] assertion by N of damage.

** if there had been I would be curious as its basis

[pran]

blackshoe, on Jun 24 2010, 09:25 PM, said:

I find the view that because North was given an accurate description of East's hand, he has no recourse even though that description was MI to be rather interesting. North will view South's bidding in the context of the explanation he was given, yet South will act in the context of the (correct, as it happens) explanation he was given. So the MI North received may well cause him to misinterpret his partner's bidding. Should NS not get redress in such a case? Note: I'm not saying that this misinterpretation necessarily happened here, only asking about the general principle.

There is (from what we now know) no doubt that North was given misinformation.

Even if this misinformation was a correct description of the cards held by the offender (East) North-South are still entitled to redress for any damage they suffer because of this misinformation.

An example could be if North makes an incorrect interpretation of South's calls because he assumes that South has called with the same information that North has received. If such misinterpretation leads to damage for North-South then of course rectification (adjusted score) is justified.

However, I doubt that North in this case can show any reasonable relation between the misinformation received by him and the poor result for his side on the board?