[mycroft]

First, a penalty for causing damage to the game by crashing the table.

Second, there certainly was misinformation, but it didn't cause damage. SB read - and we all know he remembers, as we know he records chat - "weak NT and three weak 2s" at the beginning of the round, and 15-17 on opening. He therefore knows there was MI somewhere, but chose not to clarify. Any damage caused was completely from his own choice to not resolve the ambiguity at the time. Even if it wasn't immediate, SB has been playing against RR and partners forever, and a switch of system at all he knows (probably from his own experience, having Unlucky Expert-like attempted to add system to RR's brain when playing with him) is a disaster, so would be a major surprise.

In fact, I believe SB allowed this to happen so that he could get a good score either way - if it turned out that RR had 15, he could complain that the initial round announcement was wrong, and got him to misdefend, as evidenced by the fact that RR announced 15-17 and had 15; or if it turned out that they had changed and the announcement was wrong, he could gain on that. All of that instead of doing what he should and resolving the ambiguity so that the game can be scored at the table instead of in the director's hands.

Quote

1.1 Calling the TD

However, it is very important to call the TD immediately when...there is conflicting information about the meaning of a call or play, e.g. when an explanation is different from the system card...

1.3.2 Misinformation and damage

A player's claim to have been damaged...wil fail if the player was aware of its likely meaning...
[yes, I know here, it's about failure to Alert, not mis-Alert, but I would argue that this is definite evidence of the way the EBU wishes to rule in "known MI" cases. I also know that I snipped the "without putting their side's interests at risk" bit - but after the auction, there's nothing to risk except the "they did something wrong, we deserve a good score" double-shot attempt at the end.]

I guarantee if, after consultation with the other directors around (and SB doesn't count), I have to poll, I'm polling with the *complete* information: "so you're told they play weak NT, but there was a comment about switching from righty, and first chair, LHO opens 1NT announced "15-17". The auction continues... Any people who ask "so, which is it?" or the like get recorded, in addition to all the other responses. I expect I will be able to say "the poll shows there was no damage, because almost everyone chose to find out what the range actually was before misplaying, and so got it right."

This is classic "they did something wrong, we get a good score." No, you still have to show up to the table. There are people who *want* the ability to win because the opponents have a momentary disconnect between brain and tongue, and it sometimes applies. But not here.

[lamford]

pran, on 2020-October-06, 02:59, said:

It could cause SB to think that he possibly had 4 hearts or/and 4 spades.

SB was not claiming that remark misled him; his sole complaint is that 1NT was mis-announced as 15-17.

And in response to mycroft, the fact that ChCh suggested changing to a strong NT caused SB to accept the announcement at face value. In addition, he assumed (and had every right to assume) that if there had been an error, then there would have been a correction under 20F4(a) which is a MUST clause, so he is now seeking a 3VP PP for that breach in addition to an adjusted score. And you cannot argue that RR was not aware of his error. When ruling we assume, as per Law 72C, that he could have been aware.

[mycroft]

Sorry, you had prima facie misinformation that you chose not to clarify. Trying anything else bends the BS-meter, and it's the new 2018 American model.

The rabbit wrote his range when he bid 1NT, and didn't look at it after; and knew he had said 12-14. Of course, if he had noticed his misinformation, he would have corrected it, but he didn't. Unlike partner Alert world, CC didn't hear it, so couldn't correct it before the opening lead. (Hey, you can do hypotheticals, I can make assumptions as to the facts not mentioned. And I know *I've* done this, so it's highly likely I'm right.)

There's only one person who knows there's misinformation; he chose to hope it would work out for him, and when it didn't, he hopes to get it from me, in violation of the White Book.

[pran]

lamford, on 2020-October-06, 18:11, said:

SB was not claiming that remark misled him; his sole complaint is that 1NT was mis-announced as 15-17.

So apparently you do not care much about

Law 81C3 said:

to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the periods established in accordance with Laws 79C and 92B.

when it comes to (for instance)

Law 73 said:

B. Inappropriate Communication between Partners
1. Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked, or alerts and explanations given or not given.
2. The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws.

(my enhancement)

The Director should IMHO at least have issued a warning before handling the question of MI.

Or is the culture in this club such that reacting on violations of Laws 73 and 74 is just a waste of time?

[lamford]

pran, on 2020-October-06, 23:40, said:

So apparently you do not care much about
when it comes to (for instance)
(my enhancement)

The Director should IMHO at least have issued a warning before handling the question of MI.

Or is the culture in this club such that reacting on violations of Laws 73 and 74 is just a waste of time?

I suggest you reread the OP. I don't think declarer's remark to dummy after dummy has been tabled can be classed as communication.

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2020-October-06, 18:50, said:

Of course, if he had noticed his misinformation, he would have corrected it, but he didn't.

As SB says, it does not matter one iota why he did not correct his misinformation. He could have been aware of it, and he could have chosen to cheat by not correcting it. We don't need to assess motive with 72C. We just adjust when we decide he could have been aware that his irregularity could well damage the non-offending side.

While SB was thinking, RR could see that he had Qxx of clubs opposite Txx. He could have been aware that SB was considering the jack of clubs switch (were he a better player). He could have been aware that his wrong announcement would cause SB to play him for a better hand and give up on the surrounding play. Therefore we adjust.

Any other ruling will get overturned at some point along the L&E, Supreme Court, CAS route that a determined SB would take.

[mycroft]

Oh okay. You want to go beyond "he didn't do something he was supposed to, but maybe didn't know" to the old Law 23? The "We think you did this deliberately, but saying so would get us sued, so we'll just claim that a cheater would do it" one? The one I was told in the review of my TD exam "you might never get a case that applies"? And you're going to claim *the rabbit* could have known? I mean, apart from being laughed out of the club, have you burned yourself on any teapots lately, SB?

"Why yes, the best player in the room, and the one known to appeal any minor mistake, and the one known to archive everything he's told so that he can catch contradictions - that's the one that any player "could have known" at the time "oh if I give him a contradiction, he'd end up confused and make a mistake" (rather than, say, blow up at the table with "you told us it was weak NT! Chimp, is your partner lying, or were you?" or "I'll see if they miss slam, and if it turns out that rabbit lost his mind for a second, I can get the TD to give me my good score anyway", or, you know, as the EBU White Book requires, "call the TD and clarify the known misinformation")?

Yeah, that's a "5-dimensional chess" move. One of these days, someone is going to out-fox the SB by playing to his known skills deliberately; today is not the day.

And anyway, here, there's no way this could damage a *non-offending* side. It's only the SB, for whom the regulations are for other people, who could have been damaged.

[blackshoe]

I honestly don't understand why the North London Club hasn't long since asked SB to take his attitude and his game elsewhere.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2020-October-07, 18:27, said:

I honestly don't understand why the North London Club hasn't long since asked SB to take his attitude and his game elsewhere.

SB's previous bad behaviour might justify expulsion. Here, however, Lamford is right: SB seems to have been an innocent victim of MI. RR and I make similar stupid mistakes. It would hurt our pride if a sympathetic TD failed to penalize our infractions.

[pran]

lamford, on 2020-October-07, 15:36, said:

I suggest you reread the OP. I don't think declarer's remark to dummy after dummy has been tabled can be classed as communication.

How do you define 'communication'?

This was a remark from one player to his partner with the (quite likely intended) side-effect of being heard by the opponent who at that time was considering his lead to the next trick.

To me that looks like a very serious violation of the laws.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2020-October-07, 18:27, said:

I honestly don't understand why the North London Club hasn't long since asked SB to take his attitude and his game elsewhere.

Lamford bribes the club management, as he won't have anything to post without SB's antics.

[barmar]

pran, on 2020-October-08, 00:35, said:

How do you define 'communication'?

This was a remark from one player to his partner with the (quite likely intended) side-effect of being heard by the opponent who at that time was considering his lead to the next trick.

To me that looks like a very serious violation of the laws.

I believe that Law is only concerned with communication that could influence partner's actions. You can't influence the auction once it's over. If partner is declarer, dummy's comments might be considered "participating in the play", depending on the nature of the comments.

However, there's another Law regarding comments that might mislead opponents. That could be relevant, but SB has stated that this isn't his complaint in this case.

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2020-October-07, 18:16, said:

We think you did this deliberately, but saying so would get us sued, so we'll just claim that a cheater would do it

As you know we don't say that at all, or imply it. We just say that RR, in one of his more cogent moments, could have been aware that the wrong announcement AND the failure to correct it could damage the non-offender.

And SB should be treated EXACTLY the same as any other player.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2020-October-07, 18:27, said:

I honestly don't understand why the North London Club hasn't long since asked SB to take his attitude and his game elsewhere.

Because he is scrupulously honest and is useful on other rulings, despite his obnoxious manner. As he points out, the etiquette clauses have a plethora of "shoulds" in them, not "musts", and he elects not to follow them.

[lamford]

nige1, on 2020-October-07, 19:20, said:

SB's previous bad behaviour might justify expulsion. Here, however, Lamford is right: SB seems to have been an innocent victim of MI. RR and I make similar stupid mistakes. It would hurt our pride if a sympathetic TD failed to penalize us.

SB has never breached a MUST clause, so I disagree that he is anywhere near expulsion. But I agree with the rest of the post and I would adjust here to that percentage of my pollees that switch to the jack of clubs with the correct information.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2020-October-08, 11:45, said:

SB has never breached a MUST clause, so I disagree that he is anywhere near expulsion.

They're SHOULD rather than a MUST, but he has repeatedly violated 74A1 and 74A2. While the laws say that these violations are not often punished, I think a history of consistent violations would constitute sufficient reason to punish them.

[mycroft]

Remember that meter I mentioned earlier? Even *you* don't believe that one.

And I'm happy to follow the laws with SB. In particular, this guideline:

Quote

“should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights but not often penalised)

I won't often penalize SB. I figure that should be once a session or so, and I'll make sure the penalty, when I do apply it, is memorable.

Also, this gives clear justification to invalidating his L72C claim, which as I said last time, only applies to a non-offending player. By failing to do what he could do, and the regulations of his NBO make clear he should do, he is no longer innocent, and can whistle L72 past the graveyard. I hear there's people that would vote for him there.

[pran]

barmar, on 2020-October-08, 11:18, said:

I believe that Law is only concerned with communication that could influence partner's actions. You can't influence the auction once it's over. If partner is declarer, dummy's comments might be considered "participating in the play", depending on the nature of the comments.

However, there's another Law regarding comments that might mislead opponents. That could be relevant, but SB has stated that this isn't his complaint in this case.

Law 73B concerns 'Inappropriate Communication between Partners'.
Law 73D2 concerns inappropriate communication between a player and his opponents, namely by forbidding a player from attempting to mislead opponents by means of ..... remark.

I cannot see how RR could have convinced me (as director) that possibly influencing SB to believe he had 4 (rather than only 3) spades was not his real intention with his remark.

This is however irrelevant: Nobody claiming damage from an irregularity doesn't change the fact that Law 81C3 instructs the Director to handle it. Not noticing this clear violation of Law 73D2 can only be described as a Director's error.

[lamford]

pran, on 2020-October-08, 12:31, said:

I cannot see how RR could have convinced me (as director) that possibly influencing SB to believe he had 4 (rather than only 3) spades was not his real intention with his remark.

RR did not mention spades in his remark, only hearts. His remark suggests that he had five hearts and that they might have had a heart fit. He does have five hearts. I cannot see how anyone would try to convince me (as director) that it suggested in any way that he had four spades. If he has five hearts he won't have four spades.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2020-October-08, 12:04, said:

They're SHOULD rather than a MUST, but he has repeatedly violated 74A1 and 74A2. While the laws say that these violations are not often punished, I think a history of consistent violations would constitute sufficient reason to punish them.

And he does get (and accepts and gloats about) the occasional PP. OO gave him one for "addressing the director in a boorish manner" a while back. How this amounts to expulsion from the club is beyond me. Here RR shoud get a PP for breach of a MUST clause, and mycroft et all are trying to defend him.