From: tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: How would you rule (was Re: Lead Problem)
Date: 18 Dec 1992 20:01:37 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbootay.sw.stratus.com

In article <1gstp5INNc0f@s-crim1.dl.ac.uk>, mbrgw@s-crim1.dl.ac.uk (R.G. Walters) writes:
> ...
> North made a bid, we assume that he thought he knew what he was doin.
> South then failed to alert his bid, and gave an explanation which was at
> variance with North's apparent understanding.
> As far as North is concerned, South has incorrectly described his bid, and
> has failed to alert when he should. He is not allowed to be reminded of
> his system by South's action, and therefore should correct any explanation
> by South which is at variance with what he at the time believed to be
> his partnership agreement.
> In other words, EW _are_ entitled to North's opinion of his bid.

That's how it might have gone without a screen.  It's not quite right, but
we'll come back to that.  

In fact, there was a screen.  Following screen procedures, North alerted his own
bid to East and explained what he thought the agreement was to East.  South
and West could not see or hear North's alert or explanation.  When the North
bid (sans alert) was revealed to South and West, South did not alert.  West
asked, and South explained what she thought the agreement was to West.  North
and East could not see or hear South's non-alert or explanation.

The screen makes ruling on the situation a lot easier (once evidence is
presented that South's explanation was correct).  The screen effectively
blocked any flow of unauthorized information between North and South and
removed any obligation to "correct" each other's explanations.  So the
only question left is "were the opponents damaged by misinformation?"
Since only East was misinformed and only West was damaged, the answer is "no."

This isn't relevant to the case posted by Avi Roy Shapira, but, just as a
matter of interest, let's reconsider what would have happened with no screen.
Robin Walters writes:

> North made a bid, we assume that he thought he knew what he was doin.
> South then failed to alert his bid, and gave an explanation which was at
> variance with North's apparent understanding.
> As far as North is concerned, South has incorrectly described his bid, and
> has failed to alert when he should. He is not allowed to be reminded of
> his system by South's action,

Not exactly.  North "may not choose from among logical alternative actions
one that could reasonably have been suggested over another by the extraneous
information."  [Law 16A]  The law is carefully worded to restrict North's
choice of actions, not his thoughts.  It is much easier for North to control
his actions than his thoughts.  It is much easier for the director to judge
North's actions than his thoughts.

North may well be reminded of his system by South's explanation.  He can't
help that.  But he can avoid actions that were rendered illegal by the
extraneous information.  And the director can objectively judge whether he
took such actions.

> and therefore should correct any explanation
> by South which is at variance with what he at the time believed to be
> his partnership agreement.

No.  Not if he realizes South's explanation was correct.  "No player has the
obligation to disclose to the opponents that he has violated an announced
agreement."  [Law 75B]

> In other words, EW _are_ entitled to North's opinion of his bid.

No.

It's interesting that in this case West really wants to be misinformed!  As
it happens, he might or might not get his wish with or without a screen.  If
North is his screen partner, West gets his wish.  If South is his screen partner,
West doesn't get his wish.  Without a screen, if North believes South's
explanation was wrong, then West gets his wish.  If North realizes South's
explanation was correct, then West doesn't get his wish.  That's the way the
ball bounces.
-- 
Tim Hill
Stratus Computer, Inc.                  tnh@vos.stratus.com
55 Fairbanks Boulevard                  508-460-2232
Marlborough, MA  01752                  fax 508-624-7488
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge