From: rainbow@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Rob Buchner)
Subject: Re: Law problem
Organization: St Barts
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:41:10 GMT
Keywords: mis-information


>>your obligation as dummy before the opening lead is one of two things,
>>tell the opponents what you thought your agreement/system was (ie partner
>>misbid/misalerted), or indicate you just plain forgot and misbid the hand.

>This is totally wrong.  If you misbid the hand, the opponents are NOT
>entitled to that information.  As long as they were property alerted
>to what your partnership agreements are, then they should stay as much
>in the dark as to the actual contents of your hand as your partner was.

Once upon a time I would have agreed. Matter-in-fact, thats the way I think
it should be. But wrong is a matter of perspective. Witness the two following
experiences. Story number one: St Louis Nationals a good number of years ago.
I'm playing with a new partner. The night before he pulls out his system
notes from playing with Jeff Meckstroth and wants me to play as much of 
it as I can handle. There was this one complicated asking sequence
which I agreed to play, I figured it would never come up, so I made
a half-hearted attempt to remember it. Of course you know its going
to come up now. We're playing in a flight A regional swiss event.
It's the last round, we are leading with 6 and 3/4 wins. We draw the
second place team at 6 and 1/2 wins. They are four lady world champions
who I won't name since I still find their actions to be despicable.
So we end up in an auction where I showed a heart control which I didn't
have but should have had. They asked partner after the auction was over 
and I said nothing. Partner played in 3NT and the defense was not accurate
allowing us to make the contract. She made her natural long suit lead
which I feel she would have made regardless. No director was called.
We compare results and win easily by 15 IMPs or so, picking up a game
swing (vs a partial) on the hand in question. We are celebrating our 
victory when the director informs us the opponents are appealing that
board. So we end up in a committee and I listen to these world champions
explaining how this is unacceptable and the board must be thrown
out because the opening leader might have made a short suit heart
lead if I had corrected the explanation and said I didn't hold a heart
control as advertised. Not that this would have set the contract, but 
perhaps they would have then defended more accurately and not allowed
us to make the contract. In addition, they insisted a procedural
penalty must be assessed against us because partnerships must be
responsible for the conventions they are playing and this infraction
robbed them of an opportunity to play the board. They basically
used their clout and power to influence the committee into doing
exactly what they wanted as if the law supported them and that they
were in the right. I tried to explain that I simply forgot the system
and I obviously misbid the hand and that such information as I understand
the laws need not be corrected since the explanation was accurate.
We are not an established partnership and have never played together.
All to no avail. I had no chance. The board was thrown out. We were
assessed a three IMP penalty. We ended up losing the match by one IMP.
We ended up losing the event by a 1/4 win. I was pissed to say the least.
I wrote in this entire story to "Ruling the Game" and Julie Greenberg
from the ACBL bulletin was kind enough to reply stating the committee
was entirely proper in their ruling. I was still in disbelief and
wrote a followup letter wasking for further clarification what
constitutes mis-information and what needs to be corrected when.
I received a second reply. I was wrong then. How can I be wrong now?
The following month they wrote a detailed article in the bulletin.
Although after the article I was still a bit confused about it all.

Story number two: Now armed with all this detailed interpretation
of the law, I was playing in a Chicago regional, open swiss teams.
Opponents have an auction where LHO makes a bid which was elerted 
as preemptive (passed hand jump thought to be a weak jump shift)
and RHO bids 3NT. I make a passive lead expecting all the strength
to be on my right, particularly since I had dummy's suit stopped.
Turns out dummy hits with an intermediate hand highly invitational.
RHO, who gambled himself, rattles off 9 tricks with his own now
running 7 card suit. If I had made my normal aggressive lead from
my broken long suit, we would have quickly taken 5 top tricks.
Well, I knew what to do. I called for the director and asked for
an appeal when the director let the 3NT result stand. LHO tried
to explain she had just misbid her hand and forgot what they had
agreed to play. I said they are responsible for their conventions
and I would have made another lead if I wasn't mis-informed as
to what to expect in dummy. They had no chance. The result was
corrected to down 1 turning our loss into a win. Maybe I am wrong,
but this is the way committees rule and that makes it right.

>>It doesn't matter if they defended badly, they will be protected.

>This is also untrue.  If your infraction possibly damaged them, you will
>not get to keep your good score, however, if they committed a series
>of boneheaded moves to assure themselves of a zero, they may get to
>keep it, and a split score will be adjusted.  Usually this is a judgement
>call for the director and then a committee.

See above. Or is it maybe the law only protects world champions?
Actually, I wouldn't argue if you concur with that question...

>>As declarer, you need only correct mis-information, if you don't hold
>>what you are suppose to hold (ie a misbid), you need not say anything.

>The law doesn't differentiate between declarer and dummy in these situations

See above. There are a lot of instances where actual partnerships agreements
cannot be ascertained and committees expect dummy to provide complete
information as to what he thought their agreements were even if he decides
he has misbid as a result of hearing what partner has to say about it.
Apparently, it does not apply to declarer since his hand remains hidden.
You decide what is right and wrong, but I'm going to be safe and
explain what I thought my bids actually meant when I am to be dummy.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge