Using Polls in MI situations

Peter

Hi.. I'm well aware of using Polls in UI situations to see whether the recipient had any Logical Alternatives.

In a misinformation case what do I do if there had been misinformation and a player stated that with correct information they would have acted differently but not until the end of the hand. By which time they will have seen what outcomes different actions would have had.

Do I take them at their word and/or ask probing questions to check their assertion?

And most importantly Do I / should I poll similar standard players playing a similar system to find what they would have done with the correct information?

Many thanks for any advice

patricks

I always poll peers to find out what they would have done with the correct information.

Peter

Thank you @patricks

Senior_Kibitzer

If the assertion seems very reasonable, I would normally go with it as we should give the non-offending side a certain benefit of doubt, but there is then still the question of what would have happened next in the auction and a possible need to consult over that.
If the assertion seems at all doubtful, then, yes, I would ask "probing questions" to re-assess their assertion in order to decide to what extent to poll or consult.

gordonrainsford

I agree with Barrie's comments and there is also a mention of this situation in the EBU notes on Polling & Consulting

Peter

Thanks @gordonrainsford ... with everything going on I had forgot to check that obvious source :)
update: I just have read it and I (re-)learnt so much stuff!!!! Recommend it to anyone who thinks they may be a little rusty on polling and/or consulting.