A complex online MI case
Playing online on BBO with self-alerting. (Based on a real call, but some of the details have been changed slightly to highlight what I think are the relevant Laws issues.)
North opens 2H, showing hearts and spades. They attempt to alert this at the time they make it, but there's an Internet hiccup and the alert isn't seen by BBO (nor relayed to the opponents) for over 10 seconds. The meaning of the call is given in the system summary at the start of the round, and is on the system card.
East overcalls 2S, thinking that 2H is a natural weak two (and not asking, despite the "missing announcement").
South is aware of the possibility that something may have gone wrong, but has no proof (2S is often natural, so the lack of alert from East isn't a giveaway; and S can't see N's alerts). South eventually decides to wait in case there's a Director call, then pass (even if there is UI, partner is unlikely to figure out what it indicates unless they have forgotten the convention, in which case MI will be a larger issue). While South is thinking, the BBO servers finally realise there's been an alert and display it, but (because South can't see North's alerts) South can't time their pass until after the alert arrives.
West passes. Although West has seen an alert arrive late after East's call, East could have known what the 2H call meant (from the system card or the start-of-round announcement), so West has no proof that something has gone wrong.
North passes. North was unaware that their alert was delayed by computer issues, and everything looks normal from their point of view.
East has not noticed the late alert yet.
South makes the opening lead, and dummy comes down.
Upon seeing East's hand (on BBO dummy can see declarer's hand after dummy comes down, in much the same way that declarer can see dummy's), West calls the director. How do you rule?
My analysis is: the misinformation could have lead to the auction being rewound if caught in time, but after West's pass, it became too late to rewind. Should anyone call the director?
- North doesn't know that an irregularity has occurred (East's 2S bid is fairly uncommon, but it isn't unheard of).
- South has a suspicion that an irregularity has occurred. However, there is no proof. Additionally, this is one of the few situations in which a player is not allowed to call the Director (Law 20F5a), so even if South knew for certain there had been a missed alert, they would have to leave it unreported.
- West may have a suspicion that an irregularity has occurred, but may not have realised what had happened, and has no proof. Additionally, calling the Director would likely be contrary to West's interests at this point (because they will get a sympathetically weighted adjustment rather than having to deal with an actual table result), so as long as there is not a requirement for West to call the director, it is reasonable to expect West not to call.
- East is aware that the 2S call was made based on misinformation, but it is not East's turn, and as such there's no particular reason to expect East to call before West's call rather than afterwards – players online are often distracted when it isn't their turn, and it can take some time to find the director call button on BBO, so it's quite reasonable for the auction to progress past West before East can make the call. After West has called, calling the director is unlikely to have a substantial effect on how the board plays out (neither North nor West is likely to change their call).
So despite there being a lot of warning of a potential problem, the Director doesn't get called while there is still a chance to fix it! As such, the only recourse is to play the hand out and award an adjusted score. (The director has to rule misinformation because there's no proof that North made their alert along with the bid, rather than several seconds later – the only indication that this is what happened is North's word, and it's usual practice to disregard this sort of testimony as a matter of course.)
It surprises me that, online, a player is not allowed to alert their partner's bids (privately to their opponents) if they think that something may have gone wrong with the alerting process. I think it would make sense to adjust Law 20F5a to allow players to attempt to correct misexplanations if they can do so without their partner being aware, e.g. via online private message. That said, this is a situation where it's to the advantage of the side who made the bid about which there is misinformation to have the Director called, and to the advantage of the side who were misinformed to not have the Director called, as this typically gives them a more favourable adjustment – so perhaps, for fairness, it makes sense to not allow the "offending" side to call the Director.
Another problem with Law 20F5 online is that it requires the declaring side to correct any misinformation their partners have given at the end of the auction. Because self-alerting prevents you from seeing partner's alerts, there is no way for a player to know whether there's a mandatory correction + Director call, or not.
This is also the second case I've seen in which an alert wasn't delivered correctly online, due to technical issues. The rulings in such cases depend on whether the hand records specify that the alert was delivered in time or not, and a Director pretty much has no choice but to respect them. (The previous time it happened, the online records said that the alert had been given – the issue is that for whatever technical reason, it hadn't been displayed to the opponents. The Director ruled as though they had seen the alert.) It leaves a somewhat unsatisfactory feeling when this sort of thing produces an unrealistic result on the hand, even for the pair who benefits from it (the first incident was worse – at least an MI adjustment produces a realistic result for the board, even though you don't have a sensible table result, whereas "score stands" when one side isn't able to see the auction is unfair). That said, this may be something that it's impossible to do anything about.
Something that affects face-to-face as well as online bridge: this sort of incident shows that it sometimes possible to figure out, from the opponents' actions, that partner may have forgotten to alert (you can't be certain, but you do have information about it). Is this authorised or unauthorised information? Given that the online system prevents the information coming from partner, and the only source is the opponents, it seems like it should be authorised. On the other hand, the same source of information is available face-to-face, as well. Imagine an auction like this, in face-to-face play:
1S, (3C = D+H not alerted), 3D not alerted.
Overcaller is aware (from having memorized the opponents' system card through long experience with them) that the opponents' 3D call is artificial over a two-suited bid. Thus, the fact that RHO didn't alert LHO's 3D call means that partner has forgotten to alert the 3C call (or that the opponents have forgotten to alert the 3D call, but it's reasonable to act on the assumption that the opponent's haven't given you MI because it will get adjusted away if they have). Does that make partner's lack of alert authorised information? It feels like it shouldn't, but the same sort of inferences are available online, when the unauthorised information doesn't exist. (I think in this case, I would rule as follows: the information from RHO's lack of alert only exists as a consequence of misinformation. So we may not be able to adjust under Law 16B, but can nonetheless adjust under Law 21B3. This may not be ideal, though, because 21B produces a "what would have happened" adjustment whereas 16B produces a "worst logical alternative" adjustment, and these come to different results in some cases.)