Misinformation - Replacment of Final Pass
Pursuant to Law 21(B)(1)(a) player can a call ....... when the director judges ......influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent............ " . Under such circumstances, I would allow the final pass to be replaced but not all the way back to the start of the auction. There is no reference in this law of the final pass capable of being replaced. The White Book 2017 (8.21.1) refers to the last call to be taken back under such circumstances which is fine. Butch is the Law Book does not include the word "final" or the "last" pass"? Is this referred to elsewhere in the Law Book. I would be grateful for views/education on this point please.
Comments
"Until the end of the auction period, and provided that his partner has not subsequently called,..."
This means that the final pass can be changed, and also (if relevant) the previous pass (i.e. the RHO of the final passer), but no previous calls.
The only call that can be corrected after MI is the most recent by the non-offending side (although if the NOS correct, the offending side can make their own correction to later calls in response).
The most commonly seen correctable MI situation is when presumed declarer and/or dummy points out misinformation by the other prior to the opening lead. In this situation, the most recent call by the non-offending side is the final pass of the auction (unless the contract is doubled but not redoubled, in which case it will be the penultimate pass of the auction, because in doubled contracts it's the declaring side that passes the hand out). So it's normally the "final pass" that's the correctable bid.
There are other correctable MI situations, e.g. when a player realises they forgot to alert but their RHO has already made their call. These can lead to calls other than the final/penultimate pass being the call that's correctable.
Thank you so much Mitch and ais523 for your expert views on this.
One addendum to ais523 - if the OS DO change their call (it can only be one) - the withdrawn call is UI to them - but AI to the NOS.
Thank you weejonnie. Coinincidentally, I came across a situation last night when I was playing. The bidding went 1N (by my LHO- announced as 12-14 ), X (by my partner), 2C ( (by my RHO but not alerted so I presume a natural club bid), I passed, 2H ( from opener) and all passed. My partner put the lead faced down and I asked what the 2C meant, and she said it was Stayman. Under these circumstances, I wanted to double 2C if it was stayman as a lead directing double if it was correctly described as Stayman. How should a director rule and how far can a director allow to rewind the auction ? All the way back to my first pass after 2C ? If not I lost the chance of doing a double for a club lead. Any further views on this, please.
Law 21 B 3: When it is too late to change a call etc. etc. You would be entitled to an adjusted score if warranted.
The director can allow you to replace you final pass. You can then note that without the misinformation, denying you of the knowledge that 2C was artificial, you would have doubled. The director should then allow you to play out the hand and then assess whether you have been damaged. If you would have secured a better contract or defended differently (to your benefit) had you thrown in a double after the 2C bid, then he can assign an adjusted score, ignoring the actual result from playing it.
Thank you Tag. This sounds great.
Thank you SDN.
While on the subject of the Director allowing the innocent side to replace its final pass, the law says that this can be done if the director judges that the decision to make the call 'could well have been influenced by misinformation...'.
One does not find anywhere any guidance as to how the Director is expected to make this judgement. He cannot, or should not, look at the player's cards. Therefore all he can do is to ask the player if he wants to change his call and if the player says 'yes' presumably the Director has to allow it. He can take the player away from the table and ask him to explain why he wants to change his call, but at the end of it all he has to take the player's word for it, there does not seem to be much scope for exercising independent judgement.
I think the important thing is to ensure the player understands that for a change it is necessary for it to have been affected by the misinformation, not by the knowledge that the players may have had a misunderstanding. If they understand that, you can allow them to make their decision but also let them know that you might look at the hand afterwards to confirm this.
One thing that IS missing from Law 21 B2
may then in turn change any subsequent call he may have made, but Law 16C applies.
.
Is that there is no reference to law 26 (lead restrictions following withdrawn call) which presumably apply if he is the player who has given the misinformation. I assume it won't apply if it is his partner who has given the misinformation as he is not an 'offending player'.
My understanding, and I seem to remember it being mentioned somewhere else, is that Law 26 is an independent Law which applies in all cases of withdrawn calls (except where it may be specifically stated as not being applicable). In this respect the Laws are somewhat confusing because in some places they mention that Law 26 applies or may apply and in some cases, like the one above, it is not mentioned although presumably it should be applicable.
One other interesting aspect of this Law (21) is that if a player elects not to change his call then it is treated as if he has withdrawn the call and replaced it with the same call ( White Book 8.21.3, WBFLC minutes 2013-09-19#5) and Law 16C still applies, making this information unauthorised for the offenders. I am not sure how many players would be able to identify any use of UI by opponents in such a situation and call the TD for relief. Forget the players, it would be a tough job even for a TD to do so!
Never thought of that - but it is obvious when you do. It is quite possible that the 'replaced' call is less informative than the original - and may not be comparable. To give an example - my partner and I play a direct raise of a major as a relatively weak bid (going via 1NT for better ones), however raising after an overcall to the two level could show a stronger hand (but not one that is worth a 3-level raise for instance). Thus 1H - 2H is done on say 4 points and a 3-card suit, but 1H - (2C) - 2H could be done on 7 or 8 with 4-card support. (Obviously MI is unlikely to apply in this case, but the principle is clear).
Or a simple example from Acol: 1H, 2S is a game force with spades (that might have a heart fit; some people play that this always shows a heart fit), whereas 1H, (1S), 2S is an invite or better with a heart fit. It's easy to imagine a hand for responder which fits both of these descriptions, but the former is somewhat more precise than the latter. MI could be a problem here if, e.g., there were two non-matching CCs that disagreed about the number of hearts the bid shows, or about the notrump range (some players may be more willing to overcall over a 5-card heart suit than they are to overcall over a hand that's more likely to be balanced).
I read the above two examples as referring to the call replaced by the mis-informed player.
I don't think that the requirement for a replaced call to be a comparable call applies when it is the non-offender who is replacing his call because he was mis-informed. Law 21 B 1 (a) clearly states that '...a player may change a call WITHOUT OTHER RECTIFICATION FOR HIS SIDE....'.
What I interpret the reference to 16C in WBFLC minutes to mean is that if the non-offender chooses NOT to replace his call then THAT knowledge is unauthorised for the offenders. And it would be a tough one to rule on if it was alleged that the offenders made use of that UI.
There is another interesting angle to this law which had escaped me until recently, when I was browsing through the WBFLC minutes. That is that the discretion for the Director to adjust the score is only available 'when it is too late to change a call' under law 21 B 3. Law 21 B 1(a) only permits the Director to allow the non-offending side to change his call and that too only if the Director judges that the decision to make the original call 'could well' have been influenced by mis-information. There is no provision in 21B1 for the Director to award an adjusted score. If the Director rules otherwise then not only should he not allow a change of call, he cannot award an adjusted score at the end. The minutes state that 'Unless he judges that in possession of the correct information (only) the player could well have made a different call no change of call under Law 21B1 is allowed NOR IS AN ADJUSTED SCORE UNDER LAW 21B3'.
That is true - but that would only apply to the first call made after a player was misinformed. So if you were misinformed earlier in the auction and then decided not to change your final pass (or the first call that could be changed when the MI came to light) you would still have protection if you would have made a different earlier call had you had the correct informmation then..
I would agree that the NOS can make any substitute call since law 26 and 16C specifically only applies to the OS.