[iviehoff]

We have had a lot of discussion about situations where correcting partner's MI might mislead the opposition. I wonder whether this is a sufficiently common situation that the laws should specifically cater for it.

I wonder if the following might be a good law

A player may not correct his partner's misinformation, or draw attention to the possibility of misinformation, if any of the following are true:
(1) He holds a hand consistent with the misinformation (unless he holds a hand consistent both with the misinformation and the correct information, and the correct information more accurately describes the hand)
(2) He does not hold a hand consistent with the correct information
(3) The correction might mislead the opposition into thinking he holds a different hand from what he actually holds
For the purposes of Law 21B and Law 47E, the non-offending side shall be considered to have been misinformed and too late to change a call or play influenced by the misinformation.

In other words, correcting your partner's misinformation should be seen as a privilege, because it potentially avoids or minimises a misinformation adjustment. That privilege should be withdrawn if in practice it will confuse the opposition, or if you have psyched, or misbid.

[Vampyr]

iviehoff, on Jul 8 2010, 03:46 PM, said:

I wonder if the following might be a good law

No.

[jdonn]

Terribleeeeee idea! We should be going in exactly the opposite direction and educating people that when the opponents correct a misexplanation they are not doing so on the basis of what they actually hold, since some people think a correction implies their hand doesn't match the explanation.

[iviehoff]

Any actual demonstration of why you think that is better?

In the (admittedly anecdotal) cases that have recently been forward, I think my idea would have produced a fairer result.

The purpose of being able to correct misinformation ought to be to avoid misinformation adjustments, not to protect the OS. If it simultaneously avoids adjustment and incidentally protects the OS, no problem, at least we are playing bridge. But in situations when it mainly protects the OS from their accident, when there wasn't much likelihood of a MI adjustment, that becomes offensive.

Consider the case where you bid something and your partner explains X. You accurately correct it to X or Y, when you actually hold X. In this situation, it is unlikely that you were avoiding an MI adjustment, because the need for an MI adjustment was unlikely, albeit that in rare cases it can happen. The main effect of being able to make this correction is to protect yourself.

I consider that offensive. If your partner makes a mess of your confusing strategy via an infraction, I don't think you should be able to fix it. I consider this exactly the problem in the cases we have been discussing on the "incident" threads.

Likewise if you psyche, I think you now have a strong obligation to get everything else right for it to be a legitimate and fair tactic. Repairing your partner's misexplanations inevitably distracts attention from the possibility of a psyche, whatever JD's pious wish, and makes it more likely that your psyche is going to be effective. And a misbid is just an inadvertent psyche, and you shouldn't be able to protect the occasional advantages of that either.

[peachy]

Not a good suggestion. The laws are not that complicated on explanations: Explain agreements, implicit or explicit; and, correct partner's misexplanations at the right time.

Avoiding misexplanation adjustments in fact *is* protecting the OS. Surely the NOS would not be disadvantaged by an adjustment if such ruling were to be given.

Moreover, opponents knowing the partnership agreements will allow them to draw their own inferences on the rest of the auction. If they are given incorrect explanation about the _agreements_ , they might be further led astray.

[campboy]

It is perfectly possible to be damaged by a misexplanation even if it happens to fit the hand in question. Indeed, if the hand happens to fit both explanations (such as a 14-16 NT announced as 12-14 but actually being exactly 14) there is no reason to think the wrong explanation will help the defence more than the right one.

[jdonn]

campboy, on Jul 8 2010, 01:21 PM, said:

It is perfectly possible to be damaged by a misexplanation even if it happens to fit the hand in question. Indeed, if the hand happens to fit both explanations (such as a 14-16 NT announced as 12-14 but actually being exactly 14) there is no reason to think the wrong explanation will help the defence more than the right one.

Exactly. I open 1♥, playing 4 card majors, with Axxxx of hearts. When asked partner wrongly explains that I promised 5 or more hearts. When I then end up declaring my LHO is talked out of what would have been a killing heart lead. Was this supposed to be fair to him because I failed to inform him of our correct agreement under the pretense of helping him? No, they are entitled to know agreements (and style and understandings and partnership experience), not hand contents.

[Bbradley62]

When are you supposed to correct your partner's misexplanation?

[campboy]

Bbradley62, on Jul 8 2010, 07:53 PM, said:

When are you supposed to correct your partner's misexplanation?

At the end of the auction if your side is going to be declaring (even though you may in fact end up defending since the last pass can now be changed); at the end of the play otherwise.

[iviehoff]

jdonn, on Jul 8 2010, 07:35 PM, said:

Exactly. I open 1♥, playing 4 card majors, with Axxxx of hearts. When asked partner wrongly explains that I promised 5 or more hearts. When I then end up declaring my LHO is talked out of what would have been a killing heart lead. Was this supposed to be fair to him because I failed to inform him of our correct agreement under the pretense of helping him? No, they are entitled to know agreements (and style and understandings and partnership experience), not hand contents.

Correct. But this is the rare case I specifically referred to. Much more frequently the defence is not assisted by the corrected explanation in those circumstances. So I would say that in the long run you will end up with fewer MI adjustments and fewer upset NOSes if you allow the wrong explanation to stand in such cases.

I agree that the opposition are entitled to know agreements, not hand contents. But we are now in a situation where there has been an infraction, misinformation, and we are talking about handling that infraction. The purpose of allowing a player the privilege of correcting that misinformation ought to be to reduce damage to the NOS, not to reduce damage to the OS.

[bluejak]

One problem with ideas of this type is that actual cases tend to be much more blurred, and this change would not only complicate life for the TDs, which may not matter, but will also complicate life for the players.

It is easy to say "fits your hand" or "does not fit your hand" but what about borderline cases? If you have 14 with two tens and a five-card suit, and partner describes your opening incorrectly as "15 to 17" do you correct? If you don't, the opposition will be sure to count your points and yell blue murder because you had 14. If you do, the opposition will be sure to count your hand and yell blue murder because you had a hand that would be opened with a 15 to 17 1NT.

I think the idea will cause too much trouble, and is against the general principles of the game. I also have the feeling that it will have knock-on effects on truth telling which might be even more bad for the game, though I cannot put my finger on them.

[campboy]

iviehoff, on Jul 9 2010, 11:07 AM, said:

I agree that the opposition are entitled to know agreements, not hand contents. But we are now in a situation where there has been an infraction, misinformation, and we are talking about handling that infraction. The purpose of allowing a player the privilege of correcting that misinformation ought to be to reduce damage to the NOS, not to reduce damage to the OS.

Well, if you correct the MI and this results in the score which you would have obtained without the infraction, then NOS is no longer damaged (law 12). It may be that they could have gotten a better adjustment if able to play the hand out with MI, but that is neither here nor there. One might equally well argue that OS should never be permitted to correct an unestablished revoke because the NOS would be better off if it became established.

[iviehoff]

campboy, on Jul 9 2010, 02:13 PM, said:

Well, if you correct the MI and this results in the score which you would have obtained without the infraction, then NOS is no longer damaged (law 12). It may be that they could have gotten a better adjustment if able to play the hand out with MI, but that is neither here nor there.

I'm not talking about a better "adjustment", but a better result, avoiding the need for an adjustment.

The canonical situation is (say) that someone calls 1NT with a 17 count (psyche/misbid), explained (erroneously) as 15-17, when the correct explanation is 12-14. Normally the opposition will get a better result with that explanation than with the corrected explanation 12-14. Making the correction seems to protect you (your misbid or psyche) rather than the opposistion. Of course it can sometimes occur that playing under the misapprehension that your opponent has 12-14 you stumble on a more successful play, but that would be rare, and you would still have an MI claim to protect you.

I was trying to reduce the need for MI adjustments. And also the offensive situation of offenders using the law to protect themselves rather than the NOS. But if as Bluejak says it actually complicates life in consequence, then that is a strong argument against it.

[jdonn]

Why does anyone need protecting? You are putting the opponents back where they are supposed to be, they don't deserve bonus-protection because your partner made a mistake that is easily fixed. You are really out in left field on this one I would say.

[peachy]

iviehoff, on Jul 9 2010, 10:10 AM, said:

But if as Bluejak says it actually complicates life in consequence, then that is a strong argument against it.

The complication with the change you suggested is that in disclosure, one would have to decide on a case-by-case basis when to give the correct systemic meaning to the opponents and when to lie about the meaning (via omission). Terrible.