[Rossoneri]

Opening leader asks for a review for the auction (in this case, with his screenmate, but one could also consider situation without screens) and screenmate gives a wrong auction. Does this count as MI?

The most common MI laws are Laws 21 and 47 but neither of them seems to cover this.

[RMB1]

Without screens all players are responsible to correct errors in a review of the auction (Law 20E).

Quote

(see Law 12C1 when an uncorrected review causes damage)

.

The uncorrected review is not explicitly misinformation, but an adjusted score is possible.

Without other regulation, this applies with screens.

BUT when bidding boxes are in use, with or without screens, I expect a review to be by inspection of the bidding cards. If the bidding cards have been picked up, I don't see why the onus should be on your opponent to remember the auction correctly if you have forgotten it.

[blackshoe]

Laws 21 and 47 deal with misinformation in the sense of misinformation about the meaning of calls or plays. The relevant law for an error in reviewing the auction is:

Quote

Law 20E: All players, including dummy or a player required by law to pass, are responsible for prompt correction of errors in restatement* (see Law 12C1 when an uncorrected review causes damage).

* When the calls are not spoken, responders must ensure that it is clear to an inquiring opponent what calls have been made.

The reference to Law 12C1 implies that when an error in the review causes damage to the NOS, the TD is to adjust the score.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2011-June-26, 05:04, said:

Laws 21 and 47 deal with misinformation in the sense of misinformation about the meaning of calls or plays. The relevant law for an error in reviewing the auction is: The reference to Law 12C1 implies that when an error in the review causes damage to the NOS, the TD is to adjust the score.

Presumably, a careful secretary-bird will ignore this question, as answering it may cause self-harm? Perhaps, it should be a punishable infraction to pick up bidding-cards prematurely?

[blackshoe]

If an opponent asks for a review, is ignored, calls the director and complains (as he should) then the director should give Mr. Careful Secretary Bird a procedural penalty for, if nothing else, violating Law 74A2.

Define "prematurely". Keep in mind that EBU regulations don't apply everywhere.

[blackshoe]

RMB1, on 2011-June-26, 04:56, said:

BUT when bidding boxes are in use, with or without screens, I expect a review to be by inspection of the bidding cards. If the bidding cards have been picked up, I don't see why the onus should be on your opponent to remember the auction correctly if you have forgotten it.

The onus is on them because the law requires them to provide a review when requested.

In North America, the bidding cards tend to disappear immediately the auction is over, and frequently even before that. If the bidding cards were, by regulation, to remain on the table until the opening leader's partner has played (at which time the right to ask for a review has expired for all players) then there would be no need for an oral review. But that's the case, if at all, in only a few places.

[Rossoneri]

blackshoe, on 2011-June-26, 07:26, said:

The onus is on them because the law requires them to provide a review when requested.

In North America, the bidding cards tend to disappear immediately the auction is over, and frequently even before that. If the bidding cards were, by regulation, to remain on the table until the opening leader's partner has played (at which time the right to ask for a review has expired for all players) then there would be no need for an oral review. But that's the case, if at all, in only a few places.

This happened at a (supposedly) premier teams event. I happened to be at the club settling some other directing stuff when I was asked about this. By the time I had reached the table, the players were on the next board already, although it is by a long way the exeception rather than the norm to have the bidding cards left on the table.

In the end, the two players involved couldn't quite agree on whether the review was mis-stated and NOP did not want to pursue the matter any further. However, NOP's partner who is a director and myself can't quite think of which law(s) were relevant to the situation.

Looking at the replies, I would agree about the bidding cards being removed, as this is something which mildly annoys me whenever I am back home. I guess I'll have to do my part to try and reverse this "cultural" thing.