[blackshoe]

c_corgi, on 2012-July-06, 19:03, said:

So can damage caused by the use of the CPU, but not by the absence of disclosure, be rectified under L40C1 in the form of an adjusted score?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you give an example?

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2012-July-06, 10:37, said:

If the CPU is an illegal agreement, you can use the law regarding system regulation, just as you would if the agreement were properly disclosed.

This is not too good as a go-to solution, since many if not most "CPUs" of this type (which tend to be two-way bids, such as 3♣ is clubs or ♦+♠) are not illegal.

[gnasher]

c_corgi, on 2012-July-06, 19:03, said:

So can damage caused by the use of the CPU, but not by the absence of disclosure, be rectified under L40C1 in the form of an adjusted score?

Once it is disclosed it ceases to be concealed. Hence I don't see how this can occur.

[pran]

c_corgi, on 2012-July-06, 19:03, said:

So can damage caused by the use of the CPU, but not by the absence of disclosure, be rectified under L40C1 in the form of an adjusted score?

How can the use of CPU not include absence of disclosure?
(A properly disclosed understanding is not concealed, is it?)

[mrdct]

We need to see the hand to make a ruling.

I've never played strong jump-shifts myself so in that systemic context would 3♦ be forcing? If so, it would seem to be a logical alternative for a 14-count with a long diamond suit.

[Cyberyeti]

mrdct, on 2012-July-07, 03:32, said:

We need to see the hand to make a ruling.

I've never played strong jump-shifts myself so in that systemic context would 3♦ be forcing? If so, it would seem to be a logical alternative for a 14-count with a long diamond suit.

Which bids are stronger and which are weaker (like the 2N) is a matter of system/agreement, but the SJS is GF in itself.

[c_corgi]

blackshoe, on 2012-July-06, 21:50, said:

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you give an example?

gnasher, on 2012-July-07, 00:39, said:

Once it is disclosed it ceases to be concealed. Hence I don't see how this can occur.

pran, on 2012-July-07, 01:01, said:

How can the use of CPU not include absence of disclosure?
(A properly disclosed understanding is not concealed, is it?)

An understanding is never disclosed and at the end of the hand the director rules that it was a CPU. The effect of the CPU was (e.g.) that the offenders reached a cold 5C contract that no other pair could find. The non-offenders were not damaged by the absence of disclosure: they could not have done any better with complete disclosure, or even double dummy. Since the understanding that was concealed (apparently in violation of L40C1 sentence 1) was the reason the offenders achieved a good score, I am asking: can the director adjust for this under 40C1?

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 12B1: …Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred…

Here, the infraction is use of a CPU. The innocent side would not have received the score they did had the CPU not been used (this offending pair, like all the other pairs, would not have found the 5♣ contract) had the CPU not been used. Therefore yes, the director can adjust for this under 40C1.

[c_corgi]

blackshoe, on 2012-July-07, 07:03, said:

Here, the infraction is use of a CPU. The innocent side would not have received the score they did had the CPU not been used (this offending pair, like all the other pairs, would not have found the 5♣ contract) had the CPU not been used. Therefore yes, the director can adjust for this under 40C1.

L12B2: The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

The rectification due to use of the CPU is stipulated in the 3rd sentence of L40C1 and limited to the damage arising from lack of disclosure, so how can the director award further rectification unless it is based on a different law?

[blackshoe]

Who ever said that those were the grounds for an adjusted score in your example case? You are invoking a law that doesn't apply at all here.

[c_corgi]

blackshoe, on 2012-July-07, 07:51, said:

Who ever said that those were the grounds for an adjusted score in your example case?

I thought you did (my emphasis):

blackshoe, on 2012-July-07, 07:03, said:

Here, the infraction is use of a CPU. The innocent side would not have received the score they did had the CPU not been used (this offending pair, like all the other pairs, would not have found the 5♣ contract) had the CPU not been used. Therefore yes, the director can adjust for this under 40C1.

blackshoe, on 2012-July-07, 07:51, said:

You are invoking a law that doesn't apply at all here.

I am not invoking any law at all: I am trying to work out how 40C1 leads to fielded misbid. My suspicion is that 40C1 does not apply in a way that would lead to fielded misbid and your last statement seems to agree with that. I thought you were supporting the link between the two until your last post but now I am not sure.

[Flem72]

schulken, on 2012-July-03, 08:44, said:

---

S's 2♦ bid was alerted as a weak jump shift. N hesitated before bidding 2NT. S, holding 14 HCP and a long ♦ suit, raised to game. Director summoned by defenders.

As always, puzzling through these things, what are the proper results?

1. If 2N is a WNT hand, 2N is bad and the contract should be 2D -- right?? Inference of UI?
2. If 2N is 18-19, inv opposite a WJS, may S now invite slam? If not, why not?

[gnasher]

Quote

An understanding is never disclosed and at the end of the hand the director rules that it was a CPU. The effect of the CPU was (e.g.) that the offenders reached a cold 5C contract that no other pair could find. The non-offenders were not damaged by the absence of disclosure: they could not have done any better with complete disclosure, or even double dummy. Since the understanding that was concealed (apparently in violation of L40C1 sentence 1) was the reason the offenders achieved a good score, I am asking: can the director adjust for this under 40C1?

12B1 does't apply. The infraction was the failure to disclose, so our good score wasn't "because of an infraction".

Similarly, these parts of Law 40

A side that is damaged as a consequence of its opponents' failure to provide disclosure of the meaning of a call or play as these laws require, is entitled to rectification through the award of an adjusted score.
The Director adjusts the scores if information not given in an explanation is crucial for opponent's choice of action and opponent is thereby damaged.

aren't relevant either, because they refer to damage caused by the non-disclosure.

But I agree with c_corgi that this part of 40C1 might apply, if interpreted literally:

If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty.

This refers to the opponents being damanged by the existence of undisclosed knowledge, rather than by the non-disclosure of knowledge. If you damaged them by knowing your own agreements, and you happened not to disclose that agreement, the director could adjust the score. I suspect, though, that this is just a poor choice of words rather than the actual intent of the lawmakers.

[c_corgi]

gnasher, on 2012-July-07, 08:20, said:

But I agree with c_corgi that this part of 40C1 might apply, if interpreted literally:

If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty.

This refers to the opponents being damanged by the existence of undisclosed knowledge, rather than by the non-disclosure of knowledge. If you damaged them by knowing your own agreements, and you happened not to disclose that agreement, the director could adjust the score. I suspect, though, that this is just a poor choice of words rather than the actual intent of the lawmakers.

I wasn't advocating that passage being interpreted literally. In fact I had not noticed the literal interpretation. I thought it was precluding any score adjustment due to 40C1 other than those arising from disclosure issues. Maybe the literal interpretation is what supports the view that the Fielded Misbid regulation is based on 40C1.

[aguahombre]

Flem72, on 2012-July-07, 08:18, said:

2. If 2N is 18-19, inv opposite a WJS, may S now invite slam? If not, why not?

Maybe you have a different definition of a WJS response. 18-19 is a pass.

[c_corgi]

Flem72, on 2012-July-07, 08:18, said:

As always, puzzling through these things, what are the proper results?

1. If 2N is a WNT hand, 2N is bad and the contract should be 2D -- right?? Inference of UI?
2. If 2N is 18-19, inv opposite a WJS, may S now invite slam? If not, why not?

1. In the EBU bidding 2NT would result in an artificial score. Elsewhere L40C1 applies, the scope of which is being debated in the thread. OP doesn't mention any UI available to North.
2. That North bid 2NT thinking South had a WJS is UI to South. He is certainly not obliged to invite slam on that basis: in fact he is not allowed to. Without knowing South's hand it is not clear whether he had an LA to 3NT, or indeed whether 3NT was demonstrably suggested over the LA by the UI.

[barmar]

What kind of damage can a CPU cause that isn't related to disclosure failure? The only difference between a CPU and any other PU is that a CPU isn't disclosed properly.

[Cyberyeti]

aguahombre, on 2012-July-07, 11:22, said:

Maybe you have a different definition of a WJS response. 18-19 is a pass.

The only time I've played them it was 5-8 ish, so different definitions do exist.

[Flem72]

aguahombre, on 2012-July-07, 11:22, said:

Maybe you have a different definition of a WJS response. 18-19 is a pass.

I suppose/assumed there are a wide range of 1C-2D structures out there. I ahve trouble envisioning what kind of 1C opener would bid 2N in the "less than a one-level response, 0-5 HCP" crowd; if it's a more constructive call for others, it seems that 2N would be available in certain circumstances, no? In any case, my problem is always with the follow-up after a goof is "awakened" by an alert, and I get wide-ranging responses as to what, if any, obligations the awakened one might have, from "you're not obliged to commit bridge suicide" to "you have to bid as if you held the hand your actual agreements say you should have held for the mistaken call." I can easily understand and apply the latter constraint when partner fails to alert (assume s/he's on the same page as are you, but just forgot to alert); I have more trouble in the OP situation: if P had made the correct call, I would have desribed the same hand differently--so what?.

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2012-July-07, 14:27, said:

What kind of damage can a CPU cause that isn't related to disclosure failure? The only difference between a CPU and any other PU is that a CPU isn't disclosed properly.

The other potentially relevant difference is that having a CPU is illegal. The question is whether the rectification should
(a) Nullify the effect of the concealment, or
(b) Nullify the effect of the existence of the agreement

I'd like the answer to be (a), but it's not clear that it is.