[blml] Any redress or rub of the green

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Eric Landau
> At 09:29 AM 4/19/07, Karel wrote:
> 
> >You're in a teams match.  The bidding proceeds
> >
> >1D   3C    ??
> >
> >Your hand
> >S AQxx
> >H KTx
> >D xxx
> >C Qxx
> >
> >You have looked at the opponents CC before the start of the match and
> >noted they are playing Ghestem.  LHO does not alert 3C's
> >
> >Assume you pass (looks like opps having a bidding misunderstanding,
> >why wake them up), it goes
> >
> >  ... All pass !!
> >
> >RHO has 7 clubs to the KJT, LHO has both majors ...  3C - 2.  Any
> >redress ?
> 
> I am going to listen and (hopefully) learn a bit more before I make
> that decision, but, based on what Karel has said above, probably not.
> 
> "You" admit to having noted that the opponents' CC indicates that 3C
> was Ghestem, and also to having noted that LHO's failure to alert
> indicates that it is not.  Both cannot be correct, so you know yourself
> to be in possession of contradictory information, and cannot expect
> redress if you "misinform yourself" by choosing to believe one piece of
> information while ignoring the other.
> 
> Since you are aware that not all of the information you have can be
> correct, this is the obvious -- some might argue the only -- position
> in which you are clearly obliged to "protect yourself" as a
> precondition for redress.
> 
> You are not *required* to protect yourself here, but if you do not, you
> abrogate any claim to have been misinformed.  You are perfectly
> entitled to fail to protect yourself, hoping that doing so will work to
> your advantage at the table.  That's the case here: you made a tactical
> decision not to protect yourself, hoping to gain by increasing the
> chance of your opponents having a bidding misunderstanding.  In return,
> you gave up any potential redress for MI by not taking action at the
> point you knew for sure that you had been given some.  Nice
> try.  Better luck next time.

This cannot possibly be correct!

Whenever I am called to a table to rule on MI and there is doubt about the
actual agreements I take written evidence (e.g. CC) to be stronger than
verbal evidence (e.g. lack of alert) unless there is additional,
overwhelming evidence corroborating the verbal evidence.

Consequently I shall normally always rule in favour of a player who has
relied upon information from opponents CC and has assumed that a failure to
alert was just an oversight. There is definitely no obligation on any player
to call opponents' attention to a (possibly) missing alert. (That is for the
offender's partner to do at the proper time).

Regards Sven