no way to compare when less than two revisions
Σύγκριση εκδόσεων
Εδώ βλέπετε τις διαφορές μεταξύ της επιλεγμένης έκδοσης και της τρέχουσας έκδοσης της σελίδας.
— | comment_law_21 [2019/02/27 14:17] (τρέχουσα) – δημιουργήθηκε pournaras | ||
---|---|---|---|
Γραμμή 1: | Γραμμή 1: | ||
+ | ===== Νόμος 21 – Λανθασμένη Πληροφόρηση ===== | ||
+ | Αν γίνει ξεκάθαρο πριν τη λήξη της περιόδου αγορών (δηλαδή πριν ανοιχτεί η αντάμ), | ||
+ | |||
+ | Αυτό έχει οδηγήσει σε μια μεγάλη αλλαγή στους νόμους. Υπό τον προηγούμενο Κώδικα, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Παράδειγμα 18: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Δ | ||
+ | 2♥ Pass 4♥ Pass | ||
+ | Pass | ||
+ | |||
+ | Ο Βορράς ρώτησε για τη σημασία του 2♥ και η Ανατολή απάντησε: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Αν η Ανατολή, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Υπάρχει άλλο ένα θέμα όποτε ο Διαιτητής πρέπει να αποφασίσει αν θα επιτρέψει σε έναν παίκτη να αλλάξει τη δήλωση του [[law_21|Νόμου 21Β1(α)]]. Όταν ο Διαιτητής χρησιμοποιεί την κρίση του πρέπει να είναι πολύ προσεκτικός ώστε να μην παρέχει εξωγενή πληροφόρηση στους υπόλοιπους παίκτες του τραπεζιού και να μην αποκαλύψει τίποτα σχετικά με το χέρι ενός παίκτη με τον τρόπο που εκδίδει την απόφαση του. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Η σωστή διαδικασία είναι να εξηγήσει πρώτα στον παίκτη κάτω υπό ποιες συνθήκες επιτρέπεται να αλλάξει τη δήλωση του. Σε κάποιες περιπτώσεις ο Διαιτητής θα πρέπει να ερευνήσει ακόμη περισσότερο πριν πληροφορήσει το τραπέζι ότι η αλλαγή δήλωσης θα επιτραπεί ή όχι. Αν ο Διαιτητής αποφασίσει διαφορετικά αργότερα, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Παρόλο που ο παίκτης δεν παίρνει αυτόματα την ευκαιρία να αλλάξει δήλωση, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Η διατύπωση στον [[law_21|Νόμο 21Β2]] έχει αλλάξει ώστε να εκφράζει τα φυσιολογικά κριτήρια για αθέμιτη πληροφορία για δηλώσεις που αποσύρονται από τον υπαίτιο άξονα. Ο [[law_21|Νόμος 21Β3]] δεν άλλαξε. Παρόλο που αναφέρεται συγκεκριμένα στην αφαίρεση οποιουδήποτε πλεονεκτήματος αποκτήθηκε από τους υπαίτιους, | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Law 21 - Misinformation ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | If it becomes clear before the auction period has ended (i.e., before the opening lead is faced) that a player has explained his partner’s call incorrectly, | ||
+ | |||
+ | This has led to a major change in the laws. Under the previous code, a player becoming aware of his own wrong explanation (or a missed or slow Alert) was obliged to call the TD immediately and correct it, he is now allowed to wait [Law 20F4(a)] until after the final pass of the auction (which is not the same as the end of the auction period). As before, a player may do this immediately. This diminishes for example the possibility of encountering a lucrative penalty double. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Example 18: | ||
+ | |||
+ | W | ||
+ | 2♥ Pass 4♥ Pass | ||
+ | Pass | ||
+ | |||
+ | North has asked about the meaning of 2♥ and was told by East: ‘strong’. With North on the brink of closing the auction with a final pass, East corrects his explanation to say that 2♥ shows a weak two. It does not take a Sherlock Holmes to deduce that East doesn’t have much, only bidding 4♥ after the strong bid of 2♥. And now it appears that West is also weak. So North suddenly has an automatic double, including values he knows his partner must have. Assume North has something like AQ7 8 •K10984 Q1052. The TD won’t need to give North relief under Law 21; he will call at his second turn with full knowledge of the E/W accident. | ||
+ | |||
+ | If East however waits to correct his mistaken explanation until after the final pass by North the TD might not necessarily now give North the option of changing his final call. For N/S to receive redress, they would need to show that they would have changed one or more of their calls with the proper information. This is a more challenging argument to make since neither North nor South are entitled to double just because they know E/W have had a bidding misunderstanding. | ||
+ | |||
+ | This is another situation where the TD has to decide whether he will allow a player to change a call [Law 21B1(a)]. When the TD uses his judgement he needs to be very careful not to provide extraneous information to the other players at the table and he must not reveal anything about a player’s hand by the way he delivers his decision. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The correct procedure is to first explain to the player under what conditions he is allowed to change his call. In some situations the Director might then have to investigate further before informing the table that the change either will or will not be allowed. If the TD later decides otherwise, he applies Law 21B3 and awards an adjusted score. | ||
+ | |||
+ | While the player does not automatically get to change his call, he is not held to the same standard as with a UI case. After all, the player who was misinformed is the non-offender. In fact, he should be allowed the change if the second call fulfills the conditions for a logical alternative: | ||
+ | |||
+ | The wording in Law 21B2 has been changed to reflect the normal UI standard for withdrawn calls by the offending side. Law 21B3 was not changed. While it only refers specifically to the taking away of any advantage gained by the offenders, TDs are reminded that Law 12B1 empowers the TD to also redress the non-offenders for any damaged caused by an irregularity. |