[bluejak]

You open 1NT, LHO bids 2♣, not alerted, partner passes, RHO bids 2♥, alerted.

Puzzled, you ask, and it is obvious from the reply that 2♣ should have been alerted. What do you do?

Correct, you call the TD. What does he do?

Correct, having sorted the MI out, he lets your partner change his pass and he bids 2♠. Your RHO now changes his 2♥ to something else [obviously], maybe pass.

Let me ask two questions.

Is RHO's 2♥ unauthorised information to LHO? Under what Law?

Are there lead penalties for LHO based on the 2♥ bid? Under what Law?

[PeterE]

bluejak, on Sep 1 2010, 09:58 AM, said:

Is RHO's 2♥ unauthorised information to LHO?  Under what Law?

no, Law 21 B2, but the TD might award an adjusted score afterwards, if he deems that the information within the 2♥ bid damaged the non-offending side.

Quote

Are there lead penalties for LHO based on the 2♥ bid?  Under what Law?

no, definitely not, Law 21 B2

Quote

... having sorted the MI out, the TD lets your partner change his pass and he bids 2♠.

mmmh ... what in 2♣, unalerted, might have influenced partner not to bid then and to bid 2♠ now with an alerted 2♣ ?? (just out of interest). But I accept this as the basis for your questions.

[pran]

I am indeed puzzled.
Why was this posted under Laws and Rulings rather than under Simple Rulings?
And I must assume that this was intended as a quiz?

[aguahombre]

PeterE, on Sep 1 2010, 09:12 AM, said:

Quote

... having sorted the MI out, the TD lets your partner change his pass and he bids 2♠.

mmmh ... what in 2♣, unalerted, might have influenced partner not to bid then and to bid 2♠ now with an alerted 2♣ ?? (just out of interest). But I accept this as the basis for your questions.

Good question. I have an answer (Not having been there, it is fun to speculate.):

Partner knew what 2C was at the time and intended to balance with 2S if it came around, but was hoping for an accident due to the non-alert. But, since 2C was cleared up, Partner stepped in with 2S to further complicate the situation for the director and the opponents.

[Coelacanth]

PeterE, on Sep 1 2010, 10:12 AM, said:

mmmh ... what in 2♣, unalerted, might have influenced partner not to bid then and to bid 2♠ now with an alerted 2♣ ?? (just out of interest). But I accept this as the basis for your questions.

North has a weak hand with five spades and six clubs. ♠QTxxx ♥x ♦x ♣KT9xxx

Over a natural 2♣, NS's agreement is that a double would be Stayman; North therefore chooses to pass, hoping to defend 2♣ (or 2♣X) at favorable vulnerability. (Of course, he retains the option to bid 2♠ should East bid something.)

Upon hearing the explanation that 2♣ shows the red suits, North decides to bid 2♠ to buy the contract or force East to guess at the 3-level. (maybe they don't have a transfer available?)

I'm not saying this is the best bidding in the world, but it's one possible explanation.

[RMB1]

I can see why this isn't in Simple Rulings. Unlike PeterE and pran, I am completely surprised at the wording of Law 21B2.

Quote

When a player elects to change a call because of misinformation (...), his LHO may then in turn change any subsequent call he may have made, without other rectification unless at the end of the hand the Director judges his withdrawn call to have conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side in which case Law 16D applies.

So during the auction and play, 2♥ is not UI; but at the end of the hand, we now say 2♥ was UI (Law 16D) and see if RHO used UI (Law 16B) and adjust as if 2♥ had been UI.

What does the TD tell RHO? It is not illegal for you to use information from 2♥ but nevertheless if you do use information from 2♥ in a way that would be illegal if 2♥ were UI then I will adjust the score as if 2♥ had been unauthorised information.

How is this any different in practice than saying the information from the changed call is unauthorised?

Is there anywhere else in the laws that information becomes unauthorised at the end of the hand and we retrospectively apply Law 16B/D?

Word fail me: but I hope they won't fail dburn.

[pran]

RMB1, on Sep 1 2010, 05:18 PM, said:

I can see why this isn't in Simple Rulings. Unlike PeterE and pran, I am completely surprised at the wording of Law 21B2.

Quote

When a player elects to change a call because of misinformation (...), his LHO may then in turn change any subsequent call he may have made, without other rectification unless at the end of the hand the Director judges his withdrawn call to have conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side in which case Law 16D applies.

So during the auction and play, 2♥ is not UI; but at the end of the hand, we now say 2♥ was UI (Law 16D) and see if RHO used UI (Law 16B) and adjust as if 2♥ had been UI.

What does the TD tell RHO? It is not illegal for you to use information from 2♥ but nevertheless if you do use information from 2♥ in a way that would be illegal if 2♥ were UI then I will adjust the score as if 2♥ had been unauthorised information.

How is this any different in practice than saying the information from the changed call is unauthorised?

Is there anywhere else in the laws that information becomes unauthorised at the end of the hand and we retrospectively apply Law 16B/D?

Word fail me: but I hope they won't fail dburn.

Take a look at Law 27D.

But I do not share any confusion about the Director immediately allowing the auction to continue without rectification only to have the duty after the play on the board is completed to judge if the non-offending side after all has been damaged (directly or indirectly) by the irregularity.

There are more places in the laws where such duty is imposed on the Director and I (for one) have no problem with that.

[RMB1]

Whatever Law 27D says, it does not say that the information from the insufficient bid becomes unauthorised after the play of the hand. Nor does it say the offender's partner retrospectively may not have chosen from logical alternatives suggested over another by the information from the insufficient bid.

[blackshoe]

So what does "assistance gained from the infraction" mean?

[pran]

blackshoe, on Sep 1 2010, 09:43 PM, said:

So what does "assistance gained from the infraction" mean?

It caters for the (possibly unlikely) event that the partnership reaches a contract they could not reasonably have reached without the existence of the insufficient bid.

One example that was heavily discussed many years ago is the auction: 1♠ (pass) 1♠ IB!
At that time the IB could only be corrected to 2♠ without silencing partner, but as both players now knew that their respective partner had opening strength with spades they would easily reach 4♠ (or maybe even higher) although the replacement call 2♠ only showed 6-9 HCP (and spade support).

The conclution was that the Director should not accept a final contract in 4♠ unless the partnership showed evidence that they had agreements to reach this contract without the "assistance" of the opener's partner also making an (insufficient) opening bid. In other words that they had agreements to cater for this combination of hands (which of course every partnership has).

[pran]

RMB1, on Sep 1 2010, 08:45 PM, said:

Whatever Law 27D says, it does not say that the information from the insufficient bid becomes unauthorised after the play of the hand. Nor does it say the offender's partner retrospectively may not have chosen from logical alternatives suggested over another by the information from the insufficient bid.

I never indicated that Law 27D said or implied that the information from the IB is unauthorized - because it isn't.

But Law 27D instructs the Director to inspect the board after play has been completed to see if the insufficient bid may have caused any damage to the non-offending side, and in case adjust the board.

[RMB1]

pran, on Sep 1 2010, 08:16 PM, said:

RMB1, on Sep 1 2010, 05:18 PM, said:

...
Is there anywhere else in the laws that information becomes unauthorised at the end of the hand and we retrospectively apply Law 16B/D?

Word fail me: but I hope they won't fail dburn.

Take a look at Law 27D. ...

This is where pran indicated that Law 27D talked about UI. I asked where does information become UI at the end of the hand, and pran said to look at Law 27; seems a pretty clear indication to me.

[jallerton]

RMB1, on Sep 1 2010, 05:18 PM, said:

I can see why this isn't in Simple Rulings.  Unlike PeterE and pran, I am completely surprised at the wording of Law 21B2.

Quote

When a player elects to change a call because of misinformation (...), his LHO may then in turn change any subsequent call he may have made, without other rectification unless at the end of the hand the Director judges his withdrawn call to have conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side in which case Law 16D applies.

So during the auction and play, 2♥ is not UI; but at the end of the hand, we now say 2♥ was UI (Law 16D) and see if RHO used UI (Law 16B) and adjust as if 2♥ had been UI.

What does the TD tell RHO? It is not illegal for you to use information from 2♥ but nevertheless if you do use information from 2♥ in a way that would be illegal if 2♥ were UI then I will adjust the score as if 2♥ had been unauthorised information.

How is this any different in practice than saying the information from the changed call is unauthorised?

Is there anywhere else in the laws that information becomes unauthorised at the end of the hand and we retrospectively apply Law 16B/D?

Word fail me: but I hope they won't fail dburn.

I too agree with Bluejak's decision to not include this in "Simple Rulings".

Bluejak said:

Let me ask two questions.

Is RHO's 2♥ unauthorised information to LHO? Under what Law?

Are there lead penalties for LHO based on the 2♥ bid? Under what Law?

It seems to be that 2♥ is a withdrawn call and that the 2♥ bidder is a member of an offending side.

Law16D said:

Information from Withdrawn Calls and Plays
When a call or play has been withdrawn as these laws provide:
1. For a non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn action is authorized, whether the action be its own or its opponents’.
2. For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. A player of an offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorized information.

So the answer to Bluejak's first question is yes, under Law 16D2.

Please note that Law 21B2 as quoted above by Robin merely says "without other rectification" which does not mean "without any adverse consequences whatsoever".

The second question is more interesting still. Do the replaced calls "form part of the legal auction"? If so, hearts were specified in the "legal auction" and hence by virtue of Law 26A1 the Law 26 lead restrictions would not apply. However, the 2♥ bid would still be UI, so the partner would have restrictions during the defence based on demonstrably suggested logical alternatives.

[bluejak]

pran, on Sep 1 2010, 08:16 PM, said:

But I do not share any confusion about the Director immediately allowing the auction to continue without rectification only to have the duty after the play on the board is completed to judge if the non-offending side after all has been damaged (directly or indirectly) by the irregularity.

What irregularity?

[pran]

bluejak, on Sep 2 2010, 12:44 AM, said:

pran, on Sep 1 2010, 08:16 PM, said:

But I do not share any confusion about the Director immediately allowing the auction to continue without rectification only to have the duty after the play on the board is completed to judge if the non-offending side after all has been damaged (directly or indirectly) by the irregularity.

What irregularity?

Don't we have the same version of the laws? ("What irregularity?" - what a question!)

Law 21 (from my version):
B. Call Based on Misinformation from an Opponent

1. {a} Until the end of the auction period and provided that his partner has not subsequently called, a player may change a call without other rectification for his side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent (see Law 17E). Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation.

{b} The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

2. When a player elects to change a call because of misinformation (as in 1 preceding), his LHO may then in turn change any subsequent call he may have made, without other rectification unless at the end of the hand the Director judges his withdrawn call to have conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side in which case Law 16D applies.

[pran]

RMB1, on Sep 2 2010, 12:05 AM, said:

pran, on Sep 1 2010, 08:16 PM, said:

RMB1, on Sep 1 2010, 05:18 PM, said:

...
Is there anywhere else in the laws that information becomes unauthorised at the end of the hand and we retrospectively apply Law 16B/D?

Word fail me: but I hope they won't fail dburn.

Take a look at Law 27D. ...

This is where pran indicated that Law 27D talked about UI. I asked where does information become UI at the end of the hand, and pran said to look at Law 27; seems a pretty clear indication to me.

You asked if there were "anywhere else in the laws that ....."

OK. Law 27D does not say anything about UI, but it certainly describes a situation where information from an irregularity is afterwards judged to having damaged the non-offending side. I had more focus on this analogy than on the technicality on UI.

[bluejak]

Are you deliberately being obtuse, pran? Writing reams of stuff which does not answer the question is no help whatever. You have not answered what irregularity.

[Zelandakh]

bluejak, on Sep 2 2010, 11:32 AM, said:

Are you deliberately being obtuse, pran? Writing reams of stuff which does not answer the question is no help whatever. You have not answered what irregularity.

See pran's previous post David - you might have missed it as it is last in page. The irregularity he is suggesting is

Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required
together with
conveying such information as to damage the non-offending side

Jallerton's point that since Law 16D is explicitly applicable the information from 2H is effectively UI seems pretty compelling.

[bluejak]

Ok, Zelandakh, that's a sensible reply. Now, you are the player who bid 2♣, and you ask the TD "Is the 2♥ AI or UI to me?". What is your answer?

[pran]

bluejak, on Sep 2 2010, 12:32 PM, said:

Are you deliberately being obtuse, pran? Writing reams of stuff which does not answer the question is no help whatever. You have not answered what irregularity.

Well, you have already got the answer, and in fact two times (both from me and from Zelandakh).

And I am NOT aware of being obtuse, not accidentally and certainly not deliberately.

However, as you raised such a point I shall just inform you that the persistent animosity I feel from you is not exactly pleasing.

May I also inform you that I have had direct approaches from people who stated that they prefer asking me directly rather than exposing themselves to the treatment they have observed on this forum. You may draw whatever inference you like from this.