[blml] Tie me kangaroo court, sport [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Robert Geller:

[snip]

>>The warning to partner is not authorized information.
>>Had it not been for the UI partner would have committed
>>an irregularity,

[snip]

Ton Kooijman:

>If north has to call and south picks a card form his
>box, regardless what kind of card it is and how he keeps
>it, may be he just touched it even, this action is an
>irregularity. And any player at the table may call
>attention to it, at any stage.

Richard Hills:

Ye, I agree with Ton.  In my opinion, Robert Geller has
misinterpreted the concept of unauthorised information
from partner.

Under Law 16A, extraneous information from one partner is
defined as UI when it will assist the other partner in
choosing amongst logical alternatives.  An irregularity is
never a logical alternative.

On the other hand, suppose that in Ton's example North
said: "Don't bid out of turn pard; this is the first time
this session that I've held a slam-try hand."

It would be AI to South that it was North's turn to call.

However, if in the North-South system it was undiscussed
whether North's next call of 4H was a forcing splinter bid
agreeing spades, or a natural signoff in hearts, then it
would be UI to South that North was expecting South to bid
again.


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch
02 6225 6285