[blml] When to late

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of David Grabiner
...........
> > On the contrary if late discoveries make it likely or even probable 
> > that a partnership has created UI using some sort of concealed 
> > partnership understanding I see every reason to try an accusation
> > of a Law 16A2 violation on such basis within the correction period.
> 
> It doesn't need to be a concealed partnership understanding, just
> something which might reasonably not have been discovered at the
> table.  For example:
> 
> W   N   E   S
> 1C  P   1H  1S
> 2H  3S  4H  4S
> X
> 
> West, who has only three hearts, forgot that E-W were playing support
> doubles.  East explains that 2H promises four (in response to a 
> question, or because the raise promising four is alertable), giving 
> UI to West.  The UI suggests doubling over bidding 5H or making a
> forcing pass which East could convert to 5H.  South claims 4Sx down 
> two before the play is finished, so he doesn't discover the heart
> position.  Only when the hand records come out does South see that
> West's hand doesn't correspond to East's explanation, and that he
> might have been damaged because 5H could go down.
> 
> E-W may not have done anything wrong, but South needs to have the 
> right to claim damage from UI.

Excuse me, but what damage can South claim?

Would South not have bid 4S if he had known that West might have only three
hearts?

Would West not have doubled if he had not have the UI that he should have
four hearts?

Exactly how could South avoid ending in 4S doubled if you just remove all UI
from this situation?

I do agree that there can be situations without any kind of CPU that still
calls for a late claim of UI rulings.

Regards Sven