[blml] A different infraction

[Konrad Ciborowski]

Perhaps this has already been discussed on BLML,
sorry if it has:

http://www.pzbs.pl/kmpp/2007/list2007/analizy200711.htm#31

Deal #31, Dealer South, North-South vulnerable.
Two not very strong pairs, irregular partnerships.

South opens 1H, West overcalls 2S.
North asks and East explains 2S as 9 - 11
with 6S.

North makes a negative double, East
passes, South rebids 3C (clearly a huge
underbid but "only 11 points partner")
and West rebids his spades - 3S.
North doubles, the contract is cold,
North - South actually misdefend and
let declarer take 10 tricks.

North - South call the TD and claim having 
been demaged because of misinformation.
You see that indeed they have been misinformed but
there seems to be no connection between 
the infraction and the result. North - South
have damaged themselves through ridiculous
bidding (both the 3C bid and North's double
are out of this world).
Even if you somehow disagree about this
assertion about the lack of influence
of the MI please assume that this is the case.

However, you can see that West received UI
from his partner's explanation and his 3S bid
might well have been an attempt to "correct"
his partner's idea about the strength of the 2S bid.
But it looks that either North - South haven't noticed
or have no complaints about the use of UI 
by their opponents.

What do you do? Can we cater to that other
infraction because of L81C6?
Would it be any different if you accidently
saw a player making a bid suggested by UI
when you were walking by?

If not - what is the difference between these two
situations?

Konrad Ciborowski
Kraków, Poland
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071121/4b2c3685/attachment.htm