[blml] A different infraction

[Guthrie]

[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?

[nige1]
When called to the table, the director should rule on the facts as he 
establishes them -- not just on the actual complaint. If the director 
discovers what he judges to be new infractions, he must rule on them.

Similarly, the director should rule on an infraction that he 
accidentally notices, when passing the table.

Arguably but much more controversially: time permitting, the director 
should be on the look out for infractions, constantly and proactively, 
whether or not any players has drawn his attention to them. In the 
past directors have disparaged such ideas. Are they really in conflict 
with the rules (laws + regulations + + ).