[blml] A different infraction

Alain Gottcheiner agot at ulb.ac.be
Fri Nov 23 15:28:41 CET 2007


Guthrie a écrit :
> [
> 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? 
Of course we do. See the word "any".
It's rather frequent that you detect unnoticed-till-now infractions.
For exemple, you're called because of mistimed questions, but it happens 
that there was MI and it isn't too late for correction, so you declare 
the bidding still open.
Or worse, you're called for OBOOT but the mis-opener telle you he 
thought he was in 1st seat on this board - oops, wrong board. Change 
boards, of course.

> Would it be any different if you accidently saw a player making 
> a bid suggested by UI when you were walking by?
>   
It has been discussed before, and many said "you might act". I'd prefer 
it to be "you have to act".


Best regards


   Alain



More information about the blml mailing list