[blml] And now for something completely different

[Matthias Berghaus]

Hi all,

a couple of weeks ago something happened at the club which got me 
wondering about L16 and L27. I do not remember the hands, but they are 
not relevant to my musings. Since I do not remember the hands I do not 
give vulnerability either. The seats may be wrong, too, but I think it 
to be easier for a discussion to call a player "East" instead of "the 
jumper" or something.... The 1D bidder was the dealer, so I call him North.

The bidding went as follows:

N E S W

1D - P - 1S - 3H(a)
3S - P - 3S - P
4S all pass

3H was alerted and explained as a weak jump. After the insufficient bid 
West called me to the table. I explained the laws and West chose to 
accept the insufficient bid. North asked about his obligations in this 
situation, and after mulling this over for some time I told him that he 
was free to use the information arising from a sufficient bid of 3S. 
North`s hand was strong enough to bid 4S anyway, so there was no 
decision to take later.

LAW 27 - INSUFFICIENT BID
A. Acceptance of Insufficient Bid
1. Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option
of offender’s LHO. It is accepted if that player calls.

LAW 16 AUTHORIZED AND UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION
A. Players’ Use of Information
1. A player may use information in the auction or play if:
(a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board
(including illegal calls and plays that are accepted)

So the insufficient 3S is treated as legal, and the partner may use the 
information deriving from that call. Hm. What _is_ the information that 
player may use? It seems to me that the way how this situation came 
about is UI to North, only the fact that partner bid 3S is AI. If this 
is so, then there are at least 4 scenarios:
A) S wanted to bid 4S, misbid, and kept mum about it (as I later found 
out that was actually the case here).
B) S wanted to raise 2S to 3S. Maybe not likely here as W had used the 
stop card, but no impossible.
C) S imagined N to have passed over 3H, and has now bid 3S over 3H
D) S has "seen" some bid other than 3S from partner. Not very likely either.

It may not be the best of examples, but as the insufficient 3S is now 
treated as legal there must be some content therein that is AI to North. 
Either the way how 3S was reached is AI ( I do not think so, as L16 
talks about information deriving from the call, not from the way it came 
about, but I am not sure of that interpretation either), or it is UI, in 
which case there must still be some AI information contained in that 
bid, else North's position would be quite difficult, maybe even impossible.
If it were AI (and South manages to perpetrate his error without giving 
away why he did so, as the player in this case managed to do), North 
would be free to guess what has happened. A case can be made for this 
viewpoint by way of the parallel to L27C1, where L16D does not apply 
(and the law says so, which it doesn`t do here).

Any ideas?