Is the vulnerability authorised information?

[Vampyr]

In a recent tournament I played against a pair who were playing variable 1NT openings. In third position, at favourable, LHO opened 1NT, which was announced as "good 9 to poor 13". It turned out that opener had mistaken the vulnerability; he had 18 HCP.

 

RHO bid 2♣, which was some sort of relay, bizzarely having potential replies at the 3-level. I don't remember the rest of the auction, unfortunately, because it was weird and I was tired, but anyway RHO made some sort of signoff and LHO jumped to game.

 

We received a ruling in our favour. Of course I know that you cannot be woken up by partner's announcement; I am just wondering if you can be assumed to, at some point, notice the vulnerability and realise your mistake. I think that you are stuck once partner has made an announcement, but I am interested in whether there are other opinions.

[Mbodell]

First off all, in the ACBL this is an illegal system. If you open good 9 counts 1nt then you can't have any conventional calls after that. So 2♣ as a relay over a 9+-13- hand is illegal.

 

Second, I too play a variable nt depending on seat and vulnerability and partner and I forget occasionally and open the wrong range. We both agree that we can't wake up when we make that mistake as partner's announcement is UI. I'm pretty sure this is the correct interpretation.

[iviehoff]

First off all, in the ACBL this is an illegal system.  If you open good 9 counts 1nt then you can't have any conventional calls after that.  So 2♣ as a relay over a 9+-13- hand is illegal.

But can't you get around this by saying that you evaluate a good 9 as being worth a 10?

 

I don't think it matters that the vulnerability is authorised information. What is not authorised is being woken up to something by your partner's alert, non-alert, or explanation, or otherwise drawing attention to it. All these things that you are woken up to you are perfectly entitled to know if only you could remember them. It's a bit like the score in rubber bridge: the score is authorised information, but drawing attention to it is impermissible.

[helene_t]

First off all, in the ACBL this is an illegal system. If you open good 9 counts 1nt then you can't have any conventional calls after that. So 2♣ as a relay over a 9+-13- hand is illegal.

Opener thought they were playing strong NT so that opener explains 2♣ as a relay does not suggest that they play illegal methods. Maybe 2♣ was intended as natural?

[blackshoe]

Stephanie (Vampyr) isn't in the ACBL. <_<

 

Knowledge of the vulnerability is AI. Inferences drawn from partner's explanation are UI. UI trumps AI, at least so long as there is more than one logical alternative. So I agree with those who've said that no, opener can't "wake up" and bid game in this situation.

 

As to the judgement question in the case of the ACBL regulation, the answer used to be a definite "no". While I believe the answer is still no, I'm not completely certain of that — the ACBL may have mellowed. OTOH, the Tech Files in ACBLScore still say that an opening on less than 10 HCP is considered conventional — I suppose that should now read "a special partnership understanding" — and so falls under Item #7 under "Disallowed" which prohibits conventional responses to such an opening. Note that this is true whatever opener thought at the time. It isn't the explanation that's the problem, it's the agreement.

[gordontd]

Stephanie (Vampyr) isn't in the ACBL. <_<

Indeed not, but she has inexplicably put "ACBL" as the sub-heading even thought the actual case happened in the EBU (I gave the ruling).

[blackshoe]

Ah, so she did. Wishful thinking? <_<

[gordontd]

You can take the girl out of the ACBL...

[Vampyr]

Honestly, I don't know how that ACBL sub-heading got there. I am certain that I didn't type it, but late last night I may have been a bit the worse for wear...