UI

[Lali]

In a recent regional, head director was called when declarer gave mis-information about a call by her partner. The bidding went

 

1NT(15-17) - 3H *alert 5H and 4S

- 4H - 5D

- 6C swish.

 

There were no opposition bidding. The responder called the director before the opening lead and the table was told that there was mis-information and the correct meaning of the 3H bid was minors with shortness in S. Director never looked at either players convention card. The op then talked to the director away from the table saying that if he knew the meaning of the bid, he would have preempted 3S with AK6th of S. The director asked to see the ops cards and then said "No one would ever interfere with your hand. Go back and play the hand."

 

Comments?

[Cyberyeti]

To deal with the UI first:

 

I presume 3♥ is GF, but does it always have slam ambitions ?

 

Firstly, what does 4♥ show if declarer had correctly explained 3♥ ? 5♦ might not be allowable on E's hand.

 

Did the 5♦ bidder betray any signs of anxiety that might have given the no-trumper a clue a wheel was off, 5♦ looks like a cue with hearts agreed absent any such info, so why did the no-trumper bid 6♣ rather than 5/6♥.

 

What was the vul ? favourable I might be bidding ♠AKxxxx here, surely the director should have polled people before saying nobody would bid on it, the hand was going to have to be played in 6♣ in any event although maybe adjusted afterwards.

[alanmet]

Once the opposition had recieved the correct meaning (which they are entitled to )of the bid the director should have said to the opposition,

"call me back at the end of the play of the hand if you think you have been disadvantaged".

There was certainly no value in discussing anything with the opposition away from the table and was the wrong thing to do.

This has now alerted his partner that he probably has some values.

The hand has to be played in 6C. Damage if any is assessed at the end of play.

Cheers

Alan

 

 

In a recent regional, head director was called when declarer gave mis-information about a call by her partner. The bidding went

 

1NT(15-17) - 3H *alert 5H and 4S

- 4H - 5D

- 6C swish.

 

There were no opposition bidding. The responder called the director before the opening lead and the table was told that there was mis-information and the correct meaning of the 3H bid was minors with shortness in S. Director never looked at either players convention card. The op then talked to the director away from the table saying that if he knew the meaning of the bid, he would have preempted 3S with AK6th of S. The director asked to see the ops cards and then said "No one would ever interfere with your hand. Go back and play the hand."

 

Comments?

[blackshoe]

The correct ruling is for the TD to tell the defender who passed last that he can change his call if he likes. If he does, the auction proceeds normally. If he does not, the auction stands. The correct thing for the TD to do at this point is to tell them to play the hand, and for the defenders to call him back afterwards if they feel they were damaged by an irregularity committed by the declaring side. Questions about use of UI and so on cannot be answered without seeing the hands. Since the TD did not give the correct ruling, he has committed TD error and must now consider the hand under Law 82C.

[Rossoneri]

The correct ruling is for the TD to tell the defender who passed last that he can change his call if he likes. If he does, the auction proceeds normally. If he does not, the auction stands.

 

You beat me to it.

[Bbradley62]

The op then talked to the director away from the table saying that if he knew the meaning of the bid, he would have preempted 3S with AK6th of S.

3♠ is not much of a preempt after responder has bid 3♥.

[Cyberyeti]

3♠ is not much of a preempt after responder has bid 3♥.

No, but it might get you a spade lead and partner might raise which is where the preempt may come in. I think a fair few people say preempt when they mean "bid on a weak hand".

[Vampyr]

Firstly, what does 4♥ show if declarer had correctly explained 3♥ ? 5♦ might not be allowable on E's hand.

 

Yes, if 3♥ shows a fragment, I would expect that the most usual meaning for 4♥ would be to play.

[Lali]

Actually I agree with everything said. Ops should have been given a chance roll back one bid and even if they choose not to bid, they are still protected from the MI. They should have been told to play out the hand and call the TD back if they can show damage due to the MI .... possibly if a S lead could set the contract. I don't think the TD has any right to ask to see cards and make a decision based on HIS subjective opinion. I was just so surprised to hear of this case made by a head ACBL TD. As it stood 6C was cold and the dummy was void in S with a 0256 hand, so no damage.

[blackshoe]

I don't think the TD has any right to ask to see cards and make a decision based on HIS subjective opinion.

Well, you're wrong there, at least in part. The TD does have the right to ask to see cards. He should not in this case because he doesn't need to see them yet, but he has the right.

[Cyberyeti]

Yes, if 3♥ shows a fragment, I would expect that the most usual meaning for 4♥ would be to play.

In which case 5♦ is presumably some sort of cue, so is 6♣ a legitimate bid ? What cue bidding style was in use, given what the 1N was, is it feasible for him to bid anything other than 5/6♥ ?

 

As I said earlier, there is theoretically no UI on the 1N opener, but body language is often present here.

[alanmet]

Hi Blackshoe

My understanding is that once the auction is finished there is no going back.

In this case the auction had finished.

Law 21 can't apply now.

Cheers

Alan

The correct ruling is for the TD to tell the defender who passed last that he can change his call if he likes. If he does, the auction proceeds normally. If he does not, the auction stands. The correct thing for the TD to do at this point is to tell them to play the hand, and for the defenders to call him back afterwards if they feel they were damaged by an irregularity committed by the declaring side. Questions about use of UI and so on cannot be answered without seeing the hands. Since the TD did not give the correct ruling, he has committed TD error and must now consider the hand under Law 82C.

[Lali]

Well, you're wrong there, at least in part. The TD does have the right to ask to see cards. He should not in this case because he doesn't need to see them yet, but he has the right.

 

 

But does the TD have to right to ask to see cards for the sole purpose of deciding whether an op can make any call?

[blackshoe]

Hi Blackshoe

My understanding is that once the auction is finished there is no going back.

In this case the auction had finished.

Law 21 can't apply now.

Cheers

Alan

You are mistaken. B-)

Law 21B1{a}: Until the end of the auction period and provided that his partner has not subsequently called, a player may change a call without other rectification for his side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent (see Law 17E). Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation.

Law 22A2: The auction ends when:

2. one or more players having bid, there are three consecutive passes in rotation subsequent to the last bid. The last bid becomes the contract, but see Law 19D.

Law 22B1: The auction period ends when, subsequent to the end of the auction as in A2 above, either defender faces an opening lead. (If the lead is out of turn, then see Law 54.) The interval between the end of the auction and the end of the auction period is designated the clarification period.

Law 21B1 can be applied until the end of the auction period, that is, until a defender faces an opening lead.

[blackshoe]

But does the TD have to right to ask to see cards for the sole purpose of deciding whether an op can make any call?

When a player has unauthorized information, he is constrained not to take advantage of it [Law 73C]. When the TD is called in a case where a player has UI from his partner, he is bound by the laws to tell the player in receipt of UI of this obligation, but he cannot tell the player what he can or cannot call. After the play is concluded, the TD may, if he considers that the player chose an action suggested by UI over another logical alternative, and if he also considers that the opponents were damaged thereby, he shall adjust the score [Law 16B3]. Since he doesn't need to determine that until after the hand, and since if he looks at the hand during the auction or play periods he may convey extraneous information to the players about that hand, he should not look at the hand.

 

Correct procedure in cases where a player may have made unauthorized information available to his partner is as follows:

1. At the time the UI may have been made available, the opponents should try to obtain agreement from the side which may have made it available that this is indeed the case. If that side disagrees, they should call the director forthwith. This is rarely handled properly. If that side does not call the TD, the opponents should call, in order to protect their rights.

2. If a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent did take advantage of UI, the he should call the director when play ends. "Substantial reason" cannot arise until you see the player's hand, either because he becomes dummy, or because the hand has been played out. In any case, the TD can do nothing except adjust the score, which requires that the hand be played out, and that's the reason you don't call him until after play ends.

 

Note: Providing UI is not in itself an infraction of law. This is why I do not call "that side" above "the offending side". It is the use of UI that is the infraction — if it occurs. If it doesn't then there has been no offense.

[alanmet]

My apologies.

But the judgement now is based on whether he would have chosen not to pass after 6C.

It has nothing to do with the fact that he may have preempted 3S.

Cheers

Alan

You are mistaken. B-)

 

 

 

Law 21B1 can be applied until the end of the auction period, that is, until a defender faces an opening lead.

[Cyberyeti]

My apologies.

But the judgement now is based on whether he would have chosen not to pass after 6C.

It has nothing to do with the fact that he may have preempted 3S.

Cheers

Alan

This is a misunderstanding.

 

The auction can't be rolled back to the missed 3♠ bid, play continues reverting to the final pass over 6♣, but the result can be adjusted on the basis of what would happen if the 3♠ bid was made.

[aguahombre]

As it stood 6C was cold and the dummy was void in S with a 0256 hand, so no damage.

So, by waiting until the hand had been played out to start making judgements, the TD would have saved face by not making his stupid statement, and also been able to dismiss the spade interference as irrelevant.

 

3S wouldn't change the 4H bid, and a raise to 4S wouldn't change the 5D bid. A spade lead would have no effect.

 

The TD could focus on the only matter which is important ---whether the bidding side used UI or didn't use UI. That issue seems to have been covered in this thread.

[Finch]

Yes, if 3♥ shows a fragment, I would expect that the most usual meaning for 4♥ would be to play.

 

It doesn't say anywhere that 3♥ shows a fragment (and responder didn't have one, we have since discovered).

[aguahombre]

It doesn't say anywhere that 3♥ shows a fragment (and responder didn't have one, we have since discovered).

I believe if 3H shows spade shortness and minor-suit length, the fragment in hearts is implied. 2 cards is a fragment when we have 10 cards in two other suits.

 

That makes Vamp's observation correct in theory and accurate on the given hand.

[barmar]

But does the TD have to right to ask to see cards for the sole purpose of deciding whether an op can make any call?

When a player has unauthorized information, he is constrained not to take advantage of it [Law 73C]. When the TD is called in a case where a player has UI from his partner, he is bound by the laws to tell the player in receipt of UI of this obligation, but he cannot tell the player what he can or cannot call.

Lali said "op" (short for opponent). The TD wasn't making a UI ruling, he was judging the reasonableness of the player's claim that he would have acted differently during the auction if given a correct explanation.

[blackshoe]

Lali said "op" (short for opponent). The TD wasn't making a UI ruling, he was judging the reasonableness of the player's claim that he would have acted differently during the auction if given a correct explanation.

Okay, I think I get it now. There was a suggestion of misinformation via an incorrect explanation of the 3♥ bid. The suggestion was made by the bidding side, when the putative dummy correctly called the director after the final pass but before the opening lead was faced and explained that he believed his partner's explanation was incorrect. The TD apparently took this at face value, as we're told he did not look at anyone's system card. Did he ask putative declarer whether he agreed that he'd misexplained? I'll assume not, since we weren't told of it. "The opponent" spoke to the TD away from the table, claiming he would have "preempted 3♠" if given a correct explanation. I presume the opponent in question was putative declarer's RHO, as his claim doesn't make any sense otherwise. OTOH, as someone mentioned mentioned in the thread, 3♠ over 3♥ isn't much of a preempt. I would give more credence to "I would have bid 3♠ for the lead" but set that aside. The TD looked at this player's hand, told him he was out of his mind, and to go back and play out the deal.

 

The TD's first mistake seems to have been failure to investigate whether the explanation was in fact MI. If it wasn't MI, there was no infraction, and the TD would tell 'em to get on with the play. So let's assume there was MI. Law 21 says that the player of the NOS who was last to call may be given the opportunity to change that last call if "the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent". It looks to me like the TD, when he told the player that "no one would ever interfere with your hand" was in fact ruling that the criterion of Law 21 for a change of call has not been met. So now the TD tells him to go back and play the hand. As I've said before, the TD should not be looking at hands at this point, but other than that the ruling does not seem unreasonable.

[pran]

Okay, I think I get it now. There was a suggestion of misinformation via an incorrect explanation of the 3♥ bid. The suggestion was made by the bidding side, when the putative dummy correctly called the director after the final pass but before the opening lead was faced and explained that he believed his partner's explanation was incorrect. The TD apparently took this at face value, as we're told he did not look at anyone's system card. Did he ask putative declarer whether he agreed that he'd misexplained? I'll assume not, since we weren't told of it. "The opponent" spoke to the TD away from the table, claiming he would have "preempted 3♠" if given a correct explanation. I presume the opponent in question was putative declarer's RHO, as his claim doesn't make any sense otherwise. OTOH, as someone mentioned mentioned in the thread, 3♠ over 3♥ isn't much of a preempt. I would give more credence to "I would have bid 3♠ for the lead" but set that aside. The TD looked at this player's hand, told him he was out of his mind, and to go back and play out the deal.

 

The TD's first mistake seems to have been failure to investigate whether the explanation was in fact MI. If it wasn't MI, there was no infraction, and the TD would tell 'em to get on with the play. So let's assume there was MI. Law 21 says that the player of the NOS who was last to call may be given the opportunity to change that last call if "the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent". It looks to me like the TD, when he told the player that "no one would ever interfere with your hand" was in fact ruling that the criterion of Law 21 for a change of call has not been met. So now the TD tells him to go back and play the hand. As I've said before, the TD should not be looking at hands at this point, but other than that the ruling does not seem unreasonable.

I fully agree with blackshoe here, but I want to emphasize the fact that if declarer now knows that the Director has looked at RHO's hand and then ruled that there is no substance in his claim that he would have bid different given correct information during the auction then declarer (and also LHO) is in possession of UI because of this error by the director! The final result can very well become a Law 82C ruling.

[blackshoe]

I fully agree with blackshoe here, but I want to emphasize the fact that if declarer now knows that the Director has looked at RHO's hand and then ruled that there is no substance in his claim that he would have bid different given correct information during the auction then declarer (and also LHO) is in possession of UI because of this error by the director! The final result can very well become a Law 82C ruling.

According to the OP, the conversation in which the TD said that took place away from the table, so unless his comment was repeated at the table, there's no problem. Of course, if the comment was so repeated, yes, 82C may come into play.

[pran]

According to the OP, the conversation in which the TD said that took place away from the table, so unless his comment was repeated at the table, there's no problem. Of course, if the comment was so repeated, yes, 82C may come into play.

The crucial question is whether TD away from the table may have given the player some instruction that probably depends on something TD learned about the player's hand. If so then the other players at the table know that the subsequent actions by that player quite likely is a consequence of what TD learned during that conversation in private.

 

This is the primary reason why I never care much about taking a player away from the table except for the purpose of allowing his partner to explain a call without him hearing that explanation.

 

Thus I never take a player away to hear for instance what he intended with a call (e.g. insufficient bid) before I make a ruling related to that call. In such cases I make sure the player(s) understand the relevant laws and that I may examine the situation afterwards to see if I approve of the selected action eventually taken at the table.