1C - Undisclosed Agreement

[biggerclub]

A sometimes partner asked me about this one today:

 

Opponents open 1♣ which can be as short as 2. No alert. No "could be short" explanation. Sometimes partner and his then partner miss their own contract in ♣s. Table ruling went against him. Makes a significant difference in the final result (club gives free play for first overall).

 

What is the ruling?

[blackshoe]

Apparently the ruling was that the OS gained no advantage, based on "table ruling went against him".

 

The law says that a failure to alert, or in this case to announce, is misinformation. Law 20F5 says that when a player whose partner has given MI becomes a member of the putative declaring side, he must, after the final pass of the auction and before the opening lead is chosen, call the director and in the director's presence give the correct explanation. Then the last defender to pass may be allowed to change his last pass if he so desires (Law 21). If either defender might have made a different call earlier in the auction, then if the TD determines that the OS gained an advantage from the irregularity, he awards an adjusted score. If the last defender to pass does change his final pass to another call, there is no further rectification. If the player who failed to announce later realizes that he screwed up, per Law 20F4, he must call the director immediately and provide the correct information. In this case, Law 21 will be applied to the auction as it stands so far. Note that if the partner of the player who failed to announce does not call the director and correct the information before the opening lead, the player who failed to announce is still obligated to call the director immediately he realizes his error, even if it's during the play. Note that Laws 20F4 and 20F5 are "must" laws — failure to do what one "must" do should result in a procedural penalty "more often than not". That "must," btw, includes calling the director before correcting the MI. Correcting the MI and leaving it up to the opponents to call the director is improper procedure.

 

Without seeing four hands and the bidding, and knowing when the MI came to light (during the auction, after the auction, during the play, after the play) it's not possible to say what the final ruling should be, but the above is the law.