[VixTD]

The following nearly happened in an inter-county match yesterday:

Dealer North:

1♠  2♥  2NT  3♥
  P    P  3♠*

*After bidding 3♠ South announced to the table that her 2NT bid should have been alerted. I was called, I told her off for correcting misinformation prematurely, sent North away from the table so that EW could have an explanation from South as to what it meant (good raise in spades) and allowed East the chance to retract his last call, explained that if he did so South would be able to change the 3♠ call but that it would be UI to North and that lead penalties might apply. The auction continued:

1♠  2♥  2NT  3♥
 P   4♥    P     P
 P

Do you impose lead penalties on NS (when North gains the lead), and thus wake North up to the meaning of 2NT?

[Pig Trader]

I think that not only has North woken up by now but he has also put on some clothes and had breakfast!

At this kind of event, there is almost certainly only one reason for North's pratner to behave in this way - the fool thinks that 2NT isn't natural after the intervention and thinks that he's showing a raise in North's suit.

So, in this nearly-happened case, it's pretty certain that North already has the UI of the misunderstanding, but, even so, it doesn't actually matter. There are times when you, as TD, have to make clear the UI in order to follow the Laws, here to impose lead restrictions. Indeed, you need to explain the lead restrictions to East at the start of the play because it may affect the way that East plays the contract.

Barrie

Pig Trader in BBO, Senior Kibitzer in BCL

[bluejak]

Nothing illegal about giving UI, though it is healthy to avoid it whenever possible. But TDs have to apply other Laws and players have to follow other Laws even when UI is given as a result.

[VixTD]

Pig Trader, on Sep 14 2009, 09:26 AM, said:

Indeed, you need to explain the lead restrictions to East at the start of the play because it may affect the way that East plays the contract.

Of course I'd do that. In fact, I could read out law 26 in full before the opening lead and leave North guessing as to which category the withdrawn call falls into until he actually gains the lead, just to string it out as long as possible. I don't think I'd be thanked by the players for doing that, however, and I'm sure North has by now guessed what was going on.

It just seemed a little incongruous to send North away from the table so he doesn't find out what's going on, then tell him what the bid showed, then tell him he's not allowed to know what the bid showed....

In the end it didn't arise because South bid 4♠ over 4♥ (so now a North who knows the laws might work out that the absence of lead penalties means that 2NT must have shown spades...)

[sfi]

South isn't out of the woods with the 4♠ bid. They have two pieces of UI that have to be considered - that partner did not alert 2NT (thus North could have extra spade length) and that RHO doesn't really have a 4♥ bid (which has a number of factors to consider).

Either of these could suggest that bidding 4♠ is a winning action, so I would want to investigate on the actual auction before I move on from the hand.

[pran]

sfi, on Sep 15 2009, 03:43 AM, said:

South isn't out of the woods with the 4♠ bid.  They have two pieces of UI that have to be considered - that partner did not alert 2NT (thus North could have extra spade length) and that RHO doesn't really have a 4♥ bid (which has a number of factors to consider).

Either of these could suggest that bidding 4♠ is a winning action, so I would want to investigate on the actual auction before I move on from the hand.

South is "out of the woods" as far as Law 26 is concerned. He has already shown spades with his 2NT bid (part of the legal auction) so Law 26 can never apply to his withdrawn 3♠ bid. (The question of UI is still relevant, but a different matter)

Law 26A1: if each such suit was specified in the legal auction by the same player there is no lead restriction, but see Law 16D.

regards Sven

[JoAnneM]

Did the 2NT bidder blurt out the information about the bid knowing that it was illegal to do so, but that it would be advantageous to their side to correct the auction right then anyway? If so, that is a huge infraction of the proprieties. I wonder how experienced this player was.

[sfi]

pran, on Sep 15 2009, 07:01 PM, said:

sfi, on Sep 15 2009, 03:43 AM, said:

South isn't out of the woods with the 4♠ bid.  They have two pieces of UI that have to be considered - that partner did not alert 2NT (thus North could have extra spade length) and that RHO doesn't really have a 4♥ bid (which has a number of factors to consider).

Either of these could suggest that bidding 4♠ is a winning action, so I would want to investigate on the actual auction before I move on from the hand.

South is "out of the woods" as far as Law 26 is concerned. He has already shown spades with his 2NT bid (part of the legal auction) so Law 26 can never apply to his withdrawn 3♠ bid. (The question of UI is still relevant, but a different matter)

Exactly. The director needs to consider 16B and 16D in relation to the 4♠ bid.

[VixTD]

I really wish I hadn't started this - it was a silly problem in the first place, I knew what the answer was, and as Sven correctly pointed out, I got it back to front (I should have said the absence of lead penalties from the withdrawn 3♠ bid would tell North what 2NT meant).

Quote

[sfi]South isn't out of the woods with the 4♠ bid. They have two pieces of UI that have to be considered - that partner did not alert 2NT (thus North could have extra spade length) and that RHO doesn't really have a 4♥ bid (which has a number of factors to consider).

Either of these could suggest that bidding 4♠ is a winning action, so I would want to investigate on the actual auction before I move on from the hand.

Rest assured, I did all this.

Quote

Did the 2NT bidder blurt out the information about the bid knowing that it was illegal to do so, but that it would be advantageous to their side to correct the auction right then anyway? If so, that is a huge infraction of the proprieties. I wonder how experienced this player was.

This was from the third county team-of-eight, and not a very experienced player. I suspect she was aware that her 3♠ bid would look a little odd absent the alert, and felt a need to excuse her action in advance. This isn't legal, of course, but perhaps an understandable reaction, and certainly not malicious.