[savphantom]

Second hand report from major national event.
1S PASS Alert

Opener declares to the table "you don't alert 1S Bill"!

Responder says he "saw" 2S as the opening bid.
Australian Regulations require alerts for 2 suited openers such as Spades and a minor.

Generous dose of UI obviously.

While I did not hear more details of the auction or if the non offenders could claim damage from UI,
What action should the director take if called at the Ui?

[Chris3875]

What UI was given ?

[iviehoff]

Chris3875, on Mar 25 2010, 07:53 AM, said:

What UI was given ?

Drew partner's (possible) misapprehension to his attention.

I think opener's partner has to be instructed to play as if he remains under whatever misapprehension led him to alert the opening call.

[rbforster]

Isn't the fact that opener bid 1S authorized to everyone?

[iviehoff]

Rob F, on Mar 25 2010, 10:40 AM, said:

Isn't the fact that opener bid 1S authorized to everyone?

Of course it is authorised information. What is not allowed is for your attention to be drawn to a pertinent fact by unauthorised means. For example, the score (at rubber bridge) or vulnerability is authorised information, but it is an explicit offence to draw attention to it. Your own agreements are authorised information to you, but you aren't allowed to use a crib sheet, or be otherwise reminded of them. When you have misbid you are not allowed to be woken up to the fact by your partner's alert, absence of alert, explanation, sharp exhalation of breath, or other communications. Having been woken up to an authorised fact by unauthorised means, you now have to continue labouring under your misapprehension.

[nige1]

savphantom, on Mar 24 2010, 06:41 PM, said:

Second hand report from major national event.
1S    PASS     Alert
Opener declares to the table "you don't alert 1S Bill". Responder says he "saw" 2S as the opening bid. Australian Regulations require alerts for 2 suited openers such as Spades and a minor. Generous dose of UI obviously. While I did not hear more details of the auction or if the non offenders could claim damage from UI, What action should the director take if called at the Ui?

IMO, if called, the director should insist that

• Responder bids as if the opening bid had been 2♠ but
  
• Opener still treats responder's bids at their face-value -- as if responder was replying to 1♠.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on Mar 25 2010, 07:35 AM, said:

IMO, if called, the director should insist that

• Responder bids as if the opening bid had been 2♠ but
  
• Opener still treats responder's bids at their face-value -- as if responder was replying to 1♠.

No. The director should inform the players of their obligations under laws 73C and 16B1a (must carefully avoid taking advantage, may not choose from amongst LAs one which could demonstrably have been suggested). He should inform the opponents that if they feel they were damaged by a violation of either of these laws, they should call the director back after the end of play (Law 16B3).

Both players have UI, one from the "you don't alert 1♠" comment, the other from "I thought it was 2♠".

[jdonn]

Rob F, on Mar 25 2010, 04:40 AM, said:

Isn't the fact that opener bid 1S authorized to everyone?

UI and AI can duplicate each other.

[nige1]

nige1, on Mar 25 2010, 07:35 AM, said:

IMO, if called, the director should insist that

• Responder bids as if the opening bid had been 2♠  but
  
  
• Opener still treats responder's bids at their face-value -- as if responder was replying to 1♠.

blackshoe, on Mar 25 2010, 10:26 AM, said:

No. The director should inform the players of their obligations under laws 73C and 16B1a (must carefully avoid taking advantage, may not choose from amongst LAs one which could demonstrably have been suggested). He should inform the opponents that if they feel they were damaged by a violation of either of these laws, they should call the director back after the end of play (Law 16B3). Both players have UI, one from the "you don't alert 1♠" comment, the other from "I thought it was 2♠".

Blackshoe explains the law better and makes offenders' obligations easy to understand.