[Fluffy]

2♥-ps-ps-3♥
ps-4♠-ps-ps
ps

---

No screens in effect, when north bids 3♥ south alerts and explains that 3♥ asks for a heart stopper, then he bids 4♠.

Later NS will show a written defence where it says 3♥ actually asks for heart stopper and is no kind of 2 suiter.

South was played the hand perfectly making club finese and running clubs without touching trumps being one of the very few to make the contract. Guess this actually has nothing to do with a previous ruling against him, but just in case.

Anything to rule?

[TylerE]

Gut instinct is score stands, possibly a PP to south if I have a feeling he's trying to be sharpish - That said... only UI on the hand is to North, who imo does the ethical thing by passing 4♠.

[blackshoe]

Which Law has South violated?

[pran]

blackshoe, on Apr 10 2010, 05:44 AM, said:

Which Law has South violated?

73

[peachy]

The explanation was extraneous when opponent didn't ask for the meaning of 3H call, but perhaps they were going to ask anyway (I would think it is normal to ask). However, North has not used the UI that partner made available to him, he/she acted as L73 prescribes. No MI, no use of UI, no damage, nothing to rule.

[jallerton]

pran, on Apr 10 2010, 06:03 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Apr 10 2010, 05:44 AM, said:

Which Law has South violated?

73

In what way?

[bluejak]

LAW 73 said:

COMMUNICATION

B. Inappropriate Communication between Partners

1. Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which
calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked
or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not
given to them.

Answering a question that has not asked may be done unintentionally, but it still is an extraneous remark that communicates with partner.

[pran]

peachy, on Apr 10 2010, 09:44 AM, said:

The explanation was extraneous when opponent didn't ask for the meaning of 3H call, but perhaps they were going to ask anyway (I would think it is normal to ask). However, North has not used the UI that partner made available to him, he/she acted as L73 prescribes. No MI, no use of UI, no damage, nothing to rule.

Except (at least) a warning to South

[Fluffy]

the UI is that south explains to north that he knows that he has no interest in spades, and then he bids 4♠.

In some way he has unintentionally dismissed any option of north correcting 4♠ to 5m, it is not unconceivable that someone takes 3♥ as spades+minor.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on Apr 10 2010, 02:48 PM, said:

LAW 73 said:

COMMUNICATION

B. Inappropriate Communication between Partners

1. Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which
calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked
or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not
given to them.

Answering a question that has not asked may be done unintentionally, but it still is an extraneous remark that communicates with partner.

What of the last six words of the law you quoted? The way I read it, answering a question that was asked also communicates with partner. So it seems to me that, ridiculous as it may be, if you say that an unsolicited answer violates this law, so does a solicited one.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on Apr 10 2010, 11:58 PM, said:

bluejak, on Apr 10 2010, 02:48 PM, said:

LAW 73 said:

COMMUNICATION

B. Inappropriate Communication between Partners

1. Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which
calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked
or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not
given to them.

Answering a question that has not asked may be done unintentionally, but it still is an extraneous remark that communicates with partner.

What of the last six words of the law you quoted? The way I read it, answering a question that was asked also communicates with partner. So it seems to me that, ridiculous as it may be, if you say that an unsolicited answer violates this law, so does a solicited one.

True, but the communication is unavoidable when a question is asked (unless screens are in use), because players are required to answer questions. While the Laws never say so, common sense indicates that the requirement to answer trumps the prohibition against communication, and we depend on the law saying that the receiver of UI must avoid taking advantage of it.

But unsolicited explanations are not required in the first place, so they violate Law 73.