[123ekim]

we are playing 2/1 in a sanctioned ACBL tournament
North bids 1 spade-- South bids 2 hrts--North bids 3 dmds-- South bids 3 spades--North bids 4 hrts (opps ask and are told that it is a cue bid)--South bids 4NT--North responds 5 clubs ( opps ask what does that mean and South states that it is a 1430 response showing 1 or 4 controls in SPADES)-- South bids 5 spades.

North originally thought he should be responding in hrts so now he corrects his mistake by bidding 6 spades ( he has the AKQ of spades and no other aces)

1. Did South make a mistake in fully describing his partner's bid?
2. North certainly took advantage of his mistake based upon South's explanation.
( or it may be argued that North would realize his mistake once South bid
5 spades and he would correct to 6 spades)

Do the opponents have any recourse ?

[matmat]

do you think you will get a different answer posting the same question for the third time?

[barmar]

Why are players explaining their partners' bids in a BBO tourney?

[123ekim]

this was not a bbo tourney- it was our local acbl tourney. however, i have found that the players and directors on bbo are very knowledgable so i sought their opinions

[blackshoe]

Do the opponents have any recourse? Sure. Call the Director.

When the auction reaches a high level and one side has been silent, it is folly to ask questions unless you might do something other than pass at that turn, given some particular possible answer. If you're, in effect, just curious, or if you think you'll need to know during the play, wait until the auction is over.

North's 6♠ bid is an example of "unauthorized panic". He has unauthorized information from his partner's explanations which tells him he has misbid, and now he panics and instead of following the law and being careful to avoid taking advantage of that information he does just the opposite.

Whatever may have happened absent the UI is irrelevant. The UI is there, you can't ignore it.

Penalty? Probably not. Score adjustment? Sure, if there was damage.

These two threads of yours would have been better as just one, posted in the Laws and Rulings forum.

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on May 24 2010, 05:48 AM, said:

These two threads of yours would have been better as just one, posted in the Laws and Rulings forum.

As matmat pointed out, there are three threads: two here and one in Advanced and Expert-Class Bridge (where I had a go at the topic).

[billw55]

blackshoe, on May 23 2010, 11:48 PM, said:

Penalty? Probably not.

Why not? If everything presented here is accurate, north has obviously and deliberately attempted to use the UI to his advantage. If he is an inexperienced tournament player, he needs a stern lecture from the TD to not do that anymore. If he is even moderately experienced, he deserves a PP for deliberate violation.

[blackshoe]

Heh. Around here, I'm considered to be too willing to give out PPs — in spite of the fact I haven't done so in years. Apparently I'm too wimpy for folks elsewhere.

If I thought the use of UI was deliberate, rather than clueless, yes, I'd give a PP.

[bluejak]

billw55, on May 26 2010, 05:43 PM, said:

blackshoe, on May 23 2010, 11:48 PM, said:

Penalty? Probably not.

Why not? If everything presented here is accurate, north has obviously and deliberately attempted to use the UI to his advantage. If he is an inexperienced tournament player, he needs a stern lecture from the TD to not do that anymore. If he is even moderately experienced, he deserves a PP for deliberate violation.

I think it is time you re-read the OP. He thought he was responding in hearts but then his partner bid 5♠. Now he realises he has more controls than he has shown.

Should he progress? No, because of the UI, but that does not mean he deliberately used UI. He may have misunderstood the UI position, he may have not understood what to do when UI and AI point in the same direction, he may have been confused. Rule it back if you like. But a PP is inappropriate, and the use of the term "deliberately" is unfortunate and unjustified.

I think this thread would be better in the Laws & Rulings forum as well!

[billw55]

bluejak, on Jun 3 2010, 07:49 PM, said:

I think it is time you re-read the OP. He thought he was responding in hearts but then his partner bid 5♠. Now he realises he has more controls than he has shown.

Should he progress? No, because of the UI, but that does not mean he deliberately used UI. He may have misunderstood the UI position, he may have not understood what to do when UI and AI point in the same direction, he may have been confused. Rule it back if you like. But a PP is inappropriate, and the use of the term "deliberately" is unfortunate and unjustified.

I think this thread would be better in the Laws & Rulings forum as well!

Per your suggestion, I did reread the OP. Several times. And whichever way I cock my head to read it, it still says that north changed course after hearing his partner's explanation.

I really do think he deserves at least a lecture. If he is an experienced player - well maybe you can argue that the lecture is still enough, but I think it is close. At the very least, the TD should make a note in the secret TD reference library about possible fishy characters

[bluejak]

He "changed course", as you put it, after two things happened.

1 He got UI.

2 He discovered his partner was interested in spades not hearts, thus making his response to RKCB wrong.

I expect many players would not know what to do in such a situation, and I still think a PP inappropriate.

[TimG]

123ekim, on May 22 2010, 01:45 PM, said:

we are playing 2/1 in a sanctioned ACBL tournament
North bids 1 spade-- South bids 2 hrts--North bids 3 dmds-- South bids 3 spades--North bids 4 hrts (opps ask and are told that it is a cue bid)--South bids 4NT--North responds 5 clubs ( opps ask what does that mean and South states that it is a 1430 response showing 1 or 4 controls in SPADES)-- South bids 5 spades.

North originally thought he should be responding in hrts so now he corrects his mistake by bidding 6 spades ( he has the AKQ of spades and no other aces)

1. Did South make a mistake in fully describing his partner's bid?
2. North certainly took advantage of his mistake based upon South's explanation.
      ( or it may be argued that North would realize his mistake once South bid  
        5 spades and he would correct to 6 spades)

Do the opponents have any recourse ?

1♠-2♥
3♦-3♠
4♥-4N Q-bid, keycard
5♣-5♠ 1430, sign-off (or something else when hearts are trumps)
6♠- P realizing mistake from explanation

Opener is in possession of UI from the explanation. His obligation is to bid on as if responder was asking in hearts and followed up with 5♠. So, what does 5♠ mean? It's quite possible that this partnership has no agreements about next round bidding beyond a queen ask, 5N and signing of in their suit. If that is the case, it seems to me like 5♠ being a signoff is AI and can wake up opener. (This issue of UI and AI both pointing in the same direction has been tackled in another thread recently.)

South did not make a mistake in describing the partnership agreements when asked by the opponents. Though why the opponents were asking, I have no idea.

[MBV53]

First of all let me know that above 3NT level bids are alertable?
MBVSubrahmanyam.
India.

[blackshoe]

In the ACBL (where this happened) bids which would otherwise require an alert, but are above 3NT and at or after opener's second chance to call, require a delayed alert (which is to be made after the final pass of the auction, but before the opening lead is made).