[Cyberyeti]

---

W opens 2♣, N bids 2♠.

You (S) look at their top of their (old style) convention card buried under their bidding box, and it says reverse benji. You alert 2♠ as "clubs or 3 suited without clubs" and bid 3♣ which you are amazed to find ends the auction. At this point you reach for their convention card to look for their leads, and see in the "system bits opps should note" that 2♣ is big or weak 2♦. Partner knew this when he bid 2♠ natural as per your agreement over the actual 2♣ arrangement.

Opps now want the man as partner has UI that you alerted 2♠, and should bid on. 3♣ makes exactly.

You point out that clearly you'd have passed 2♠ with correct info that this was not reverse benji, and that contract would make easily enough with clubs 2-2 ace onside and ♦AK with the 2♦ bidder, very probably with an overtrick.

Sort it out from there.

[paulg]

I roll the contract back to 2♠ and then just fine the lot of them. EW for incorrectly filled convention cards, North for using UI and South for checking the opponents' system card when not his turn to call (unless the EBU actually permits this). Hopefully this will result in both failing to score on the board.

[Vampyr]

The opponents are clearly at fault, and are in danger of getting a PP for improperly filled out convention cards. I was once fined .5 VP because the numbering of my footnotes was 1 off.

Difficult to decide about the adjustment, though, without seeing all four hands.

[Cyberyeti]

paulg, on 2011-February-14, 13:02, said:

I roll the contract back to 2♠ and then just fine the lot of them. EW for incorrectly filled convention cards, North for using UI and South for checking the opponents' system card when not his turn to call (unless the EBU actually permits this). Hopefully this will result in both failing to score on the board.

South checked the leads after the end of the auction which is fine.

You must be able to check the cards so that you know whether to alert partner's bid, if not how do you sort this out ? Wait for LHO to have a free bid then check and give it him back ?

[paulg]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-February-14, 14:35, said:

You must be able to check the cards so that you know whether to alert partner's bid, if not how do you sort this out ? Wait for LHO to have a free bid then check and give it him back ?

No, you are not able to check their system card. If they alert 2♣ and you do not know what it is, then you should alert 2♠ and, if asked, explain that it may be alertable depending on the meaning of 2♣.

[gordontd]

paulg, on 2011-February-14, 14:52, said:

No, you are not able to check their system card.

OB7D1e

Quote

Under Law 40B2c(iii) a player may look at his opponents’ system card at any
time, though this may create unauthorised information.

[mrdct]

paulg, on 2011-February-14, 13:02, said:

I roll the contract back to 2♠ and then just fine the lot of them. EW for incorrectly filled convention cards, North for using UI and South for checking the opponents' system card when not his turn to call (unless the EBU actually permits this). Hopefully this will result in both failing to score on the board.

If the alertability of north's bid depends on the meaning of west's bid, how is south able to determine whether or not to alert without making some enquiries (be that a qustion or looking at the convention card) when it's not his turn to act?

[ahydra]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-February-14, 12:36, said:

...and that contract would make easily enough with clubs 2-2 ace onside and ♦AK with the 2♦ bidder...

AAK is a big weak 2 opener!

paulg, on 2011-February-14, 13:02, said:

I roll the contract back to 2♠ and then just fine the lot of them. EW for incorrectly filled convention cards, North for using UI and South for checking the opponents' system card when not his turn to call (unless the EBU actually permits this). Hopefully this will result in both failing to score on the board.

Well if as the OB says looking at the card is OK, we can't fine South for that, but definitely North should get some penalty and EW probably double that for the dodgy CCs. Also in reflection of this the contract should probably be some combination of 2S and 3S/4C depending on what you think North bids after South's 3C, assuming 2S was natural.

(Disclaimer: I'm not a TD)

ahydra

[Cyberyeti]

ahydra, on 2011-February-14, 16:18, said:

AAK is a big weak 2 opener!

You are quite right, auction was actually 2♣-P-2♦(alerted)-2♠-P-3♣end, but all the other comments hold, and I sneaked a look at the card on my turn to bid over 2♣ moving nothing but my eyes, so I doubt anybody noticed.

Opps hands are Jxxx, KQxxx, xx, AJ and xx, xxx, AKxxxx, Qx.

[Vampyr]

ahydra, on 2011-February-14, 16:18, said:

but definitely North should get some penalty

Why? Why should not 3♣ be natural and non-forcing? North has already made an overcall at the two-level; it's not clear that he needs to move on.

But in any case, North knows that he knows the opponents' system and that partner does not, and may have no idea what his obligations are here. Who can blame him?

[bluejak]

Some strange replies to this one.

Was there MI? Yes, putting "Reverse Benji" under the Basic System is MI unless the pair is playing Reverse Benji, which this pair is not. They may have described it correctly elsewhere: they may always describe it carefully, fully and correctly in answer to a question, but it is till MI.

So E/W can get a score of 2♠ making a number of tricks, weighted, and a little lecture on the point of correct SCs.

What about North's pass of 3♣? Clearly illegal, in my view, since he has bid a natural 2♠, and his partner has bid 3♣ for which he has an excellent fit. Most people actually play 3♣ as forcing here. Even if they don't this hand is worth continuing. But can we adjust for this? Use of UI after an earlier illegal act? How about SEWoG? Does an illegal call count as SEWoG?

[mjj29]

bluejak, on 2011-February-14, 17:51, said:

Some strange replies to this one.

Was there MI? Yes, putting "Reverse Benji" under the Basic System is MI unless the pair is playing Reverse Benji, which this pair is not. They may have described it correctly elsewhere: they may always describe it carefully, fully and correctly in answer to a question, but it is till MI.

So E/W can get a score of 2♠ making a number of tricks, weighted, and a little lecture on the point of correct SCs.

What about North's pass of 3♣? Clearly illegal, in my view, since he has bid a natural 2♠, and his partner has bid 3♣ for which he has an excellent fit. Most people actually play 3♣ as forcing here. Even if they don't this hand is worth continuing. But can we adjust for this? Use of UI after an earlier illegal act? How about SEWoG? Does an illegal call count as SEWoG?

A split ruling was given at the EBU year end congress (and posted on here) where the TD judged use of UI to be SEWoG, so there's precedent.

[dburn]

Purely as a matter of interest, was 2♣ alerted?

[Vampyr]

dburn, on 2011-February-14, 19:42, said:

Purely as a matter of interest, was 2♣ alerted?

Does this matter much? Both of the potential treatments are alertable. Since I don't believe that there is any meaning for a 2♣ opening that is neither announceable nor alertable, a failure to alert (if there was one) is unlikely to be the cause of any damage.

[dburn]

Vampyr, on 2011-February-14, 20:22, said:

Does this matter much? Both of the potential treatments are alertable. Since I don't believe that there is any meaning for a 2♣ opening that is neither announceable nor alertable, a failure to alert (if there was one) is unlikely to be the cause of any damage.

You may think so - I could not possibly comment. But if the North-South agreement over this kind of 2♣ opening was that "we will treat it as a weak 2♦" (sensibly enough), how in the name of all that is wonderful could North pass partner's 3♣? I mean, if I had to guess I would raise to five; if allowed to explore I might hope eventually to raise to six or seven.

But this Cyberyeti has recently been something of a mystery to me. He has taken to posting cases asking "was I as bent as a nine-bob note?" to which the answer is always "yes". I suspect a hidden agenda, which may possibly be to demonstrate that the Laws regarding UI are not all that they should be. On the other hand, he may just be bonkers.

[paulg]

paulg, on 2011-February-14, 14:52, said:

No, you are not able to check their system card.

gordontd, on 2011-February-14, 14:59, said:

OB7D1e
Under Law 40B2c(iii) a player may look at his opponents' system card at any time, though this may create unauthorised information.

In my defence I did peruse the Orange Book but forgot about this specific section. I did search it all for 'convention card' but was undone by the single use of 'system card' in the document. I understand why system card is used, but perhaps "(convention card)" could be added to this election.

[Cyberyeti]

Mainly for DBurn's benefit.

2♣ was alerted.

This is an entirely real incident from the gold cup match I lost at the weekend and was actually the first board (so I suspect nobody was properly warmed up and partner was certainly not as alive as he should have been).

Our agreement was indeed that we play over the "could be weak 2♦" 2♣ as if it's a weak 2♦, so a natural 2♠ overcall, and something destructive over an always strong 2♣.

Partner clearly should bid over 3♣ which is indeed forcing, but should not have been in the situation in the first place as the auction would have been over if opps hadn't offended first.

I had no idea how this would be handled which is why I posted it.

Oh, and yes I am certifiable and proud of it but both the cases I've posted recently have been where people have done things without much thought, then come back to look at them later and thought "hang on a minute, I can't do that". (The other one was from Norfolk v Northants the previous weekend)

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-February-15, 06:18, said:

Partner clearly should bid over 3♣ which is indeed forcing, but should not have been in the situation in the first place as the auction would have been over if opps hadn't offended first.

Quite. This is why I don't think North should be penalised.

Quote

I had no idea how this would be handled which is why I posted it.

It's a tough one, and no one's comments have really addressed the general case when you receive UI from partner and realise that he has got the wrong end of the stick because he has been misinformed about the opponents' system. I don't think just "penalise N for using UI" is any part of the answer. North knows that you are playing two different defenses. Is this information is authorised for him -- is he permitted to know that you have been given incorrect system information? Is there any reason he should know whether it is or it isn't? How on earth is he supposed to know what his obligations are under the circumstances?

[campboy]

I think that if you know from UI that partner has been differently informed and so thinks you are playing a different defence, you should just treat it like any other piece of UI. If you get a bad score because of this then that is a consequence of the MI, so it is damage for which you should receive redress.

However, I would be sympathetic towards a player in this situation who used the UI because, for example, he was worried that to choose the non-suggested option might be ruled wild or gambling.