Help
North opens 2D which South alerts as being STRONG. North immediately corrects partner and announces that it is WEAK. How would you rule?
There are different opinions in our club. Some say that the bidding continues with North's bid being unauthorised information. A decision would then be made at the end as to whether EW have been damaged and the score adjusted. Another opinion is that the board should not be played because there is too much unauthorised information. NS to be given A- and EW given A+ and NS also given a procedural penalty.
Please can you tell us what the correct ruling should be.
Page 1 of 1
Unauthorised Information
#2
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 642
- Joined: 2007-October-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Redmond, WA
Posted 2011-April-15, 11:28
How about a combination of the two - play the hand out, adjust if EW are damaged by use of the UI *and* give North a procedural penalty.
#3
- Redoubling with gusto
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,712
- Joined: 2009-October-19
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, NV
- Interests:Math, Bridge, Beer. Often at the same time.
Posted 2011-April-15, 11:53
IMO:
PP for NS.
That N has a weak hand is UI for S but AI for EW. S should be instructed to mind his obligation to not take advantage of UI.
That S thinks that N has a strong hand is UI for N. N should be instructed to mind his obligation to not take advantage of UI.
Auction proceeds. EW are free to call after the hand if they are damaged.
PP for NS.
That N has a weak hand is UI for S but AI for EW. S should be instructed to mind his obligation to not take advantage of UI.
That S thinks that N has a strong hand is UI for N. N should be instructed to mind his obligation to not take advantage of UI.
Auction proceeds. EW are free to call after the hand if they are damaged.
"I think maybe so and so was caught cheating but maybe I don't have the names right". Sure, and I think maybe your mother .... Oh yeah, that was someone else maybe. -- kenberg
"...we live off being battle-scarred veterans who manage to hate our opponents slightly more than we hate each other. -- Hamman, re: Wolff
"...we live off being battle-scarred veterans who manage to hate our opponents slightly more than we hate each other. -- Hamman, re: Wolff
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,344
- Joined: 2009-September-14
- Location:Ski, Norway
Posted 2011-April-15, 13:45
wyman, on 2011-April-15, 11:53, said:
IMO:
PP for NS.
That N has a weak hand is UI for S but AI for EW. S should be instructed to mind his obligation to not take advantage of UI.
That S thinks that N has a strong hand is UI for N. N should be instructed to mind his obligation to not take advantage of UI.
Auction proceeds. EW are free to call after the hand if they are damaged.
PP for NS.
That N has a weak hand is UI for S but AI for EW. S should be instructed to mind his obligation to not take advantage of UI.
That S thinks that N has a strong hand is UI for N. N should be instructed to mind his obligation to not take advantage of UI.
Auction proceeds. EW are free to call after the hand if they are damaged.
Your opinion is quite correct. (Although I would be reluctant with PP other than a warning unless North appears incorrigible.)
#5
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,693
- Joined: 2006-April-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rochester, NY
Posted 2011-April-16, 00:30
There is nothing in the law about "too much" UI, at least when UI comes from partner. When a player has UI from his partner, he must make every effort not to take advantage of it (Law 73C). I agree with the suggested ruling, and with Sven's caveat on the PP.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#6
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,686
- Joined: 2007-August-23
- Gender:Male
- Location:Liverpool, UK
- Interests:Bridge Laws, Cats, Railways, Transport timetables
Posted 2011-April-16, 13:13
The OP suggests cancelling the board because of the level of UI. There is no Law allowing cancelling aboard for such a reason.
David Stevenson
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
Page 1 of 1