david_c, on Feb 21 2005, 09:30 AM, said:
LH2650, on Feb 21 2005, 09:07 AM, said:
Authorized Information is defined in the first paragraph of Law 16. It specifically includes your example.
OK, so North's question is authorised information for East.
So, on what basis can you adjust the score if you decide that East gave a correct explanation and West has misbid? Here is a similar situation:
uncontested: 1NT:2
♥,2
♠:3
♥,P.
In this auction, perhaps responder forgot they were playing transfers. Supposing he has lots of hearts and no spades, then we will have to allow his 3
♥ bid. But what if opener knows that his partner is likely to forget, and therefore passes 3
♥ rather than making his obvious 3
♠ bid? Can a TD disallow the pass? As I said before, in the UK I believe this is called a "fielded misbid" (anyone here able to correct me? I'm no expert on this) and we adjust to A+/A- unless the non-offending side did better than that on the board. What would happen in this situation in the US? If you can answer that then I think you can rule on the original problem.
Per the first paragraph in Law 16, Authorized Information consists of calls, plays and mannerisms. hotShot's example involved a "mannerism". Try as you might, you can't fit “questions” into any of those categories.
However, put down your law book for a moment, step away from the problem at hand, and ask yourself “Can it really be right that I should be able to take advantage when my opponents attempt to obtain information, to which they are legally entitled, about my system?”. I believe that anyone experienced in the ethics of bridge will conclude that the answer is “No”. And that is what I find in the Laws.
As for your transfer sequence, if your action is based only on your hand and your knowledge of partner's propensity to forget, there should be no adjustment. The Director would certainly try to ascertain whether there was a “mannerism” that influenced your decision. Your opponents have a right to know about your partner's history in this area, so you might get into trouble for failing to adequately explain your agreements. In the NABC Casebooks, sometimes committees have accepted a “catch” of a non-transfer, and sometimes they have not. It depends on the circumstances. (The auctions were always more complex than yours.) If you decide that there was a use of UI, your score adjustment is incorrect. You need to ascertain the agreed meaning of the rebid, follow the systemically correct auction to its logical conclusion, and determine the score based on that.
Help
