[VixTD]

In the first round of our club teams-of-four competition, the following auction occurred at one table:

---

NS play Acol with four-card majors, 12-14 NT. 2NT was Jacoby (GF, 4+♥), 3♠ was a splinter (both alerted). Cue-bids are normally first-round controls. North responded 5♥ (two key cards without ♥Q), said "no, sorry" and replaced it with 5♠ (two with). The director was called, this was judged to be an unlawful deliberate change of call and 5♥ was reinstated, South warned about unauthorized information from the attempted change.

South argued that his hand was too good in the context of the auction so far to make pass a logical alternative.

Do you agree?

[gordontd]

 VixTD, on 2014-November-28, 07:56, said:

In the first round of our club teams-of-four competition, the following auction occurred at one table:

---

NS play Acol with four-card majors, 12-14 NT. 2NT was Jacoby (GF, 4+♥), 3♠ was a splinter (both alerted). Cue-bids are normally first-round controls. North responded 5♥ (two key cards without ♥Q), said "no, sorry" and replaced it with 5♠ (two with). The director was called, this was judged to be an unlawful deliberate change of call and 5♥ was reinstated, South warned about unauthorized information from the attempted change.

South argued that his hand was too good in the context of the auction so far to make pass a logical alternative.

Do you agree?

When he used Blackwood, South had already decided to bid slam unless they were missing two key-cards. They aren't, so he bids slam.

[lamford]

 VixTD, on 2014-November-28, 07:56, said:

Do you agree?

Yes. All the UI does is prevent South exploring grand, as he is not allowed to know that North has the queen of trumps. 6H was both ethical and the only LA. Where it would get really interesting is how we should rule if North had added a seventh, knowing that he has denied the queen of hearts! North does not appear to have UI, but it certainly feels like we should adjust.

[pran]

 VixTD, on 2014-November-28, 07:56, said:

[...]
North responded 5♥ (two key cards without ♥Q), said "no, sorry" and replaced it with 5♠ (two with). The director was called, this was judged to be an unlawful deliberate change of call and 5♥ was reinstated,

What interests me is that if North's remark: "no, sorry" came without "pause for thought" following the 5♥ response (the impression I have from the wording) then this sounds very much like a Law 25A case.

OK, the Director made his judgement and ruled Law 25B - fair enough.

[blackshoe]

On the facts in evidence, there would be no legal basis for a score adjustment if North raised 6♥ to seven, even if it were to make.

[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2014-November-28, 11:23, said:

On the facts in evidence, there would be no legal basis for a score adjustment if North raised 6♥ to seven, even if it were to make.

Then he should have done so. He knows that South is still prepared to bid 6H, having to pretend that he does not know that North has the ♥Q, so he knows all the keycards are present (or South would have been forced to pass 5H as it would have been an LA to do so). His hand could not be better, with a powerful second suit and the queen, jack of hearts to boot.

But this stinks, does it not? Surely the fact that North knows that South will not be stretching with 6H arises partly from the UI that South has.

[blackshoe]

I didn't say I liked it.

North has the king of diamonds and the queen of trump "extra" — he's shown pretty much everything else. Is that enough to go to seven? I don't think it is. My philosophy is "don't bid seven if you can't count at least 13 tricks" and I don't think North can do that on the auction.

On second thought, maybe you can use 16A1{a} to get what you want?

[jallerton]

 pran, on 2014-November-28, 11:03, said:

What interests me is that if North's remark: "no, sorry" came without "pause for thought" following the 5♥ response (the impression I have from the wording) then this sounds very much like a Law 25A case.

OK, the Director made his judgement and ruled Law 25B - fair enough.

What interests me is that this is a typical situation where players change their mind and think they are entitled to change their call by claiming it's a Law 25A case. In practice it is impossible for the TD to be sure what was going through the player's mind.

[jallerton]

 lamford, on 2014-November-28, 12:09, said:

Then he should have done so. He knows that South is still prepared to bid 6H, having to pretend that he does not know that North has the ♥Q, so he knows all the keycards are present (or South would have been forced to pass 5H as it would have been an LA to do so). His hand could not be better, with a powerful second suit and the queen, jack of hearts to boot.

---

How would you play 7♥ on ♠A lead?

[FrancesHinden]

 lamford, on 2014-November-28, 12:09, said:

Then he should have done so. He knows that South is still prepared to bid 6H, having to pretend that he does not know that North has the ♥Q, so he knows all the keycards are present (or South would have been forced to pass 5H as it would have been an LA to do so). His hand could not be better, with a powerful second suit and the queen, jack of hearts to boot.

But this stinks, does it not? Surely the fact that North knows that South will not be stretching with 6H arises partly from the UI that South has.

Or perhaps the queen of trumps is irrelevant to the hand, because South has 5 (or 6) card support and merely wanted to check there were not two keycards missing before bidding slam.

EDIT: this post and the one before were made independently. Great minds think alike, or something.

[lamford]

 FrancesHinden, on 2014-November-28, 16:23, said:

Or perhaps the queen of trumps is irrelevant to the hand, because South has 5 (or 6) card support and merely wanted to check there were not two keycards missing before bidding slam.

EDIT: this post and the one before were made independently. Great minds think alike, or something.

That is a possibility. However, if South had only 5 hearts, and North could still have 4, then passing 5H would have been an LA for South (if we are off a keycard). I presume you think North is entitled to gamble on South not having bid slam with six (or possibly 5) hearts? And any hand with only five hearts to the king risks partner having 5 small, so 6H would again have been demonstrably suggested by the UI.

The relevant issue is whether the fact that North knows that South must regard his 5S bid as UI is AI to North. It seems to arise from the legal procedures in the Laws and is therefore AI, but that seems wrong somehow.

[pran]

 jallerton, on 2014-November-28, 16:14, said:

What interests me is that this is a typical situation where players change their mind and think they are entitled to change their call by claiming it's a Law 25A case. In practice it is impossible for the TD to be sure what was going through the player's mind.

Quite!
And the Director must judge from the player's behaviour whether he (himself) appeared surprised by his 5♥ response bid or seemed to just having changed his mind in the split second after making his bid.

My experience is that some cooperation from the opponents is needed in that judgement and that opponents usually give an honest and credible opinion on their impression of the situation. As a result I cannot remember a single incident where my ruling whether or not to accept a Law 25A change of call was subsequently disputed by either side.

[VixTD]

The director was one of the players at the table, and it was clear to everyone (North included) that this was not an inadvertent call.

[lamford]

 VixTD, on 2014-December-01, 07:15, said:

The director was one of the players at the table, and it was clear to everyone (North included) that this was not an inadvertent call.

How would you have ruled if North had raised to 7H? While not certain to make, as Frances and jallerton point out, it would surely have been a huge favourite, but uses the AI that South had raised to 6H when possessing the UI that North did have the queen of hearts (a type of transferred UI). This must be a recurrent theme in UI situations. You know that partner will choose the LA that is not demonstrably suggested.

[blackshoe]

"Transferred UI". Interesting phrase. Interesting concept. First time I've ever heard of it. What is its legal basis?

[gordontd]

 blackshoe, on 2014-December-01, 09:12, said:

"Transferred UI". Interesting phrase. Interesting concept. First time I've ever heard of it. What is its legal basis?

Is it not a breach of Law 73A1?

[lamford]

 gordontd, on 2014-December-01, 09:44, said:

Is it not a breach of Law 73A1?

I am not so sure. That is surely designed to prevent timely coughs and the like. It is the fact that partner bid 6H with UI that could influence North to bid 7H. But that is from a "call" so is legal communication. The inference that partner is bidding it, pretending that he does not know we have the queen of hearts, arises from the legal provisions authorized in these Laws (that partner has the UI that we have the queen of hearts).

[gordontd]

 lamford, on 2014-December-01, 10:02, said:

I am not so sure. That is surely designed to prevent timely coughs and the like.

Never mind what it was designed for. What we are discussing involves some communication that was not effected only by means of calls and plays, but required the transmission of UI. Take away the comment and the communication has no longer been effected.

[lamford]

 gordontd, on 2014-December-01, 10:17, said:

Never mind what it was designed for. What we are discussing involves some communication that was not effected only by means of calls and plays, but required the transmission of UI. Take away the comment and the communication has no longer been effected.

It was the disallowed replacement call that conveyed the UI. To South only. The TD did not tell North that he had any UI, and if North had asked he would been told, "You can do as you want". The comment added nothing of substance. Are you saying that if the facts had been the same and North had not said, "No, sorry", you would have ruled differently? And you cannot disallow a putative 7H on the basis that someone said something to himself. You can only disallow a bid by South which took advantage of the comment.

[mycroft]

It's a question we've discussed before: is "partner has UI, which limits his actions to unsuggested LAs, and he's picked this one. Am I allowed to use the fact that I've given him this UI and what limitations he would have in my further bidding?"

In other words: "partner's only allowed to bid 6♥ if it's a '100% call'. Partner bid 6♥, knowing we're off the trump Q - if it's a 100% call, he either "has" the trump Q, or isn't off one key and the Q, otherwise it will be rolled back (and partner is actively ethical and knowledgable). The chance partner "has" the trump Q is very low. Can I bid 7, knowing we have 6-of-the-6?"

Similar cases: "I tank-invited because I'm almost strong enough. Partner went to game, and I know that has to be a 100% call opposite any random invitation. Can I use that knowledge to look for 6?" and "I said 2♦ was a transfer because I forgot we don't play systems on over double. Now that I remember, can I use the fact that partner does *not* have enough hearts to float the 2♥ 'rescue' (and enough diamonds, and no second suit to have an alternative to 3♦) after they compete over 3♦?"

All the I - that I passed UI, what the LAs would likely be, the fact that partner is ethical enough that the call he made isn't going to be flagged - is, I believe, Authorized. But allowing this seems - wrong.