QUIZ 6:   Oct 2019

Playing Pairs, vulnerability not important.

The bidding proceeds:
WEST   NORTH   EAST   SOUTH
1NT    Pass    2C     Dble
2D     Pass    2H     Pass
Pass   Pass
At the end of the hand, it transpires that -

N-S call you, the director, and complain that there was a non-alert (or Misinformation) of the 2D bid. Had they known that opener was short in clubs, they could have venture 3C with much more confidence.

You ask a few questions at the table and these are facts the became available:

You leave the table to mull over what transpired. Open Book.

QUIZ (please state law number(s):

  • Your ruling?
  • If, at the end of the auction, West does inform the opponents that 2D was special and explains it, and they call you then, what could you have done?


    • SOLUTION:

    There were two infractions, both equally severe and both causing damage.

    2D must be alerted promptly and a full explanation must be volunteered, not just "no majors".   Also, the point about denying 3 clubs is ultra-important here.   The term "Misinformation" entails incorrect/incomplete information given as well as a non-alert. (See Law 20F5 on RHS);

    At the end of the auction but before the lead (during the "Clarification Period") it is incumbent on declarer or/and dummy to rectify misinformation issues. If this was done promptly after the last pass, in terms of Law 21 (see RHS) NORTH could change his last pass the TD will say, and the auction re-opened. This option was not afforded to him. In terms of Law 23 as well as Law 12, the TD can adjust if there was damage. There certainly was.

    We altered the result to 3C=   by N-S.

    E-W were taught (in a gentle manner after the session ended) that the onus was on them to alert promptly at the time, as well as the method of correcting Misinformation issues during the Clarification Period if they become the side of the intended declarer or dummy. Defenders correct any MI issues after play ends, and not before.

    The Pertinent Laws

    Law 20F
    5. (a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. ‘Mistaken explanation’ here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require.
    (b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is (i) for a defender, at the end of the play.
    (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction.
    6. If the Director judges that a player has based an action on misinformation given to him by an opponent see, as appropriate, Law 21 or Law 47E.

    Law 21
    B. Call Based on Misinformation from an Opponent
    1. (a) Until the end of the auction period and provided that his partner has not subsequently called, a player may change a call without other rectification for his side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent (see Law 17E). Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation.

    Law 23 - AWARENESS OF POTENTIAL DAMAGE
    Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the nonoffending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity.





    PREVIOUS LATEST NEXT