Unauthorized inf .-Mistaken bid

Ozdeniz · August 2023

Hello,

I will be very pleased if you make your comments on the following auction.

West is dealer .

W N E S
2h ! 2nt P 3cl
P ?

2h=Weak 6c
2nt = 15-18 natural ( CC)

North is holding 5-5 minors

N forgets their system and bids with 5-5 minors over 2h. 2nt is not alerted and E asks S the meaning and S explains as 15-18 nat.
,as it is in the system card , and bids 3cl. This explanation awakens N. The meaning of 3cl is asked to N .

Questions :
a) what should be the N ' s explanation with regard to 3cl ?( If I am not mistaken, it should be as stayman .If so , Please kindly confirm .
b) If the explanation of 2nt by S the unauthorized information for N ;
Which of the following calls are allowed for N preventing N-S from having a score adjustment ?

1) N is allowed to pass to 3cl ( Although , the explanation of 2nt is unauthorized information , pass to 3cl is still a logical
alternative. N is not obligated to reply according to the stayman's answer .
What the most important for N is to explain the 3cl bid correctly ( according to CC ) But In this case , shall we consider N 's , by
passing to 3cl, using the unauthorized inf, and go to the score adjustment if any damage exists for E-W ? Please kindly clarify.

2) N is to reply according to stayman's answers .

If it is the case , the auction probably goes on as follows;

     2h               2nt                   p              3cl
     P                  3d                   p              3nt
     p                  4cl                   p              P / 5cl  ( S thinks that his partner has 6c cl with 15-18 )

Is this the safest contract for N-S ? ( No score adjustment at all )

I have attached the lay-out.

Your replies are very much appreciated.

Regards.

Secaaddin Ozdeniz

weejonnie · August 2023

a) North's explanation should be the partnership agreement (or lack of one). So if the agreement is that Stayman is on in this position North should alert and, if asked, explain the meaning.

The explanation given by South is unauthorised information for North, who must say one thing to the opponents but act on different information.

Not only is North allowed to pass 3 Clubs, they must almost certainly do so. They have shown 5-5 in the minors and asked South to make a bid based on that hand: South has simply given preference with no attempt to make a forcing response. The only time North could bid on is if passing is not a logical alternative e.g. a hand of such strength that North must investigate Game opposite a simple preference response.

So it would appear that NS have actually arrived at a good contract - there is nothing in the laws that prevent them from doing so by mistake. So if North passes 3 Clubs and NS get a top for +130 whilst everyone else is -50 or -100 in 3NT (or +50 in 2 hearts) then EW have no redress: it is just rub of the green.

If NS bid and make 5 clubs and if polling finds that passing 3 Clubs is a logical alternative then EW have been damaged and the TD applies Law 73C and Law 12C1c

a) The TD will rule the contract back to 3C+2 (maybe even giving a bit of 3C+1 since the non-offending side might have defended differently against a part-score)

b) Hang North up by their fingernails (or other part of their anatomy) and apply a penalty in accordance with Law 73C2 (Which I think is the only time the actual laws specifically states that a fine might be assessed against a player). TDs take a very dim view of abuse of UI.

Ozdeniz · August 2023

@weejonnie said:
a) North's explanation should be the partnership agreement (or lack of one). So if the agreement is that Stayman is on in this position North should alert and, if asked, explain the meaning.

The explanation given by South is unauthorised information for North, who must say one thing to the opponents but act on different information.

Not only is North allowed to pass 3 Clubs, they must almost certainly do so. They have shown 5-5 in the minors and asked South to make a bid based on that hand: South has simply given preference with no attempt to make a forcing response. The only time North could bid on is if passing is not a logical alternative e.g. a hand of such strength that North must investigate Game opposite a simple preference response.

So it would appear that NS have actually arrived at a good contract - there is nothing in the laws that prevent them from doing so by mistake. So if North passes 3 Clubs and NS get a top for +130 whilst everyone else is -50 or -100 in 3NT (or +50 in 2 hearts) then EW have no redress: it is just rub of the green.

If NS bid and make 5 clubs and if polling finds that passing 3 Clubs is a logical alternative then EW have been damaged and the TD applies Law 73C and Law 12C1c

a) The TD will rule the contract back to 3C+2 (maybe even giving a bit of 3C+1 since the non-offending side might have defended differently against a part-score)

b) Hang North up by their fingernails (or other part of their anatomy) and apply a penalty in accordance with Law 73C2 (Which I think is the only time the actual laws specifically states that a fine might be assessed against a player). TDs take a very dim view of abuse of UI.

Thank you very much for your reply.
It's been a great help.

Best regards.

Secaaddin Özdeniz

Unauthorized inf .-Mistaken bid

Comments