No, you must continue on the presumption that your partner's jump is intended. The stop card has little significance, it is there to give a kind of permission to the next person to call, that they may pause for a moment without it being considered a hesitation.
There was a ruling/appeal where NS had agreed hearts and North bid 6S, which appeared unintended to South. South drew attention to the 6S bid "six spades partner?!". North was allowed to change their call to (the intended) 6H.
In reviewing the case the L&EC (as was):
Decided that the question/remark from South was illegal and created unauthorised information
If North's bid was unintended it could be changed (Law 25A3 and White Book 8.25.5).
There could be a procedural penalty for South illegal question/remark - but this would only be applied if North's bid was not unintended.
So you can't ask if partner intended their 3D bid - but if you do ask and 3D was unintended, partner can change their 3D and you will not be penalized!
The risk there is that the contents of North's hand might make it easier or harder to work out that 6S was unintended, so the fact that North has noticed the unintended bid gives away a bit of unauthorised information. This is a lot more relevant on some auctions than others (e.g. the 6S bid could probably have been determined to be unintended even without reference to North's hand).
Decided that the question/remark from South was illegal
Is it any more illegal than hesitating?
There could be a procedural penalty for South illegal question/remark - but this would only be applied if North's bid was not unintended.
Why? If the action justifies a procedural penalty, then whether or not North had made an unintended call should be irrelevant.
Also, does this not fall foul of law 72B1: A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept?
I find it interesting that Law 72B1 specifies no rectification beyond the prescribed rectification, although of course there is always a procedural penalty.
There was some discussion IIRC about this. Since the most precise form of the law (changing a mistaken call is allowed no matter how the player becomes aware of it) allowed the change then the change was allowed.
Presumably it was decided, therefore, that South's outburst was NOT "Extraneous information from partner" in this situation. However if North had misbid - then the outburst WAS "Extraneous information". East of course could accept either bid and the Law 26 (Lead penalties) were unlikely to apply if the side was in a slam!
weejonnie's comment "However if North had misbid" thefore makes sense. (I make no assertion about what weejonnie meant, just that his comment is meaningful.)
Comments
No, you must continue on the presumption that your partner's jump is intended. The stop card has little significance, it is there to give a kind of permission to the next person to call, that they may pause for a moment without it being considered a hesitation.
There was a ruling/appeal where NS had agreed hearts and North bid 6S, which appeared unintended to South. South drew attention to the 6S bid "six spades partner?!". North was allowed to change their call to (the intended) 6H.
In reviewing the case the L&EC (as was):
So you can't ask if partner intended their 3D bid - but if you do ask and 3D was unintended, partner can change their 3D and you will not be penalized!
The risk there is that the contents of North's hand might make it easier or harder to work out that 6S was unintended, so the fact that North has noticed the unintended bid gives away a bit of unauthorised information. This is a lot more relevant on some auctions than others (e.g. the 6S bid could probably have been determined to be unintended even without reference to North's hand).
Is it any more illegal than hesitating?
Why? If the action justifies a procedural penalty, then whether or not North had made an unintended call should be irrelevant.
Also, does this not fall foul of law 72B1: A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept?
I find it interesting that Law 72B1 specifies no rectification beyond the prescribed rectification, although of course there is always a procedural penalty.
There was some discussion IIRC about this. Since the most precise form of the law (changing a mistaken call is allowed no matter how the player becomes aware of it) allowed the change then the change was allowed.
Presumably it was decided, therefore, that South's outburst was NOT "Extraneous information from partner" in this situation. However if North had misbid - then the outburst WAS "Extraneous information". East of course could accept either bid and the Law 26 (Lead penalties) were unlikely to apply if the side was in a slam!
Did you mean to say "if North had not misbid"?
Well North did misbid - my intention was to mean "if North had intended their bid" i.e. a misbid through intent rather than deed.
North did not misbid.
North made an unintended call.
They're not the same!
weejonnie's comment "However if North had misbid" thefore makes sense. (I make no assertion about what weejonnie meant, just that his comment is meaningful.)