[schulken]

---

After E bid 5♦, she realized that their convention (1430) called for her to bid 5♣. After W signed off in 5♠, she bid 6♠. She then stated that she had not bid properly under their system. I then summoned the director. He allowed the call to stand and told us to call him back if we believed we had been damaged. Somehow, my partner and I managed to set the contract for a good score.

L75C states that when a mistaken call has occurred, offender "must not correct (partner's) explanation". Although no explanation was given, the pair's convention card was viewed and 1430 was marked. While I can't find any law that would preclude E from continuing to bid after her partner's sign-off, her statement that she made a mistaken call is at least procedurally incorrect.

Do you agree with the director's ruling? Obviously, we did not call him back. However, if they had made the contract, it would have resulted in an unfavorable 7 match point swing for our side. From the diagram, it seems that all W wanted to hear to bid the ♠ slam was that her partner had one A. Not hearing that, she signed off in game. Realizing her mistake, E bid the slam. Should she be allowed to subsequently correct her mistaken call? Should there be a procedural penalty for saying what she did wrong? Or should I just graciously accept the fact that, save for this hand, it just wasn't our day?

[aguahombre]

I don't understand what the problem is. They went beyond 4, so NT must be wanting one Ace. East has one Ace. There was no UI given in the OP presentation. The opponent got where they belonged. West drew a 14th trump, cleverly setting himself. If he hadn't done that, there was still no damage from any infraction by the declaring side.

[jeffford76]

In general if you make a mistake in the bidding, you can attempt to make up for it later. The exception is if you have unauthorized information from your partner. So, for example, in this case if south asked what 5D showed and was told "0 or 3 keycards" then the correction would not be allowed. It appears from the description that there was no UI, so the 6S bid is allowed.

[mycroft]

Another example of UI given - if partner thinks hard about it, and the player realizes that what is being thought about is "how could partner possibly have zero Keycards?" and that wakes the player up to the misbid - or this could conceivably have happened...

In this case, of course, that doesn't apply. fourth-in-hand could very easily be totally broke.

One question - 1430 Straight Blackwood? Or if not, for what suit?

[aguahombre]

mycroft, on 2012-January-09, 19:32, said:

One question - 1430 Straight Blackwood? Or if not, for what suit?

Some people do that just to be consistent. Perhaps more people than the number who would have gone down in 6 spades.

Not reason not to, actually...if the person asking can tell whether we have one or four, etc. If he can't, he shouldn't be asking.

[blackshoe]

There was no infraction of law here.

When East said that she'd made a mistaken call, she gave information to the opponents about her hand — information to which they are not entitled. That's fine, there's no law against it.

Absent evidence of use of UI, which there isn't here, I would let the result stand even if West had made the contract.

[Xiaolongnu]

Comments on the ruling itself: I see no infraction, or rather, no damage associated with the infraction, whether or not 6♠ makes. It would have been very different and indeed very complicated if the comment was made BEFORE the 5♠ was bid. The comment, and the associated fact that the number of key cards may have and very likely have been stated wrongly, is UI to West and West must pretend that East has exactly the bid number of key cards. In that situation, West, would have to sign off 5♠ and miss a slam because he is "not supposed" to know that (maybe) partner actually has got 1 when in fact he has none. This is NOT true for East by 16, because East has no UI and therefore no moral obligation to do anything. He does know, however, that partner's judgment might be because partner was misled by his wrongly stated number of key cards. This isn't UI, it is just, sort of, reevaluation, in an admittedly rather twisted sense. It might even have been done on purpose, since 5♣ is forcing to 5♠ anyway. So maybe the partnership could even define that in a specific sequence where one first pretends to not have any key cards, then raise to slam, to show interest in a grand slam, but this is a side issue and has nothing directly to do with ruling. The thing that has got to do with ruling is that this is definitely ethically correct.

I now comment on the more general situation itself. This type of situation resonates very much with me. On the nights that I am on duty at my club, I deal primarily with youth players who are aspiring but not very strong in skill, or older club players who have a general sense of ettiquette and responsibility in their play (there are exceptions, naturally, of really good and really bad players, but those are a minority), the consequence of which is that they mostly do not really know how to keep their calm during the game.

It is therefore very common (regrettably) to have a player misbid, and then out of sheer panic, give a comment like "Oh no I bid wrongly", sometimes even with swear words attached to it (!) in a time that is "before" the "first legal opportunity" as defined by 20F5b. Of course by the strict interpretation of 20F5a, the use of the word "may not" suggests that failure to comply with this justifies a PP. However, it is my opinion and personal style that as a Director I avoid giving penalties unless in aggravated situations like there is some possibility of wrongful intent or deliberate defiance. In this case, it appears that this is more of a matter of natural reaction. It is only human to panic. I am generally especially lenient towards infractions that are made because we are only human. This is what I believe, anyway.

[bluejak]

I think others have said everything that needs to be said about this hand.

On a more general note, I got a ruling against me some years ago at an NABC. I was playing South with a partner who often took his time.

---

North's bids were all very slow, and obviously the problem is that I have gone on over hesitation Blackwood. 2NT shows a raise to 3 or better, 3♦ showed values for game but not for slam, 4♣ was a slam try. Now I felt I was borderline between 3♦ and stronger action so once he made a slam try my only worry was the grand slam. But he took so long that I responded to Blackwood instantly - and wrongly, as I realised immediately! Since I was always going to slam and I had an extra ace I went on.

The ruling went against us, the appeal went for us, and the comments in the casebook ranged from "an obviously correct decision" to "the worst decision ever made by an Appeals Committee".

The interesting points to me were as follows:

• The TD said they had case law to suggest that a slow signoff may have reminded me that I had made the wrong response, and therefore he had to rule against me. He seemed happy enough with the appeal, saying they did not have to follow case Law.
  
• Hesitation Blackwood, like every other position, must in each case be treated on its merits.
  
• UI is clearly a factor in any going on over a signoff position: no UI, why not go on if you feel it right?

[schulken]

I appreciate all the comments - especially to Xiao for a very thoughtful reply. However, I am now more than ever confused about UI resulting from "partner's misinterpretation" of a bid. L75A cautions the offender to avoid taking advantage and bidding on (if appropriate) as though the erroneous call had been correct. In my limited experience, this is rarely done. Offenders or their partners try to "fix it" with the least amount of damage and I've never seen a NOS object. Several examples come to mind.

Example 1:

---

I sat N and announced my partner's point range (15-17). I inquired about W's call and was informed that it was natural. Thinking systems were off at that level, I bid to show my ♦ suit and game-going values. My partner immediately announced "transfer", which E was delighted to hear but had to know was improbable. My partner dutifully bid accordingly. The question now becomes, who made the error? Since we had no agreement for 3-level overcalls of 1NT openings, I must conclude that it was a mistaken explanation. However, if my partner believed it to be correct I would be reluctant to correct it under L20F5(b). As I read L75A and L16B1(a), I must conclude that I should bid as though my hand contained 5 ♥, which would require me to bid 3NT, my partner correcting to 4♥ as appropriate. My next bid could reasonably be interpreted by partner as some extension of Smolen (which we don't play), but was delighted to raise me to game. Our opponents did not object to the auction and I did not correct the transfer announcement. Did "transfer" provide me with UI which I then used? Could I make the case that I ignored her "transfer" and only looked at her bid card, assumed that she meant she had a ♥ stopper, I then bid ♠ to show a holding there, and she bid the ♠ game based on the auction?

Example 2:

Sorry I couldn't find the hand record. P opened 1♦ and I bid 1♠. P bid 1NT. I bid 4♣ (Gerber, and clearly marked). My LHO asked what my bid was and P told him it was a splinter in support of ♠ (???). P then bid 4♠, which I raised to 6NT. Again, as in the last example, I could make a case that I ignored P's explanation, concluded from his bid he held two aces (although I held 3) and bid the slam. In reality, I figured he got it wrong and took my chances with a tremendous hand. I did call the TD and explain our agreement, which both opponents knew to be the case. No one suggested the auction be reopened nor did the opponents claim damage at the end of the play - we made 7.

Example 3:

I overcalled a 1♣ opening with 1NT. After a pass, my P bid 4♦, which I forgot was a transfer to ♥. After concluding he must hold a long ♦ suit, I raised to 5. He then bid 5♥ and the veil was lifted. I advised our opponents that was a transfer which I missed and we were off 1, most other tables bidding and making 4. Should my P have been allowed to bid? My failure to announce "transfer" was UI to him. I expect playing 5♦ would have given us a worse result than 5♥.

There is much discussion about UI and LA in bridge land. I know it's all facts and circumstances, but it seems from the examples above that "fixing" an mistaken call is frequently done and rarely opposed. However, is that the right answer?

[blackshoe]

I think you're conflating two different problems. Laws 20 and 75 (and 40) are all about properly informing the opponents, how and when to do that and, in the case of Law 75, how the TD handles a situation where it's not immediately clear whether the explanation given the opponents was correct. UI is a different problem altogether, and does not involve the opponents at all. In your example 1 above, the question who was right about your agreement, you or your partner, has little relevance to the UI question. You have UI, your obligations regarding the UI are set down in Law 73C and Law 16B. Your obligations regarding ensuring the opponents are properly informed are a different issue, set forth in Law 20 and Law 75. The former obligation is to "make every effort to avoid taking advantage" of the UI (73C), and to decline to choose a call which could demonstrably have been suggested by UI when you have a logical alternative call (16B). The latter obligation is to inform the opponents of (what you believe to be) the correct agreement, in the presence of the director and at the appropriate time (immediately if you gave the mistaken explanation, after the final pass of the auction or at the end of play if your partner gave it).

Referring again to your example one, it looks to me like passing 3♥ is not a logical alternative, so I would allow the result in 4♠ to stand. After the final pass of the auction (and before the opening lead is chosen) you should call the director and explain that in your opinion, your partner's announcement is incorrect, that in fact you have no agreement on the meaning of 3♦ in this auction. The TD will adjudicate the two problems (possible use of UI and whether the MI damaged the opponents) separately. Note that one part of the ruling on MI would be that East's last pass might be cancelled, allowing her to make another bid, or double (Law 21B1).

One thing you and your partner should do (after the round, if there's time, or after the session) is to agree on what 3♦ should mean in this auction, and more generally, how to handle interference over your 1NT openings.

I hope all this makes sense to you. If not, please let us know and I'll try to clarify it, or perhaps someone else can do so.