[weejonnie]

There is probably going to be more than this than is shown - but here's my tuppence worth.

1) It appears that there is no Misleading Information as the description of the call matches the partnership agreement. (H + m) - Law 21.
2) West has made a call, showing H+m and East has given the correct explanation - which is not what West was expecting. Thus West has Unauthorised Information. This is not an offence.
3) West should be interpeting the 3♣ call as if East had said "Hearts + Spades" - and then bid 3 Clubs. This probably shows 6 clubs but some players may not open a pre-empt with a 7-card suit if the hand is too weak or has a 4-card major. (Are there any notes about partnership understanding.
4) If you have reason to believe that a player has unauthorised information then you can ask them if they agree that this is the position. If they do then there is no need to call the director, if they don't then they should call the director. (16B2). Since the director will only adjust the score if they feel that the NOS has been damaged then they will normally let play continue and ask to be called back if such damage occurs. Note that even if NS get a good score from the UI, they might be entitled to a better one; however, it is up to them to call the TD - not the Director's duty to review the hand unless asked. (16B3)

This is the reason why the director call does not happen immediately! At the point in time there is no damage. In fact if the director interferes then EW might get a better score than if he doesn't - an ethical partnership will often end up in a 'silly contract' - often doubled and get -1100 or worse.

5) if you believe that a player has actually made use of the unauthorised information then you call the director when play ends (it is not an offence to do so earlier or later) - 16B3
6) The director may make a procedural penalty for use of UI (Law 73C2 in the 2017 laws specifically notes this and is (IMHO) an indication that this usage should be penalised more often than previously.) The English Bridge Union basically allows a director to impose any penalty they feel appropriate for abuse of UI up to and including disqualification.
7) The tendency to rebid one's shown suit when in receipt of UI is often called "unauthorised panic" -
8) East (on hearing West's 3 Spade call) must interpret it (or try to interpret it) based on partnership understanding. If the bid is 'impossible' then this may be a valid indication that West has misbid - one cannot impose on EW an agreeement that they don't have e.g. 3 Spades must show a maximum 2-suited hand in H & C with a spade shortage - although if East has UI from body language "he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information."

In short: 'judgement calls' are complex - directors will usually consult one another, experienced players and try and find out by polling whether the offenders had any 'Logical Alternatives' to the action they took at the table. (A Logical Alternative is basically a call that some players would consider and actually be made without the unauthorised information

[blackshoe]

weejonnie, on 2017-July-12, 09:42, said:

6) The director may make a procedural penalty for use of UI (Law 73C2 in the 2017 laws specifically notes this and is (IMHO) an indication that this usage should be penalised more often than previously.)

The current and past situation is that even though Law 73C says that a player in receipt of UI must carefully avoid taking advantage of it, and the Introduction to the Laws says that when one fails to do what one must do that is "a serious matter indeed", more serious than failure to do what one shall do, which "will incur a PP more often than not", directors typically do not and have not in the past issued PPs for violation of 73C. To me, then, the new 73C2 is a reminder to the director that he should do his damned job. I do not think it will be effective. In my experience, most directors hate to issue PPs. I daresay some are afraid to do it.

[barmar]

While 73C is a must, it also incorporates the subjective "carefully avoid taking advantage of" wording. It's hard to feel good about penalizing someone harshly because their judgement wasn't as good as you think it should be. TDs don't like issuing PPs in general, and this seems like a particularly difficult case.

[blackshoe]

Do you consider a "standard" PP "harsh"? If so, why?

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-July-13, 15:24, said:

Do you consider a "standard" PP "harsh"? If so, why?

Any PP for a subjective situation seems harsh.

[weejonnie]

There are certainly cases where the decision as to what partner's UI is problematic. If a player can argue that they thought partner's BIT was showing one thing, and the TD/ AC concludes it was something else - and in those cases I would not be awarding PPs.

Then we have cases of unauthorised panic and deliberately setting a final contract to prevent the auction going off the rails - these are definitely ones where a PP is required.

Last night at the club a player turned over their card, and then showed it again and asked for the others to be shown. I politely declined. "Well this is a friendly club". Players obey law 65 - why not law 66?

[blackshoe]

It seems "friendly" means "we allow people to cheat".

[Shugart23]

this is a bit off topic, but suppose you have a intermediate strength hand and you are about to make the opening bid, but partner inadvertently jumps in and opens the bid out of turn.....so then, if I remember correctly, opponent can not accept the bid and then partner is banned from the auction , right ?....If this is correct, can I just open the bidding 3NT ?....This seems like I am using the info that my partner has 'something', hence I shouldn't be allowed to do that but I see it all the time and quite possibly have done this myself...

Ethically, what am I supposed to do ?...The authorized information I have is that I know partner is banned from the auction with some kind of opening point count...

Similarly, suppose I have 16 to HCP, and partner bids a strong 1C out of turn...Can I just bid 6NT on a wing and a prayer ?...doesn't seem right

[RMB1]

Shugart23, on 2017-July-31, 06:48, said:

this is a bit off topic, but suppose you have a intermediate strength hand and you are about to make the opening bid, but partner inadvertently jumps in and opens the bid out of turn.....so then, if I remember correctly, opponent can not accept the bid and then partner is banned from the auction , right ?....If this is correct, can I just open the bidding 3NT ?....

You haven't got the law right

Today: The bid out of turn can be accepted. If it is not accepted then the partner of the bidder out of turn is silenced.

Tomorrow (in some jurisdictions):
The bid out of turn can be accepted.
If it is not accepted and it is partner's turn to call, then partner is not silenced but has UI from the bid out of turn.
At offender's turn, if he makes a comparable call then there is no further penalty, otherwise partner is silenced for one round.

(There may not be a comparable call if partner opens.)

[Vampyr]

RMB1, on 2017-July-31, 08:13, said:

You haven't got the law right

Today: The bid out of turn can be accepted. If it is not accepted then the partner of the bidder out of turn is silenced.

Tomorrow (in some jurisdictions):
The bid out of turn can be accepted.
If it is not accepted and it is partner's turn to call, then partner is not silenced but has UI from the bid out of turn.
At offender's turn, if he makes a comparable call then there is no further penalty, otherwise partner is silenced for one round.

(There may not be a comparable call if partner opens.)

The WBFLC really hate bridge, don't they.

[barmar]

RMB1, on 2017-July-31, 08:13, said:

You haven't got the law right

Yes he did. You misunderstood "can not" as "cannot". "can not accept it" means "is allowed to not accept it". "cannot accept it" means "is not allowed to accept it".

It would have been clearer if he'd written something like "opponent can refuse the bid and then partner is banned".

[Shugart23]

yeah, my bad on the grammar (and not using the Queen's English).....Seems like I had the consequence backwards though. Thanks for clarifying

[barmar]

Shugart23, on 2017-July-31, 16:48, said:

yeah, my bad on the grammar (and not using the Queen's English).....Seems like I had the consequence backwards though. Thanks for clarifying

No problem, it takes a linguistic pedant to receognize the distinction. Lots of people write "can not" when they mean "cannot", and in most situations the context makes it clear what they really mean.

[barmar]

Apparently "can not" is generally considered ambiguous. https://english.stac...s/403810#403810

[weejonnie]

RMB1, on 2017-July-31, 08:13, said:

You haven't got the law right

Today: The bid out of turn can be accepted. If it is not accepted then the partner of the bidder out of turn is silenced.

Tomorrow (in some jurisdictions):
The bid out of turn can be accepted.
If it is not accepted and it is partner's turn to call, then partner is not silenced but has UI from the bid out of turn.
At offender's turn, if he makes a comparable call then there is no further penalty, otherwise partner is silenced for one round.

(There may not be a comparable call if partner opens.)

Under the new laws,

(NB the above applies not only if it is partner's turn to speak but also if it was LHO's turn to speak for the first time.)
Although there may be no further penalty (under the new laws), if the NOS are damaged as a result of the comparable call then the Director awards an adjusted score (23C)
And if the call is not a comparable call then not only must partner pass on his next turn to call, he will be subject to lead penalties if he becomes a defender (can be forbidden, at his first turn to lead, from leading any one suit not mentioned by his partner in the legal auction, such prohibition to last while he retains the lead).

You are allowed to know that partner will be forced to pass (16A1c) and you are now allowed to vary your system, consequent on your own irregularities (previously the RA could prevent this (40B3 - old laws) - they can still restrict psychs of artificial calls).

(I think, as a Director) the new lead penalty, actually (now) make life easier - you don't need to know what the withdrawn call meant in terms of denomination(s).)