[Jinksy]

We had a slightly interesting scenario last night (which nothing came of - no-one felt they'd been harmed in the end), where a misexplanation of a bid became apparent mid-auction, one of our opps reserved his rights (then took no action), and the other doubled our final contract.

It left me wondering what would have happened had the contract gone off and the double been marginal. Is reserving your rights mid-auction potential UI for your partner (and if so, is the process complicated by the fact that your side was potentially harmed first)?

[blackshoe]

There's only one situation in the law book where "reserving rights" is appropriate. That's when one player does something that might pass UI to his partner. MI is a different can of worms altogether. So any comment about "reserving rights" is extraneous and might pass UI to partner. If you hear such a comment from partner, you must carefully avoid taking any advantage of it (Law 73C). A double might or might not fall afoul of this restriction. If you hear such a comment from an opponent, you should reserve your rights. Or just ask if they agree UI might be present. If they don't, they're supposed to call the TD. They won't. So you call him. TD will establish whether UI may be present and remind its recipient of his obligation under the law. Later, if you believe the recipient of UI may have taken advantage of it to your detriment, call the TD and ask him to rule on that.

The fact that one side commits an infraction does not in general affect adjudication of the other side's infraction.

Laws 20F4 and 20F5 deal with how and when MI is to be corrected. These laws apply whether or not the MI is obvious to everyone - or anyone - at the table. If the opponents give MI and then do not call the TD and correct it at the appropriate time, then at the end of play, if you think you were damaged, call the TD yourself and explain the situation.

[steve2005]

Reserving your rights?
If the misexplanation damaged you at the end of the hand the director might make an adjustment.
No need to announce to the world, you could even create UI of your own by doing so, lol.

[Vampyr]

Right, you don't need to "reserve your rights" or ask for agreement of the facts if that is your style, when the irregularity has become obvious.

[weejonnie]

Scenario

Evidence exists that a bid has been misexplained.

In many RAs the other side (if they are experienced and such action can be done safely without waking up opponents or passing UI) are expected to 'protect themselves.

Opponent realises that the explanation is obviously incorrect. He knows that the fact that one player knows that this partner does not undersatnd his call is unauthorised information

The opponent can reserve his rights if he believes that the incorrect explanation has created a UI situation - I see no problem with that (although some RAs may insist the director is called at that point - indeed the EBU recommends that the TD is called - but this is not compulsory).

At the end of the auction the director MUST be called by the side that gave the misexplanation (if declaring) as I assume one of the pair knows that the explanation that his partner gave was wrong. IF a player realises that he has given a misexplanation then (depending where you are), he must either call the director immediately, or can wait till the clarification period before correcting the explanation.

The query of "what would have happened and the contract went off, with a marginal double" - is interesting - however I think that this is covered in the laws.

Thus (legally)

Opponent realises there may be UI from the auction/ explanation and applies 16.B.2

2. When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result he may announce, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may
require that the Director be called), that he reserves the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed).

However - is the statement "I am reserving my rights" - UI? Law 16A.1© defines Authorised information

Law 16.A.1© it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following);

So we must look at Law 16B1.

B. Extraneous Information from Partner

1. Any extraneous information from partner that might suggest a call or play is unauthorized. This includes remarks, questions, replies to questions, unexpected alerts or failures to alert, unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement or mannerism.

(a) A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative.

Thus the fact that partner has 'reserved his rights' IS unauthorised information. If you double the final contract on the basis that 'partner's question has alerted me to the fact that the opponents are having a bidding misuderstanding' and the authorised information does not fully duplicate the UI then the double will be removed as it is demonstrably suggested by the UI. Of course if the bidding has made clear that a bid has been misexplained then that fact is AI.

[dokoko]

weejonnie, on 2017-August-06, 00:24, said:

Scenario

Evidence exists that a bid has been misexplained.

In many RAs the other side (if they are experienced and such action can be done safely without waking up opponents or passing UI) are expected to 'protect themselves.

Opponent realises that the explanation is obviously incorrect. He knows that the fact that one player knows that this partner does not undersatnd his call is unauthorised information

The opponent can reserve his rights if he believes that the incorrect explanation has created a UI situation - I see no problem with that (although some RAs may insist the director is called at that point - indeed the EBU recommends that the TD is called - but this is not compulsory).

The act of reserving your rights may pass UI to your partner. So you should only "reserve" with a very good reason. IMO the only acceptable reason is to establish a fact that may be disputed later (e.g. a hesitation).

A misinformation does not constitute such a fact - it can be established later if existent. If an infraction isn't obvious to everyone, the fact that it's obvious to you constitutes an information about your holdings which you are not entitled to give away as long as partner is still involved in the hand.

So "reserving your rights" in a misinformation situation will alert partner
- either that there is misinformation he wasn't aware of
- or that you are interested in getting involved
both illegal motives.

[dokoko]

blackshoe, on 2017-August-05, 07:08, said:

There's only one situation in the law book where "reserving rights" is appropriate. That's when one player does something that might pass UI to his partner.

and this action has to be established as a fact!

If the UI results from an insufficient bid or call out of turn (which was ruled by the TD), there is no reason to reserve rights as the fact is clear and your rights won't disappear.