Join Bridge Winners
Is this a hole in the Laws?

A recent poll on BW discussed the situation where E/W failed to alert a 2 Drury bid. North subsequently called the TD and noted that South could have bid 2 if it had been alerted and in that case North would have found a heart lead, setting the contract.  From comments by the OP, South did not want to call the TD, and it appears that South had no intention of bidding 2 if 2 were properly alerted.

This raises the question of whether North's comment affects any adjustment the TD might consider. On the surface, it would appear that North's comment about what South should have bid without MI is unauthorized information to South.  

However, upon reading Law 16 that is not necessarily the case.

Law 16B1a: After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play ...... the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives....

Law 16C: When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a board he is playing or has yet to play .....

Both these sections of Law 16 refer to calls or plays, but in the situation in question, the hand is over.  Clearly law 16C does not apply.

Perhaps 16B1a can be interpreted to say South can no longer choose to say he would have bid 2 had 2 been alerted properly.  But that is not clear. Does answering a TD when he asks what you might have done after the fact suggest a call or play?  Or is it just a conjecture?

Do you think that North's comments (on what South could have bid) are or are not UI to South per Law 16B1a?

If they are not UI, should they be?

13 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top