Lost

I had what would have been, last year, an easy ruling. In the auction, East responded 3C, South bid 4H, and West hesitated, giving unauthorized information to her partner.

West was supposed to hesitate (in ACBLland) after a jump bid. So there was no infraction.

Except West didn't know that -- her hesitation was real, she had something to think about; if she hadn't had anything to think about, she would have passed quickly. Her partner also didn't realize, so east correctly read her partner's hesitation as showing something to think about it.

So it's a little strange to rule no infraction (she appropriately hesitated) when there was flawless communication of UI.

The ruling was manageable last year. North puts down a stop card, and everyone's on the right page. If North doesn't put down the stop card, that's the original infraction and I'm comfortable not ruling against EW.

But there are no stop cards anymore. The ACBL eliminated them. So, EW managed to communicate information with flawless adherence to proper procedure. (So it's not EI according to the rules. Right? Can we call it UI when partner unexpectedly bids in proper tempo? I have ruled that way before, maybe that's the solution here.)

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml