Re: Lost

On 2018-01-20 9:19 PM, Robert Frick wrote:
> 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.

So far.

> 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 East has UI with the usual consequences.

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

I don't see why L16B doesn't apply.  Under your description of the 
facts, East had extraneous information from partner.  It is possession 
of the information, now how it is conveyed, that triggers L16B.  The 
tricky part is establishing the facts you have determined -- that this 
West really made UI available rather than merely complied with the 
mandated procedure.

This could be an opportunity to educate about the mandated skip bid 
procedure, but I don't suppose it will do any good.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml