Re: Lost

On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 16:00:03 -0500, Steve Willner <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

This is the critical part. EI is defined as occurring when there is a departure from the rules and procedures. But West was supposed to hesitate for ten seconds, and that's what she did. So how is that EI?


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