[blackshoe]

"The fact that the withdrawn call is UI"

How is that a fact? What I is U?

[BudH]

gordontd, on 2019-March-15, 10:37, said:

I've just remembered another document that covers this in #1-B and may be more relevant to you since it comes from Matt Smith, current Head TD of the WBF and an ACBL TD.

Here is the key quote from Matt Smith in that document:

"Opening 1NT will give his partner (offender) many more options to make a call that won't bar him ..... The argument in favor of this kind of action being permissible is that a player is using his knowledge of the laws, not the knowledge from the withdrawn call. However, it is not knowledge of the rules alone, but also the knowledge of what partner's call meant that causes the UI problem. 16C2 refers to “information arising” from its own withdrawn action. The withdrawn action is not just the call and what it meant. The partner of a caller out of turn should therefore not have an advantage over law abiding players at other tables where there was no call out of turn. He has a very good idea of what his partner holds before his first call following the infraction. They do not. So no, a player may not distort his bidding before his partner has had a chance to make a replacement call in order to maximize his side's chances of avoiding penalties. To do so is an infraction according to 16C2. If he does distort his call and the opponents are damaged as a result, the score should be adjusted as described above (note again the prohibition in 12C1(c ) when making a weighted ruling). When advising a player of his rights and responsibilities, the director should make mention to the partner of the caller out of turn that he should make his normal call so as not to run afoul of unauthorized information rules."

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2019-March-15, 13:11, said:

"The fact that the withdrawn call is UI"

How is that a fact? What I is U?

The information is that the North player has an opening bid and it is unauthorised because Law 31B1 says so.

[BudH]

Note that offender's partner, if allowed to use information that partner made a withdrawn call out of rotation, even if not allowed to know WHICH call was withdrawn, would be able to deliberately pass with a clear but minimum opening bid, often making it easier for his partner to make a comparable call.

But he's not allowed to pass for that reason (without the threat of an adjusted score), due to the information above.

[blackshoe]

gordontd, on 2019-March-16, 06:32, said:

The information is that the North player has an opening bid and it is unauthorised because Law 31B1 says so.

31B1 doesn't say so directly, but I take your point.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2019-March-16, 06:32, said:

The information is that the North player has an opening bid and it is unauthorised because Law 31B1 says so.

blackshoe, on 2019-March-16, 16:51, said:

31B1 doesn't say so directly, but I take your point.

It does indeed

Law 31B1 said:

Offender’s partner may make any legal call at his proper turn, but Law 16C2 applies.

[blackshoe]

No. It refers to Law 16C2. It's that law that says directly that the information is unauthorized.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2019-March-17, 12:43, said:

No. It refers to Law 16C2. It's that law that says directly that the information is unauthorized.

And exactly what is the legal difference?

[blackshoe]

For Law 31B1 to directly make the withdrawn call UI, it would have to say explicitly "the withdrawn call is UI". It doesn't say that.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2019-March-17, 18:10, said:

For Law 31B1 to directly make the withdrawn call UI, it would have to say explicitly "the withdrawn call is UI". It doesn't say that.

Frequently the laws say things by cross-referencing some other law that says it, to avoid redundancy. For all intents and purposes, saying "See 16C2" is the same as saying "the withdrawn call is UI for the OS".

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2019-March-17, 18:10, said:

For Law 31B1 to directly make the withdrawn call UI, it would have to say explicitly "the withdrawn call is UI". It doesn't say that.

And exactly what is the legal difference?

To be more specific: What difference does it make for the way the Director shall handle the situation?

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2019-March-17, 18:16, said:

Frequently the laws say things by cross-referencing some other law that says it, to avoid redundancy. For all intents and purposes, saying "See 16C2" is the same as saying "the withdrawn call is UI for the OS".

+1

[blackshoe]

What Barry says is true, and in answer to Sven, it makes no legal difference. Well, there's this: If it is incumbent on directors to explain their rulings when they make them (as it should be, else how are players to know whether to appeal?) then simply saying "it's UI because 31B1 says so" isn't good enough. In explaining a ruling, IMO you have to follow the links: "31B1 refers us to 16C2, which says that information from withdrawn calls is unauthorized to the offending side". Pedantic of me? Perhaps, but I stand by it.