28 December 2010

Use of unauthorised information is a serious error

I have just been consulted on a complicated case that threw up a new question: is the illegal use of unauthorised information (Law 16B) a serious error (in the sense of Law 12C1(b))?

South dealt and opened 1♥, West overcalled 2♣, and North bid 3♠, intended as a splinter, but not alerted. East asked about 3♠ and was told it was natural and preemptive, and then passed. The auction continued to 5♥ doubled, making when West lead a ♠.

The TD found there was misinformation from the failure to alert/explain the splinter, that North/South had used unauthorised information to stop in 5♥, and East/West had used unauthorised information in leading a spade. A club lead would defeat 5♥. Without the misinformation and the use of unauthorised information by North/South, they would reach 6♥ doubled. East may have been able to show spades and attract the disadvantageous spade lead, so the TD adjusted for North/South 50% 6♥X-1, 50% 6♥X-2. We decided the spade lead against 5♥ was illegal and a serious error and was responsible for conceding 5♥X= rather than 5♥X-1.

ResultScoreNSEW
5♥X=+650 1333
...
5♥X-1 / 6♥X-1-100 15121
6♥X-2-300 4132

Adjustment for NS was 50%x15 + 50%x4 = 9.5MP

The damage due to the serious error was 118MP, so adjustment for EW was (50%x121 + 50%x132) - 118 = 8.5MP

2 comments:

Paul Gipson said...

I presume that this ruling means that you believe the use of UI by West was blatant. Did you also consider a PP?

Robin Barker said...

Yes, the use of UI was considered blatant. On site, the alternative ruling was a balancing adjustment with a procedural penalty. The route of considering the use of unauthorised information as a serious error effectively cost East-West 118MP (86% of a top), so there was no additional procedural penalty (the standard penalty is 10% of a top in EBU).