Missing an Educational Opportunity; what Happens when UI Rule 16 is not Applied

I admit to being unhappy about the results of two rulings received about Unauthorized Information.  But I am more concerned about what (it appears to me) to be the failure of local directors to educate other players about their legal responsibilities under Law 16.

Law 16B says, in relevant parts:

1.  (a) After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by … a reply to a question, an unexpected alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation …, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

(b.) A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would have been given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

(I hope my citation is current; with my not being a director I am quoting from what I found on the internet.)

To my way of thinking, changing a table result under Law 16 requires the following parsing of questions, adopting commonly used bridge terms and some of my own language:

• Was there Unauthorized Information (UI) conveyed from one partner (“Conveyor”) to another (“Receiver”)?
• Did the Receiver choose a call that could demonstrably have been suggested by the UI conveyed by Conveyor?
• Might (not “would”) Receiver or his peers have seriously considered and possibly have chosen an alternative call (LA = Logical Alternative) to the call Receiver chose?

Affirmative answers to all three questions means, as I view matters, the table result should be amended to reflect the result that would have been produced by Receiver’s choosing a LA bid.

Let’s apply these questions to the two recent rulings.

Ruling 1 auction (club Swiss)

Displaying proper protocol, South explained before the opening lead that North had given an incorrect explanation and that their partnership agreement was that the double is Cappelletti, as described in the footnote above.

At the end of the hand, when declarer had shown up with AKxxx, Kxx, KQx, xx and scored +140 in a team match opposite a weak hand with four of each black suit, I asked declarer what would mean 2♣ advance, under their agreements, to Cappelletti double,  I was informed  “natural, clubs” (an odd agreement, but that is just an aside).  I called the director, explained what had happened, and asked to be scored as if we were defending 2♣.

• Was there Unauthorized Information (UI) conveyed from one partner (“Conveyor”) to another (“Receiver”)?  Answer: yes, Receiver hearing that Conveyor thought the Cappelletti double was a DONT double is UI.
• Did the Receiver choose a call that could demonstrably have been suggested by the UI conveyed by Conveyor?  Answer: yes, the UI that Conveyor thought her 2♣ advance was asking for Receiver’s longest suit could demonstrably suggest to Receiver to bid his longest suit.
• Might (not “would”) Receiver or his peers have seriously considered and possibly have chosen an alternative call (LA = Logical Alternative) to the call Receiver chose?  Answer: yes, Pass would be a LA because a 2♣ advance to a Cappelletti double, for this partnership, could be made on a hand such as x, xxx, xxx, QJ9xxx, where 2C could be the last making contract.

Not only was the table result allowed to stand, but at no time, to the best of my knowledge, did the director inform Receiver of his legal requirement to choose a LA to the bid demonstrably suggested by his receipt of UI from Conveyor.  The term “Logical Alternative”, or an equivalent term in less legalese language, was never communicated from director to Receiver. 

Ruling 2 auction (NS vul) (club matchpoints)

The existence of BIT, far beyond that expected following the skip bid, was agreed by all four players at the table.

The hands of NS:

(Yes, responder having passed 3♦ is pretty incredible!)

After the hand, the director was called and the auction communicated.

• Was there Unauthorized Information (UI) conveyed from one partner (“Conveyor”) to another (“Receiver”)?  Answer:  yes, BIT is UI.
• Did the Receiver choose a call that could demonstrably have been suggested by the UI conveyed by Conveyor?  Answer: yes, Receiver hearing a BIT from Conveyor, suggesting that Conveyor had values, could demonstrably suggest to Receiver to make the most flexible call of double to accommodate Conveyor’s values, whether such values are in diamonds (passing the double), hearts (raising hearts) or spades (bidding spades). 
• Might (not “would”) Receiver or his peers have seriously considered and possibly have chosen an alternative call (LA = Logical Alternative) to the call Receiver chose?  Answer: yes, at unfavorable vulnerability with an eleven count, Pass would be LA.  As far as the third bid made thereafter by Receiver, the raise of 3♠ to 4♠, well, surely Pass is a LA!

The director did score the board as if opener passed the 3♠ call (-170 to EW) but did not score the board as if 3♦ were passed out (+110 or +130 to EW).  Once again, to the best of my knowledge, the director did not inform Receiver of his legal requirement to choose a LA to the bid demonstrably suggested by his receipt of UI from Conveyor.  The term “Logical Alternative”, or an equivalent term in less legalese language, was never communicated from director to Receiver.  

Yes, I know these two situations arose in a club game.  And the elitists out there might be thinking about relaxing the rules when compared to the application to a tournament – yadda, yadda, yadda – but so far as I know the rules apply equally to all venues of bridge.  I have no trouble with applying the rules differently based upon the experience of Receiver, but in these cases Receiver was quite experienced.  IMHO, the directors missed the boat … not only by issuing “bad” rulings under Rule 16B, but, more importantly, by missing an opportunity to help educate players about their legal/ethical responsibilities when the players are in receipt of UI.

Is it any wonder that UI infractions are so frequent, when directors consistently miss opportunities to educate players about their obligations under Rule 16?  Do you think the Receivers in the two auctions are now any less likely to violate Rule 16B in the future?